________________
111. vi]
AVIDYA IN THE VEDĀNTA SCHOOL
123
identified with it. It should be borne in mind that though there is mutual identification of the self and the not-self, which is deducible from the fact that the self appropriates the attributes and limitations of the not-self (as is evident in the judgment 'I am fat' and the like) and the not-self appears as existent which means that the not-self, though a non-entity, derives the attribute of appearance and existence from the self, yet the identification or superimposition has not the same ontological status and meaning. The not-self is per se (svarūpena) superimposed upon the self and all existence it appears to have is derived from the self with which it is identified. It has no being outside the self and as such cannot even appear independently. But the identification of the self does not mean the total identification of being, because the self is intrinsically real, and its identification with the not-self only means that the self owns up the not-self and vests it with its own existence. In other words, it only means that the self becomes related (samsysta) to the not-self. And as relation is not intelligible in terms of difference it is interpreted as identification. There can be no relation between things which are different and also if the two are absolutely identical. If the terms were to be identical, they would forfeit their duality, and if they were as different as two unrelated things are from one another, then also there would be no relation. A relation, therefore, cannot be defined as a case of total identity or total difference. It is said to be a case of nondifference or identity because it is not a case of difference. So though identification is bilateral, the not-self is always a content and a predicate which being unreal cannot even appear outside the context. Appearance means seeming existence. And the term can seem to exist when the existence is borrowed. The identification of the self with the not-self is necessary to account for the appearance of existence of the content superimposed upon it. How can the attribute of one appear to be the attribute of another unless there be a relation which means identification as opposed to difference? In all cases of error the substratum is real and the predicate is falsely superimposed upon it. We have seen how superimposition presupposes mutual identification. But the identification of the substratum with the content is not the same thing as identification of the content with the substratum. And it is this distinction which accounts for the reality and truth of the substratum and the unreality and falsity of the content.
Even our most abstract thought is not free from this identification (adhyāsa). Adhyāsa is the very texture of our experience. Sankara drives home this truth very convincingly and with various arguments drawn from natural life. Life presupposes action and action depends upon identification. One cannot act with his body unless one's self is superimposed upon it. The self, which is only reality ex hypothesi, can have no raison d'être for performing an action, which presupposes
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
