The innermost Self is by its very nature pure consciousness and self-luminous from within. Therefore, the non-manifestation of Brahman cannot be explained by anything external to it. Hence it is said—the cause of this non-manifestation lies in the obstruction wrought by ignorance-power. This ignorance dwells within the Self and is without beginning.
This primordial ignorance creates an obstruction to the manifestation of Brahman's true nature within the Self, and brings forth something other than the Self's original nature. Such as the sense of "I" (ego-sense), the notion of "I" and "mine."
During deep sleep, the impressions of this ego-sense lie dormant—they are in fact the fruit of ignorance's projective power—and become active again upon waking.
The superimposition of "I" and "mine" is without beginning, for its root cause (ignorance) is without beginning. Yet this can never be called accidental or something that came to be later. Therefore its beginninglessness does not contradict its being rooted in causation.
Ignorance is without beginning—because it has no origin. Ignorance is false—because it is not real but delusion. It possesses two powers: the veiling power (āvaraṇa)—which conceals Brahman. The projective power (vikṣepa)—which creates false notions. In the material world as well as in the realm of the Self, ignorance operates. Thus, though superimposition is without beginning, its cause—false ignorance—is itself false.
A dark spot on a mirror does not obscure the sun's light, yet it distorts the reflection. Similarly, ignorance does not pollute the Self, but distorts the Self's reflection—this is what we call "superimposition."
The two powers of ignorance (which the scriptures always distinguish and explain separately)—the veiling power (āvaraṇa-śakti) and the projective power (vikṣepa-śakti)—I shall now elucidate through simple examples.
1) The Veiling Power (the capacity to cover)—Its function: to conceal Brahman's true nature, so that truth cannot be perceived. As clouds obscure the sun. The sun still exists in the sky, light still shines, yet it cannot be seen. Or as in darkness a rope appears as a serpent—the rope is there, but its true nature is not perceived. Here ignorance has veiled the truth, and thus arise false notions: "I am the body," "I am the agent."
2) The Projective Power (the capacity to project)—Its function: after veiling the truth, it places something false before consciousness, creating a false world or false notions. As in darkness, mistaking a rope for a serpent and feeling fear. Here the rope is not hidden (veiled), but rather the false notion of "serpent" appears before the mind (projection). In the illusion of silver in a shell, we see this: the true shell is concealed, and the false notion of "silver" is projected. Here ignorance not only covers the truth but casts something false in its place.
The Veiling Power: covers, so truth remains unknown. The Projective Power: shows what is false, making one believe the non-existent is real. Ignorance = on one side, concealment (veiling); on the other, showing what is false (projection). As a result, the Self does not perceive itself as Brahman, but as body-mind-senses. And from this springs all "I-ness" and "mineness."
In Vedanta, the notions of "I" (ahaṅkāra) and "mine" (mamatā)—these two are in truth the fruit of ignorance (avidyā), and they are the very root cause of all suffering in the world.
1) Ahaṅkāra (The "I"-sense) means: the sense of "I," or the conviction of being a particular entity. The Self is truly pure consciousness, yet due to ignorance it mistakenly identifies itself with body-mind-senses. Then arises the sense: "I am a human," "I am male/female," "I am happy/suffering," "I am the doer (I perform actions)," "I am the enjoyer (I experience)," and so forth. An example: as an actor on stage plays a king and forgets he is merely an ordinary man, so too the Self, identifying with the body, creates the sense of "I."
2) Mamatā (The "mine"-sense) means: the sense of possession, or the feeling of ownership. From the "I"-sense springs the "mine"-sense. When we take "I" to be body-mind, we regard all that pertains to it as our own. Then arises the sense: "This child is mine," "This wealth is mine," "This house is mine," "This body is mine," and so forth.
# On the Superimposition of Identity and Possession
A child’s toy is, in truth, fleeting—it breaks easily, and once broken, the child’s affection for it evaporates just as swiftly. Yet for that brief moment, it appears priceless to the child—he declares, “This is mine!” and weeps if another takes it. In precisely the same way, we cling to the insentient things of the world, calling them “mine.”
Ego: “I am body/mind/agent”—a false identity. Possessiveness: “This is mine”—a false claim of ownership. Both spring from the seed of ignorance. Without the ego, the sense of “mine” would never arise. And these two together weave the bondage of the world.
*Adhyāsa* means the mistaken superimposition of one thing’s nature upon another. The ego-notion—”I am a human,” “This is mine”—this experience itself is superimposition. It is beginningless, for its root cause, ignorance itself, is beginningless. Ignorance of outer objects produces merely false appearances (as when silver is falsely seen in mother-of-pearl). But ignorance of the inner Self veils Brahman’s true nature and generates the ego and all that follows. In sleep it lies dormant; upon waking it stirs again.
*”Anyonyadharmāṁśca”*—to superimpose one thing’s qualities upon another—”to place the attributes of one upon the other.” Why is “attribute” (dharma) singled out here? To make clear that it is never the thing itself, but only its quality, that is wrongly imposed upon oneself or the Self. For example: “I am deaf.”—Here deafness is an attribute of the sense of hearing; it has nothing to do with the Self or consciousness. Yet we superimpose it, saying “I am deaf.” This is attribute-superimposition.
Where is this “superimposition of attributes” visible? In two simple statements: “This is I” (*ahaṁ idam*) and “This is mine” (*idaṁ mama*). The “I”—the ego-notion itself—is the first superimposition. Here, the characteristics of body, senses, and mind are wrongly attributed to the Self.
A question arises: Is the “I-notion” (*ahaṁ*) merely the expression of pure consciousness (*cit*)? That is, does “I” convey nothing but the undivided, partless awareness—with nothing extra superimposed or otherwise added? The “I-notion” has superimposed upon it an insentient element. What we call “I” when we say “I see” is pure consciousness mingled with the false identity of body, mind, and senses.
What happens in the notion of “this” (*idam*)? When “this” refers to one’s own body—the body is an aggregate of cause and effect, an instrument of enjoyment (the apparatus through which the agent experiences pleasure and pain)—it serves the ego-notion “I am the doer.” Thus the body appears as an object, something present before me, a “this.”
When we say “This is mine” (*idaṁ mama*), we regard the body as separate property belonging to the doer (the “I”)—as something that is “mine.” It might seem that there is no superimposition here; we are simply stating the relation between “I” and “my possession”!
Yet if the very ego-notion “I am the doer” is itself superimposition (false attribution), then its supporting notion—”This body is mine”—must also be false. That is, the body, which is grasped as “mine” to serve the “I” (*ahaṁ*) that rests on a false understanding—this too is generated by that same false understanding.
In a dream or in the cosmic illusion (*mahāmāyā*), the king we see has a scepter, a crown, and a throne—none of these are real. When the king himself is imaginary, his royal insignia must also be imaginary. Similarly, when the ego-notion of the doer is superimposed, the entire framework of action, means, and result is likewise superimposed.
Thus, what is “superimposed”? The sense of agency born of ego: “I am the actor/I am the doer”; action: what is being done; means: the instrument, method, or process; and result (*phala*): gain, worldly or otherworldly fruit—all of this is superimposed upon the Self. Yet the Self is by nature: eternal (*nitya*), pure (*śuddha*), consciousness itself (*buddha*, *jñāna-svarūpa*), and free (*mukta*).
What kind of knowledge is the sole path to liberation? Only that knowledge which ultimately leads to the direct realization (*aparokṣānubhūti*) of the non-duality of Self and Brahman, and thereby removes the misery born of superimposition. This is why the study of Vedantic teaching must logically begin with this knowledge as its very subject and aim.
The first superimposition is the ego-notion, where an insentient element is joined with pure consciousness, giving rise to the false ideas “I am the doer,” “I am the body,” “This is mine.” From this point onward, action, means, and result—all are superimposed upon the Self.
And the knowledge of the non-duality of self and Brahman—this alone is the sole effective means to dissolve this superimposed delusion. This is why Vedantic teaching begins with that very knowledge.
Superimposition (adhyāsa) is thus defined: “The appearance in one object of something previously perceived, in the manner of a memory.” In other words, to overlay upon something else the memory-like form of what we once saw or knew. When it is said “in another” (paratra)—that is, “in some other object”—what is meant is this: the thing manifesting here is not the object presently before us, but something else. As when silver appears mistakenly upon a conch shell. The conch is before the eye, yet what manifests is something like silver—which does not actually exist there. (Consider the parallel: peace surrounds the eye, yet the mind labors under the weight of troubles. Of the countless calamities we fear and dread, ninety-five percent have no existence at all—all are born of our own anxiety.)
The definition states that superimposition is “of the nature of memory.” That is, it resembles an object previously remembered or perceived. “That which is remembered—that is memory.” So superimposition carries the shadow of memory, yet the actual object is not present. Why is it called “memory-like”? Because what manifests in superimposition, though resembling memory, is not actual memory. When the mistaken appearance of silver manifests on the conch, the manifested object is like silver—yet it is not true silver. In other words, the manifested thing bears resemblance to the silver seen before, but it is not that actual silver.
The distinction between sense-given objects and memory: the object standing before the sense manifests in that object itself. The conch strikes the eye, yet the manner of its appearing comes as if from memory—that is, in the form of previously-seen silver. Thus superimposition is a memory-like appearance. Why is the connection with memory shown? Because superimposition always involves the manifestation of something previously seen or experienced. For instance: if one had never seen silver in one’s life, the sight of a conch would never give rise to the illusion of silver in the mind. In other words, superimposition cannot occur without prior experience.
Superimposition is thus: “The shadow of the memory of something previously seen, wrongly superimposed upon another object in the present.” As when silver appears mistakenly upon a conch. The conch is there before us, yet what manifests is “silver.” This is not true silver, merely a false appearance born of memory.
Superimposition sometimes occurs only regarding attributes, as in “I am deaf.” The sense of ego—”I am this” or “this is mine”—this is the primal superimposition. Just as the dream-king is not real, nor is the kingship in the dream—even so, karma and its fruits, everything is superimposed upon the Self.