Adhyaropa - Apavada - A Unique Method of teaching by scriptures

January 3, 2005

Note by List Moderators:

Sri Bhaskar-ji had indicated his wish to post this article in full

at the beginning of this month. As we have not heard from him in a

while, perhaps due to lack of access to the internet on a consistent

basis, we are posting this as scheduled.

==================================================================

PraNAms to all truth seekers

Hare Krishna

Shruti smruti purANAnAM AlayaM karuNAlayaM

NamAmi bhagavatpAdaM shankaraM lOka shankaraM

Srimachhankara bhagavadpAda sadgurubhyo namaH

vandE taM sacchidAnandaM yativaryaM mahAmatiM

vEdavEdAnta sArajnaM sadguruM praNatOsmyahaM

SadAhaM saMpradAyajnaM saMyamIndraM sadAshrayaM

Sri SatchidAnandEndra Saraswati parama gurubhyo namaH

ajnAna timirAndhasya jnAnAnjana shalakaya

chakshurunmilitaM yEna tasmai shree guravE namaH

My humble prostrations to my beloved guruji-s Sri Mattur Ashvatha

Narayana AvadhAni & Sri Chandramouli Avadhani.

AdhyArOpa apavAda - An Unique Method of teaching by scriptures

In vEdAnta, we can find different way of approach to the ultimate

truth. Here we have some statements which clearly indicate the

duality & others explicitly advocating non-dual nature of parabrahman.

To reconcile these apparent contradictions in sAstra siddhAnta,

somany AchArya-s have written elaborate commentaries on prasthAna

traya i.e. vEdAnta/upanishads, smruthi texts like bhagavad gIta &

nyAya prasthAna i.e. brahma sUtra-s to propagate their view points.

Later on, eminent scholars have written comprehensive

sub-commentaries & glosses based on principal commentaries of their

AchArya's respective school of thought. Just like shankara's advaita

school, dualistic schools too have established their dogmas on the

strength & support of scriptural statements & logical arguments. And

they have even gone to the extent of accusing advaita by adducing

logical arguments & `selective' pramANa vAkya from scriptures to show

that the philosophical base of advaita is shaky & utterly opposed to

the `true teaching of scriptures. Fresh entrants to the vast field of

vEdAnta get lost in the loquacious interpretation of these schools &

find it very difficult to determine which is the true & ultimate

pronouncement of shruthi-s with regard to the absolute reality.

Anyway, we are not here to discuss the harm caused by other schools in

this regard. What we are trying to find here is, whether there is

really any streamlined method adopted in shruti-s in teaching of the

ultimate truth.

As I am writing this mainly to advaitins, I'd like to say, being a

sincere student of shAstra & Advaita School, first & foremost thing

one can do is, he should approach bhagavadpAda's prasthAna traya

bhAshya through bonafide sampradAya. He has to sit under the lotus

feet of his guru who is shrotrIya, brahmanishTa & learn the secrecy

of method of teaching adopted by shruti-s in propagating the

nirviShEshatva of parabrahman. At the end bhAshya pATha, definitely

he will come to know that his paramAchArya's purports alone are the

ONE & ONLY means to determine the spiritual & philosophical teaching

of vEdAnta. Without the help of sampradAya vida's/guru's teaching, it

would be a tedious task to the student of advaita vEdAnta to even know

that there is a systematic method adopted in shruti. Socalled

philosophers / scholers could not come to an unanimous opinion as

regards to the method of teaching adopted in vEdAnta. This is due to

lack of knowledge of genuine method of teaching & excessive dependence

on their own intellectual capability. My parama guruji observes this

in his book ` How to Recognise the Method of Vedanta' (HRMV)& quotes

the opinion of various scholars on how they failed to recognize the

method of teaching in vEdAnta. Here are some of those :

//quote//

" A system of the upanishads, strictly speaking, does not exist. For

these treatises are not the work of a single genius, but the total

philosophical product of an entire epoch" – P. Deussen, Pu.p.51

" There is little that is spiritual in all this"; this empty

intellectual conception, void of spirituality, is the highest form

that the Indian mind is capable of'" – Gough, quoted by S.

Radhakrishna, IP Vol.1, P.139

" If anything is evident even on a cursory review of the Upanishads

and the impression so created is only strengthened by a more careful

investigation – it is that they do not constitute a systematic whole"

– G.Thibaut, VS. Intro. Ciii

" The upanishads has no set theory of philosophy or dogmatic scheme of

theology to propound. They hint at the truth in life, but not as yet

in science or philosophy. So numerous are their suggestions of truth,

so various are their guesses at God, that almost anybody may seek in

them what he wants and find what he seeks, and every school of

dogmatics may congratulate itself on finding its own doctrine in the

sayings of the upanishads" – Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, IP P. 140.

" The difficult of assuring oneself that any interpretation is

absolutely the right one is enhanced by the fact that germs of diverse

kinds of thoughts are found scattered over the upanishads which are

not worked out in a systematic manner – Prof. Dasgupta, HIP Vol.P.41-42

//unquote//

It is evident from the above, the modern scholars who have done

considerable research work in Indian philosophy did not even aware of

the fact that there is a channelised method in shAstra-s. Under these

circumstances, we have no other option but to take shelter under our

sampradAya vida-s method of teaching, which is embedded & closely

knitted in the shruthi-s. After closely following the teaching of

sampradAya, we will come to know our scriptures have uniformly guided

us through a systematic method which can be recognised by only

shrOtriya/brahmanishTa AchArya who has undergone traditional teaching.

Here comes the main question. Which is that method adopted by

shruti-s/shankara sampradAya to teach us yEkamEvAdvitIya brahman??

Shankara tells us about this method explicitly in gIta bhAshya. He

says, the knowers of the traditional method (sampradAyavidA) have

announced that which is devoid of all distinctions and details has

been explained through deliberate super-imposition (adhyArOpa) and

subsequent rescission of the same (adyArOpa-apavAda).

Before going to the details of this method, the question needs to be

answered is, first of all why we need ` a method' to know our self

established, self-evident nature of brahman?? If at all there is a

`method' how do we ascertain that the adhyArOpa apavAda is the right &

only method?? And a doubt may also arise to the intellectuals that if

through some method we are able to achieve some end, how can that same

be proved as our svarUpa? Since the known to be obviously different

from knower & it cannot be the subject knower as the `knower' cannot

be the object of cognition. This is the reason why some will come to

the conclusion that there is "no method" to know paramArtha tattva

since it is objectless knowledge. As Sri Sadananda prabhuji often

quotes, scholars like JK says truth is the pathless land. Once you

adopt some method to `know' something, immediately, you will be

strayed from the already established fact & you will be under the

spell of whims & fancies of your own thinking. Therefore, if you

label any method in vEdAnta then that methodology cannot bring you the

paramArtha jnAna. Since it is still maintaining subject-object

(vishaya-vishayi or jnAtru-jnEya) distinction, it is self defeating

method & no use.

Yes, strictly speaking, there is some logic behind this argument.

Even in our day to day business (vyavahAra) we don't have to think

about `who am I' we invariably taken our pramAtrutva (knowership) for

granted & only strive to know something outside of us i.e. objective

world through pramAtru's limited adjuncts (upAdhi-s). Since, even to

know this routine ahaM/ego, we don't need any method (prakriya)& not

employing any means, then how can it be accepted that there is a

method to "know" the "witness" to this false ego?? In that sense it

would be appropriate to say "Yes" there is no need of any method, no

knower-known distinction when we identifying ourselves with our

paramArtha svarUpa. But as we all know that is not the present

scenario where we are in. We are still suffering from avidya,

anyOnyAdhyAsa, identifying ourselves with the body (dEha), senses

(indriya), mind (mana), intellect (buddhi), ego (ahankAra), life force

(prANa) etc. So, to eliminate this chronic problem of wrong

identification & to establish in our nitya, shuddha, buddha, muktha

Ananda svarUpa, shruti-s, for the sake of our own convenience

fabricating some methodology for the time being. But in ultimate

sense, as said above "yes" there is no need for objectification of

truth through any type of methodology.

This is what shankara also says in gItA bhAshya (18-50) " tasmAt

avidyAdhyArOpita nirAkaraNa mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM! ` na tu

brahmavijnAne yatnaH! atyantha prasiddhatvAt" the task to be

accomplised here is to get rid of superimposed false notion due to

avidya. There is no need of any effort involved in realising our true

nature which is svataH siddha & very evident (atyAnta prasiddhatvAt).

But since we are not realising the truth "as it is" falsely imputing

anAtma vastu dharma on the Atma vastu we need a prakriya (method)

which helps us to reveal the true nature of our svarUpa. When the

false notion is eliminated, "no special effort" is required to realise

the truth. So to say, due to ajnAna, we think that rope is snake,

after the snakeness removed from the right knowledge the rope will

remain "as it is". Here knowledge required to know that rope is not

snake & not to know "rope" per se. shankara says mAndukya kArika

bhAshya (2-32) that this is the pronouncement of knowers of

sampradAya "siddhAntu nivartakatvAt iti AgamavidAm sUtraM".

>From the above, we can say adhyarOpa means "when the avidya is there

shruti-s, for the convenience of teaching, accepting a thing

/attribute that is literally not there" apavAda means negation of that

which we had accepted earlier for the convenience of teaching. My

parama guruji Sri SatchidAnandEndrasaraswati Swamiji observes this in

HRMV as follows:

//quote//

Superimposition (adhyArOpa) literally means laying something on

something else, falsely imputing the nature or property of something

to something else. It is a postulate of vEdAnta that owing to a

natural tendency of the human mind, a beginningless superimposition

called avidyA compels us all to look upon reality as infected with

manifold distinctions. Now, in order to educate the mind to interpret

reality as it is, the upanishads uniformly employ the aforesaid method

of adhyArOpa apavAda or deliberate superimposition or provisional

ascription and subsequent rescission or abrogation.

//unquote//

It is evident from the above that this principal method is used by

shruti-s to teach us absolutely featureless parabraman. In this main

method shruti-s talking about subdivisions like avasthAtraya (the

three states), pancha kOSa vivEka (the knowledge of five sheaths)

drug-drushya vivEka (jnAtru-jnEya), sAmAnya-viShESa prakriya,

anvaya-vyatirEka prakriya, vidyA-avidyA prakriya, kArya-kAraNa

prakriya etc. These are all subordinate methods adopted by shruti-s

at various places to disclose the nature of our true self as brahman

in itself. As this self is devoid of all specific features, it is

only superimposition of all attributes by the unenlightened common

mind in order to teach us the nirvikAri, nirviShESa, nirvikalpa

parabraman. YAgnAvalkya says about the true nature of brahman in

bruhadAraNyaka shruti (3-8-8) that : It is this akshara

(imperishable) O gArgi, so the knowers of brahman say. It is neither

gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not red, not viscid, not

shadow, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not adhesive, tasteless,

odourless, without the sense of sight, without the sense of hearing

without the vital principle, mouth less, without measure, neither

interior nor exterior, it eats nothing, nobody eats it.

>From this strict denial of all properties, one may take the paramArtha

tattva as absolute shUnya. No, the nitya chaitanya vastu is taught by

way of imaginary attributes apparently pertaining to it owing to

limited adjuncts. At the close of teaching the apavAda of even the

falsely attributes used as a device for purpose of teaching lest it

should be treated as actually belonging to It for ever like kArya's

seed form in the kAraNa.

Well, this adhyArOpa apavAda methodology not strictly restricted to

vEdAnta only but its been used & has influence in our day to affair as

well. Take for exp. At our elementary school education we have been

taught of sun rise, sun set & his movement East to West, solar

eclipse etc. for the convenience of teaching first tutor will accept

all these apparently pertaining to Sun as seen but subsequently in

deeper studies of the same subject he explains how sun is stable in

his position & it is the earth/moon movement which is causing all

these geographical phenomena.

Shankara beautifully explains this in bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (4-4-25)

as follows : * yathA yEka prabhruti A parArdha saNkhyAsvarUpa

parijnanAya rEkhAdhyArOpaNaM krutvA yEkEyaM rEkhA, dashEyaM, shatEyaM,

sahasrEyaM iti grAhayati, avagamayati saNkhyAsvarUpaM kEvalaM, na tu

saNkhyAyA rEkhAtmatatvamEva……………….. tadupasaMhrutaM punaH parishuddhaM

kEvalamEva saphalaM jnAnaM ante asyAM kaNdikAyAm iti!! In summary,

shankara says here to impart the knowledge of numbers like ten,

hundred, thousand etc. to student, the teacher will draw some lines.

The student will get the * knowledge * of numbers & he does not hold

the lines itself as numbers in this case. Likewise, when we are

learning alphabets, though we use ink & paper, we don't think those

material itself as akshara-s. From paper & pencil we gain only *

akShara jnAna* & at any point of time we don't think the material

which we have used to gain * akSharajnAna* itself alphabets.

In vEdAnta too, the same methodology has been adopted to teach us

brahmatattva. First it accepts origination/ creation of jagat/world

etc. finally it negates all these false attributions by saying nEti

nEti ( kindly refer shankara bhAshya where he says tathA ha iha

utpathyAdyanEkOpAya janita vishEsha parishOdhanArthaM "nEti nEti" iti

tatvOpasaMhArakrutaH) In the same line we can refer shankara's

ArambhaNadhikaraNa sutra bhAshya (2-1-14) " tathA akSharAdi satyAkSara

pratipattiH druShtA! REkhAnrutAkShara pratipatEH etc.

It is amply clear that by adopting this method of adhyArOpa apavAda,

the ShAstra-s lift us from the level 1 of both knowing & being at one

go as they reveal the eternal transcendental nature of our true self

which is beyond the knower & knows distinction. The vEdic riShi-s did

one of the most impossible task which can ever be imagined. They

successfully used `words' to reveal that which no word can ever

describe. How could they able to do this ? They resorted to a unique

methodology called as "adhyArOpa apavAda".

Now, we will have a look at this method & let us see how it is closely

interweaved in scriptures. One standing examples for this prakriya is

gIta sloka. Shankara explicitly mentions here the method adopted by

sampradAyavida-s is adhyArOpa apavAda. My parama guruji gives here

detailed account of the same in his book HRMV ( Page 30-31) :

//Quote//

sarvataH pANipAdaM tatsarvatOkShirOmukhaM!

SarvataH ShrutimallokE! SarvamAvrutya thiSTathi!!

( Gita chapter 13- verse 13)

SarvEndriya guNAbhAsaM! SarvEndriyavivarjitaM!

AsaktaM sarvabruchaiva! NirguNaM guNabhOktrucha!!

(gIta chapter 13-Verse 14

In the first of the above two slOka-s, reality or Brahman is said to

posses hands & feet, eyes, heads, faces and ears on all sides; whereas

in all the second, it is declared to be devoid of all senses even

while it appears to be able to perform all sensory funcrtions.

Sankara, observes that ` the special features noticed in the

kshetrajna (the self) owing to the limiting conditions caused by the

different forms of kshEtra (the body etc.) being unreal, have been

rescinded in the previous slOka, and the kshEtrajna has been taught to

be realized as neither being nor non-being. But here (in slOka 13),

even the unreal nature manifested throught the limiting conditions has

been treated as though it were the property of the knowable, just to

bring its existence home, and hence the knowable kshEtrajna is spoken

of as `possessed of hands and feet etc., everywhere'. Accordingly,

there is the well known saying of the knowers of tradition : ` That

which is devoid of all details is set forth in detail throught

deliberate superimposition and rescission' Hands and feet and the rest

which seem to be limbs of each and every body, owe their respective

functions to the presence of the power of consciousness inherent in

the Atman to be known. So they are evidential marks indicating the

presence of Atman and are therefore spoken of as pertaining to It in a

secondary sense" Shankara means to say that Brahman is first brought

to our notice by the shruthi as the one self of us all, which

functions throught all our senses. The self seizes things with out

hands, walks with our feet, sees through our eyes and hears through

our ears, as it were. This way of describing It is for convincing us

of Its undeniable existence. Once we recognize this, the shruti

revokes the wrong ascription of sensory acts, to enable us to

interpret reality as it is, as the one universal self. The ascription

of the sensory activities was merely a device to familiarize our mind

with the existence of the self, very much like the temporary

scaffolding used for the erection of a building, to be altogether

removed after that object is accomplished. Accordingly, shankara

summarizes the purport of the second slOka thus :

 upAdhibhutapANipAdAdhidhyArOpAt, ……………………………………………..

Lest it be supposed that this Brahman to be known is really possessed

of the senses such as hands and feet etc. just because they have been

imputed to It, the next verse is begun".

//unquote//

For those who want to check shankara bhAshya in original text, kindly

refer the following Shankara vAkya-s on the above verse which goes "

upAdhikrutaM mithyArUpamapi asthitvAdhigamAya jnEya dharmavat

parikalpya uchyatE" sarvataH pANipAdam" ityAdi! tathA hi

saMpradAyavidAM vachanaM " adhyArOpApavAdAbhyAM niShprapaNchaM

prapaNchyAtE iti "

Just as a side note for those who want to know the explicit mention of

adhyArOpa apavAda words in shruti-s. tEjObindu Upanishad mentions

these words explicitly where shiva says skanda about absolute

featureless nature of parabrahman….. neither adhyArOpa nor apavAda ,

no oneness, no manyness, no blindness, no dullness, no skill, no

flesh, no blood, no lymph, no skin, no marrow, no bone, no skin, none

of the seven Dhatus, no whiteness, no redness, no blueness, no heat,

no gain, neither importance nor non-importance, no delusion, no

perseverance, no mystery, no race, nothing to be abandoned or

received, nothing to be laughed at, no policy, no religious vow, no

fault, no happiness, neither knower nor knowledge nor the knowable, no

Self, nothing belonging to you or to me, neither you nor I, and

neither old age nor youth nor manhood; but I am certainly Brahman. `I

am certainly Brahman. I am Chit, I am Chit'.

Sri vidyAshankara prabhuji of Advaita-L list had mentioned once that

these words are appearing in pingala upanishat as well…I don't have

the exact reference with me. Sri Sunder prabhuji may help us in this

regard.

The madhukhANda & yajnavalkyakhANda are some divisions in

bruhadAraNyaka shruti which give many illumining illustrations on the

presentation of adhyArOpa and apavAda to explain the real and unreal

substance. Interested readers may refer these with shankara bhAshya.

While talking about apavAda in in this prakriya, shankara gives us the

clear definition of subsequent recession. On sUtra * vyApEshcha

samanjasaM *, shankara writes :

" apavAda nAma yatra kasminchit vastuni pUrvaniviShtAyAM mithyAbudhyou

niShchitAyAM paSchAt upajAyamAna yathArtha bhuddhiH pUrvanivishtAyAH

mithyAbhuddhErnirvartikA bhavati! YathA dEhEndriya saNghAtE

AtmabhuddiH AtmanyEva Atma bhuddhyA paschAt bhAvinyA " tattvamasi "

ityAnayA yathArthabhuddhyA nivartatE ( sutra bhAshya 3-3-9)

First, about something we have some misconception & we think that that

misconception itself is the right knowledge. But after the

realization of `right' knowledge the earlier wrong knowledge gives

away. So, apavAda means elimination of wrong knowledge through right

knowledge. Shankara gives here example that every one naturally

identifies himself with body, senses, intellect, mind & ego &

experiences pain & pleasure etc. This tendency is quite natural to

everyone who are under the spell of avidyA. But when shrOtrIya

brahmanishTa guru teaches that he is kEvala sAkshichEtaH, the eligible

aspirant will realize that he is not the BMI complex. Here his wrong

identification with manObhdhyAdi upAdhi-s gets sublated through

shAstrAchArya upadEsha.

Now, the next important question is why & how only adhyArOpa apavAda

is the right method of teaching?? As we already discussed, in

vyavahAra, when we are ignorant of something, we assume/superimpose

somany attributes on it. (just like on rope we superimpose snake, its

curving nature & sometimes its hissing sound!!! Etc.) When the true

nature of that unknown thing revealed, the earlier ajnAna which we had

will get erased by the `right' knowledge of it. This is there in our

everyday business. The right knowledge cannot bring us any

non-existent thing nor annihilate already existing one. nAsato

vidyatEbhAvo nabhAvo vidyate sadA says Krishna in gIta. The right

knowledge can only removes false attribution on the svarUpa that which

is not there…For example let us go back to our famous rope-snake

analogy. We have the wrong knowledge of rope & see the same as

snake!! When the rope is realized completely that realization does not

anyway annihilate the non-existent "snake" in the rope nor "create"

already existing rope. The `rope' knowledge or realization of

"ropeness" reveals the fact that the snake was never ever there in the

rope & the rope was/is/will be the only reality forever. So, the

scope of right knowledge is to show the true nature of perceived thing

& never ever creates or annihilate any non existent thing. Likewise,

in brahma jignAsa, when we are ignorant of one without second nature

of Brahman, we see multiple jIva-s & jagat in nirvikalpa Brahman.

The Atma jnAna helps us to eradicate this wrong perception in

nirvishEsha Brahman. As said above, this jnAna neither destroy the

"non-existent" jagat or jIva in Brahman nor create something called

Brahman in jagat & jIva. Shankara on these lines says in

chamasAdhikaraNa sutra bhAshya (1-4-10) that * na hi kvachit

sAkshAdvastu dharmasya apOdhree drushtA karthree vAvidyA! AvidyAyAstu

sarvatriva nivartikA drushyatE! TaTha ihApi abrahmatvaM asarvatvaM cha

avidyAkrutamEva nivartyatAM brahma vidyayO! Na tu pAramArthikaM vastu

kartuM nivartayitaM vA arhati brahma vidyA!! Shankara telling us

here, jnAna reveals the true nature of existent thing, & it never

create nor destroys anything. Limited identification of our true

nature is avidyA. If the jagat & jIva already there in Brahman then

Atma jnAna cannot destroy it, but from Atma jnAna, jnAni realizes that

the true ever-existing thing is his own svarUpa & jIva jagat are

kEvala adhyArOpita in brahmavastu. The perception of jIva-jagat in

vyavahAra is due to ajnAna about brahmatattva.

Further, shruti telling us Brahman is the only reality / Brahman is

all nothing else apart from it. BrahmaivEdam vishvaM, AtmaivEdam

sarvaM, vAsudEvaM sarvaM, nEha nAnAsti kiNchana etc. to teach us the

Brahman is the ONLY reality, we wrongly see it as jagat & jIva. In

reality there is no duality whatsoever in it. Tatvamasi, ahaM

brahmAsmi, kshEtrajnaM chApi mAM viddhi sarvakshEtrEshu in all these

shruti/smruti statements we can find the adhishtAnaM/substratum is

nitya, nirupAdhika Brahman only. The sublation (bhAdita jnAna) of

this apparent duality through Atma jnAna is called apavAda here. This

is the only appropriate method what shruti/shankara sampradAya

advocating.

Finally, sofar, we have seen only shruti vAkya & shankara bhAshya

vAkya to substantiate the importance of methodology of adhyArOpa

apavAda. Now, it is mandatory to see how this method synchronize with

our day to day experience i.e. avasthA traya.

First thing we should understand from avasthA traya is, the `I'ness

(ahaMkAra/ego) & its perception of the world, may it be waking or dram

appears only in sarva vyApi Brahma tattva which is nothing but sAkshi

svarUpa in us. In ME waker/dreamer & corresponding world have

existence. This ME is the witnessing consciousness & is objectively

analyzing both the waker & dreamer & their respective worlds. Just

like, when we see dream from waker's point of view, the dreamer, dream

world all have existence only in waker who is analyzing the dream

objectively as vishaya to him. So, for the sAkshi both waker &

dreamer are objects (vishaya) & he is the vishayi. Though this

objectification exercise has been done from waker only, we cannot deny

the same scenario in dream also if we come across the same situation.

So, let us not have any prejudiced nepotism to waker atleast from the

tattva jignAsa point of view.

Secondly, apart from this ever existent sAkshi svarUpa there is

absolutely no separate existence for the jagat. The statements like

"world is there" or I am there come only from sAkshi who is vishayi

(subject) to both these statements.

Therefore, the jagat has its apparent existence only from the waker's

or dreamer's perception. When we are in true svarUpa which is the

state where both dreamer & waker are absent there will be no socalled

perceived world & there will be ONLY sAkshi without identifying

himself with anyone.

Thirdly, we should know it is impossible to draw boundaries as regards

to our svarUpa & apparent existence of the jagat. Because this jagat

is not in dEsha-kAla, the very notion of time & space are in this

jagat. As we know, since even in our svarUpa there is no influence of

dEsha kAla, it is impossible to number like sAkshi is one & prapancha

is the second.

Keeping all these things in mind we can say avasthA-s are only

superimposition on Atman just to prove that its true natures

transcends these avasthas. That is why first shruti call It by the

name vishwa, tEjasa prajnA etc. just to presenting the Adhidaivic

aspects of Atman in order to negate its limited validity at the

particular state …say waking. Subsequently, shruti negates all these

through apavAda by saying not of outward or inward consciousness, not

of consciousness in either direction, not prajnAna Ghana, neither

consciousness nor unconsciousness (na antaH prajnA, na bahir prajnA

etc. in mAndukya shruti).

In conclusion, shankara paripUrNa siddhAta is in advocating nirguNa,

nirvishEsha Brahman ONLY nothing less than that. He would not

compromise this ultimate reality of our svarUpa at any cost. He

clearly pronounces his ultimatum on his shrutipratipAdita siddhAnta as

follows in his long running sutra bhAshya on ubhaya liNgAdhikaraNa

sutra arUpavadEva hi tatpradhAnatvAt : " It is neither gross nor

subtle, neither short nor long ( astUla, anaNu etc. in bruhadAraNyaka

) without sound, without touch, without colour, undecaying (ashbhdaM,

asparshaM etc. in kaTha) that indeed which is known as AkASha (ether)

is that which differentiates name & form that which is distinct from

these two, that is Brahman (AkAsho ha vai nAma ..etc. in chAndOgya)

The puruSha indeed is transcendental, formless, He is verily unborn

both within & without ( divyOmrutaH purushaH sa bahyAbhyantarO etc. in

muNdaka shruti) " Now this Brahman is without anything antecedent, and

without anything consequent, without anything interior or without

anything exterior; this Atman intuiting everything, is Brahman ( again

in bruhadAraNyaka), texts like these mainly purporting to teach the

absolute nature of Brahman without manifoldness and nothing else, it

has been conclusively shown in the sUtra tattu samanvayAt. Therefore,

in texts of this kind, Brahman has to be accepted and taken to be, of

the very nature as revealed in these, that is as being emphatically

without specific features. As for the other set of statements,

teaching Brahman with specific features, these do not mainly purport

to teach that ( the real nature of Brahman which is devoid of all

attributes) for their aim chiefly is to enjoin upAsana. So their

express teaching about Brahman should be accepted only in so far as

there is not clash between the two teachings. But when there is any

clash with the other set of teachings this principle has to be

observed in deciding our choice, viz. that texts having it as their

main purport are preferable to those that have it not. That is why

Brahman is concluded to be without any specific feature and not

otherwise, even while there are texts teaching both i.e form and no

form).

This one detailed explanation of bhagavadpAda would be more than

enough to his followers to know his stand on Upanishad pratipAdita

Brahman. Let us stick to his advice meticulously by appropriately

adopting adhyArOpa apavAda method & realize our secondless nature.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

Sadguru pAdarENu

bhaskar

General information/request to all readers :

01. Kindly refer original Sanskrit texts for correct Sanskrit wordings

of the shruti/shankara bhAshya vAkya-s.

02. All English translation of the shankara bhAshya vAkyas are mine…so

better read the originals wherever you find the translations are

inadequate.

03. The above has been written strictly in accordance with traditional

method as taught by my guruji Sri Ashwatha Narayana Avadhani of Mattur.

04. The texts quoted from the original works of my parama guruji has

been marked between //quote/ & //unquote//

05. Since I've not referred any other publication works to draft this,

if any of you find any clarification & criticisms kindly bring it

with appropriate supportings from bhagavapAda's works.

06. If you find any deviations & contradictions from mUla shanakra

siddhAnta, kindly educate me about it with suitable quotes from

shankara bhAshya vAkya.

07. As my studies are mainly in kannada & Sanskrit & my personal notes

on this also in local language, I could not able to give appropriate

samAnArtaka pada (synonyms) in English. Readers kindly bear with me.

Reference Books :

Written by my paramaguruji H.H. Sri Sri SatchidAnandEndra saraswati

mahAswamiji

in kannada :

01. shankara's brahma sutra bhAshya Vol- I & II

02. bruhadAraNyaka Upanishad bhAshya Vol-I & Vol-II

03. bhagavad gIta bhAshya

04. shAnkara vEdAnta sAra

05. gaudapAda Hrudaya

06. paripUrNa darshana

In English

01. How to Recognise the Method of Veanta ( An English introduction to

his Sanskrit book vEdAntra prakriya pratyabhigna)

02. Shuddha shankara prakriya bhAskara

03. Science of Being

In Sanskrit :

01. vEdAnta prakriya pratyabhigna

02. sugama ( A work on brahma sutra adhikaraNa)

in Kannada

01. Shankara vEdAnta sAra sourabha by Sri Devarao KulkarNi (direct

desciple of Sri Sri Swamiji)

02. shAnkara saNdEsha by Prof. S.K. Ramachandra Rao

January 4, 2005

Namaste Bhaskarji.

First of all, my hearty congratulations to you on your masterpiece on

AdhyAropa Apavada (let me shorten it as AA) where you have compiled

a lot of invaluable information guided by the words of wisdom from

Shankara and your guru, Sw. Satchitanandedra Saraswatiji.

With your permission assumed as granted, may I record the following

observations:

I note that you have quoted immensely from Swamiji's classic

work `How To Recognize The Method Of Vedanta", a copy of which you

were kind enough to present me with last year. The following points

from that book which you have highlighted in your essay have me

baffled.

Swamiji seems to be the only vedantin who has translated adhyAropa as

*deliberate* superimposition. Is there anything *deliberate* here at

all? Others have taken adhyAropa for granted, as existing, as an

erroneous attribution, and consider the guru's words and scriptures

as the only means to do its apavAda (sublation or removal). That is

the whole gamut of advaita. Thus, there is no deliberateness in

adhyAropa at least. The adhyAropa of vedAnta, as found in most

vedAntic texts, is thus not a deliberate tool. If it were

deliberate superimposition and rescission that is meant, then the

wording in Sanskrit should have been something like `adhyAropasya

Aropa tasya apavAda cha". (I know that Swamiji is treating it as a

teaching tool. I will address this point later in this post.)

To know more about this adhyAropa, let us look at the nature of

superimposition:

I am the one suffering from adhyAropa. What is my suffering like?

Vedanta has addressed this question beautifully from three basic

angles.

I think that I am mortal (Sat or Existence angle)

I think that I know very little and there is a lot more to know (Chit

or Knowledge angle)

I think that I am limited and therefore I am insecure and wanting

(Ananda or Fullness angle)

Thus, my suffering in very simple terms is a combination of

mortality, ignorance and limitation. Most vedantic texts explain

this suffering as AdhyAropa. Is there anything *deliberate* about

it. It is not I who warranted my apparent mortality, ignorance and

limitation. I am like that from the day I began thinking. I haven't

wrought this superimposition on myself in order to understand or

teach myself my real nature. Where is deliberateness here? It is

this delusion of mortality, ignorance and limitation of mine that

Vedanta tries to address in order to grant me an *awareness* of my

real nature as immortality, knowledge and fullness. So, an agreeable

(not literal) translation for AA would be the sublation of an already

existing wrong attribution, where the attribution is a given (natural

or naisargiga). AdhyAropa is, therefore, not a part of a forced

device or method. It is what is actually naturally there. If the

world were a utopia, where I had no fear of death, ignorance and

limitation, I wouldn't look for any theology or vEdanta. I would sit

pretty contented without attempting any apavAda.

Language knows only duality and therefore is very treacherous. We

may, therefore, be deluded by our concepts of immortality,

omniscience and fullness. When we speak of immortality, the idea

that occurs is one of eternal existence in time – the dream of a

filthily rich man in one of Aldouz Huxley's novels who channels

unlimited funds for a research project on carp in the hope of a

breakthrough that can grant him eternal existence. The immortality

of Vedanta is a far cry from this man's ambition in that it is beyond

the sway of time. It is therefore indescribable.

This applies to Knowledge too. It is not sarvajnatwa (an all-

knowingness) which is yet plagued by duality. It is something

entirely different – a fusion of the knower and the known, and

therefore again indescribable in words.

The same argument applies to freedom from limitation and want and the

resulting insecurity and unhappiness. There is this idea of humans

hibernating in eternal bliss artificially produced by sensory stimuli

in an SF novel by Carl Sagan, if I remember the author's name right.

Such a childish idea of unending pleasure is not the Ananda of

Vedanta. Ananda cannot be known in the mundane sense and is

therefore again indescribable.

Thus, Vedanta is right in proclaiming that what I really am is indeed

indescribable. This process of sublating the falsely described `I'

into the indescribable Real is apavAda. There is no empirical proof

for that sublation. The one who `reaches' there is the only proof

and that is proof for himself. We have only our faith in the words

of the guru, scriptures and our right understanding of them to stand

by us here.

The second concern is the christening of AA unique as many teachers

do. ApavAda is the only method that can be applied in advaita to

make us aware of our delusion. It is the only one of its kind

available in our situation and, in that sense, the adjective unique

may be quite right. However, it must be noted that we have no other

alternatives to compare it with. In our case, it is only through

apavAda that the delusion can be sublated. We have no other logical

choice. ApavAda, therefore, is a matter of compulsion and not a

choice, which we pick from several alternatives.

Besides, AA is more or less like reductio ad absurdum in Western

philosophy – particularly mathematical, which has its roots in

antiquity. (I hope I am not far from the truth in making this

statement. Veterans like Ramji and Prof. Krishnamurthyji can perhaps

corroborate this point.). It would therefore be Indian chauvinism to

proclaim that AA is unique to Vedanta. The only difference is that

we Indians have used the idea to address the most fundamental of all

questions.

I wrote all this knowing fully well that Swamiji used the

word `deliberate' to suggest that AdhyAropa is the first part of a

unique teaching methodology in vedAnta. The point is that it cannot

be the deliberate part of a methodology. Kindly note Sankara's own

words in the interpretation of BG 13.14 (not 13.13) as translated by

Sw. Gambhirananda immediately following your quote:

"Thus the grounds for the inference of the existence of the Knowable

(Brahman) are metaphorically spoken of as belonging to the Knowable".

The superimposition employed is, therefore metaphorical and is found

in most theologies, be it Christianity or Islam, where an omnipotent,

omniscient, omnipresent Lord is envisioned and described. There is

nothing deliberate in this envisioning as it is a natural inevitable

that theological thought cannot do away with. An inevitable metaphor

is not deliberate. Vedanta differs from the other theologies only in

that it goes ahead and attempts an advaitic apavAda on this

inevitable conclusion to sublate it as one's own Self which is

indescribable in mundane terms. Thus, the personified God is burnt

and sublated in Self-Realization.

Besides, if you take BG 13.14, sarvata pAni literally means hands

everywhere. Let us visualize this. Can we? No, Sir. If pAni is

everywhere, there is no place for a body or pAdam and other organs.

So, sarvata pani refutes sarvada pAdam or sarvata shiras or sarvato

mukham etc. Pani is the organ of action. Padam that of movement.

So, the implication of the verse is not to present Brahman as one of

attributes like we visualize the divine form of Maha Vishnu or Durga

with different weapons in different hands. The verse is describing

an impossibility - the very indescribable - like the verse in Isa.

Up. - tadaijati, tannaijati .... In that sense, it is not one of

adhyAropa, as Swamiji has contended, where attributes are first

superimposed. It is apavAda itself in subtlety. That means we need

not wait till 13.15 for apavAda! It is very much there in 13.14

itself for the discerning eye - although very subtly. 13.15 is just

direct and explicit. That is the only difference.

In this light, quoting BG 13.14 and 13.15 to prove that Lord Krishna

is performing a deliberate superimposition in 13.14 and then removing

it in 13.15 seems erroneous

Sankara has used the term AA in the interpretation of BG 13.14 -

where he says 'based on AA, traditionalists aver that the unmanifest

manifests (niShprapancham prapanchyate iti). Closely following, 13.16

establishes pUrNamidam in full.

You said:

"Therefore, the jagat has its apparent existence only from the

waker's or dreamer's perception. When we are in true svarUpa which

is the state where both dreamer and waker are absent there will be no

so called perceived world and there will be ONLY sAkshi without

identifying himself with anyone."

You seem to suggest, as you have always done here hithertofore, that

one needs the waker/dreamer or whatsoever to realize that there is a

sAkshi and then one can conveniently do away with him. The logical

understanding should be that the waker/dreamer himself is the Sakshi

but he realizes that not till true knowledge takes over. JIvO

brahmaiva na apara. In this understanding, there is nothing

eliminated. The waker/dreamer and his objectifications (world) is an

indivisible compendium in waking, dreaming, sleep and self-

realization. The word `absent' can only convey a wrong understanding.

It is good in this context that you came up again with the rope-snake

analogy. Like all other mundane analogies, it has an obvious

shortcoming. There is the rope and the snake and additionally there

is the deluded one who sees the snake. Thus, there are three

elements. Let us redo this analogy in order to conform it to our

bipartite situation. We, are deluded about our own real nature

(swarUpa) and instead perceive a world of duality separate from us

where both sides are mutually limiting. This delusion imposes

mortality, ignorance and limitation on us (adhyAropa). Let us reduce

this analogy to two elements, i.e. the rope having a delusion that it

is a snake. Now, when the delusion goes the rope recognizes itself

to be the rope. The rope now has swarUpa jnAna. It realizes that it

is the rope and also that it was the erstwhile snake. So, even if

the snake makes a reappearance, the jnAni rope will exclaim to

itself: "Oh, boy! It is not a snake, it is me, the rope!".

Similarly, when the delusion of duality that limits and inflicts

suffering goes, the erstwhile waker/dreamer realizes that he is

Atman He will exclaim `looking' at the world (unless of course he

goes into mahAsamAdhi): "Oh, boy! This duality (idam) is me!". Like

the delusion (snake) was so far in the rope, the duality of the world

was in the perceiver. What happens on self-realization, therefore,

is the inexorable sublation of the many with divisions in their very

origin – the swarUpa.

That is why Sankara in his interpretation of BG 13-16 (Sw.

Gambhiranandaji's translation) immediately following the two verses

quoted by you to illustrate AA says:

"But to the enlightened It is ever known from the valid means of

knowledge such as (the texts), `All this is verily the Self' (Ch.

7.25.2), `Brahman alone is all this' (Nr. Ut. 7) etc."

Please rest assured that in this understanding no `loquacious'

attempt has been made to question Sankara's stand on Upanishad

pratipadita Brahman, which is fully accepted as you do.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

January 4, 2005

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

A good post, but one small doubt...

> Superimposition (adhyArOpa) literally means laying something

> on something else, falsely imputing the nature or property of

> something to something else. It is a postulate of vEdAnta that

> owing to a natural tendency of the human mind, a beginningless

> superimposition called avidyA compels us all to look upon

> reality as infected with manifold distinctions. Now, in order to

> educate the mind to interpret reality as it is, the upanishads

> uniformly employ the aforesaid method of adhyArOpa

> apavAda or DELIBERATE superimposition or provisional

> ascription and subsequent rescission or abrogation.

I have highlighted a particular word in the above passage. It is the

word 'DELIBERATE'.

What is the significance of this word in the method of

adhyaropapavada?

If superimposition is beginningless and naisargaika, why do we have

to 'deliberately' perform a superimposition when it is already give

to us in the texture of our lives? Isn't it superfluous to

deliberately superimpose something onto Brahman when superimposition

is the very context in which we apply the method of adhyaropa?

If I see a mirage in the desert, then do I need a method that asks me

to first superimpose water on it before I remove the idea of this

water? What kind of a method would that be?

If the world is to be negated for realising Brahman, and if the world

itself is the superimposition that is to be rescinded, then the

method should be apavada only. There is no need of a deliberate

provisional ascription (adhyaropa) at all.

I think a better explanation of adhyaropa is required than is given

here.

As I will be travelling from tomorrow until the 18th of this month,

it will not be possible for me to participate in these discussions.

But I feel that there is a significance to the deliberate ascription

of attributes (adhyaropa) in the method of adhyaropapavada that has

been completely missed out in your exposition, and I think it is

necessary to present an alternative explanation that can be weighed

against the one you've provided. The alternative explanation follows

in another post, and I simply leave it here without any further

defense (for I will not be present here to argue the case).

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

January 4, 2005

Dear Naik-ji,

I am not speaking on behalf of Bhaskar-ji, but here is how I

understand this.

> I have highlighted a particular word in the above passage. It is

the

> word 'DELIBERATE'.

>

> What is the significance of this word in the method of

> adhyaropapavada?

>

> If superimposition is beginningless and naisargaika, why do we

have

> to 'deliberately' perform a superimposition when it is already

give

> to us in the texture of our lives?

Let us observe a context in which adhyAropa(A1) and apavAda(A2) were

used by Bhaskar-ji.

//Quote//----------------------

sarvataH pANipAdaM tatsarvatOkShirOmukhaM!

SarvataH ShrutimallokE! SarvamAvrutya thiSTathi!!

( Gita chapter 13- verse 13)

SarvEndriya guNAbhAsaM! SarvEndriyavivarjitaM!

AsaktaM sarvabruchaiva! NirguNaM guNabhOktrucha!!

(gIta chapter 13-Verse 14

In the first of the above two slOka-s, reality or Brahman is said to

posses hands & feet, eyes, heads, faces and ears on all sides;

whereas

in all the second, it is declared to be devoid of all senses even

while it appears to be able to perform all sensory funcrtions.

//Unquote//------------------------

If you consider the first sloka as A1, then is there any natural way

in which we all perceive brahman to be having hands, feet and so on

in all sides? Obviously no. Even if one is an ajnAni, there is no

natural superimposition of "hands, faces etc. in all sides" on

Reality or brahman. There are two superimpositions

1. Our own beginningless avidya

2. superimposition used by scritptures/jnAni-s for teaching.

The former may not be deliberate, but the latter has to be. The

latter of course pre-supposes the former.

To take one more example, we have the famous "neti neti" section

(mUrtAmUrta brAhmaNa) in the brhadAraNyaka. The section begins with

the claim that brahman has two forms, the gross and the subtle and

goes on to explain each of these. If we take this as A1, then it has

to be deliberate, for we are not naturally superimposing any of

these forms on brahman. For if we were naturally superimposing, we

would have naturally known the first five sloka-s in that section.

(A2 of course comes in sloka 6).

Further, at some places, brahman is called as a King of the

universe. None of us are naturally superimposing any idea

of "Kingship" on brahman. (There are many people who dont even

believe in brahman, leave alone superimposing an idea on it). Now,

if reality is advaita, what does Kingship mean? Brahman is the King

of what or whom? It can become meaningless. It would thus be

sensible to take the first sentence as adhyAropa (A1). This A1 of

course, pre-supposes our own avidya. Now, shouldn't this A1 be

deliberate as it is not natural? What is apavAda (A2) for this? Of

course, "neti neti" will work well. In fact it works always. For

scripture itself says that there is no better description that

this "neti neti".

(You may also think about the following point though it may not be

so convincing. I think it is not "we" who are performing the

deliberate superimposition A1 here. It is the people/scriptures

which are teaching us that are doing it. From their point of view,

the superimposition has to be deliberate as they are not under the

influence of a natural avidya. Even from our point of view, their

superimposition has to be deliberate, otherwise we may think that

they are under the influence of avidya).

Regards

Lakshminarayana

January 4, 2005

Dear Sri Narayana-ji,

I appreciate your reply. Your explanation seems to show the necessary

condition (of deliberate superimposition) for the makers of the

adhyaropapavada method to have made the method, but it still doesn't

explain why deliberate superimposition should be a prescriptive part

of a method that is meant for a sadhaka. It seems to me that apavada

is adeqaute as a method. Just my point of view.

With regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, "narayana_kl_71"

<narayana_kl_71> wrote:

>

> If you consider the first sloka as A1, then is there any natural

way

> in which we all perceive brahman to be having hands, feet and so on

> in all sides? Obviously no. Even if one is an ajnAni, there is no

> natural superimposition of "hands, faces etc. in all sides" on

> Reality or brahman. There are two superimpositions

>

> 1. Our own beginningless avidya

> 2. superimposition used by scritptures/jnAni-s for teaching.

>

> The former may not be deliberate, but the latter has to be. The

> latter of course pre-supposes the former.

>

> To take one more example, we have the famous "neti neti" section

> (mUrtAmUrta brAhmaNa) in the brhadAraNyaka. The section begins with

> the claim that brahman has two forms, the gross and the subtle and

> goes on to explain each of these. If we take this as A1, then it

has

> to be deliberate, for we are not naturally superimposing any of

> these forms on brahman. For if we were naturally superimposing, we

> would have naturally known the first five sloka-s in that section.

> (A2 of course comes in sloka 6).

>

> Further, at some places, brahman is called as a King of the

> universe. None of us are naturally superimposing any idea

> of "Kingship" on brahman. (There are many people who dont even

> believe in brahman, leave alone superimposing an idea on it). Now,

> if reality is advaita, what does Kingship mean? Brahman is the King

> of what or whom? It can become meaningless. It would thus be

> sensible to take the first sentence as adhyAropa (A1). This A1 of

> course, pre-supposes our own avidya. Now, shouldn't this A1 be

> deliberate as it is not natural? What is apavAda (A2) for this? Of

> course, "neti neti" will work well. In fact it works always. For

> scripture itself says that there is no better description that

> this "neti neti".

>

> (You may also think about the following point though it may not be

> so convincing. I think it is not "we" who are performing the

> deliberate superimposition A1 here. It is the people/scriptures

> which are teaching us that are doing it. From their point of view,

> the superimposition has to be deliberate as they are not under the

> influence of a natural avidya. Even from our point of view, their

> superimposition has to be deliberate, otherwise we may think that

> they are under the influence of avidya).

>

> Regards

> Lakshminarayana

January 4, 2005

Namaste Sri Naik-ji,

> I appreciate your reply. Your explanation seems to show the

necessary

> condition (of deliberate superimposition) for the makers of the

> adhyaropapavada method to have made the method, but it still

doesn't

> explain why deliberate superimposition should be a prescriptive

part

> of a method that is meant for a sadhaka.

This is news to me. I was and am still under the impression that

adhyAropa and apavAda are only methods adopted by scriptures/jnAni-s

to teach. Was it mentioned that the sAdhaka should do adhyAropa

deliberately again, after hearing the instruction? Or should he do

it only because his guru asked him to do it? Or am I completely

misunderstanding you? Can you clarify, if you have time, on your

last sentence?

Regards

Lakshminarayana

January 4, 2005

advaitin, "narayana_kl_71"

<narayana_kl_71> wrote:

>

> (You (Chittranjan Naikji) may also think about the following point

though it may not be

> so convincing. I think it is not "we" who are performing the

> deliberate superimposition A1 here. It is the people/scriptures

> which are teaching us that are doing it. From their point of view,

> the superimposition has to be deliberate as they are not under the

> influence of a natural avidya. Even from our point of view, their

> superimposition has to be deliberate, otherwise we may think that

> they are under the influence of avidya).

>_____________________________

Namaste.

As I have pointed out in my earlier post, this 'superimposition' or

rather personification, is found in all theologies. It is inevitable

for any one to assume that there is a creator (Lord - King of the

Universe) when the created is confronted. It is at this point that

all theologies flounder. Advaitic apavAda is meant to sublate this

dwaitic assumption. We, therefore, have to necessarily understand

that those who are not under the sway of natural mAya are only asking

us to sublate our inevitable mAyic understanding of a creator.

Neither are they swayed by mAyA nor are they doing any deliberate

superimposition.

I have already said that 'sarvata pAnipAdam....' is already apavAdA

and not AropA due to the refutation inherent in the verse and due to

the impossibility of visualizing any 'form' out of it. Can anybody

draw the theme of this verse on canvas with paint and brush like they

do Maha Vishnu, KAli or GaNesha? No. That is impossible. Thus, it

is subtle apavAda only and not Aropa like the 'kingship'.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

January 4, 2005

Namaste Sri Lakshminarayana-ji,

advaitin, "narayana_kl_71"

<narayana_kl_71> wrote:

> This is news to me. I was and am still under the impression

> that adhyAropa and apavAda are only methods adopted by

> scriptures/jnAni-s to teach.

There is the problem of coherence (with the shruti) that comes up if

we assume that adhyaropa is only a method adopted by the

scriptures/jnyanis to teach. Because if the shruti is saying that the

jnyanis see 'all this' as Brahman, then it doesn't make sense to say

that adhyaropa (deliberate superimposition) is needed by the jnyanis

to teach the truth of the shruti.

> Was it mentioned that the sAdhaka should do adhyAropa

> deliberately again, after hearing the instruction? Or should he do

> it only because his guru asked him to do it? Or am I completely

> misunderstanding you? Can you clarify, if you have time, on your

> last sentence?

If we accept that adhyaropa and apavada means a method of deliberate

attribution and rescission, then I have provided my understanding of

the method in the post "Adhyaropa apavada - the Gateway to Mystery".

You may or may not agree with it, but you may consider it as another

perspective.

Now, I have to go....

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

January 5, 2005

Namaste,

What exactly is the difference between Adhyasa and Adhyaropa?

Warm regards

The all-new My – What will yours do?

January 5, 2005

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> Namaste,

> What exactly is the difference between Adhyasa and Adhyaropa?

Namaste,

The words are synonymous.

Monier-Williams dictionary has this:

Entry adhyAsa

Meaning m. (2. %{as}) , imposing (as of a foot) Ya1jn5. ;

(in phil.) = %{adhy-Aropa} ; an appendage RPra1t.

-------------------

Entry adhyAropa

Meaning m. (in Veda1nta phil.) wrong attribution ,

erroneous transferring of a statement from one thing

to another.

=================================================

For a previous discussion of this theme:

http://www.advaitin.com/WhenceAdhyasa.pdf

Regards,

Sunder

January 5, 2005

> advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> > Namaste,

> > What exactly is the difference between Adhyasa and Adhyaropa?

>

> Namaste,

>

> The words are synonymous.

Addendum,

Both words are extensively used in Upadeshasahasri: e. g.

avidyA nAmAnyasminnanyadharmAdhyAropaNA

mithyAdhyAsaniShedhArthaM tato.asthUlAdi gR^ihyatAm

S.

January 5, 2005

Namaste All,

After the recondite expatiation of Bhaskarji

this pilgrim can only offer his understanding of the core

observation of Shankara in his commentary on Bg.13:13.

"Thus as is well known, there is a saying of the people

versed in tradition, 'The Transcendental is described with

the help of superimposition and its refutation'

(Gambhirananda Sw. trans.Adv.Asram publ.) I shall try to be

succinct and to the point and not add to the difficulty of

the subject with elaborate parentheses.

In the preamble to B.S.B. Shankara asks : How is knowledge

possible? The subject is conscious, the object, as object,

is inert; yet, that thing comes to be in me as my

consciousness of it. Their, subject and object's, nature,

is opposed to each other and yet somehow there is a transfer

of the inert into the conscious.

Looking at this some ancient sage must have considered -

'this is like the principle at work in the common phenomenon

of confusion'. On the basis of some common characteristic

one thing is taken to be another. Coils of rope - coils of

snake: glitter of nacre - glitter of silver.

Similarly and likewise the inert becomes transferred to the

conscious and the conscious to the inert. Good but how?

Where is the base for similarity between the subject and the

object that they could be so mixed up? Here enters the

principle of the limiting adjunct that supports the

superimposition of the inert on the conscious. Same gets

mixed up with same! The subject as Witness which is Pure

Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of the individual

mind gets 'mixed up' with the object which is the same Pure

Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of the object. This

is the only way that things can become knowable.

In Shankara's commentary on Bg.13:14

"Besides, the organs of hearing etc., become the limiting

adjuncts from the very fact of the internal organ being so.

Hence the Knowable gets expressed through determination,

thinking, hearing, speaking, etc. that are the functions of

the organs, internal and external, which are the limiting

adjuncts. In this way, It is manifest through the function

of all the organs. The idea is that, that Knowable appears

to be as though active owing to the functions of all the

organs, as it is said in the Upanisadic text, 'It thinks, as

it were, and shakes, as it were'.(Brh.Up IV.iii.7)

Best Wishes, Michael.

January 5, 2005

praNAm prabhuji-s

Hare Krishna

First of all, my humble praNAms to Sri Sunder prabhuji for posting my notes

on adhyArOpa apavAda to the list. Due to year end auditing & intermittant

availability of system (I am accessing the mails after nearly 15 days!!) I

may not be able to participate in the discussion...I humbly request the

prabhuji-s of advaitin list to bear with me. I earnestly try my best to

participate in the discussion whenever time permits & subject to

availability of the system.

Now, with regard to my lead post, in that I had requested Sri Sunder

prabhuji to provide shruti reference for adhyArOpa apavAda nyAya apartfrom

which I've already quoted from tEjObindu upanishad...Subsequently, Sri

Sunder prabhuji & Sri jaldhar Vyas prabhuji of advaita-L list have kindly

provided the references from paingala upanishat...which I would like to

share with the group. Here it is :

//quote//

(a) Sri Sunder Prabhuji's reference:

Paingala upan. 2:10 -

adhyaaropaapavaadataH svaruupa.n nishchayiikartu.n

shakyate .

tasmaatsadaa vichaarayejjagajjiivaparamaatmano

jiivabhaavajagadbhaavabaadhe pratyagabhinnaM

brahmaivaavashishhyata

iti .. iti dvitiiyo.adhyaayaH .. 2..

[A dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Paingala.]

(b) Sri Jaldhar Vyas prabhuji's reference :

I assume you mean paiNgalopaniShad? It is II.12.

tadAsadgurumAShritya chirakAlasevayA bandham mokSham kashchita prayAti |

avichArakR^ito bandho vichArAn mokSho bhavati tasmAt sadA vichArayet |

adhyAropApavAdataH svarUpaM nishchayIkartuM shakyate | tasmAt sadA

vichArayejjagajjIva paramAtmAno jIvabhAva jagadbhAva bAdhe pratyagabhinnam

brahmaivAvashiShyata iti ||

(apologies for transcription errors, I don't have much time.)

Then taking refuge in the Guru and serving him for a long time, he should

request to know what is bondage and liberation. Bondage caused by lack of

enquiry becomes liberation by enquiry. So one should always enquire. It

is possible to determine the true form [of the self] through

superimposition and negation. So one should always enquire into [the

nature of] the world, jiva and and paramatma, by negating the jiva and the

world only the most subtle [self] which is not different from Brahman

remains.

//unquote//

Though, the above looks like there are two different recensions of this

upanishad, Sri Jaldhar prabhuji further clarified that the text dealing

with adhyArOpa apavAda is the

same in both versions & it is a genuine Vedic text. He also said that this

upanishad is belong to ShuklayajurvEda and there is also a Paingala shakha

in this yajurvEda ShAKha. Thanks a lot to Sri Jaladhar prabhuji for this

additional information.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 5, 2005

praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

CN prabhuji:

I have highlighted a particular word in the above passage. It is the

word 'DELIBERATE'.

What is the significance of this word in the method of

adhyaropapavada?

bhaskar :

The deliberate attribution of the *guNa vishEsha* on parabrahman is quite

evident in shruti-s as we all advaitins know that the ultimate svarUpa of

parabrahman is nirvishEsha & nirupAdhika & beyond the reach of mind &

speech.

CN prabhuji:

If superimposition is beginningless and naisargaika, why do we have

to 'deliberately' perform a superimposition when it is already give

to us in the texture of our lives? Isn't it superfluous to

deliberately superimpose something onto Brahman when superimposition

is the very context in which we apply the method of adhyaropa?

bhaskar :

prabhuji, this deliberate superimposition is not that of avidyA of jIva

bhAva...this innate avidyA of the common man is quite natural (naisargika)

as you said above. But what shankara talking about here is the

*deliberate* device employed by the ShAstra. The common man's wrong

identification with upAdhi-s has already been seen in our day to day life &

the same has been termed as adhyAsa/avidyA. This false attribution will be

deliberately extended by ShAstra-s just for the convenience of teaching the

attributeless parabrahman. (adhyAropavAdAbhyAm nishprapaNcham

prapanchyate) The same has beautifully been explained in gaudapAda kArika

as *kalpita saMvrutti* or adhyArOpa by shAstra. After the *purpose* of

this type of teaching is served, the aspirant himself realises that there

is no adhyAsa or adhyArOpa in the self. When this paramArtha jnAna takes

place then within no time (jnAna sama kAle) the negation of the thing

attributed will happen...This is called as apavAda...Kindly dont think

first there is adhyArOpa & subsequently during the course of time apavAda

takes place...As discussed in my main post, adhyArOpa apavAda is for us who

are under the spell of avidyA...shruti deliberately extending this though

it knows the ultimate reality of secondless nature of parabrahman.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 5, 2005

brahman is called as a King of the