Superimposition

July 12, 2002

In both the B.S.B. and Upadesasahasri Sankara starts straight into a

discussion of error. Taking confusion/adhyasa as the paradigm case he

analyses what it entails and answers objections to the notion.

Superimposition is an analysis of how confusion operates. It has as its

sidekicks in error Illusion and Delusion. Ramana talks about those as well

but Shankara's main focus is on confusion hereinafter 'superimposition'. In

Upadesasahasre why does he start so precipitously into such a discussion

when the irreconcilable conflict to which it is proferred as the solution

has not yet been established as a real one? The knot has not yet been tied

so why is he talking about that which will cut it? My belief is that he

wants to get technical discussion of it out of the way. Then there will be

no need for explanations when its time comes. At that time the student will

have been brought to that pitch of being transfixed by irreconcilable

positions that appear to fly from each other like opposite poles of a

magnet. The inner heat of his concentration or his focus

(foca-fireplace/focal point=burning point) would be quenched by a long

parenthesis or sidebar.

A theory of error is an implicit criticism of Idealism and Buddhist

metaphysics. If all you are acquainted with are your own ideas then you can

have no criterion of truth or falsity. 'An inner state stands in need of

outer criteria'(Wittgenstein) To a degree Buddhism set the agenda. Perhaps

I am theorising wildly, I'm only tin-pot, a real panchola pandit will put me

right.

When the objector holds that superimposition can only occur between two

well known things the answer he is given suggests that Sankara thought of

superimposition as more than an analogy. That he had the concept of analogy

and an awareness of its limitations can be seen from his statement : #86

"That black iron appears to be red is only an example (to illustrate the

fact that the non-conscious intellect appears to be conscious). An

illustration and its subject can nowhere be absolutely similar in all

respects." (Chap.XVIII. Upadesasahasri) If he was in effect saying 'what

can happen between two sensible things is a likeness of the deep structure

of reality' then perhaps he would not have held the line against the

objecter and given the example of the superimposition of the sensible on the

not-directly sensible. <shape of a frying pan/wok on space, blueness on

space> The limit case of this superimposition is that of the Person on the

Self and maybe in truth we can't know we're doing it until we stop doing it.

What is the position of space in Vedic cosmology? Is it a prefiguration of

Space-Time?

Best Wishes, Michael

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

July 13, 2002

--- michael Reidy <ombhurbhuva wrote:

michael - there was an eloberate discussion of

adhyaasa bhashya of shankara as part of his

introduction to his Brahmasuutra bhhasya. The notes

on adhyaasa Bhaasya are stored as chapters III and can

be unloaded from adviatin archieves. Dennis as

condensed the discussion eliminating most of the

sanskrit terms. These notes can also down loade from

the adviatin list.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

Autos - Get free new car price quotes

http://autos.

July 14, 2002

Namaste Sri Sadananda, I spent some time going over your very erudite and

extensive notes on adhyasa particularly messages 6139 and 6202 in which you

discuss the objectors resistance to atma/anatma superimposition. They are

lineal and precise and very useful to the serious student. My own

observations are slight and to a degree lateral to the text. Why does he

take this approach, straight in so to speak? Of all the types of error,

mathematical, elective, judgmental, skill etc. he chooses to focus on

perceptual error. Of perceptual error confusion and how it operates viz.

superimposition is taken as paradigmatic. Why? <Rhetorical and Polemical I

suggest> Is adhasya meant to be straight line operator going from the gross

to the subtle or analogical i.e. as we do here rope/snake, so we do there

atma/anatma? Or both?

Speaking to the astika who believe in a substantive Self he can demonstrate

that they superimpose the anatma on the atma but to those who do not believe

in that or the authority of the Vedas he must show that any other position

is rationally incoherent. I will do a dangerous thing here and go out on a

limb. On two occasions in B.S.B. he draws on doctrine to settle an issue

which might be thought to be resolvable rationally the doctrine of karma to

settle whether creation can begin and Puranas to establish the existence of

Brahman. The argument from authority is the weakest one and carries no

weight with the heretic.

Best Wishes, Michael.

_______________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

July 14, 2002

--- michael Reidy <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Sadananda,

>Why does he

> take this approach, straight in so to speak? Of all

> the types of error,

> mathematical, elective, judgmental, skill etc. he

> chooses to focus on

> perceptual error. Of perceptual error confusion and

> how it operates viz.

> superimposition is taken as paradigmatic. Why?

Micheal -Greetings. you have addressed several issues

in your mail. I am not sure I will be able to address

all of them in this response. But I will provide the

essense. some aspects are realted to the pramana's

and I have discussed in the second chapter of my notes

in differentiating the anumaana-s - one is scientific

logic (loukika) and the other is related to

shaastriiya anumaana (aloukika) logic based on

scriptual support. For aastika the second has direct

applicability. For the naastikas (those that do not

believe in Veda as pramanaana)B.S.B does address the

issues and show a-shaastriiya anumaana rests

essentially back on pratyaksha or perceptual- basis

for their proof. one cannot establish, that which is

beyond objectification, through pratyaksha and thus

through loukika aunumaana.

There were extensive discussions between myself and

Dennis related to that topic - one can pull those out

from advaitin archieves.

Perceptions, directly or indirectly through the

senses, are all included in the pratyaksha pramaana.

The existence of the world is proved only by

perception. Then, the rest of the logic you mentioned

is ultimately is established only by pratyaksha or

perception. Hence adhyasa bhaashya address taking

example of pratyaksha -the analysis of the error.

Error that 'I am the body' is fundamental and

universal error whether one is aastika or naastika.

Even Naastika-s - Bhuddhists or Jains accept that 'I

am the body'- that addhaasa is accepted across the

board including other vedantins as well -

VishishhTaadvaitins as well as dvaitins. But 'I am

the body' is a notion supported by perceptions through

the senses and futher engraved in the mind because of

the habital understanding by the mind. Hence root

cause for the adhyaasa is perception only - that I am

the body that this world is different from me that I

am limited and that I am mortal etc. Hence Shankara

rightly starts the B.S.B with the adhyaasa Bhaashya.

The example taken in the discussions are those that

are experienced universally and drives home the point

of the discussion. The superposition of rope on a

snake and silver on shell are classical examile in the

Indian logic. Error analysis (khyati vaada-s)- and

analysis of the truth versus false (prama versus

brahma) has been the fundamental for the discussion

of ontological issues in Indian philosophy -both for

aasitka or nastika.

Michel if there is a better way of discussing adhyaasa

- be my guest.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Autos - Get free new car price quotes

http://autos.

July 15, 2002

Statement (1):

"The superposition of rope on a snake and silver on shell are

classical examples in the Indian logic."

Statement (2): Brahman is real, the World is false, the Self is

Brahman, nothing else [from Sri Shankara's Balabodhini]."

Some musings:

If the "World is false" is understood as illusion or

superimposition upon the Self or Brahman, and the analogy such

as "rope on a snake" is used to demonstrate this fallacy we

would expect the World to disappear after discovering the illusion,

just as the snake disappears after the hoax is discovered, but it

does not.

So it may seem to the outsider, or perhaps to a neutral lay person,

who with an open mind might attempt to directly perceive Brahman,

only to have the ordinary world remain there facing him and

think "perhaps this snake is no illusion after all."

Or, on the other hand, one could try overcoming "habitual

understandings" that some say are the cause of our misperceptions, by

the use of various methods over a long period of time, but I wonder

if this is not just a kind of mental conditioning that be used serve

whatever perspective I happened to be bent on.

Analogies best serve to illustrate some particular point but are

notoriously poor tools for logical demonstration. In addition,

the "appeal to authority," if granted would also require

giving alternate belief systems this privilege, but have the negative

consequence of leading to insoluble problems of priority.

So this musing is more for the purpose calling to attention to what

some see as a need for providing a "sure epistemological footing" for

Shankara's various ontological statement's, or at minimum to its

possiblity in areas.

July 15, 2002

Hi Michael,

You ask "Of all the types of error, mathematical, elective, judgmental,

skill etc. he chooses to focus on perceptual error. Of perceptual error

confusion and how it operates viz. superimposition is taken as paradigmatic.

Why?"

Isn't the answer here simply that all of the other errors arise ultimately

from mistaken perception? We can only judge between alternatives, for

example, and, had we not made the mistake of thinking that there were two

things in the first place, the question of differentiating between them

would never have arisen. Adhyaasa is the 'original sin', as it were.

Regards,

Dennis

July 16, 2002

Pranaam,

I am no authority to on such a subtle subject but am responding with

an example from Sankaracharya's Atmabodha.

> If the "World is false" is understood as illusion or

> superimposition upon the Self or Brahman, and the analogy such

> as "rope on a snake" is used to demonstrate this fallacy we

> would expect the World to disappear after discovering the illusion,

> just as the snake disappears after the hoax is discovered, but it

> does not.

>

> So it may seem to the outsider, or perhaps to a neutral lay person,

> who with an open mind might attempt to directly perceive Brahman,

> only to have the ordinary world remain there facing him and

> think "perhaps this snake is no illusion after all."

In verse 7 he says "The world appears to be real as long as the non-

dual Brahman, the substratum of all, is not realised like silver in

an oyster shell."

We experience the 3 states of consciousness and perceive things only

from these angles. As long as we do not experience the 'fourth'

state, we remain conditioned by ignorance. Whilst Vedanta appreciates

this attitude of ours, it further appeals to us to rise above the

ignorance and try and understand the substratum, Brahman. Once we

understand and accept this view and subtly shift our focus it will be

a new awakening, like the dreamer waking up from his dream.

So neither the snake nor does the rope disappear, its just how we

look at things. Its a subtle concept.

> Or, on the other hand, one could try overcoming "habitual

> understandings" that some say are the cause of our misperceptions,

by

> the use of various methods over a long period of time, but I wonder

> if this is not just a kind of mental conditioning that be used

serve

> whatever perspective I happened to be bent on.

Yes, we are conditioned by a certain degree of "ignorance". Dont we

often say, "This is impossible to do" when in reality what we mean

is, well, its possible but difficult and so I dont want to attempt it!

Our minds are certainly conditioned by our past actions.

Regards,

Kamal

July 16, 2002

advaitin, "kamal_kothari_india"

<kamal_kothari_india> wrote:

<<Yes, we are conditioned by a certain degree of "ignorance".

Don't we often say, "This is impossible to do" when in reality

what we mean is, well, its possible but difficult and so I don't

want to attempt it! Our minds are certainly conditioned by our past

actions.<<

An Advaitin conditioned by [karmic] past actions? What actions? What

past? What conditioning? Should there really need to be any attempt

at anything like the above if everything were Brahman?

But you are probably are referring to what appears to be happening

from the relative viewpoint, so your statement then becomes clear.

But then, the relative standpoint should be mine rather than yours,

should it not?

Just alot puzzles.

We could take it from the beginning, like how this state of

appearances got started in the first place: as the requirement for

empirical knowledge, as some think. Here lies another puzzle.

July 16, 2002

Capennellius writes on July 15:

<<If the "World is false" is understood as illusion or

superimposition upon the Self or Brahman, and the analogy such

as "rope on a snake" is used to demonstrate this fallacy we

would expect the World to disappear after discovering the illusion,

just as the snake disappears after the hoax is discovered, but it

does not.

So it may seem to the outsider, or perhaps to a neutral lay person,

who with an open mind might attempt to directly perceive Brahman,

only to have the ordinary world remain there facing him and

think "perhaps this snake is no illusion after all." >>

---

My comments on the above:

Yes. Certainly the snake disappears when the truth of the rope is

known. In the same way it is legitimate to expect the world to

disappear once we discover the illusion. But the world does not

disappear. Here Ramana asks you to look at the analogy of the mirage

in the desert. It appears, but disappears when you go near and

discover the truth, but reappears again when you are back at your

original place of observation. So it is not legitimate to expect the

world to disappear after you ‘discover’ the illusion.

But again Ramana continues the discussion and puts forth an objection

to this 'mirage' analogy. He says: When my world appears to me, it

quenches my thirst and desire whereas the ‘water’ of the mirage,

though it appears, does not quench my thirst. So he says the best

analogy would be the dream. In the dream state whatever appears that

also satisfies or fulfills the requirements within the dream, like

quenching the thirst. But still the dream is only an unreality. That

is the way the world is unreal. ‘Appears’ but does not ‘exist

absolutely’.

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

Autos - Get free new car price quotes

http://autos.

July 16, 2002

--- capanellius <capanellius wrote:

Shree Capanellius

Greetings.

Prof. V.K. has provided an answer to your question

related to snake and the rope.

First one should recognize that there is no exact

analogy that correctly exemplifies the parallelism -

since in the world - as created plurality - the

material cause - the upadaana kaarana - and the

intelligent cause - nimitta kaarana as one and the

same. Only example that fits similar analogy is the

dream state as Shree V.K. mentioned. This is the

essence of Mandukya Upanishad with Goudapaada kaarika.

All other examples apply only some aspects of it and

not all.

Now if one wants to examine further - there are two

types of objectification due to adhyaasa - one is

subjective objectification where the rope-snake

example fall and the second is the

objective-objectification - where the rope itself or

sun raise/sun set falls.

Look at the sun raise and sun set - that sun never

raises nor sets is the true knowledge - when the true

knowledge raises, that does not eliminate the sun

raise and sun set. What it eliminates is the

misunderstanding that sun raises in the morning and

sets in the evening. One can see and enjoy the sun

raise even after knowing that sun does not rise. The

reason is simple the enjoyment is done with a local

mind while the creation of sun raise and sun set is

done by the total mind which is Iswara or the Lord.

Hence sun raise and sun set and the rest of the world

that you say does not disappear - arises from the

total mind and not the local mind. Local limited mind

can only create the subjective things like the snake

in the mind. Now if you take the rope/snake example -

snake disappears when one understands that it is rope

and not a snake since the creation of the snake is

subjective by a local mind who sees the snake instead

of rope. One the other hand the rope does not

disappear since it is an object created by the global

mind or universal mind. This is what was discussed in

the notes as well as vyashhti (local) and

samashhti(global). From the point of the error - or

adhyaasa - both are similar - projecting some thing

other than what it is. In the discussions that

followed the postings , many of these points were

addressed.

> An Advaitin conditioned by [karmic] past actions?

> What actions? What

> past? What conditioning? Should there really need to

> be any attempt

> at anything like the above if everything were

> Brahman?

Shree Capanellius - please study your questions very

very carefully and you will discover the falacy in

them. The above question and the rest are all due to

the fact that 'everything is Brahman' is only an

intellectual understanding. When you really stand on

the pedestal of understanding that everything is

indeed Brahman then the rest of the questions that you

pose disappears - for there is no questioner and

questioning etc are part of the duality- in a-dvaitic

understanding - there is no duality. Hence you, I etc

are all dissolved into one single homogeneous -

existence/consciousness/bliss - Brahman.

Most of the confusion and question arises when one

puts one leg in so called Brahman and another leg in

the world and get the two references mixed up.

Now study you self the question you have posed and you

will discover the truth by yourself.

Actually there is no puzzle - It is SELF-EVIDENT - the

truth is very simple and profound and also obvious-

the confusion arises when we mix up the references.

The very notion that it is very complex itself sets

the stage for further confusion!

God Bless you

Hari OM1

Sadananda

>

> But you are probably are referring to what appears

> to be happening

> from the relative viewpoint, so your statement then

> becomes clear.

> But then, the relative standpoint should be mine

> rather than yours,

> should it not?

>

> Just alot puzzles.

>

> We could take it from the beginning, like how this

> state of

> appearances got started in the first place: as the

> requirement for

> empirical knowledge, as some think. Here lies

> another puzzle.

>

Autos - Get free new car price quotes

http://autos.

July 16, 2002

Namaste Sri Sadananda,

You wrote that :

"Perceptions, directly or indirectly through the

senses, are all included in the pratyaksha pramaana.

The existence of the world is proved only by

perception. Then, the rest of the logic you mentioned

is ultimately is established only by pratyaksha or

perception. Hence adhyasa bhaashya address taking

example of pratyaksha -the analysis of the error."

Possibly this was due to an inadvertance on your part but really the world

does not require proof. That seems to a lot of people to be a perfectly

rational view to take, 'the evidence of my senses', so to speak. I think

that what you probably meant was something along the lines of the

scholastic tag 'nothing is in the intellect which was not previously in

the senses'. If the existence of the world required proof then we could

never obtain a high enough standard of proof to save us from scepticism.

This was Descartes' problem and that of the Chinese sage who dreamt he

was a butterfly and when he awoke wondered whether he was a man dreaming

he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man.

No the world is not proved by perception or by sense-data or inferred from

ideas. There is a steady pressure to move away from Realism towards

Idealism

as the apparent difficulties that naive Realism faces forces it to

adapt its view. What about illusions and delusions say its attackers.

As you noted these discussions are the rice plate/plat de jour of

Philosophy. Sankara takes them head on by not focusing on truth,

incorrigibility, clear and distinct ideas, atoms and the rest but

instead with that stroke of genius which seems so simple after it's

done, focuses on error in the form of perceptual confusion. This

combines two things (a) on the 'inner' side a memory or some such,

(b)on the 'outer' side sense-data. Thus both angles are covered.

He is adopting ironically the inner/outer dichotomy but showing

that Realism can be maintained neverthless.

Errors occur but those errors are discoverable. Error is part of the

reality of the world. Error is sublated by the real, it is joined to

reality by a mechanism which makes truth ontologically primal.

>From this point he goes on to generalise adhyasa to cosmic significance.

Dennis points out that atma/anatma superimposition begins with

perception. Perception might be the thick end of the wedge, the one

you hammer on. Perception in that way mirrors deep metaphysical

structure.

Capanellius wrote:

"Analogies best serve to illustrate some particular point but are

notoriously poor tools for logical demonstration. In addition,

the "appeal to authority," if granted would also require

giving alternate belief systems this privilege, but have the negative

consequence of leading to insoluble problems of priority."

Agreeing with both those points I am inclined in the case of the

first to see that what is Maya for the Cosmos becomes Ajnana in the

Person and adhasya the spoor of the real or an analogy for a real

structure that is demonstrated by being the answer to the

disciple's real identity crisis in Upadesasahasri.

And so to bed. Best wishes all, Michael.

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

July 16, 2002

advaitin, "capanellius" <capanellius> wrote:

> An Advaitin conditioned by [karmic] past actions? What actions?

What

> past? What conditioning? Should there really need to be any attempt

> at anything like the above if everything were Brahman?

Of course, Advaita puts forth the theory of Reincarnation and as a

consequence we believe that a man is born with a bundle of Vaasanaas-

unmanifest desires. These form his Causal body, the seed of his

personality, as it were. From these unmanifest desires, he forms what

is his Subtle body, comprising mind and intellect and then through

these his Gross body, i.e. the present individual. Past actions, in

previous births have "come" with the individual in the form of Causal

body, the seed, so to say. Therefore he is "tainted" with "ignorance"

and is unable to see the substratum of the Brahman all around.

It is a matter of perception, a subtle thought and comes from

Abhyaasa, constant reading as well as being in the company of learned

persons (satsang)......

Sankara says in his Atmabodha, verse 12 :

"The Gross body, the home for experiencing pleasure and pain, is

acquired on account of the resultant taints of past actions....."

In verse 14 he goes on :

"Ignorance (Avidya) which is beginningless and indescribable is

called the causal body. One should understand the Atman to be other

than the three conditioning bodies (upadhis)."

where the 3 upadhis mentioned above are the causal-, subtle- and

gross-bodies. Think over it. I am glad you pose these questions, it

gives me an opportunity to reflect and contemplate. Thanks.

> Just alot puzzles.

That is not surprising because it is definitely a very subtle

concept. I had read somewhere, Ya pashyati, sah pashyati, literally

meaning, he sees who sees.......once the 'coin drops' we understand

immediately. We are all puzzled are we not? That is why we have this

Group to help us on.

>

> We could take it from the beginning, like how this state of

> appearances got started in the first place: as the requirement for

> empirical knowledge, as some think. Here lies another puzzle.

That would be better taken up by learned members of this group like

Ram V Chandra and ProfVK

Best regards,

kamal

July 16, 2002

--- michael Reidy <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Namaste Sri Sadananda,

> Possibly this was due to an inadvertance on your

> part but really the world

> does not require proof.

Michel - There was extensive discussion between myself

and Nanda chadran - whether world exists without mind

confirming or about 9 months ago.

World cannot say 'I exist' - being inert. It is

established only by a conscious entity that there is

the world - That is the reason the whole world is

folded in deep sleep state. I the conscious entity

through illumining the mind - say that 'there is the

world and I am there and you are there etc. Without

'I' there is no world - that includes you too. I am

the only conscious entity present and I have to be

there first to prove the existence -I am the only

subject and everything is only object. My own

existence alone does not require any proof. Object is

know only though their attributes - So even the

existence of an object is questionable since what

senses can recognize is only the attributes but not

the object in its essence (exsitence). It is only

inference by the mind by inference that there cannot

be attributes without an object -there is the object

out there and thus there is world out there since

world is nothing but assemblage of object.

Please think about it. See the discussion between

Nanda and myself - I do not have the reference but can

be pulled from the list.

Hari OM!

Autos - Get free new car price quotes

http://autos.

July 17, 2002

The rope and the snake -

Ah! So many fine arguments here by so many spiritually learned specialists,

but in the end, all of the evolving advaita tenets and the so considered

profound conclusions are naught but just another idea, another thought-form,

another citta vrtti, even that understanding of tat tvam asi, that there is

naught but brahman. At best, one might wind up at the end of the day with a

thought that in some mystical way, will hopefully annihilate the validity

and/or existence of all other thoughts -- but alas, it is still a real

bona-fide thought.

Still trying to pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps. The whole thing

here is yet the subtlest of all subtleties of still being stuck in ignorance,

a final sort of samâpat avidyâ. The intellect corners self in untruth

without remorse, depending solely on the emergence of buddhi tattva. What

are the more subtle tattvas and why are they not being brought to the surface

here? That's the error, a really gross oversight in my view.

Indeed there are lots more subtle tattvas (and/or their divisions according

to various systems of classifications) that need to exist before the

underling, buddhi, can kick in to function at all. They cover a wide range

and can be listed in approximate order from maximum subtlety to least

subtlety: siva, sakti, sadâsiva, îsvara, suddhavidyâ, mâyâ (along with its

constituency of kâla, kalâ, vidyâ, niyati, râga), purusa, prakrti and citta

(with their constituencies of sattva, râja, and tamas), and alas, ahamkâra,

quite far downwards and without which buddhi fails to light up. I ask the

great sages on this list, in all seriousness and humility, what sort of

ultimate pride and arrogance is it that takes over to assume that a world of

academia type musings can specify and bring about a real superposition of

identity with brahman, which is naught but a thought or a combination of

thoughts coming out of buddhi? It is this type of pride and arrogance which,

I believe, leads Siva Sutra 1.2 to quickly suggest that, indeed, jñânam

bandhah. This binding influence holds us, once again, well tied to avidya.

jai guru dev,

Edmond

July 17, 2002

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

Thanks for your reply:

We can pick up with your statement:

>> Yes. Certainly the snake disappears when the truth of the rope is

known. In the same way it is legitimate to expect the world to>

disappear once we discover the illusion. But the world does not

disappear. Here Ramana asks you to look at the analogy of the mirage

in the desert. It appears, but disappears when you go near and

discover the truth, but reappears again when you are back at your

original place of observation. So it is not legitimate to expect the

world to disappear after you `discover' the illusion.<<

First a definition:

In the sloka by Sri Shankara previously quoted where he uses the

phrase "the World is false," the term "false" is

translated from "mithya" which the scholar R. Brooks (Phil

East & West, 1969) notes, means in this context "incorrect,"

which is extended here to also mean "false" as in the case of

a wrong sense perception or mis-judgement. So in our "snake-rope

illusion" example, we initially have both a wrong sense

perception and a mis-judgement.

But as you have stated, although the snake may disappear on close

inspection, it may revert itself to its original form after we

assume the proper distance from it, and so we should be back to our

original position according to your statement. But not quite, since

our judgement has been affected concerning this particular percept,

and now we see (i.e., judge on reflection) the snake presentation as

an illusion, regardless of how our sense perception may inform us

about it later. So on reflection, our judgement at least does not

revert back to the original mis-judgement concerning the snake. So we

seem at this jucture to somewhere between Shankara's

"real" and "unreal" categories.

Further, as it has been noted by the philosopher R. V. Das (cited in

R. Brooks), by the "World" is meant not only our external

perceptions, but also involves the internal sense or mind. If we

accept this, then it should have the consequence, according to our

analogy, of causing that aspect of the World (illusory content) to

disappear (inner sense, or mind), if not the entire body and world,

if our corrected judgement has also influenced our sense perception

in the same direction (since it is common knowledge that belief

influences perception).

In addition, ironically as others have noted, even if after having

judged the World (i.e., snake) to be an illusion, we seemingly

continue to regard it as "real" at some level as reflected by

our actions and the requirements of everyday living. This reversal

calls to mind the incident in a recent movie some on this List may

have seen "A Beautiful Mind," where the delusions suffered by

the gifted man were were first acknowledge by him when he discovered

their logic of permanence (or seeming reality): a little that girl

never grew old and a friend who was always found reading the same

book," that is, discovering attributes about them that never

changed.

On another note, it also seems strange to regard the World as

Illusory when we also acknowledge that it to be a manifestation of

the power Brahman, or as Siva is to Sakti. It has the implication of

believing that the inherent power Brahman is illusory. I would think

there would be a preference among many to believe and try to

demonstrate that the play (lila) of Hari has a significance beyond

that of mere illusion. Considering the World as rather being

wonderfully mysterious, and at times very intense in its reality, as

instanced as we see in the path of Bhakti, or in exemplary other

states of those who are on there way to "Gokula."

July 17, 2002

Edmondji

This is going to be total fun and totally funny for me so please bear with me :

)

gee Edmond : ) are you off your medication again : ) Thought you were supposed

to be takeing 2 pills a day now that you are Driveing Your Own Karma : )

Noticed your Being is Being kind of rough on all the people who are trying to

learn by communicateing with others and expresseing themselves according to

their individual understanding so they can reach conclusions. People are not

machines and really dont learn if you try to kick start them

In return I certainly dont understand some of the words you are useing either

so there seems to be little difference between the problems you are discussing

with yourself here and then deliberately talking over everyones head

Also need to help you by politely pointing out you didnt remember to link this

with references to the Teachings of Adi Shankara either and this is a big no no

here OK ?

I can link my response to you with the actions of Adi Shankara from story I read

once

When Adi Shankara noticed wasted action by another he went over to them and said

quite plainly

Edmond your wasting your time and you simply need to listen more and talk less

He seemed to teach people a lot in this way by stateing a problem and then

provideing a constructive solution to follow

Am sure most anyone can learn to do this : )

Also am sure the moderators are watching all this from a responsible position of

soft teaching

Thanks for presenting the opportunity to help you out

Aum NamaSivaya Sivaya Nama Aum

DharmaDev Arya : )

edmeasure <edmeasure

advaitin <advaitin>

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:22 AM

Re: Re: Superimposition