Guest guest Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah TRACES OF THE TRADITION The name Upavarsha comes down to us through the mists of an ancient historical tradition. We know that Shankara calls upon the authority of Upavarsha to refute the sphota theory of the Grammarians. We also know that Upavarsha is the author of a commentary on the Brahma Sutras called the 'Sariraka-Mimamsa-vrtti'. But there is little else that we know about him. There is another ancient sage, Sundarapandya, who has written a commentary on this vrtti called the 'Varttika'. Sundarapandya speaks about adhyaropapavada in this Varttika. While trying to trace the historical background of Advaita in his book 'Bhamati and Vivarana schools of Advaita Vedanta', S.Roodurman writes: "He (Sundarapandya) believes that Absolute Knowledge is attainable only through the method of 'adhyaropa' and 'apavada'. (It is said in this context that the line, 'adhyaropapavadabhyam nisprapancam prapancyate', is verily from the above mentioned Varttika). Sundarapandya says that the characterless Brahman can be described by the method of superimposition and consequent sublation. The Absolute Knowledge is neither the process of superimposition nor that of negation. It is the dialectical relation of these two processes." It is obvious that the technique of adhyaropa apavada comes to us from an ancient tradition going back all the way to the Vedas. Already Bhaskarji has pointed out that it is mentioned in the Shruti. The method of adhyaropapavada seems to have existed also in Buddhism. According to Nagarjuna, "The Absolute cannot be preached without having recourse to empirical means such as thought and language, and without realising the Absolute, Nirvana cannot be attained. Having served its purpose, Samvrti itself gets dissolved ultimately in the Absolute, without residue. Samvrti contributes to the realisation of the Absolute by pointing to it negatively as the undeniable ground- reality of all phenomena. Samvrti or thought-forms cover the real and distort it by misrepresenting it as this world of plurality of subjects and objects, but Samvrti or thought itself can use words as symbols (Samvrti) or as ascribed marks and these can serve to indicate the Real indirectly as the ground on which phenomena are superimposed. This is known as the method of removal of superimposition (adhyaropapavadanyaya). There can be no other method of experiencing the Inexpressible." ADHYAROPA APAVADA IN GITA BHASHYA There is a specific context in which Shankara refers to 'adhyaropapavada' in the Gita bhashya. We must look at this method (of adhyaropa and apavada) from within this context to uncover its meaning because the meaning of a sentence - vakhyartha – is dependent on the context in which the it occurs. Let us therefore look at Gita Bhashya wherein Shankara mentions the method. The thirteenth discourse of the Bhagavad Gita begins with Lord Krishna telling Arjuna: "This, the body, O son of Kunti, is called Kshetra; Him who knows it is called Kshetrajna by the learned." (#1). Shankara explains that Brahman has two Prakritis – the higher and the lower, the Kshetrajna and the Kshetra. The Kshetrajna is Consciousness; it is devoid of all qualities, and is the higher (para) Prakriti. The Kshetra is composed of three gunas, is divided eightfold, and forms the inferior (apara) Prakriti. Later in the discourse, Lord Krishna says: "That which has to be known I shall describe, knowing which one attains the Immortal. Beginningless is the Supreme Brahman. It is not said to be 'sat' or 'asat'. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes and heads and mouths everywhere, with hearing everywhere, That exists enveloping all." (#12,13). Now with a view to clarifying that the variety consisting of hands and feet, etc., does not belong to the Kshetrajna (higher prakriti), Shankara explains that the Kshetrajna is devoid of all the variety caused by the upadhis. Shankara says: "All the variety caused in Kshetrajna by the variety of the upadhis of Kshetra is but illusory, and it has therefore been said – in the words 'It is not said to be sat or asat' – that It should be known as devoid of all variety." In other words, when the variety, which belongs to Kshetra, is attributed to Kshetrajna, it is illusory. (The mixing up of the attributes of one thing on another is viparya and is illusory. In the preamble of BSB, Shankara explains that superimposition is the mistaking of one thing as another). Kshetrajna, the higher Prakriti, is devoid of all attributions. It is not said to be 'sat' or 'asat' because existence is not predicated of it by its manifestation and non-manifestation as is commonly done of objects. Shankara says: "Still it is spoken of – in the words that 'It has hands and feet everywhere' – as though it were an attribute of the Knower only with a view to indicate Its Existence. Accordingly there is the saying of the sampradaya-vids – of those who know the right traditional method of teaching – which runs as follows: 'That which is devoid of all duality is described by adhyaropa and apavada' i.e., by attribution and denial. Hands, feet and the like, constituting the limbs of all bodies in all places, derive their activity from the Energy inherent in the Knower, and as such they are mere marks of Its Existence and are spoken of as belonging to It only by a figure of speech." It is clear that adhyaropa apavada points to the higher prakriti of Brahman as devoid of the variety of attributes. Now what about the lower prakriti? The Lord says: "Shining by the functions of all the senses, (yet) without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities." (#15). Shankara says: "Because It is devoid of the senses therefore It is unattached, devoid of all attachments. Though it is so, yet It supports all. Indeed everything is based on 'sat', the Existent; for everywhere the idea of 'sat' is present. Not even the mirage and the like exist without a basis." The higher prakriti has earlier been pointed out by separating the lower prakriti from It. Now that same lower prakriti is being grounded in the higher prakriti by saying that all forms, everything whatsoever, including even the mirage and the like, is based on 'sat' Itself. That 'sat' is of course the higher prakriti. And then: The Lord says in Shloka 16: "Without and within (all) beings; the unmoving and the moving. Because subtle, That is incomprehensible; and near and far away is That." Shankara says: "Wherefore, on account of its subtlety, It is incomprehensible to the unenlightened, though knowable in Itself. It is, however, always known to the enlightened, as revealed in the following texts: 'All this is the Self and the Self alone.' (Br.2.4.6). 'All this is Brahman and Brahman alone' (Br.2.5.1). "It is far away when unknown; for It is unattainable by the unenlightened even in millions of years. And to the enlightened, It is very near, because It is their own Self." If we follow the sequence of Shankara's commentary from shloka 12 to shloka 16, we find that Shankara first negates the variety of the Kshetra as pertaining to the Kshetrajna. Then he grounds the Kshetra in the Kshetrajna. And finally he proclaims that it is Kshetrajna Itself. Now here is a riddle. The method that denies all attributions to the higher prakriti leads to enlightenment wherein 'all this' is Brahman! The denial of all attributions to the Higher Prakriti of Brahman by 'neti, neti' leads to the mystery that Brahman is All. How can that which is not something be that something which it is not? How can Brahman that is not this world be this world which It is not? Neither can it be said (somehow) that this is a vyavaharika standpoint because Shankara says explicitly that it is the enlightened that know 'All this is the Self'. What the enlightened know is assuredly the Truth (Paramartha). The mystery has to be approached with the heart and not with the intellect. Why? Because adhyaropa apavada is the dialectic beyond dialectic. It is a device to step out of the threshold of logic into the doors of the mystical. It is an 'upaya' to frustrate the intellections of the mind and Awaken to the higher prakriti of Brahman that is at once also the lower prakriti. THE NATURE OF BRAHMAN AND THE LIMITS OF LOGIC The world's identity with Brahman is established by shruti (ex. Chandogya). Advaita logically grounds this identity through the dialectic of affirmation and negation - the affirmation of (the truth of) the world's identity with Brahman, and the negation of (the falsity of) its otherness arising from speech. The world therefore exists in identity with Brahman. Now, the affirmation of the world's identity with Brahman leads to a logical problem. How so? There are two types of identities in logic. The first is absolute identity. It is the sameness of a thing represented by 'A = A'. The second is the identity of the attribute with the substance. It appears in language as the subject-predicate form 'A is b', as in the statement 'the apple is red'. The second type of identity is the identity between Brahman and the world as found in Vishishtadvaita (and the philosophy of Spinoza). It is the identity of the description of a thing with the thing it describes. The way a thing exists (its attribution) is not different from the existing thing. The whiteness of milk is not different than the milk. Advaita says that the identity of the world with Brahman is not of the first kind because Brahman is conscious and the world is inert (hence it is not an 'A = A' kind of identity). Advaita says that the identity of the world with Brahman is not also of the second kind because the world is not a descriptive attribute of Brahman. (It is not 'A is b'). Brahman is Pure Knowledge and pure knowledge has no attribute or form. What then is the nature of the identity between Brahman and the world? Somehow the world exists in identity with Brahman and yet it cannot be said to inhere in Brahman because the word 'inhere' implies the relationship of inherence and that would lead to a regress ad- infinitum. The world is not different from Brahman, and at the same time, its identity with Brahman cannot be logically articulated. Therefore, it is 'anirvacaniya' - epistemologically indeterminate. Why can't the identity of the world with Brahman be logically articulated? It can't be logically articulated because logic is rooted in language, and can only speak about language-based identities. Logic, or nyayashastra, is nothing but the study of word-objects (pada- arthas). Even the English word 'logic' comes from the Greek 'logos', which means 'word'. Logic is thus rooted in language. But the identity of the world with Brahman is not language-based. Paradoxically, its seeming difference from Brahman is language-based. The identity that is to be articulated has already been ravished by the 'difference' that language itself has generated. Therefore, there is no linguistic (logical) device that can convey the nature of this identity. Therefore Advaita points to the mystical Oneness of the world with Brahman through the dialectical device of adhyaropa apavada. ADHYAROPA APAVADA – THE DIALECTIC BEYOND RATIO Adyaropa apavada is the method of deliberate attribution and subsequent rescission of the attribution. What is meant by deliberate attribution? Deliberate attribution is the deliberate articulation of the world's identity with Brahman through a relationship. What is meant by apavada? Apavada is the denying of all such attributed relations through 'neti, neti'. What is it that is achieved by adhyaropa apavada? All conceivable relationships are posited and negated in adhyaropa apavada to reveal the mystical nature of the Oneness of Brahman. That Oneness is Brahman in which all relationships are denied to reveal the mystery of Brahman that is All. Brahman is All that is denied to Wake Up. Adhyaropa apavada is a deliberate artifice to frustrate the intellect in its logical distinctions, and to lead beyond logical categories to the Heart of Oneness. The intellect has reached the end of the road. Now the Self 'curves back' on the Self by leaving the sheath of intellect (vijnanamayakosha) behind to reveal the Blissful Self. Essentially the same problem is discussed in BSB (II.I.9.26 & 27) wherein it is denied that there would be wholesale transformation of Brahman during creation. Shankara says that when the Upanishads speak about creation as well as non-trasformation, it has to be accepted based 'on the authority of the Upanishadic texts'. And again he says: "So what need has one to argue that the nature of Brahman, whose power is beyond all thought, cannot be ascertained unless it be through the Vedas? So also it has been said by an author of the Purana, 'Do not bring those things within the range of argumentation which are beyond thought. The nature of a thing beyond thought consists in its being other than the things within Nature'. Hence a supersensuous thing is truly known from the Vedic source alone." But the mind seeks to know that which is beyond the mind! Reason can only lead to the junction beyond which lies the Great Abyss. When one leaps into the Abyss, there is Light. It is the leap of Surrender into the Light of Knowledge. That Light is beyond the threshold of logic. It is the Winesong of Eternity. Om Shanti Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Namaste Chittaranjan Naik, thank you for the interesting introduction and explanations about "Adhyaropa Apavada ". one need to "wake up" one day...to understand whole Mystery... the moving mind is moving in relation to the non-moving Oneness "something in move...can only be in move in relation to something not moving...." (i remember this words from Vivekananda) so....move and non-move are related kind of....(at least in the conception of a human brain) in the Awareness of Being.....there is neither move nor non-move it's just the consciousness of every possible "way to Be"....without choosing one of them (by the intellect)..... to enjoy the existence of detachment from any directions and ways....... a moving mind can "discuss" about Brahman.... a non moving mind can "meditatein" Brahman.... a realised person maybe ....just Is aware of everything.....without attachment to anything.......(or with attachment to everything, which he/she realised...means to everything. i beleive the Self is it....which let a realised person Be....what the real Nature of him/her is. once a deep emotion flowed through me when i heard first time about an existence of Self.....when i read about the Self.....that we need to "realise"..... the Self is it which let us know....that whole Mysteries of life are of our own Being. thank you again for your message Regards and love Marc advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah > > > TRACES OF THE TRADITION > > The name Upavarsha comes down to us through the mists of an ancient > historical tradition. We know that Shankara calls upon the authority > of Upavarsha to refute the sphota theory of the Grammarians. We also > know that Upavarsha is the author of a commentary on the Brahma > Sutras called the 'Sariraka-Mimamsa-vrtti'. But there is little else > that we know about him. There is another ancient sage, Sundarapandya, > who has written a commentary on this vrtti called the 'Varttika'. > Sundarapandya speaks about adhyaropapavada in this Varttika. > > While trying to trace the historical background of Advaita in his > book 'Bhamati and Vivarana schools of Advaita Vedanta', S.Roodurman > writes: "He (Sundarapandya) believes that Absolute Knowledge is > attainable only through the method of 'adhyaropa' and 'apavada'. (It > is said in this context that the line, 'adhyaropapavadabhyam > nisprapancam prapancyate', is verily from the above mentioned > Varttika). Sundarapandya says that the characterless Brahman can be > described by the method of superimposition and consequent sublation. > The Absolute Knowledge is neither the process of superimposition nor > that of negation. It is the dialectical relation of these two > processes." > > It is obvious that the technique of adhyaropa apavada comes to us > from an ancient tradition going back all the way to the Vedas. > Already Bhaskarji has pointed out that it is mentioned in the Shruti. > > The method of adhyaropapavada seems to have existed also in Buddhism. > According to Nagarjuna, "The Absolute cannot be preached without > having recourse to empirical means such as thought and language, and > without realising the Absolute, Nirvana cannot be attained. Having > served its purpose, Samvrti itself gets dissolved ultimately in the > Absolute, without residue. Samvrti contributes to the realisation of > the Absolute by pointing to it negatively as the undeniable ground- > reality of all phenomena. Samvrti or thought-forms cover the real and > distort it by misrepresenting it as this world of plurality of > subjects and objects, but Samvrti or thought itself can use words as > symbols (Samvrti) or as ascribed marks and these can serve to > indicate the Real indirectly as the ground on which phenomena are > superimposed. This is known as the method of removal of > superimposition (adhyaropapavadanyaya). There can be no other method > of experiencing the Inexpressible." > > > ADHYAROPA APAVADA IN GITA BHASHYA > > There is a specific context in which Shankara refers > to 'adhyaropapavada' in the Gita bhashya. We must look at this > method (of adhyaropa and apavada) from within this context to uncover > its meaning because the meaning of a sentence - vakhyartha – is > dependent on the context in which the it occurs. Let us therefore > look at Gita Bhashya wherein Shankara mentions the method. > > The thirteenth discourse of the Bhagavad Gita begins with Lord > Krishna telling Arjuna: > > "This, the body, O son of Kunti, is called Kshetra; Him who knows it > is called Kshetrajna by the learned." (#1). > > > Shankara explains that Brahman has two Prakritis – the higher and the > lower, the Kshetrajna and the Kshetra. The Kshetrajna is > Consciousness; it is devoid of all qualities, and is the higher > (para) Prakriti. The Kshetra is composed of three gunas, is divided > eightfold, and forms the inferior (apara) Prakriti. > > Later in the discourse, Lord Krishna says: > > "That which has to be known I shall describe, knowing which one > attains the Immortal. Beginningless is the Supreme Brahman. It is not > said to be 'sat' or 'asat'. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes > and heads and mouths everywhere, with hearing everywhere, That exists > enveloping all." (#12,13). > > > Now with a view to clarifying that the variety consisting of hands > and feet, etc., does not belong to the Kshetrajna (higher prakriti), > Shankara explains that the Kshetrajna is devoid of all the variety > caused by the upadhis. Shankara says: > > "All the variety caused in Kshetrajna by the variety of the upadhis > of Kshetra is but illusory, and it has therefore been said – in the > words 'It is not said to be sat or asat' – that It should be known as > devoid of all variety." > > In other words, when the variety, which belongs to Kshetra, is > attributed to Kshetrajna, it is illusory. (The mixing up of the > attributes of one thing on another is viparya and is illusory. In the > preamble of BSB, Shankara explains that superimposition is the > mistaking of one thing as another). Kshetrajna, the higher Prakriti, > is devoid of all attributions. It is not said to be 'sat' or 'asat' > because existence is not predicated of it by its manifestation and > non-manifestation as is commonly done of objects. Shankara says: > > "Still it is spoken of – in the words that 'It has hands and feet > everywhere' – as though it were an attribute of the Knower only with > a view to indicate Its Existence. Accordingly there is the saying of > the sampradaya-vids – of those who know the right traditional method > of teaching – which runs as follows: 'That which is devoid of all > duality is described by adhyaropa and apavada' i.e., by attribution > and denial. Hands, feet and the like, constituting the limbs of all > bodies in all places, derive their activity from the Energy inherent > in the Knower, and as such they are mere marks of Its Existence and > are spoken of as belonging to It only by a figure of speech." > > It is clear that adhyaropa apavada points to the higher prakriti of > Brahman as devoid of the variety of attributes. Now what about the > lower prakriti? The Lord says: > > "Shining by the functions of all the senses, (yet) without the > senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities." (#15). > > Shankara says: "Because It is devoid of the senses therefore It is > unattached, devoid of all attachments. Though it is so, yet It > supports all. Indeed everything is based on 'sat', the Existent; for > everywhere the idea of 'sat' is present. Not even the mirage and the > like exist without a basis." > > The higher prakriti has earlier been pointed out by separating the > lower prakriti from It. Now that same lower prakriti is being > grounded in the higher prakriti by saying that all forms, everything > whatsoever, including even the mirage and the like, is based on 'sat' > Itself. That 'sat' is of course the higher prakriti. And then: > > > The Lord says in Shloka 16: "Without and within (all) beings; the > unmoving and the moving. Because subtle, That is incomprehensible; > and near and far away is That." > > > Shankara says: "Wherefore, on account of its subtlety, It is > incomprehensible to the unenlightened, though knowable in Itself. It > is, however, always known to the enlightened, as revealed in the > following texts: > > 'All this is the Self and the Self alone.' (Br.2.4.6). > 'All this is Brahman and Brahman alone' (Br.2.5.1). > > "It is far away when unknown; for It is unattainable by the > unenlightened even in millions of years. And to the enlightened, It > is very near, because It is their own Self." > > If we follow the sequence of Shankara's commentary from shloka 12 to > shloka 16, we find that Shankara first negates the variety of the > Kshetra as pertaining to the Kshetrajna. Then he grounds the Kshetra > in the Kshetrajna. And finally he proclaims that it is Kshetrajna > Itself. > > Now here is a riddle. The method that denies all attributions to the > higher prakriti leads to enlightenment wherein 'all this' is Brahman! > > The denial of all attributions to the Higher Prakriti of Brahman > by 'neti, neti' leads to the mystery that Brahman is All. How can > that which is not something be that something which it is not? How > can Brahman that is not this world be this world which It is not? > > Neither can it be said (somehow) that this is a vyavaharika > standpoint because Shankara says explicitly that it is the > enlightened that know 'All this is the Self'. What the enlightened > know is assuredly the Truth (Paramartha). The mystery has to be > approached with the heart and not with the intellect. > > Why? > > Because adhyaropa apavada is the dialectic beyond dialectic. It is a > device to step out of the threshold of logic into the doors of the > mystical. It is an 'upaya' to frustrate the intellections of the mind > and Awaken to the higher prakriti of Brahman that is at once also the > lower prakriti. > > > THE NATURE OF BRAHMAN AND THE LIMITS OF LOGIC > > The world's identity with Brahman is established by shruti (ex. > Chandogya). Advaita logically grounds this identity through the > dialectic of affirmation and negation - the affirmation of (the truth > of) the world's identity with Brahman, and the negation of (the > falsity of) its otherness arising from speech. The world therefore > exists in identity with Brahman. > > Now, the affirmation of the world's identity with Brahman leads to a > logical problem. How so? > > There are two types of identities in logic. > > The first is absolute identity. It is the sameness of a thing > represented by 'A = A'. > > The second is the identity of the attribute with the substance. It > appears in language as the subject-predicate form 'A is b', as in the > statement 'the apple is red'. > > The second type of identity is the identity between Brahman and the > world as found in Vishishtadvaita (and the philosophy of Spinoza). It > is the identity of the description of a thing with the thing it > describes. The way a thing exists (its attribution) is not different > from the existing thing. The whiteness of milk is not different than > the milk. > > Advaita says that the identity of the world with Brahman is not of > the first kind because Brahman is conscious and the world is inert > (hence it is not an 'A = A' kind of identity). > > Advaita says that the identity of the world with Brahman is not also > of the second kind because the world is not a descriptive attribute > of Brahman. (It is not 'A is b'). Brahman is Pure Knowledge and pure > knowledge has no attribute or form. > > What then is the nature of the identity between Brahman and the world? > > Somehow the world exists in identity with Brahman and yet it cannot > be said to inhere in Brahman because the word 'inhere' implies the > relationship of inherence and that would lead to a regress ad- > infinitum. The world is not different from Brahman, and at the same > time, its identity with Brahman cannot be logically articulated. > Therefore, it is 'anirvacaniya' - epistemologically indeterminate. > > Why can't the identity of the world with Brahman be logically > articulated? > > It can't be logically articulated because logic is rooted in > language, and can only speak about language-based identities. Logic, > or nyayashastra, is nothing but the study of word-objects (pada- > arthas). Even the English word 'logic' comes from the Greek 'logos', > which means 'word'. Logic is thus rooted in language. > > But the identity of the world with Brahman is not language-based. > Paradoxically, its seeming difference from Brahman is language- based. > The identity that is to be articulated has already been ravished by > the 'difference' that language itself has generated. Therefore, there > is no linguistic (logical) device that can convey the nature of this > identity. Therefore Advaita points to the mystical Oneness of the > world with Brahman through the dialectical device of adhyaropa > apavada. > > > ADHYAROPA APAVADA – THE DIALECTIC BEYOND RATIO > > Adyaropa apavada is the method of deliberate attribution and > subsequent rescission of the attribution. > > What is meant by deliberate attribution? > > Deliberate attribution is the deliberate articulation of the world's > identity with Brahman through a relationship. > > What is meant by apavada? > > Apavada is the denying of all such attributed relations > through 'neti, neti'. > > What is it that is achieved by adhyaropa apavada? > > All conceivable relationships are posited and negated in adhyaropa > apavada to reveal the mystical nature of the Oneness of Brahman. That > Oneness is Brahman in which all relationships are denied to reveal > the mystery of Brahman that is All. > > Brahman is All that is denied to Wake Up. > > Adhyaropa apavada is a deliberate artifice to frustrate the intellect > in its logical distinctions, and to lead beyond logical categories to > the Heart of Oneness. The intellect has reached the end of the road. > Now the Self 'curves back' on the Self by leaving the sheath of > intellect (vijnanamayakosha) behind to reveal the Blissful Self. > > Essentially the same problem is discussed in BSB (II.I.9.26 & 27) > wherein it is denied that there would be wholesale transformation of > Brahman during creation. Shankara says that when the Upanishads speak > about creation as well as non-trasformation, it has to be accepted > based 'on the authority of the Upanishadic texts'. And again he > says: "So what need has one to argue that the nature of Brahman, > whose power is beyond all thought, cannot be ascertained unless it be > through the Vedas? So also it has been said by an author of the > Purana, 'Do not bring those things within the range of argumentation > which are beyond thought. The nature of a thing beyond thought > consists in its being other than the things within Nature'. Hence a > supersensuous thing is truly known from the Vedic source alone." > > > But the mind seeks to know that which is beyond the mind! Reason can > only lead to the junction beyond which lies the Great Abyss. When one > leaps into the Abyss, there is Light. It is the leap of Surrender > into the Light of Knowledge. That Light is beyond the threshold of > logic. It is the Winesong of Eternity. > > > Om Shanti > > > Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.