Adhyasa Explained: Why Do We Mistake the Self for the Non-Self?

INQUIRER:

QUESTION 1: How Does Adhyasa (Superimposition) Happen?

In the Adhyasa Bhashya, it is stated that the ‘I' (Self) and the ‘you' (everything else/non-Self) are of the nature of Light and Darkness, total opposites of each other. Adi Shankara explains that “it is not logically possible to mistake something totally different from another, yet we still say Adhyasa happens as it is in our daily experience.”

Example: Fire and Water: It is not logically possible to mistake fire for water. Fire is hot, bright, and burns, whereas water is cool, transparent, and quenches thirst. The fundamental properties of fire and water are so different that one cannot logically mistake one for the other.

I understand that Adhyāsa is happening in my daily experience, and I am mistaking the Self for the non-Self. However, I still question why this happens. Typically, one can only mistake something for another when they share some similarity, like mistaking a snake for a rope due to physical similarities. Since the Self and the non-Self are entirely different, even if I know this mistake is part of my experience, I would like to understand why or how this happens.

RESPONSE:

In short…

Every form (adhyasa) you see is actually manifestation of Self (Brahman). So everything is Self, including the adhyasa. Just as a table is nothing but wood, Adhyāsa is nothing but the Self appearing in various forms. Therefore, the seeming difference between the Self and Adhyasa is due to ignorance (Avidya), and once true knowledge (Jnana) dawns, one realizes that all forms are dependent on and are manifestations of the one underlying reality, the Self.

Expanding on above…

They're not two different things, such as adhyasa is one thing, and Self is another.

For example, can't say table is one thing, and wood (from which table is made) is another. What table! It's nothing but wood taking a unique form which a name is attributed for sake of daily transaction.

Similarly, what adhyasa!… it's nothing but Self… appearing as different forms. Just like table IS the wood. Wave IS the water. Pot IS the clay. The table, wave or pot only becomes adhyasa (superimposition) when you're ignorant of the underlining substance that makes them up, such as wood, water and clay. The moment their substance is recognized, which also makes you up, then it's no longer actual adhyasa, but APPARENT or SEEMING adhyasa.

So your objection would only be valid if you take adhyasa to be independent from Self. However, objection is cancelled out on mere bases that forms entirely depend on the content that makes them up. And what is the content that makes up the forms? Consciousness.

Another example to help you understand: Right now, you (the conscious being; Self) have potential to manifest a dream world tonight. When the dream tonight comes, out of YOU (Self)… space and time will be produced… characters will be produced, mountains, air, water, fire, gravity, emotions.

You will then find yourself as one character in that dream, playing a role of the seeker or even teacher… and never ponder that you are the creator, sustainer and destroyer of everything in that dream… including the sentient beings, and insentient matter like mountains.

Using the dream example, can you see that the mountains and people in it are different from you (self)? No. The whole thing is you; appearing in different forms. So the mountain and characters aren't an actual adhyasa, but only seeming. If they were actual, then the stuff inside the dream would be stuck onto you.

SUMMARY OF DREAM ANALOGY: Just as dreamer is the substrate of the entire dream world, Brahman (Self) is the substrate of all apparent reality.

Furthermore…

For a wise person (jnani); adhyasa is seen and experienced just like for an ignorant individual who takes adhyasa as real – consequently experiencing genuine anxiety of present and future. However jnani knows that adhyasa is mithya (it has a dependent reality on Consciousness). In other words, wherever there is adhyasa, that's exactly where the final reality is.

Additionally, let me address your individual statements:

a) “How does Adhyasa happen?” :

Adhyasa doesn't truly “happen,” as there is only Brahman, as explained above. Adhyasa is only true for the ajnani (ignorant person), not for the jnani (one who has recognized that all that is here is One).

b) “In the Adhyasha Bhashyam it's said the ‘ I ‘ (self) and the ‘ you ‘ (everything else/non self) is of the nature of Light and Darkness, total opposites of each other.”:

Perspective 1: If we look at light as one thing, and darkness as another thing – then there's two things. However, both light and darkness are within ONE 24h period. In the same way, the subject (I) and the object (you) seem different. But both are Brahman (Self). Just as both the character in dream and the mountain are manifestations of you (the dreamer).

Perspective 2: Why did Shankara use light/darkness explain, comparing it to self and not-self? It's meant to show the difference between self and not-self is only seeming; not actual. For example, while light and dark seem opposite, they are not two separate substances. Because darkness is nothing but absence-of-light. Similarly, self and not-self are not two different realities.

INQUIRER:

QUESTION 2: Gaudapada and the Nature of Reality and Dream

Gaudapada, in his Māṇḍūkya Kārikā (commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad), states that reality and dreams are the same—they are equally unreal. This view aligns with the Vijñānavāda Buddhists (those who assert that external objects do not exist independently of consciousness [to them — the word “consciousness” is not Brahman as is true in Vedanta, but is equated to the mind or subtle-body]  — and perceived reality is a projection of the mind. Vijnanavada, also known as Yogacara, is a major school of Mahayana Buddhism which teaches that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness [which they take for the changing-mind] and that there is no external reality apart from mental perception).

However, Śankarācārya, in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya (commentary), criticizes this stance of the Vijnanavadins, stating that “reality (waking state) holds greater reality than the dream.” This seems to contradict Gaudapadacharya, even though both are absolute Ajatavādins (proponents of the doctrine of non-creation, which asserts that the phenomenal world is not truly created but is an illusory appearance, with the ultimate reality being unchanging and eternal).

I seek clarity on this matter. Is Adi Shankara making this distinction for the student's easier understanding, or is there another reason?

RESPONSE:

When Gaudapada says “reality and dream are both the same”, he is talking about two realities:

a) Vyavaharika (the empirical world; the collectively shared reality. For example we all look at the sun and call it “sun”).

b) Pratibhasika (refers to one's subjectivity and biases, but in this context, refers to dream. Either way, it's entirely a personally projected world or notions that belong to a single individual alone).

What is the same between Vyavaharika and Pratibhasika? They are both mithya (have dependent reality on something else). One is vyavaharika-mithya, other is pratibhasika-mithya.

Pratibhasika-mithya (dream) depends on vyavaharika-mithya (waking). That's why Shankara says that “waking (vyavaharika-mithya) holds a greater reality then the dream (pratibhasika-mithya)” — simply because your dream is made up of objects you've seen or heard in the waking.

Thus both Gaudapada and Shankara are right when they say, “reality and dreams are the same—they are equally unreal (have no absolute reality)”.  

Gaudapada is right because empirical reality (vyavaharika) and dream (pratibhasika) are both mithya.

Shankara is right because dream (pratibhasika) depends on empirical reality (vyavaharika), thus empirical reality holds a greater reality.

So pratibhasika depends on vyavaharika. And vyavaharika depends on paramarthika (Consciousness). And paramarthika depends on nothing as it's the final reality.

Now, when Vijnanavada Buddhism says, “empirical reality and dream are both the same” — what they mean is both have no underlining existence. And Adi Shankara criticizes this because they DO have an underlining existence which is Self (Paramarthika / Brahman). However Vijnanavada Buddhists deny existence of Self — and in this regards Shankara criticizes their view. Because both are changing. And you can have a changing reality without an unchanging substratum (Paramarthika). 

INQUIRER:

QUESTION 3: Locus of Avidyā in Later Advaita Vedanta

Although Adi Shankara clearly stated that there is no need to find a logical locus for Avidya (ignorance that causes misunderstanding reality) in his Adhyasa Bhashya (introductory commentary to Brahma Sutras discussing superimposition) — and this is also the stance of Sureshwaracharya (a direct disciple of Adi Shankara) in his Naishkarmya Siddhi (text that elaborates on the path of knowledge and nature of liberation) — why did later Advaitins deviate from this view? They tried to provide a locus for Avidyā, with the Bhāmatī (a sub-school of Advaita founded by Vachaspati Mishra) and Vivarana (another sub-school of Advaita founded by Prakāśātman, offering a different perspective on Śankara's teachings) schools suggesting it is in Brahman or in Jīva?

RESPONSE:

The later Advaitins' attempts to locate Avidyā were likely well-intentioned efforts to make the philosophy more robust and accessible. However, in my view, these attempts somewhat missed the point of Śaṅkara's original teaching.

Śaṅkara and Sureśvara were wise to avoid pinpointing a locus for Avidya because doing so can lead to logical paradoxes. Avidya, being illusory, doesn't truly have a “location.” Trying to locate it is like trying to find where an illusion exists – the very attempt reinforces the illusion. 

The focus should remain on removing Avidya through self-knowledge, rather than intellectually dissecting the nature of it.