World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 770

cated of a higher order of reality. To see a thief where there is only a trunk of a tree is a fine instance of Superimposition. The moment light is brought, the thief vanishes though before light was brought, there was the perception of thief. The two perceptions belong to two different levels of knowledge. What is experienced at a lower level is contradicted at a higher level.
According to Vācaspati, Adhyāsa is at the base of all perceptual knowledge. For the pure self perceptual knowledge is impossible. For the production of perceptual knowledge sense organs are necessary and senses have the body as the locus. If we do not superimpose the body, the sense organs and the mind on the self, knowledge will not arise. Thus the not-self should be superimposed on the self.
Perceptual knowledge is thus founded in ignorance (avidyā). Srutis, Smrtis etc. function only in the realm of avidyā and hence presuppose the agency of Jiva. The functioning of the means of valid knowledge is unintelligible if one is devoid of the concept of 'l' and 'mine' in the body, senses etc., which are the result of superimposition. That is, to be a knower is to be an agent in respect of knowledge. Where there is no knowership, the means of knowledge (pramāņas) cannot function. In this sense, all phenomenal knowledge is simply avidyā or nescience.
By making use of the concept of Adhyāsa, Vācaspati satisfactorily explains perceptual error or bhrama. If we mistake a shell for silver or a rope for snake, it is because of mutual suprimposition (itaretara Adhyāsa). The qualities of one are superimposed on the other and vice-versa.
Now there is a question as to the nature of error. Is it 'Sat'(real) or ‘asat' (unreal) or both sat and asat (real and unreal)? It cannot be sat, says Vācaspati because only Brahman is sat. It cannot be asat like hares' horns, the son of a barren woman, the sky flower etc., since it is experienced. It cannot be both sat and asat as it violates the law of contractional. The question as to the nature of error still persists. Vācaspati, endorsing Sāmkara, says that it is neither sat nor asat but different from both. It is sadasadvilaksana or durnirupa. It is anirvacaniya (inexplicable)(1)a
VI
Now metaphysical implications of the concept of Adhyāsa may be analysed. Bhāmati is of the view that Jivatva of the Jiva is due to Adhyāsa. In the opinion of Vācaspati, the aggregate of body etc., appears as the real ātman due to mutual superimposition (itaretara Adhyāsa). Though the ātman is manifest, yet by intermixture with objects like the intellect 'somehow becomes the concept 'l' the subject of I-ness. It is variously named as Jīva, jantu (creature) or the knower of the filed (kshetrajna)2
721