Adhyasa in Shankara Vedanta :Adhyasa is defined as ‘the cognition of something,of what is not that’.To attribute to the real what is different from It ,is,what Shankara calls,adhyasa.In all illusions there is some sort of projection of snake in the rope,of the world in the Brahman.Superimposition essentially consists in an apparent presentation of the attributes of something in something else.Shankara has defined it as the apparent presentation,in the form of remembrance to consciousness as something previously observed,in some other thing.In the illusion of rope and snake,snake is not actually present but it was previously observed.It is existing in our mind as an impression.

Cause of Adhyasa : Ajnana lies at the root of the adhyasa which is the basis of life and experience.Ajnana has difference as its characteristics and is the source of all misery and pain.Vachaspati Mishra rightly says in the Adhyasa Bhasya that there can be no superimposition both when there is complete apprehension and when there is total non-apprehension.When there is superimposition of one on another,it is a delusion conditioned by non-apprehension of their distinctness.The co-mingling of the subject and the object,this mixing up of truth and errors,coupling of real and the unreal,is called adhyasa.Adhyasa is the root of the world process.It is beginningless and unending.Prof. T M P Mahadevan points out five factors working in adhyasa in his book,The Philosophy of Advaita .In order that superimposition may be possible there must be :

1.the residual impression brought about by the cognition of the rea object

2.defect in the object of knowledge

3.defect in cogniser

4.defect in the instrument of valid knowledge and

5.a knowledge of the general nature alone of the substrate without a  k  knowledge of its particularities

Being an effect,adhyasa also requires a material cause, which is nescience.The object of superimposition is neither real nor unreal defining sat as what is never cancelled and asat as what does not appear as real in any substrate whatever.The unique status of superimposed object is technically styled indescribable or indeterminate.

Subject and object are distinctions made in a given whole of knowledge,nothing outside which can reasonably be posited.The appearance in pure knowledge of terms like subject and object is one of the implications of the maya doctrine.It can only be accounted for as the result of superimposition.All cognitions which point to objects related to them are alike sublatable by the final cognition of the substrate of all objects i. e. Brahman.And with the oblition of the object,of course,its correlate subject,also vanishes and pure knowledge or consciousness alone endures for ever.

Impact of Adhyasa :The conceit of agency and of the enjoyership,stem from the fact of superimposition.According to Advaita,man’s bondage is rooted in adhyasa which has both microcosmic and macrocosmic reference.There is the superimposition of cosmos on Brahman and that of the body on the Atman.But this bondage is not real.It is purely empirical.Sankara says that even in the state of bondage,every living being is,in reality,Brahman.

Superimposition covers the total field of experience,subjective and objective.Its basic characteristic is the transference of the qualities of the subject to the object and vice-versa.

Way Out of the Problem : Shankara gives the solution of this problem by supposing that one is superimposed on the other,the body is superimposed on soul,matter on the spirit,world on Brahman.Since body is superimposed on soul,this can be easily sublated in the stage of moksha.The modification is not real.The effect is false.It has not real existence apart from the cause.The whole modification is real,so far as it partakes the nature of the Sat,but it has no independent reality.But no jiva is aware of his identity with Brahman,else,where is the necessity to teach him the identity of him with Brahman.

In spite of the universal illusion of self on not-self,the self shines in its glory and unaffected by any objective limitation.The factor that is responsible for the distorted view is not a mere subjective factor.It is due to the limitation in the constitution of our intellectual faculties.

Jivahood , as the Natural Outcome of Superimposition : A question arises that how ,there can be any superimposition on Brahman or Atman,who is pure consciousness.Pure consciousness or Brahman can never become an object of perception as,in all acts of perception,it remains the subject.But according to Bhamti,one object can appear as another only when some of its general are cognized ,leaving out the specific features due to some defect or other.

Shankara’s standpoint is that pure consciousness is not entirely unknown;it is the object of the presentation of the ‘I’.In reality,no doubt,pur consciousness is without limits,differences and agency and also it is unrelated to the fruits of all actions and is the object of no cognition;still due to association with intellect,mind,body,it appears as limited as the agent of actions i.e. it appears as the jiva.The possibility of superimposition on pure consciousness arises from the fact that in its limited phase as jiva,the distinction between it and its upadhis,such as intellect and mind remains unrecognized.This lack of discrimination leads to the superimposition of upadhis on it and the jivahood results.The jiva,then, is  a composite product of superimposition.His constituent factors are the subjective consciousness and the objective upadhis.

Pure consciousness is altogether passive,being free from both the powers of action and experience.On the other hand upadhis,buddhi,possesses both powers but are devoid of consciousness.When the two get interfused through superimposition,the resulting jiva comes in possession of the powers of action and experience and also becomes an object of the notion of egoity,ahamkara.

Jiva and Atman : It is the relation of Atman to the upadhis of body,senses,mind and sense objects that accounts for its phenomenal character;but this relation between Atman and jiva is inexplicable.If Atman is eternal freedom and pure consciousness and wants nothing and does nothing ,how can it be the source of movement and desire in the embodied self.According to Advaitic philosophy;as the magnet is itself devoid of motion and yet it moves iron,anything which is devoid of motion can move others like Aristotle,s unmoved mover.

God and Jiva : God is the supreme omniscient,omnipotent and omnipresent creator of the universe,while the jiva is insignificant creature gifted with a medium of knowledge and power limited in every

Direction.Yet,ultimately there is no difference between the two,the apparent difference being the outcome of a limited view.In Absolute Reality,there is neither the function of the creator nor the fact of the creation.One unconditioned Being only exists and in him Ishvara as well as the jivas find their unification.There is no ultimate difference between Ishvara and individual souls.

Jiva is neither different from nor a part of nor a modification of the Absolute Atman.It is the Atman itself.Shankara says that it is not possible that one can ever attain identity with another altogether distinct.Upanishads say that the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.Hence the knower must be one with Brahman.

When the limitation caused by a jar and the like are removed,the limited spaces become merged in one cosmic space.Even so when the limitation of space,time and causality are removed the jivas become one with the Absolute Self.

Shankara suggests the theory of reflection in the commentary on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.The individual souls are reflections of the one reality in Avidya and nothing real,On the abolition of Avidya,reflections cease to exist and only the rea remains.The Absolute is the original(bimb) and the world is the reflection(pratibimba).The Absolute appears as different individuals through its reflections in different inner organs.

The space in the jar cannot besaid to be a part or a transformation of one infinite space so also the jivas are not parts or modifications of Atman.As space appears to be stained with dirt etc. to children,even so the Atman appears as tainted with sin to the ignorant.When the jar is produced or destroyed,the space In it is not produced or destroyed,so also the Atman is not born nor destroyed.

Jivanmukti : Enlightenment may come at any time and when it comes a man is called jivanmukti.Jivanmukta is liberated while yet in flesh ,in embodied condition.Videhamukti is the final release which is obtained after death.Dr.Radhakrishanan says, “Jivanmukti is not close proximity to final release but it is final release”.

Vedantists maintain that ignorance of the ultimate Unity of the individual soul with the Absolute Spirit and the concomitant erroneous idea that our existence is limited by the conditions of time,space and so forth are the causes of all worldly misery ,salvation attainable from a conscious realization of the above all limitations and mutations.

Means of Liberation : C D Sharma writes, “knowledge of Brahman,which leads to eternal bliss,does not depend on the  performance of any act,for Brahman is already an accomplished fact.’1

Knowledge  of Brahman culminates in immediate experience and is already an accomplished fact.Knowledge of Brahman depends on Brahman Itself.It is always of the same nature because it depends on the existent thing.There is also no succession in knowledge.Once it dawns,it  dawns for ever and at once removes all ignorance and consequently all bondage.Liberation,therefore,means removes of ignorance by knowledge.That blessed person who has realized Reality is liberated here and now.The shruti says: ‘just as a slough cast off by a snake lies on an ant-hill,similarly does this body lie’.This is jivanmukti.Final release (videhamukti)  is obtained   after the death   of

1.Sharma,C D –A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy ,p. – 286

 the body.The shruti says, ‘the only delay for him is the   death       of the

body’.Just as a potter’s wheel goes on revolving for some time even after the push is withdrawn,similarly the body may continue to exist even after knowledge has dawned,though all attachment with the is cut off.Like an arrow shot from the bow,the body continues to reap the fruits until it expires;but no new actions are accumulated.

Maya in Shankara Vedanta : The doctrine of maya,is the very pivot over which the whole philosophy of Advaita Vedanta rotates.The entire world of phenomena the sphere of multiplicity,the scene of life,its bondage,suffering and liberation falls within the boundless realm of maya,according to the Advaita system.

The upanishadic conception of Brahman as nirguna,will be inconceivable in the conception of creatorship is real.Again if the world of multiplicity is real ,how can it be proved as false at the dawn of consciousness.The knowledge of reality can never be sublated by any knowledge whatsoever.The postulation of the doctrine of maya saves Shankara from all these difficulties.Brahman being associated with maya creates the world.Viewing Brahman from the worldly point of view brings in simultaneous positing of the doctrine of maya.

The word ‘Maya’ is derived from, ‘ma’, ‘to measure’, ‘miyate Anaya iti’ i.e. by which it is measured,meaning thereby as tradition has it,that illusive projection of the world by which the immeasurable Brahman appears as if measured.The same root gives further the sense of ‘to build’ leading to the idea of ‘appearance’ or ‘illusion’.

In the whole of the Advaita literature maya is indicated as avidya,adhyasa,adhyaropa,anirvachaniya,vivarta,namarupa,avyakta,ajnana,bhrama,bhranti,bijashakti,mula-prakriti etc. used more or less equivalent;of these maya,avidya,adhyasa and vivarta are used mostly as interchangeable words.

Maya is the seed of the word of difference and multiplicity.This avyakta state of the world is called ‘Maya’ by Shankara who defines it as ‘the undeveloped prior state of the world which ia inexplicable because it is the same and also not the same,is called maya and it is dependent on God’.1

Maya, As Identical With Brahman:In fact maya is not different from Brahman,for it is Brahman about to manifest itself.It is Brahman only looked upon as the material cause of the world.Maya is Brahman itself in a particular state.When Brahman distinguishes itself as its objects from itself as subject,the object in known by the name maya in Advaita Vedanta.

Status of Maya : Maya is described in the Vedanta Sara as neither sat nor asat i.e. it is indescribable.It is trigunatmika,contrary to knowledge and positive.Maya is not real as real things cannot be sublated.By real Shankara means trikala satya.It transcends all empirical existence.It is free from all differences of space and time.It is not real because it has no existence apart from Brahman.It is also not unreal for it projects the world of appearance,it is true at least till it lasts.It is sadasadanirvacaniya.It is indescribable.2

1.Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya

2.Ibid.

Function of Maya : Maya has two aspects.In its negative aspect it conceals the reality and in its positive aspect it projects the world of mulplicity on Brahman.Jagat is the totality of names and forms,which maya assumes .It is not merely absence of apprehension but misapprehension as well.

Maya is two fold.In its undivided state it is real,indistinguishable from Brahman.It is not separate from Brahman.This is its universal aspect.But differentiated in the form of its effects or vikara,it is asat.Here it is separate from Brahman.It is its particular aspect.It is the universal which assumes the particular form,the former is the cause,the latter is the effect.

Three Grades of Satta :A charge has been brought against the Advaita philosophy that in this school the world has been treated merely as an appearance and as an illusion;that the object world,in this system,is an ‘unsubstantial pageant’having no stuff of reality in it.As Kokileshwar Sastri writes,’the employment of some similies,in the works of Shankara,such as the similies of the juggler and his jugglery,of the celestial city in the sky conjured up by a magician,of the desert and the mirage and the like has lent no inconsiderable help in corroborating the idea thus formed of the multiplicity in the world as unreal and a mere appearance’.1

Shankara has mentioned three distinct classes of objects,each possessing characteristic feature which distinguish each class of objects from the other class.

1.Sastri,Kokileshwar – Advaita Philosophy ,p.-123,Bhartiya Publishing House – Delhi,1979

1.The first class includes in it such objects as are, generally known as –rabbit-horn,barren women’s son, and sky- flower – and the like Shankara uses the words alike,false,non-existing,and the general term asat i.e. unreal in connection with these objects.

2.The objects falling under the second class are generally known as things like ,rope appearing as snake;and the sky appearing as blue and the like.The term ‘asat’, ‘unreal’,is sometimes applied to such class of objects.

3.Then comes the last class which comprises th created phenomenal objects of the world i.e.the nama-rupas i. e. the changes in all their diversities which we find in the world.

According to Shankara,the objects designated under the first class i.e. rabbit-horn have peculiar nature of their own.These objects are of such a character that they do not work at all in the world,they do not serve any practical use at all,because they are not supported by any underlying substratum.

But such is not the case with the objects which are subsumed under the second class I.e. the objects like rope-snake,pearl-silver etc.Shankara says that we cannot call those things false in the same manner as we call the objects in the same manner as we call the objects like rabbit-horn;because such things cannot be said to have no permanent ground to sustain them as long as they appear.Again when in future the notion of snake,on the dawning of the correct notion,disappears,it merges in its underlying ground i. e. the ‘rope’ which is real.So,the objects rope-snake cannot,therefore,be declared to be false in the sense in which the objects rabbit-horn etc.can be declared.

The character of the third class of objects viz. the empirical objects,the evolving changes or the nama-rupas.Shankara points out that these empirical objects have a prior cause from which they are produced;during their sustenance at the present moment,the same identical causal reality underlies and sustains them;and in future also,they will merge in the same underlying ground which sustains them now.

Thus it follows that objects known as rabbit-horn,sky-flower etc. are the only objects which may be designated as actually false or unreal.Kokileshwar Shastri writes, ‘--- the man who has taken pains to prove the reality of such things as rope-snake,or silver-nacre etc. will never feel inclined to regard the actual changes in the world-the empirical objects-the nama-rupas-as unreal or false.

The unreality of the empirical standpoint can be realized only from the absolute standpoint (parmarthika).Right knowledge is not useless because it removes ignorance and it cannot be sublated.It is only from the absolute standpoint,when right knowledge is attained,that  the Vedanta declaires the world to be unreal.2

Real means real for all times and Brahman alone can be real in this sense

1.Sastri,Kokileshwar –Advaita Philosophy ,p.-129

2.Sharma,C D –A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy,p.-279 

Vivartavada :Shankara favours the appearance theory because for him Ishvara and jiva are the inexplicable appearances of Brahman.They are due to maya or avidya or adhyasa.They are only appearances (vivarta).Shankara agrees with Gaudapada’s view of ajati.There is no real creation.God,therefore, is not a real creator – God alone is real;creation ia only an appearance of God.He says that avidya makes the world of names and forms ,which fixes them upon the the essence i.e. Atman.All this activity is superimposition and is temporal.In the Chandogyaupanishad,it is said that in the beginning this was that only which is not .And in Taittiriya Upanishad,it is described like this,’non-existent,indeed it was in the beginning’.According to T M P Mahadevan, “ here not absolute non-existence is meant,only a different quality or state,viz.,the state of names and forms being unmanifest,which state is different from the state of names and forms being manifest’.1

The designation of ‘non-existence applied to the effect before its production has reference to a different state of being merely.And as those things which are distinguished by name and form are in ordering language called ‘existent’,the term ‘non-existent’ is figuratively applied to them to denote the state in which they were previously to their difference.2

All difference is due to ignorance.It is not ultimate.Names and forms are only product of ignorance.They are neither real nor unreal.Ishvara is limited by His own power of nescience and appears a many phenomenal selves even as space appears as different ‘spaces’limited by the adjuncts of jars etc. When the essential unity of Atman is

1.Mahadevan,T M P –Advaita and Neo-Platonism,p.- 125

2.Ibid.                                               

 realized, they all vanish.Creation ,therefore,is due to ignorance.It is not ultimately real.

Shankara traces all the plurality of appearance due to avidya.But the nature of Brahman is not affected in any way,simply because our imperfect knowledge takes it to be so.This view suggests that there is no plurality at all apart from the individual’s avidya.To show that Brahman remains unaffected by the changes of the world,Shankara says that the world is attributed to Brahman as the snake is to rope.The erroneous notion of the rope being a snake makes no difference to the rope itself.

Avidya by itself cannot be cause of the world.Avidya is a mental friction of a conscious subject.Avidya in Shankara is not a mere subjective force,but has an objective reality.It is the cause of the whole material world.

Shankara argues that the Supreme Reality of Brahman is the basis of the world.If Brahman were absolutely different from the world,then the repudiation of the reality of the world or the three states cannot lead us to the attainment of truth.The pluralistic universe is an error of judgemment.Correction of error means change of opinion.The rope appears as snake and when the illusion is over,the snake returns to the rope.So does the world of experience become transfigured in the intuition of Brahman.The world is not negated but reinterpreted.S P N Sharma writes, “The conception of jivanmukti,the idea of kramamukti,the distinction of values,of truth and error of virtue and vice ,the possibility of attaining moksha through the world of experience imply that there is Reality in appearances”1

1.Sarma ,S P N Rai – Indian Philosophy ,p.-176

Unreal the world is,it is not illusory.The jiva is not a mere non-entity,for release is effected through the sublation only of the false self,which is opposed to nature of Atman.A barren women cannot give birth to a child either in reality or in illusion.If we are able to penetrate the real through this world,it is because the world of appearances bears within it traces of the eternal.If the two are opposed,it will,it will be different to regard them as reality and appearance.The world is not the Absolute,though based on it.

What is based on the real and not the real itself can only be called the appearance of the real.While the world is not the essential truth of Brahman,it is its phenomenal truth,it is the manner in which the real presents itself within our finite experience.

According to S P N Rai Sharma, “Shankara’s view on moksha confirms this view that,moksha does not mean the disappearance of the world,since then world should have disappeared when the first case of Moksha,occurred.If Moksha should evolve the annihilation of plurality,the right way to go about realizing is not to displace avidya but to destroy the world.The state of release consists not in the persistence or annihilation of plurality,but in the incapacity of the pluralistic world to mislead us.It is only an acquisition of right perspective.1

Ramanuja criticizes it thus,that those who maintain the non-difference of an effect from its cause,on the ground that the effect is unreal,can not establish the non-difference since there can be no identity between what is true and what is false.If there is non-difference between the cause and the effect,either Brahman would be unreal or the world would be real.  Advaitin   does not maintain that Brahman devoid of all

1.Sarma ,S P N Rai – Indian Philosophy ,p.-176

Changes is one with the changing world.Nor does he suggests that the Brahman which sustains the world is as unreal, i.e. has no real existence apart from Brahman.

The non-difference is interpreted by Shankara as to be non-existence as something different from the cause.Vacaspati Mishra makes the meaning clear in Bhamati by saying that non-difference does not affirm identity,but only denies difference.

The question arises that,is relative being a true modification of the original reality or is it a distortion of the genuine being by the finite understanding of man?There are some passages in Shankara which lead us to think that he tended to regard the world as a mere human presentation of the genuinely real and others where he is inclined to make the world of experience objective and independent of the finite individual.Whatever is from the objective side  maya,is from the subjective side avidya.Even as Atman and Brahman are one,so are maya and avidya.

The two,the avidya of the individual and the prakriti of the Brahman,arise altogether;neither of them is thinkable apart from the other,so that even avidya is dependent on the ultimate reality.The phenomenal self and the phenomenal world are mutually ,implicated facts.Avidya and prakriti belong to the world of experience.The space-time limited world is the view of reality given to us through avidya,which is adapted to the purpose of presenting to us such a world,Shankara,thus steers clear of mentalism as well as materialism.

1.Mahadevan,T M P –Advaita and Neo-Platonism,p.- 125

2.Ibid.