|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
ment, 1-68) and the final human destiny considered (69-99). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. I have used the translation of the Dominican Fathers. Translations of Cajetan are my own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. See Chapter 4, pp. 121-129. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. For a good example of a more complex comparison using Vedanta material, see Lipner 1978. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Yearley's sober estimation of the rarity of truly significant differences and similarities must be kept in mind here. See Yearley 1990, pp. 170-72. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Coordination is the practice, and the set of rules for the practice, of selectively combining different upanisadic texts and the characteristics of Brahman they present for the sake of unified meditations; see the treatment of coordination in Chapters 2 and 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. In traditional Vedanta adhyasa was the practice of superimposing one word or image or practice on another, to enhance the latter as an object of meditation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. See also Clooney, forthcoming c. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. One may expect that if coordination is accompanied by the systematizing thematic project of harmonization (samanvaya; see Chapter 2), comparison as an exegetical act should be similarly accompanied by a thematization of its results. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. See UMS IV.1.5 for the notion of "enhancement" (utkrsi). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. The most well-known version of superimposition is represented as an epistemological error, a case of mistaken identity in which the prior act of superimposition is forgotten. This instance of error is merely an instance of the broader practice, which flourishes as long as the activity is not transmuted into a mere identity. As such, superimposition bears the burden of a certain infamy, since it is identified by Sankara in his preface to the Uttara Mimamsa Sutras as the central problem of human existence. Humans superimpose all the imperfections and limitations of their earthly existence on their true self (atman), which is unlimited and perfect. Because they confuse apparent reality with true reality; seeing only the former, they are subject to the array of miseries which plague the human race. However, this use of superimposition is Sankara's (probably original) extension of a more neutral usage, reflected by his treatment of superimposition at UMS III.3.9 and UMS IV.1.5. In light of those two texts, the problematic superimposition (adhyasa) described in the introduction to UMS I.1.1 can be shown to be faulty on all three grounds: a. one is superimposing the lesser, empirical self on the higher, true Brahman; b. |
|
|
|
|
|