Some indeed define the term ‘superimposition’ as the superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another thing.[39] Others, again, define superimposition as the error founded on the non-apprehension of the difference of that which is superimposed from that on which it is superimposed.[40] Others[41], again, define it as the fictitious assumption of attributes contrary to the nature of that thing on which something else is superimposed.  But all these definitions agree in so far as they represent superimposition as the apparent presentation of the attributes of one thing in another thing.  And therewith agrees also the popular view which is exemplified by expressions such as the following:  ‘Mother-of-pearl appears like silver,’ ’The moon although one only appears as if she were double.’  But how is it possible that on the interior Self which itself is not an object there should be superimposed objects and their attributes?  For every one superimposes an object only on such other objects as are placed before him (i.e. in contact with his sense-organs), and you have said before that the interior Self which is entirely disconnected from the idea of the Thou (the Non-Ego) is never an object.  It is not, we reply, non-object in the absolute sense.  For it is the object of the notion of the Ego[42], and the interior Self is well known to exist on account of its immediate (intuitive) presentation.[43] Nor is it an exceptionless rule that objects can be superimposed only on such other objects as are before us, i.e. in contact with our sense-organs; for non-discerning men superimpose on the ether, which is not the object of sensuous perception, dark-blue colour.

Hence it follows that the assumption of the Non-Self being superimposed on the interior Self is not unreasonable.

This superimposition thus defined, learned men consider to be Nescience (avidya), and the ascertainment of the true nature of that which is (the Self) by means of the discrimination of that (which is superimposed on the Self), they call knowledge (vidya).  There being such knowledge (neither the Self nor the Non-Self) are affected in the least by any blemish or (good) quality produced by their mutual superimposition[44].  The mutual superimposition of the Self and the Non-Self, which is termed Nescience, is the presupposition on which there base all the practical distinctions—­those made in ordinary life as well as those laid down by the Veda—­between means of knowledge, objects of knowledge (and knowing persons), and all scriptural texts, whether they are concerned with injunctions and prohibitions (of meritorious and non-meritorious actions), or with final release[45].—­But how can the means of right knowledge such as perception, inference, &c., and scriptural texts have for their object that which is dependent on Nescience[46]?—­Because, we reply, the means of right knowledge cannot operate unless there be a knowing personality, and because the existence of the latter depends on the erroneous