Quotation
Last reviewed:
“Superimposition is the apparent presentation, in the form of remembrance, to consciousness of something previously observed, in some other thing.”
Ādi Śaṅkara · Advaita Vedānta · Medieval · c. 8th century; this English 1890
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading takes the definition literally. Superimposition presents something you have seen before, in the form of a memory, as if it were in a different thing now in front of you. The shell is taken as silver. The body, by the same pattern, is taken as the self. A competing reading treats the definition as a mere optical illusion, missing that he uses it for the basic error of ordinary self-awareness. The sentence is still the introduction to the Brahma Sutra commentary, a few lines after the claim that subject and object are opposed. Thibaut translates adhyāsa as superimposition. The definition explains how the opposition is violated without either term ceasing to be what it is. The silver is not really in the shell. The presentation is apparent. That word does the work. The later summary verse is not this definition.
Did Ādi Śaṅkara really say this?
The library’s label is Paraphrase or translation. Śaṅkara's definition of adhyāsa in the same introductory section, in Thibaut's English. The stock example, which he gives next, is seeing silver in a piece of shell. The definition is his. The English is a translation.
Where it comes from
Brahma Sutra commentary, introductory section on superimposition, George Thibaut's translation (1890)
Approximate date: c. 8th century; this English 1890.
How to use it
Mistaking a coat on a chair for a person in a dark hall is the everyday shape of the definition. He thinks a deeper version of the same mistake is taking the body and its story to be the self. The hall example does not prove his metaphysics. It shows what 'apparent presentation' means before the commentary spends hundreds of pages on it.
A mindset reading
A definition is a tool. This one asks you to name the remembered thing and the thing it is being laid on. The habit is useful even if the Vedanta conclusion is rejected. If you cannot name both, you are not yet talking about the error he defines.
Understand the philosophy
This is the definition of adhyāsa in the introductory section, Thibaut's English. The key mechanism is memory presenting a previously observed thing in something else. The shell and silver example follows immediately in the same pages. The subject-object sentence is the previous card. The commentary will argue that knowledge of Brahman removes this superimposition. That argument is the book, not a third motto.
- knowledge
- mind
FAQ
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading takes the definition literally. Superimposition presents something you have seen before, in the form of a memory, as if it were in a different thing now in front of you. The shell is taken as silver. The body, by the same pattern, is taken as the self. A competing reading treats the definition as a mere optical illusion, missing that he uses it for the basic error of ordinary self-awareness. The sentence is still the introduction to the Brahma Sutra commentary, a few lines after the claim that subject and object are opposed. Thibaut translates adhyāsa as superimposition. The definition explains how the opposition is violated without either term ceasing to be what it is. The silver is not really in the shell. The presentation is apparent. That word does the work. The later summary verse is not this definition.
Did Ādi Śaṅkara really say this?
Paraphrase or translation. Śaṅkara's definition of adhyāsa in the same introductory section, in Thibaut's English. The stock example, which he gives next, is seeing silver in a piece of shell. The definition is his. The English is a translation.
Which work is it in?
Brahma Sutra commentary, introductory section on superimposition, George Thibaut's translation (1890) Approximate date: c. 8th century; this English 1890.