maya-superimposition-projection-over-existence-consciousness-brahman

In previous part 18, we've seen that even after knowledge of oneness takes place, the world doesn't change it's dualistic nature. Only the person's relationship with the world changes. Knowing it to be a dependent-reality.

Just how we know and have proof the world is atoms, this knowledge doesn't cause us to treat each other, as though, “bunch of atoms”.

Next question will be, what is the relationship between dependent-reality (a category which atoms fall under) — and independent-reality (being Limitless-Existence-Consciousness)?

Teacher briefly mentioned an important word, superimposition, which has caught student's attention, and asks…

“What do you mean by superimposition? If we superimpose, what happens to the base? It must surely change. Yet you say the superimposition is incidental.”

” Superimposition is a projection of a quality – on an already existing base.

Like pot-ness on clay.

Clay can take on any form. Lid-ness, cup-ness and so on.

But clay remains untouched, unchanged by these qualities. Because qualities are incidental, not intrinsic.

If pot-ness is intrinsic to clay, then we cannot have a variety of clay objects.

Instead we will have a pot, wherever there is clay.

For example, if a cup is also made of clay, it will have a pot over it.

Clay exists by itself, with or without pots and cups.

It is obvious that the ‘nesses' are only incidental to clay.

We call these ‘nesses' – superimpositions of names and forms on an already existing base.

For example…

If we take a flower, we find it is made of many parts.

But by themselves, the parts are not the flower.

Parts called sepals, petals, calyx – are each a non-flower in itself.

And clumping them together randomly, does not make a flower.

However when put together intelligently, all the parts acquire a name-form and function – appearing as a flower.

Although it sounds a contradiction to say non-flower makes a flower – it's still the truth.

Māyā's magic power reflects the genius of the creator.

One step further to expand…

We can say, there is no flower.

There is only an object. A ‘this' with quality of flower-ness — superimposed on the base.

In every perception of seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting — there exists…

The knower, ‘I'. Being the conscious subject.

And the known, ‘this'. Being the object.

‘This' signifies proximity in time and space of objects, other then ‘I'.

When we perceive something, we first sense an indistinct feeling of it's existence. Of it's ‘is-ness'.

Clarity instantly follows, and we say with certainty ‘This is'.

‘This' can be a table, flower, tree. Can be people, objects, emotions. Can be list of entire creation.

For each we could declare, ‘Flower is, tree is, chair is‘.

If we analyze these statements, ‘is‘ or Existence — is the common element. While the objects differ.

What exactly are these objects?…

Each object has a particular ‘ness' unique to itself.

If object has tree-ness, we call it tree. Flower-ness, it is a flower.

An endless list of ‘nesses' qualities — superimposed on the substratum of Existence is-ness.

Therefore every ‘ness' is a māyā projection. On what? The substratum of Existence is-ness.

In other words, the ‘ness' is an incidental quality on a base — which must necessarily be without that particular ‘ness'.

Because to project flower-ness on an already existing flower, is both redundant and inefficient.

So we come to a conclusion…

Flower-ness on non-flower.

Tree-ness on non-tree.

World-ness on non-world.

Universe-ness on non-universe.

Every ‘ness' on a non-‘ness'.

What exactly is a non-object, a non-ness?…

Non-object is the same as Existence.   (This same ‘Existence' in Buddhism is called ‘no-self').

Meaning, is-ness without an object. Without quality or attribute.

Is-ness is the same as Consciousness (Brahman).

Because to state ‘something is' — implies a conscious being.

The ‘nesses' are incidental qualities. How can they effect the base, the real?

Two different orders of reality cannot impact each other.

For example…

Can pot affect clay?

Can snake affect the rope?

Consciousness is the real. The world is a dependent-real.

Thus mithya-creation has no effect on satyam-truth. To demonstrate…

We transact with the world and experience it's diversity.

And what is the world's status of reality? It is mithya, a dependent-real.

World-ness, universe-ness and all other ‘nesses' — can only be incidental qualities superimposed on Existence.

If the ‘nesses' were to be intrinsic — we would hold on to the first object we perceive.

The object would never leave our perception, long as we live.

Object would be the truth, real. It would never change.

We would continue seeing the first thing throughout our day-to-day perceptions.

It wouldn't even leave while dreaming. It would be present even in deep sleep.

It would prevent us seeing another object.

It would deny perception of diversity. Life itself would be impossible.

Yet our experiences refutes such absurdities. We ongoingly perceive a world of rich diversity.

To demonstrate even further how ‘I', the subject, remains ever free of superimpositions…

When I perceive an object, a ‘seer-ness' is imposed on me.

If that ‘ness' became intrinsic to me — I would forever be a seer. Never again to be a hearer or speaker.

Again, this contradicts our experience.

It is clear that all ‘nesses' are incidental qualities — a superimposition on Existence.

If we assume qualities are intrinsic, and we perceive a variety of objects — then each object would be real, because it's intrinsic to Existence is-ness.

In which case, we would never be able to understand scriptural statements like ‘That I am' or ‘All that is here is the One'.

Such statements would stand negated, since everything would be real, with permanent existence.

Meaning, even my sense of bondage would last forever. My sense of helplessness would be real.

I would forever feel, each second, like a hostage. Living in state of helplessness.

But our daily experiences clearly refute such descriptions.

One day, there may be some inner conflict. But another, it's a cheerful day.

And what could be more cheerful then when I am asleep, deeply.

With no dreams to disturb me, tasting a sense of unity — how happy I am with no differences, no divisions to separate me.

“O Māyā, once again you have temporarily suspended your mysterious power of duality, in my deep sleep.”

With what eagerness I look forward to that dreamless state. A taste of non-duality.

Obviously the varieties that we perceive cannot be real.

The world and the infinite ‘nesses' can only be adventitious appearances — superimposed on Existence Consciousness. ”

 

Conversation continues in part 20, where student doesn't fully grasp how can superimposition feel and seem so real.

Leave a Comment