Brief Summary
This video provides a detailed explanation of the concept of "Adhyasa" (superimposition) in Vedanta philosophy, particularly focusing on Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras. It addresses objections to the possibility of adhyasa between the self (Atman) and the non-self (Anatma), offering counter-arguments and clarifying the conditions under which adhyasa occurs. The discussion covers the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of prior experience in the process of superimposition.
- Explanation of Adhyasa (superimposition) in Vedanta philosophy
- Addressing objections to the possibility of adhyasa between Atman and Anatma
- Clarification of the conditions under which adhyasa occurs, including the role of knowledge, similarity, and prior experience
- Discussion of different philosophical schools' perspectives on the extent and nature of adhyasa
Introduction to Brahma Sutra and Adhyasa
The Brahma Sutra's first chapter, as explained by Bhagavan Bhashikar, introduces "Adhyasa," which is divided into six topics: Adhyasa Shanka (doubt), Adhyasa Samadhana (resolution), Adhyasa Laksham (definition), Adhyasa Sambana (possibility), Adhyasa Pramman (proof), and Adhyasara. The discussion begins with the definition of Adhyasa, noting two direct and one indirect definition.
Definitions of Adhyasa
Adhyasa is defined in three ways: first, superimposing experiences from one place to another wrong locus; second, placing something where it does not belong; and third, an indirect definition used by Bhashikar to start the Bhasha. The most popular definition involves superimposing something onto a place where it does not exist.
Objections to Adhyasa (Adhyas Shanka)
The Purva Paksha raises objections to the concept of Adhyasa between Atma and Anatma, arguing it shouldn't exist. Four main points are presented: Atma is not an object of perception (drishyatvam), there is no similarity (sadrishyam) between Atma and Anatma, prior experience (purva anubhava samskara) of real Anatma is necessary, and Anatma is unreal. The Purva Paksha concludes that Adhyasa is impossible because Anatma, being unreal, cannot be experienced or superimposed onto Atma.
Addressing the Objections (Adhyas Shanka Samadhan)
The Vedanta school responds to the objections raised by the Purva Paksha. It is argued that being an object of perception (pratyaksha) is not a compulsory condition for Adhyasa; instead, being evident (prashnum) is sufficient, using the example of dreams where waking impressions are superimposed on dream objects (swapna drishta) that are not directly perceived. The condition for adhyas is that it should be evident, not necessarily an object in front of your eyes.
Addressing the Objections - Knowledge and Ignorance
Addressing the second objection, it's clarified that while the rope in the classic example is partially unknown, Atma is not entirely unknown. There is a partial knowledge (anikan) of the self, "I exist," but ignorance lies in not knowing what the self truly is. Adhyasa operates on the part that is unknown, similar to how a man is recognized but his identity is not. Vedanta doesn't focus on the known aspects of Atma (sat and chitta) but on the unknown (ananta).
Addressing the Objections - Similarity (Sadrishyam)
In response to the third objection regarding the lack of similarity between Atma and Anatma, it's conceded that while similarity is generally required for superimposition, Atma and Anatma are exceptions. The example of Akasha (space) is used, where properties like convexity (talatwam), blueness (nilatwam), and dirtiness (malinatum) are superimposed despite Akasha lacking any resembling features. This demonstrates that similarity is not compulsory for Adhyasa.
Addressing the Objections - Prior Experience (Purva Anubhava Samscara)
Addressing the fourth objection, it's agreed that prior experience (samskara) is necessary for superimposition, but it need not always be of a real object. Samskara can arise from unreal experiences, such as those seen in movies or dreams. The concept of beginningless (anadi) Adhyasa is introduced, explaining that individuals are born with samskaras of reality related to time, space, objects, and the body. The example of a baby knowing how to suckle milk is used to illustrate innate knowledge.
Adhyas Sambhana: Possibility of Adhyasa
The discussion shifts to Adhyasa Sambhana, addressing whether Adhyasa is even possible. It's noted that some Vedic scholars (Vic) question the possibility of Adhyasa, particularly between Atma and Anatma. The argument is presented that Vedas describe Atma as formless and all-pervasive, while personal experience suggests otherwise, leading to a contradiction.
Addressing Doubts About Adhyasa with Kati and Different Perspectives
The conversation addresses how Adhyasa takes place (Kati), with different schools of thought offering various explanations. The extent of Adhyasa is explored through three statements: "I am a temporary Atma," "I am a doer Atma," and "I am an enjoyer Atma." Different philosophical schools (Nyaya, Sankhya, and Vedanta) have varying views on which of these statements represent Adhyasa versus reality. Vedanta considers all three statements as false, or Adhyasa, distinguishing its perspective from others.
