Adhyaropa - Apavada - A Unique Method of teaching by scriptures

[Guest guest]

My dear Bhaskarji,

 

praNAm Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhji:

 

I have once again gone through Sankara's original interpretation of

BG 13.14 in Sanskrit. As I can't rely totally on my knowledge of

Sanskrit, I have also read Sw. GambhIrAnandaji's translation, where

he has translated Sankara's words "jneyasya iti upachArata uchyante"

as "metaphorically spoken of as belonging to the Knowable". I don't

find anything wrong with that translation as upachAra has the meaning

of figurative and metaphorical.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, pls. note I dont have any issue with the sentence you quoted

above. As you might have noticed in my main post I have discussed why

adhyArOpa & apavAda is the ONLY method adopted by shruti-s to teach non

dual brahman for for whom this method is taught?? adhyArOpa is the

deliberate metaphor by shruti-s to *describe* the undescribable brahman. As

you yourself said above it is simply *figuratively* speaking about multiple

hands & legs (sarvataH pAnipAdaM etc.) to show that ultimately it is

sarvEndriya vivarjita...shruti-s know the ultimate nature of brahman is

devoid of limited adjuncts, but it initially speaks of attributes & vikAra

of parabrahman as a teaching tool. Prabhuji, pls. note according to your

contention, shruti would have *literally* spoken about brahman's vikAra &

multiple limbs if at all these fringes are eternal in nirvikAri brahman!!!

 

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Metaphors are very helpful in conveying ideas. The idea conveyed

here is the all-pervasiveness of the Self. It is not used to first

deliberately erect a personification and then refute it.

 

bhaskar :

 

But this personification of parabrahman is due to avidya & our limited

identification with upAdhi-s that is what shankara says in sUtra

bhAshya...the refutation of personification while conveying the absolute

featureless brahman is indispensable for an advaitin.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

None of the interpretations I have read explains it that way.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji still you have not commented on my quote of shankara bhAshya, let

me re-quote it once gain :

 

*upAdhikrutaM mithyArUpamapi astitvAdhigamAya jnEya dharmavat *parikalpya*

uchyatE

"sarvataH pAni pAdaM ityAdi!!

 

Kindly explain why shankara saying here sarvataH pAni pAdaM is upAdhikruta,

mithyArUpa, jnEya dharma *parikalpya* etc.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Moreover, due to the impossibility of a visualization of any

personification, with

each attribute canceling out the others, as pointed out by me earlier, this

whole verse is in fact a subtle apavAda to my understanding. The Aropa

that you find in it is therefore only seeming or on the surface. We have

to see through it and not build

untenable arguments.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, do you mean to say shankar missed this point & forgot to *see

through* it while describing *sarvataH pAni pAdam* as adhyArOpita?? Still I

am failed to understand why shankara categorically said sarvataH pAnipAdaM

is adhyArOpa & sarvEndriya vivarjita is apavAda if the former itself is

apavAda in subtle terms?? prabhuji, dont you think our interpretations &

understading of the verses should be in line with bhagavadpAda's works??

The topic which is being discussed here is strictly in line with shankara's

declarations to his followers & it_is_not a baseless argument.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Superimposition of familiar attributes (personification) is natural

and universal. I know that someone here asked the question "What is

natural?". I don't want to answer that. Well, it is not unnatural.

It has happened in all *theologies* and, therefore, is not a unique

contrivance. It is not indigenous to India alone.

 

bhaskar :

 

Well prabhuji, as a matter of fact, you know, our dvaita bandhu-s

(dualists) who claim that they are also followers of vEda vijnAna,

screaming at the top of their voice that *there is neither adhyArOpa nor

apavAda as such since the same has not been mentioned by vEdavyAsa in

vEdAnta sUtra-s & krishna bhagavan in gIta!! They also think the

personified form of parabrahman is quite *natural* & very much allowed in

shruti-s as shruti-s ultimately advocating saguNa sAkAra brahman

ONLY....Whether personification of brahman is unique or universal is not

the main issue here...whether brahman is ultimately nirguNa or something

else according to shankara siddhAnta is the issue that needs to be

discussed in length here..you may say that it is simply roaming around the

*mountain* without scaling it...but in the forums like this, *roaming* is

the main scope is it not?? otherwise how can it be possible to find twenty

thousand & odd mails in the archives list??!!

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Neither can we claim that the others have borrowed it from us.

 

bhaskar :

 

When we have firm conviction that vEda-s are apauruShEya & in this

adhyArOpa apavAda is the method of teaching then we have very good reasons

to believe that others have borrowed it from our eternal scriptures is it

not??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

VedAnta is unique in that it goes forward to do an apavAda on this

personification. Thus, there is only adhyAropasya apavAda in VedAnta where

the ArOpa is a

universal given. Thus, only apavAda is the unique methodology.

 

bhaskar :

 

Since all Aropa-s are subsequently negated through apavAda..it hardly

matters whether adhyArOpa is universal given or otherwise!! The main

purpose behind this method is to prove that parabrahman is achintyam,

agrAhyam & it is astUla, anaNu & the best way of teaching this

unobjectifiable brahman is *nEti nEti* through AA.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

About the difference in our point of view about pUrNamidam, I notice

that you are very zealous and scrupulous to seize even tangential

opportunities to over-emphasize that advaita is being misinterpreted

here by quoting statements made by others out of context. Your reply

to Ramji is the latest example.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, it gives me great zeal whenever I see the *traditional* method of

teaching...Sri Ramchandra prabhuji's timely article from tattvalOka further

strengthened my conviction.

 

MN prabhuji:

>From my part, I have only repeatedly advocated the Truth that "There is

nothing in this Universe other than the Self".

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes prabhuji you are absolutely right.....there is no second entity

whatsoever apart from yEkamEva advitIya brahman. Identifying this

advitIyatva with the anAtma vastu with multifarious colouring of universe

is our ajnAna...

 

MN prabhuji:

 

...........I realize that any more discussion on this issue between us has

the danger of enhancing audience ennui, which has deleteriously crossed the

upper threshold

of their tolerance, and would, therefore, like to put an end to it.

 

bhaskar :

 

Being a moderator of this group prabhuji, you have every right to put a

*full stop* to this discussion...I dont have any problem prabhuji...

 

MN prabhuji:

 

I realize that the gap between us is indeed unbridgeable in our

present context and that you would only exhort me to read Sankara and

Gaudapada in original ? a task which I cannot undertake at my present

level without referring to interpretations by others, most of which

are sadly unacceptable to you.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, do I said anything wrong by asking you to study shankara's

original works under an able gUru?? We are the followers of shankara,

fortunately his works are still available with us...& it is our primary

duty to study his siddhAnta under a shrotrIya, brahmanishTa guru...kindly

correct me if I said anything wrong here

 

MN prabhuji:

 

I had taken a vow that I wouldn't post more than three or four mails

on AA. I have exhausted my quota. As I have made my points clear in

unambiguous terms, please treat this as my last one on the topic.

Let me devote myself to scaling the mountain than going around it.

Thanks again to Sunderji for the eye-opener.

 

bhaskar :

 

You are welcome to stick to your stand prabhuji...I respect it

wholeheartedly.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

In conclusion, I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

Needless to say, they have been quite educative and informative in

their own special way.

 

bhaskar :

 

kindly accept my heartfelt praNAms for your lucid insights on various

topics of advaita...I am one of the admirers of your writings...

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Is there two

> brahman para & apara?? shankara himself clears this doubt in the

4th

> adhyAya of the sUtra bhAshya ( dont know the exact reference) by

saying the

> apara brahman which is the form with attributes is *due to the

> conditioning adjunct of name & form created by avidyA*!!! >

bhaskar

 

Namaste Bhaskar prabhuji, Madathil Nairji and all

 

I am thoroughly enjoying this wonderful discussion on adhyAropa-

apavAda. I am now intervening only to give the reference to Brahma

Sutra Bhashya where Sankara dwells on this point of *adhyAropa* as

a means of teaching. Bhaskarji has rightly referred to this from

the fourth adhyaya of BS Bhashya. The passage that he refers to

occurs in the Bhashya of 4.3.14, almost at the end of the Bhashya

pertaining to that sutra. Since the original is very pertinent to

the discussion that is going on now I take the privilege of posting

that paragraph from the bhashya along with (my) translation.

 

tatra parApara-brahma-viveka-anavadhAraNena aparasmin brahmaNi

vartamAnA gati-shrutayaH parasmin–nadhyAropyante / kim dve brahmaNI

param-aparam ca iti / bADhaM dve *etad-vai satya-kAma param ca

aparaM ca brahma yadomkAraH* (prashna u. 5-2) ityAdi-darshanAt / kim

punaH paraM brahma kim aparaM iti / ucyate / yatra avidyA-kRta-nAma-

rUpAdi visheshha-pratishhedhAt asthUlAdi-shabdaiH brahma upadishyate

tat paraM / tad-eva yatra nAma-rUpAdi visheshheNa kenacit

vishishhTaM upAsanAya upadishyate *manomayaH prANa-sharIro bhArUpaH

* (ChhAndogya u. 3/14/2) ityAdi-shabdaiH tad-aparaM / nanu etad-

advitIya-shruti-ruparudhyeta / na / avidyA-kRta-nAma-rUpa-

upAdhikatayA parihRtatvAt //

 

Translation: Therein by the fact of not clearly distinguishing

between para-brahman and apara-brahman, the scriptural statements of

movement etc. attributed to apara-brahman are superimposed on the

para-brahman. Does it mean then that there are two brahmans, namely

*para* and *apara*? Certainly, yes. There are two. Because, * He

Satyakama! What is known as Omkara is itself both para-brahman and

apara-brahman* says Prashna Upanishad (5 -2). If it is

questioned `What exactly is para-brahman and what is apara-

brahman?', here is the answer. Wherever brahman is taught by words

such as *not material, not concrete* in order to negate the

attributes like name and form created by Ignorance, that is para-

brahman. And wherever that same brahman is taught, for the purpose

of worship, as if it has name and form, by the words such as *He

consists of mind, His body is life, His form is light* (Chandogya U.

3-14-2), that is apara-brahman.

OBJECTION: If that is so, then all the shruti that proclaims non-

duality, will be contradicted.

ANSWER: No. That fault is nullified by the fact that the name and

form are only adjuncts created by Ignorance.

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

This observation arises when he refutes the opponent's view that the

brahman attained by the so-called `path of gods' is the supreme para-

brahman. It cannot be so, says Sankara; what they attain is only

the apara-brahman. The para-brahman is all-pervading, the Inner Self

of all. Such a brahman cannot be `attained' for it is the Self of

every one. Journey (gatiH) or attainment is possible only when there

is difference, where the attainer is different from the thing

attained.

Sankara reverts to this topic from a different angle in his Gita

Bhashya on the verse 18-50 :

 

tasmAt avidyA-adhyAropaNa-nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na tu

brahma-jnAne yatnaH atyanta-prasiddhatvAt / avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-

visheshhAkAra-apahRta-buddhitvAt atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM

Asanna-taraM Atma-bhUtaM api aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-

iva ca pratibhAti avivekinAM /

 

Tr.: Therefore the effort should only be to discard the

superimposition of Ignorance on the Self; no effort is necessary

to `obtain' the enlightenment of brahman – because it is self-

evident. Though thus quite self-evident, easily knowable, quite near

and forming the very self, Brahman appears to the unenlightened, to

those whose understanding is carried away by the differentiasted

phenomena of names and forms created by ignorance, as unknown,

difficult to know, very remote, as though he were a separate thing.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

 

There is a general belief - if one goes to a court of law or

hospital, then one can't hope to get out. I am afraid similar is the

case with posting at Advaitin. I wanted to desist from posting on

AA. Here, I find that I have again been pulled in!

 

First of all, thank you for the quote from Sankara. I am sure

Bhaskarji will also thank you. So, let me beat him to making it to

the List first and point out that the quote only supports the view

that *adhyArOpasya* apavAda (not adhyArOpa apavAda)is a means of

teaching in order to 'discard the superimposition of ignorance on the

Self'. AdhyArOpa, created by ignorance, 'by not clearly

distinguishing between para-brahman and apara-brahman' already exists

everywhere across the world over-abundantly. There is, therefore, no

need to *deliberately* invent it before placing it on the dissection

table of apavAda. We have a choice to pick the ones we like.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

>I am now intervening only to give the reference to Brahma

> Sutra Bhashya where Sankara dwells on this point of *adhyAropa*

as

> a means of teaching. Bhaskarji has rightly referred to this from

> the fourth adhyaya of BS Bhashya. ...

........

> Translation: Therein by the fact of not clearly distinguishing

> between para-brahman and apara-brahman, the scriptural statements

of

> movement etc. attributed to apara-brahman are superimposed on the

> para-brahman. Does it mean then that there are two brahmans, namely

> *para* and *apara*? Certainly, yes. There are two. Because, * He

> Satyakama! What is known as Omkara is itself both para-brahman and

> apara-brahman* says Prashna Upanishad (5 -2). If it is

> questioned `What exactly is para-brahman and what is apara-

> brahman?', here is the answer. Wherever brahman is taught by words

> such as *not material, not concrete* in order to negate the

> attributes like name and form created by Ignorance, that is para-

> brahman. And wherever that same brahman is taught, for the purpose

> of worship, as if it has name and form, by the words such as *He

> consists of mind, His body is life, His form is light* (Chandogya

U.

> 3-14-2), that is apara-brahman.

> OBJECTION: If that is so, then all the shruti that proclaims non-

> duality, will be contradicted.

> ANSWER: No. That fault is nullified by the fact that the name and

> form are only adjuncts created by Ignorance.

> --------------------------------

.............

> Tr.: Therefore the effort should only be to discard the

> superimposition of Ignorance on the Self; no effort is necessary

> to `obtain' the enlightenment of brahman – because it is self-

> evident. Though thus quite self-evident, easily knowable, quite

near

> and forming the very self, Brahman appears to the unenlightened,

to

> those whose understanding is carried away by the differentiasted

> phenomena of names and forms created by ignorance, as unknown,

> difficult to know, very remote, as though he were a separate thing.

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Krishnamurthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly accept my heartfelt thanks for your sUtra & gIta bhAshya quotes. It

always gives me immence pleasure to study shankara bhAshya vAkyas

especially when we are discussing advaita siddhAnta *as taught* by shankara

bhagavadpAda. It is also sad to note that pUjya pAda's interpretations are

often twisted & turned shapelessly just to fit in the frame of our mere

*intellectual understanding* of advaita....We often forget to note that our

understanding of advaita siddhAnta should be derived from bhAshyakAra's

genuine works...instead of that we are simply searching our understanding

of advaita in shankara's works!!! what an uncanny way of understanding

shruti pratipAdita shankara siddhAnta!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

There is a general belief - if one goes to a court of law or

hospital, then one can't hope to get out. I am afraid similar is the

case with posting at Advaitin. I wanted to desist from posting on

AA. Here, I find that I have again been pulled in!

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks prabhuji...it also allows me to continue the discussion on AA for

which you had put *full stop* earlier by wearing the moderator's hat:-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

First of all, thank you for the quote from Sankara. I am sure

Bhaskarji will also thank you. So, let me beat him to making it to

the List first and point out that the quote only supports the view

that *adhyArOpasya* apavAda (not adhyArOpa apavAda)is a means of

teaching in order to 'discard the superimposition of ignorance on the

Self'.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji can you please clarify me *in which* form this superimposition of

ignorance is there on the *self*?? Is it mithyApratyaya rUpa?? is it bhAva

rUpa?? is this ignorance a positive entity?? shankara says it is nAma,

rUpa avidyAkruta anAtma vastu that has been superimposed on nirvikAri,

niravayava brahman...So he says sarvataH pAni pAdam is adhyArOpita (at the

risk of repeating the samething 'n'th time :-)) since pAni, pAdam etc. are

avidyAkruta upAdhi parichinna anAtma vastu...If you are still doubting

this, kindly see shankara's introduction to gIta verse 13-14 (it is just

one sentence)...AND apavAda is sarvEdriya vivarjita as the tattva of

parabrahman is unobjectifiable!! Prabhuji, kindly also see shankara

bhAshya on prashnOpanishad 6th prashna & second maNtra wherein shankara

specifically says *why* shruti adopting this peculiar method to teach

paramArTha tattva.

 

Moreover, if we take your perspective of AA i.e. adhyArOpasya apavAda

(anyway, one can hardly find *adhyArOpasya* apavAda words in shankara

bhAshya) it leads us to think that there is no need for mentioning the word

adhyArOpa or adyArOpasya, as this is natural & abundantly available around

us...so, there is no need of usage of words like adhyArOpasya either!!

without these words & padArtha, how do you do apavAda from what when

adhyArOpa itself is apavAda??

 

Further how do you interpret the following bhAshya vAkya samucchaya on

*apavAda* (quoted earlier in my main post) as per your *adhyArOpasya

apavAda* prakriya??...pls. clarify

 

" 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)

 

 

MN prabhuji:

 

AdhyArOpa, created by ignorance, 'by not clearly

distinguishing between para-brahman and apara-brahman' already exists

everywhere across the world over-abundantly.

 

bhaskar :

 

And shruti first teaches us this *abundantly* available vikAra nAma rUpa as

brahman as krishna did in gIta by saying sarvataH pANipAdam...But finally

discard it by saying tattva is devoid of any organs...& the ONLY pointer

which can show brahman is nEti nEti..is it not??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

There is, therefore, no need to *deliberately* invent it before placing it

on the dissection table of apavAda. We have a choice to pick the ones we

like.

 

bhaskar :

 

There is a need for shruti to do this *deliberate* superimposition on

brahman as it is dealing with conditioned minds of avidyA!! There is no

otherway to go for shruti-s but to deliberately impose features on absolute

featureless brahman. Please note shruti not inventing anything new

here...it is deliberately superimposing on brahman what is already

available abundantly just to drive home the point that brahman is

ultimately devoid of any limited adjuncts. This is the method used by

scriptures when they intend to take the jignAsu-s ( enquirer) from the

known empirical, abundantly available, natural world to the unknown

brahman. But after its purpose is served or after the dawn of ultimate

knowledge or when IT becomes known as it *really* is, the jnAni realises

that brahman is not an object (vishaya) at all & these nAma rUpAdhi

upAdhi-s are kEvala avidyAkruta. The best & only possible way of

*expressing* brahman is *silence*. (gurOstu mouna vyAkhyAnaM shishyAstu

chinna saMshayaH) Shankara also says the same thing in sUtra bhAshya (3rd

adhyAya?? by quoting the example of dialogues between bAShkali & bAdhva on

brahma tattva. Here teacher (bAdhva) imparting the knowledge of brahman

through silence which pupil (bAshkali) could not able to understand!!

...This is what is meant by all the negating texts such as *sa yEsha

nEtinEtyAtma* etc. Since shruti cannot keep silence, to convey the brahma

tattva it has to use words & its meaning which are in turn within the

sphere of avidyA, it says brahman is *not this not that*..

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste V. Krishnamurthy,

 

thank you for the informations and explanations of the scriptures....

your message is a good help

 

the Bhakti hearts can continue to Love the Selfs in others....

the Jnana hearts understand that the Self is not only Maya.....

 

....few words only....

 

Regards and love

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> > Is there two

> > brahman para & apara?? shankara himself clears this doubt in the

> 4th

> > adhyAya of the sUtra bhAshya ( dont know the exact reference) by

> saying the

> > apara brahman which is the form with attributes is *due to the

> > conditioning adjunct of name & form created by avidyA*!!! >

> bhaskar

>

> Namaste Bhaskar prabhuji, Madathil Nairji and all

>

> I am thoroughly enjoying this wonderful discussion on adhyAropa-

> apavAda. I am now intervening only to give the reference to

Brahma

> Sutra Bhashya where Sankara dwells on this point of *adhyAropa*

as

> a means of teaching. Bhaskarji has rightly referred to this from

> the fourth adhyaya of BS Bhashya. The passage that he refers to

> occurs in the Bhashya of 4.3.14, almost at the end of the Bhashya

> pertaining to that sutra. Since the original is very pertinent to

> the discussion that is going on now I take the privilege of posting

> that paragraph from the bhashya along with (my) translation.

>

> tatra parApara-brahma-viveka-anavadhAraNena aparasmin brahmaNi

> vartamAnA gati-shrutayaH parasmin–nadhyAropyante / kim dve

brahmaNI

> param-aparam ca iti / bADhaM dve *etad-vai satya-kAma param ca

> aparaM ca brahma yadomkAraH* (prashna u. 5-2) ityAdi-darshanAt /

kim

> punaH paraM brahma kim aparaM iti / ucyate / yatra avidyA-kRta-

nAma-

> rUpAdi visheshha-pratishhedhAt asthUlAdi-shabdaiH brahma

upadishyate

> tat paraM / tad-eva yatra nAma-rUpAdi visheshheNa kenacit

> vishishhTaM upAsanAya upadishyate *manomayaH prANa-sharIro bhArUpaH

> * (ChhAndogya u. 3/14/2) ityAdi-shabdaiH tad-aparaM / nanu etad-

> advitIya-shruti-ruparudhyeta / na / avidyA-kRta-nAma-rUpa-

> upAdhikatayA parihRtatvAt //

>

> Translation: Therein by the fact of not clearly distinguishing

> between para-brahman and apara-brahman, the scriptural statements

of

> movement etc. attributed to apara-brahman are superimposed on the

> para-brahman. Does it mean then that there are two brahmans, namely

> *para* and *apara*? Certainly, yes. There are two. Because, * He

> Satyakama! What is known as Omkara is itself both para-brahman and

> apara-brahman* says Prashna Upanishad (5 -2). If it is

> questioned `What exactly is para-brahman and what is apara-

> brahman?', here is the answer. Wherever brahman is taught by words

> such as *not material, not concrete* in order to negate the

> attributes like name and form created by Ignorance, that is para-

> brahman. And wherever that same brahman is taught, for the purpose

> of worship, as if it has name and form, by the words such as *He

> consists of mind, His body is life, His form is light* (Chandogya

U.

> 3-14-2), that is apara-brahman.

> OBJECTION: If that is so, then all the shruti that proclaims non-

> duality, will be contradicted.

> ANSWER: No. That fault is nullified by the fact that the name and

> form are only adjuncts created by Ignorance.

> --------------------------------

> This observation arises when he refutes the opponent's view that

the

> brahman attained by the so-called `path of gods' is the supreme

para-

> brahman. It cannot be so, says Sankara; what they attain is only

> the apara-brahman. The para-brahman is all-pervading, the Inner

Self

> of all. Such a brahman cannot be `attained' for it is the Self of

> every one. Journey (gatiH) or attainment is possible only when

there

> is difference, where the attainer is different from the thing

> attained.

> Sankara reverts to this topic from a different angle in his Gita

> Bhashya on the verse 18-50 :

>

> tasmAt avidyA-adhyAropaNa-nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na

tu

> brahma-jnAne yatnaH atyanta-prasiddhatvAt / avidyA-kalpita-nAma-

rUpa-

> visheshhAkAra-apahRta-buddhitvAt atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM

> Asanna-taraM Atma-bhUtaM api aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-

> iva ca pratibhAti avivekinAM /

>

> Tr.: Therefore the effort should only be to discard the

> superimposition of Ignorance on the Self; no effort is necessary

> to `obtain' the enlightenment of brahman – because it is self-

> evident. Though thus quite self-evident, easily knowable, quite

near

> and forming the very self, Brahman appears to the unenlightened,

to

> those whose understanding is carried away by the differentiasted

> phenomena of names and forms created by ignorance, as unknown,

> difficult to know, very remote, as though he were a separate thing.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk