Question : The rope is real, and the pre-seen snake which was remembered is also real. Otherwise, how would the impression of similarity get created? Therefore, in this superimposition, there was a mating of real with real, and not of the real with illusory, as was explained earlier. How can you clarify this objection?
Answer : For superimposition, an impression of a memory of a snake is needed, and not of a real snake. He who saw a real snake, and he who saw a rubber snake, and he who only heard about a snake, all of these can be deluded about a snake on the rope. For similarity of appearance to arise, it is not necessary for the object to be real. Also, even a delusion can be recalled in memory, as well as a dream object or a object created by magic. Therefore, by terming a superimposition "memory-like", it is not required for the pre-seen snake to be real. "Pre-seen" means impressions that were imbibed at a previous point in time.
Now if you say that even the rope should not be taken as real, then that is not correct. No delusion can happen without a substratum, without a basis. If the rope is not the basis, then of what will a delusion happen on it? Therefore it is appropriate to say that the real and illusory are mated in a superimposition. Neither the real and real (Saankhya school), or the unreal and unreal (Buddhist school) can mate.
In all places of delusion (bhrama sthala), the substratum is real and the superimposed entity is illusory. The substratum is non-obstructed appearance and the superimposed is the obstructed appearance. This is because at a later point in time, the absence of the superimposed, its illusory nature, is known with certainty. In the illustration, due to prior impressions, brahman alone is perceived as different forms. These forms, their variety and their knowledge, all of these are certainly an illusion - this happens through the accurate knowledge of brahman.
Question : The subject and the object are mutually opposed to each other in their nature, there is no similarity between them. Then how does superimposition happen between them?
Answer : Once the accurate knowledge of the subject and object happens, their mutual superimposition is not possible. But everything is possible in ignorance. One superimposition or delusion can become the cause of another superimposition or delusion in the future.
Question : In the snake-like perception of the rope, the eye-means of perception does not get connected with its object of perception, the rope. In reality, in all places of delusion, a lack of connection between the means of perception and their object of perception creates a perception(illusion) of something else in the object. But how does the absence of the afore-mentioned connection happen in the superimposition of the not-self in the self?
Answer : The self is not an object of perception of any visible perception like the rope. That is why, there is no superimposition of the not-self on the self due to the absence of the connection of the means with its object. The accurate knowledge of the self happens through oral perception alone and it happens only like this : "The witness of the three bodies which is the anvil-like knowledge-nature self 'I', alone am the space-time-object non-disconnected undivided brahman essence". This is the oral perception. And "I am the doer-enjoyer-disconnected-worldly individual soul" - this delusion, both of these stay in the intellect. But the correct notion (pramaa) and delusion cannot stay together. Therefore, due to either ignorance or lack of discrimination, when the intellect is not connected with the oral perception, then superimposition or delusion can arise.
Question : When superimposition is memory-like, why cannot it be proven by means of knowledge (pramaana) ?
Answer : In Vedanta, memory is not accepted as a means of knowledge. Memory can happen even of illusory objects. Memory of a dream, and consequently, objects of that memory can arise, how can you consider such memory as a means of knowledge?
Correct notion means non-obstructed (abaadhita) knowledge and the singular cause of that non-obstructed knowledge is the means (pramaana). Superimposition is an obstructed sort of perception, and the knowledge of the snake, which is the object of memory, also becomes obstructed. Therefore, superimposition cannot be proven by means of knowledge.
****
In this manner, every word in the definition of superimposition holds meaning. "smriti roopaha paratra poorvadrishtaavabhaasaha" is the Sanskrit definition of superimposition. "Avabhaasa" refers to obstructed knowledge. "Poorvadrishta" refers to the beginningless sequence of impressions. "Paratra" or elsewhere refers to the fact that a delusion needs a substratum and also to the ascribing of one entity into the other. "Smriti roopaha" refers to destruction of the endless realness-unrealness of the world, and the establishment of the indescribable transactional nature of superimposition. The elaboration of superimposition alone can give significance to the shruti of the Chhandogya Upanishad. In it, it is said that existence (sat) is the only reality, the names and forms of the world are all names only.
From a different standpoint, "paratra" or elsewhere resonates with the memory of a different place or a different time. In other words, when, by the intellect, an object from one place/time gets ascribed onto another object from another place/time, then the intellectual delusion or superimposition is generated. This means : In the substratum onto which an object is being superimposed, the space-ness, time-ness and object-ness are all superimposed or imagined, not proven by any means. That is why, this superimposition is removed through the knowledge of the substratum, and even during the time of the superimposition, the substratum remains detached and spearate from the characteristics of the superimposed.
When the "this" is perceived in the "I", this is object-superimposition, and the knowledge of that perception is knowledge-superimposition. The perception of the relationship between the "I" and the object-superimposition-like "this" is relationship-superimposition. Consequently, all these superimpositions become the causes of each other sequentially.
Like this : Rope -> ignorance of the rope -> perception of superimpositions such as snake, garland, crack [just an optical illusion at this point] -> reactions such as fear, anxiety, running etc. from the snake, reactions such as happiness, wearing etc. of the garland, reactions such as indifference towards the crack [optical illusion has taken the reality of the rope] -> counter-reactions such as thinking about the breed of snake, attacking it etc. - all these dealings have their basis in the ignorance of the rope.
Similarly : Brahman (self) -> ignorance of brahman -> superimpositional perception of the names/forms of the world (body) -> feeling of "This is I" and "This is mine" -> attraction in me and mine, and aversion in you and yours -> "dhanee bhaava" of attraction and aversion -> contemplation of the cause-effect of the world etc. all these worldly dealings have their basis in the ignorance of brahman.
All methods other than contemplation of brahman only substitute one superimposition with another. Therefore the root of superimposition cannot be removed by them. Contemplation of brahman assaults that very ignorance which is the root of all subsequent superimpositions. When the root is destroyed, all castles created on it break down. In contemplation of brahman, the contemplation of not this not this (neti neti) destroys knowledge-superimposition and relationship-superimposition at their root, and the thought of "I am brahman" removes object superimposition at its root.
Question : We see worldly examples of superimpositions such as rope-snake, oyster-silver and so on. The substrata of the superimposition such as rope and oyster are different from the witness of the superimposition. But the superimposition of the not-self upon the self has the same witness and substratum. Therefore the question is - how is the aforementioned superimposition possible in the self?
Answer : The objects of "this" perception are space, time and matter, and objects made of those. Space expands via length, and time is a mental perception of an object's motion. The disconnectedness of space, time, object are proven by immediate means of knowledge and their beginningless and endless nature are imaginary. Even the cause-effect of matter are proven by inference. In this manner space-time-object, their disconnectedness, beginninglessness, endlessness, cause effect as well as the impressions of their presence and absence have been always, through tradition, affixed in everyone's mind. All individual souls enter a body while carrying all these impressions with them. The reality is that an individual soul is nothing but a detached ignorance-prone awareness which is afflicted with this storehouse of impressions. This is the impure form of the self. This is the "aham artha" or "I sense" of every individual soul.
Because of ignorance, this individual soul does not know its non-detached true nature. When this happens, there is agitation in its impressions, by which the object-superimposition of the body etc., as well as the I-mine-ness-like knowledge-superimposition in them, as well as the creation of relationship-superimposition happens. Then, when the there is thinking about the body which is of the nature of object-superimposition, then there is the imagination of Ishvara or Prakriti which is different than oneself.
The truth of the matter is that the difference between the detached awareness and the non-detached awareness is due to ignorance. When this ignorance is removed through Vedantic inquiry, then the sense of body etc. and its knowledge remains as an illusory perception alone, and in these, the superimposition of I-me-ness is also removed. Due to the perception as an illusion, all endless imaginations such as Ishvara etc. are experienced as non-different from the self, which is substratum and illuminator of all appearances.
The theory is this : That non-dual (non-detached) awareness in which these space-time-objects are not, in that, the pre-seen impression-generated world is superimposed. And just like a dream appears in memory or a snake appears in a rope, similarly does this world appear.
When did the first superimposition happen? This question is not appropriate. Superimposition is beginningless. But it is removed through the knowledge of the substratum. Six entities are considered beginningless in Vedanta. Beginningless means without creation. The six are : brahman, Ishvara, individual soul, ignorance, the connection of ignorance and awareness, and the respective difference of all these with Ishvara and the individual soul. In these, brahman by nature is beginningless and endless. Ishvara through his adjunct is beginningless and endless. The individual soul is beginningless and endless from a temporal perspective (pravaaha roopa). The rest are beginningless from a temporal perspective but end by knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment