Shastra Quiz 44

Learn more: Advaita Vedanta, Shastra

According to the Śaṅkara school, the underlying principle of superimposition is to mistake a real object (vastu) for an apparent one (avastu), due to ignorance (avidyā). Vastu means a real object or substance, “That which remains at all times is called vastu” (vasati eva tiṣṭhati eva yat tad vastu).

On the other hand, avastu is that which has empirical (vyavahārika), or apparent (prātibhāsika), existence, but does not exist in the true or ontological (pāramārthika) sense. When, because of ignorance, a person mistakes a real object for an apparent one, this is called āropa, adhyāsa or adhyāropa. When someone in semi-darkness mistakes a rope for a snake, he superimposes an apparent (prātibhāsika) snake upon the rope, which is empirically real (vyavahārika).

Prerequisites for adhyāsa or adhyāropa include knowledge of the superimposed object based on previous experience, unfavorable conditions for clear perception, sensory defects in the perceiver, and / or similarity between the two objects (e.g., a snake and a rope).

According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, vastu (substance) is of two types — vāstava (“real” or “abiding”) and avāstava (“unreal” or “non-abiding”).

Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān, along with His abode and associates, are the only vāstava vastu, or abiding substance. The material world is avāstava-vastu, or non-abiding substance.

Avastu is also of two types, kārya (having an empirical basis) and akārya (devoid of all empirical basis).

Objects seen in dreams, hallucinations and so on, are kārya, because they have a basis in previously observed phenomena. Objects that never exist to begin with, such as the horns of a rabbit, are called akārya.

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī begins by stating that the Lord’s “God-ness” (bhagavattā, i.e., “the state of His being the Complete Whole, and the Supreme Person”) is not superimposed (sā bhagavattā ca nāropitā).

To support this premise, he quotes from Śrīmad Bhāgavata, established in Tattva Sandarbha as the topmost authority on the matter, “The vāstava (Real) vastu (Substantive) is to be known (vedya) in this book (atra).”

This means that Śrīmad Bhāgavatam explains the Supreme Reality as distinct from apparition (avastu). Furthermore, it is possible for one to directly experience (vedya) this Reality. This has been discussed in Tattva Sandarbha, where vāstava-vastu is identified as “nondual being-awareness,” or advaya-jñāna of SB 1.2.11.

Here Advaitavādīs may claim that ultimate Reality is Brahman, devoid of qualities or energies, and hence, their philosophy of Radical Nondualism, or Advaitavāda, is the ultimate truth. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says, however, that this is not the complete truth. Although Reality is nondual being- awareness, it is not devoid of attributes or śaktis. This is immediately shown in this verse, where the Real Existent (vāstavaṁ vastu) is modified by two adjectives: śivada and tāpa-trayonmūlana. Their import is this: understanding this Reality grants supreme felicity, dispelling the cumbersome influence of the threefold miseries created by the external energy (māyā).

But this could only be possible if this Reality has potency inherent in its own nature. Unmūlana means to uproot, implying that no trace of illusion or ignorance is left. If the energy of the Real Existent was superimposed, then it would not have the power to completely uproot illusion. As the saying goes, svayam asiddhaṁ kathaṁ paraṁ sādhayati, “If one is imperfect, how can he make others perfect?”

As an apparent snake, mistakenly seen in a rope in semi-darkness, cannot bite, Bhagavān superimposed onto Brahman cannot uproot misery and bestow bliss. So it should be acknowledged that Absolute Reality is potent and He is called Bhagavān.

Non-theists (specifically the Advaitavādīs) accept only unqualified, i.e., attributeless, Brahman as the vastu, or Ultimate Reality. Nothing else has factual existence. However, Vaiṣṇavas (who accept Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa as Supreme God) acknowledge that the material world is also real (vastu), in spite of its not being the vāstava-vastu, or the truly abiding Reality.

Śrī Brahmā spoke a series of verses after trying to test Śrī Kṛṣṇa. When Śrī Kṛṣṇa entered the snake body of Aghāsura, the personification of sin, the demon’s soul left his body and hung in the air, waiting for the Lord to come out. This created a dazzling light that illuminated the entire universe. While the other gods celebrated the demise of the demon, Śrī Brahmā’s attention was captured by this effulgence. Searching for the source of the radiant light, he descended and was astounded to witness the liberation of Aghāsura. He had previously heard that a sinful person may sometimes be awarded liberation, but he never imagined that sin personified could be so fortunate. Moreover, this feat (of awarding liberation) had not been accomplished by a person of extraordinary appearance, with four arms or a thousand heads, but by a mere boy.

Brahmā’s curiosity was aroused and so he decided to test Kṛṣṇa in order to witness further pastimes. He stole Kṛṣṇa’s calves and friends and then returned after just a moment in the reckoning of his own time dimension to see how Śrī Kṛṣṇa was handling the situation. By the earth’s time scale, however, it was a year later. Just imagine his surprise when he saw that all the calves and cowherd boyfriends were still sporting with Kṛṣṇa as before. Yet that was nothing compared to what ensued: as he watched, they all turned into four-armed Viṣṇu forms.

Brahmā was totally bewildered, his ego completely smashed. He then prayed to the Lord, begging His pardon for having disturbed His play. Their significance is that in them Brahmā testifies from his own experience that the apparently limited form of Bhagavān is actually unlimited.

Brahmā addresses Bhagavān as Adhokṣaja, or one who is beyond sense perception. This implies that he committed offenses because he was not able to recognize the Lord with his imperfect senses. To confirm their relation, Brahmā expresses that the Lord’s abdomen is unlimited and that nothing exists outside it. Both existence (asti) and non-existence (nāsti) are within Him. Asti can also refer to conscious objects and nāsti to inert objects, which are in permanent flux within the Lord’s body. There is no other existence to be found outside of Bhagavān. Kṛṣṇa confirms this in Bhagavad Gītā:

yathākāśa-sthito nityaṁ vāyuḥ sarvatra-go mahān
tathā sarvāṇi bhūtāni mat-sthānity upadhāraya

Understand that as the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, rests always in the sky, all created beings rest in Me. (Gītā 9.6)

The clear implication of Śrī Brahmā’s verse is that all existence is within the body of the Lord, yet that same Lord is standing before Brahmā as a small child.

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī defines illusion as something impossible that is still within the range of reason. For example, a magician may seemingly produce hundred-rupee bills from thin air. It seems like an impossible act and contrary to reason, but if he were actually able to produce money out of nothing, he would most likely not be performing a magic act to earn a living! Moreover, he would probably be arrested by the police, as only an agency like the Reserve Bank of India has the authority to issue currency. In such a case, we have to accept that the magician’s act can be explained as nothing more than sleight of hand.

On the other hand, phenomena inconceivable to the rational mind may not always be illusory. For instance, objects generally expand when heated and contract when cooled. But water displays anomalous behavior when cooled below 4 °C. Instead of contracting, it expands, and this continues till 0 °C. Though this is outside the normal bounds of logic, to consider it illusion would be foolish.

Jīva Prabhu gives the example of the undersea volcanic fire, called bāḍava. It cannot be considered illusory because it is described in scriptures, in particular, in Chapter 179 of Caitraratha parva of Mahābhārata. Aurva Ṛṣi wanted to destroy the kṣatriya kings, but his forefathers intervened. On their request, he threw his anger into the ocean and it there manifested as the bāḍava or aurva fire. Since this event actually occurred, the fire should not be considered illusory, though it may appear to be somewhat inconsistent with the realm of reason.

There are various types of pramāṇas, or valid means of knowing. These are outlined in the commentary to Section 9 of Tattva Sandarbha.

Therein, it was explained that Bhagavān’s form can be understood only through śabda-pramāṇa, or revealed sound. Thus,His body is called Śabdabrahman. The Lord’s body is self-luminous, which means that it reveals itself and, hence, cannot be perceived by material senses.

Moreover, because śabda reveals the form of the Lord, śabda or Śabdabrahman is nondifferent from Him. This was confirmed by the Lord Himself to King Citraketu: “Śabdabrahman and Parabrahman are my two eternal bodies” (SB 6.16.51)

Also, Maitrāyaṇi Upaniṣad states: "The Absolute Truth is to be understood as Śabdabrahman and Parabrahman. After comprehending Śabdabrahman, one attains Parabrahman, or the Supreme Lord. (Maitrāyaṇi Upaniṣad 6.22)

Śrī Brahmā spoke a series of verses after trying to test Śrī Kṛṣṇa. When Śrī Kṛṣṇa entered the snake body of Aghāsura, the personification of sin, the demon’s soul left his body and hung in the air, waiting for the Lord to come out. This created a dazzling light that illuminated the entire universe. While the other gods celebrated the demise of the demon, Śrī Brahmā’s attention was captured by this effulgence. Searching for the source of the radiant light, he descended and was astounded to witness the liberation of Aghāsura. He had previously heard that a sinful person may sometimes be awarded liberation, but he never imagined that sin personified could be so fortunate. Moreover, this feat (of awarding liberation) had not been accomplished by a person of extraordinary appearance, with four arms or a thousand heads, but by a mere boy.

Brahmā’s curiosity was aroused and so he decided to test Kṛṣṇa in order to witness further pastimes. He stole Kṛṣṇa’s calves and friends and then returned after just a moment in the reckoning of his own time dimension to see how Śrī Kṛṣṇa was handling the situation. By the earth’s time scale, however, it was a year later. Just imagine his surprise when he saw that all the calves and cowherd boyfriends were still sporting with Kṛṣṇa as before. Yet that was nothing compared to what ensued: as he watched, they all turned into four-armed Viṣṇu forms.

Brahmā was totally bewildered, his ego completely smashed. He then prayed to the Lord, begging His pardon for having disturbed His play. Their significance is that in them Brahmā testifies from his own experience that the apparently limited form of Bhagavān is actually unlimited.

Brahmā addresses Bhagavān as Adhokṣaja, or one who is beyond sense perception. This implies that he committed offenses because he was not able to recognize the Lord with his imperfect senses. To confirm their relation, Brahmā expresses that the Lord’s abdomen is unlimited and that nothing exists outside it. Both existence (asti) and non-existence (nāsti) are within Him. Asti can also refer to conscious objects and nāsti to inert objects, which are in permanent flux within the Lord’s body. There is no other existence to be found outside of Bhagavān. Kṛṣṇa confirms this in Bhagavad Gītā:

yathākāśa-sthito nityaṁ vāyuḥ sarvatra-go mahān
tathā sarvāṇi bhūtāni mat-sthānity upadhāraya

Understand that as the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, rests always in the sky, all created beings rest in Me. (Gītā 9.6)

The clear implication of Śrī Brahmā’s verse is that all existence is within the body of the Lord, yet that same Lord is standing before Brahmā as a small child.

The Goddess of Fortune, Lakṣmī, always resides on the chest of Śrī Viṣṇu and is, therefore, called anapāyinī, one who is never separated from the Lord.