Adhyaropa – Apavaada or the Method of Deliberate Superimposition and Negation.

[Guest guest]

Srigurubhyo NamaH

 

Adhyaropa – Apavaada  or the Method of Deliberate Superimposition and

Negation.

 

In the Vedanta, even though the Supreme Purport is in Advaita, we do

encounter passages declaring creation implying the duality of a

created world (and jivas) and the Creator Brahman.  This suggests a

cause-effect relationship between Brahman and the world.  One can

appreciate this seeming contradiction, that is, the declaration of

Advaita on the one hand and the presence of creation passages on the

other, by understanding the principle of Adhyaropa – Apavaada or the

Method of Deliberate Superimposition and Negation.

 

Just with a view to make my own understanding of the principle clear,

a note is presented here.  The source of this idea is the explanation

of the principle by Swami Paramarthanandaji in the course of his

Mandukya karika discourse.

 

The example of a pot is considered for the purpose of understanding

the principle.  I have a 'pot' vision.  The teacher wants to change

this vision of mine as he wants me to have the correct vision, that

of the clay.  This is accomplished in FOUR stages:

 

Stage 1. The pot is presented as the effect of clay. 

Stage 2.  Clay is presented as the cause of the pot.

Stage 3.  Now, the teacher asks me to find out if I can see the pot

without the clay.  I look at the pot on all sides and conclude that

everywhere it is clay alone.  It is not available as different from

clay, its cause.  The conclusion: the effect is non-different from

the cause.

Stage 4.  This much is not enough, for the concept of cause and

effect does exist.  Now the teacher states that since it was

concluded that the effect does not exist apart from the cause, it

would be correct to hold that the cause alone really exists.  But

this still limits the cause as a cause.  The vision born of wisdom

is: There is no longer any need to call the clay as the cause.  As

clay alone matters in that wise vision, it would be appropriate to

divest the clay of its status of a cause.  Thus, divested of this

status, clay remains as the one that transcends the cause-effect

duality.

 

The first two stages are the 'adhyaropa' stages where the 'effect'-

hood of the pot and the 'cause'-hood of the clay were superimposed

deliberately.  This is done in order to afford the foundation for

finally negating them and driving home the non-dual nature.

 

The latter two stages constitute the 'apavada' stages where the

supposed effect-hood of the pot is negated and even its

substantiality is shown to be only in the clay.  The pot is shown to

be insubstantial as apart from its substance, the clay.  Next, and

finally, even the causehood of the clay is negated, for when the

effect-hood is admitted to be of no consequence, to accord  the cause-

status to the clay is meaningless.  The clay can exist without that

definition as the cause. 

 

The creation passages of the Sruti are there to show that the

universe has to be admitted as the effect of a superior principle,

Brahman.  And Brahman is to be known as the cause of the entire

universe and looked upon as such.  This stage is essential in the

teaching methodology to draw the attention of a totally ignorant

person and fix his attention on this relationship. This is essential

to prepare the ground, in other words, the cultivating of the mental

make up of the aspirant by applying suitable sadhanas of karma yoga

and Upasana, meditation of the Supreme with attributes.  The concept

of Iswara is upheld and the aspirant is taught to relate himself to

Iswara.  A deliberate cultivation of duality is taken up here.  So

far is the method of 'adhyaropa', deliberate superimposition by the

Veda.  Once this is achieved, the teaching now takes on a different

phase.  The stage is set for the Advaita Upadesha.  The Sruti

passages appropriately show that the world is non different from

Brahman (Vacharambhana Sruti of the Chandogya, for example).  This

step culminates in the appreciating of the Absolute Advaitic nature

of Brahman, Shantam, Shivam, Advaitam, as the Turiya is taught in the

Mandukyopanishad.  This is the 'apavada' or the negation of what was

superimposed deliberately earlier.

 

Once this is also done, the Sruti having accomplished its Supreme

Purpose of enlightening the jiva, goes into 'silent mode'.  There is

no more anything to instruct. There is no more anything for such a

realised soul to know.  So he too goes into 'silent mode'.  He has

attained to a state of a 'non persona'. 

 

Om Tat Sat

Pranams to all.

subbu   

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji.

 

Your post 31604 refers.

 

I can't resist repeating the following which I had mentioned when

AdhyAropa - ApavAda  (AA) was discussed here some time back.

 

1.  From where are we getting the meaning of 'deliberate

superimpostion' for AdhyAropa? The dictionary says the word only

means  a wrong attribution or erroneous transferring of a statement

from one thing to another.   An error cannot be deliberate.

 

2.  I can't see any deliberate superimposition in either "Pot is the

effect of clay" or "Clay is the cause of the pot".  They are just two

ways of mentioning the same fact.  A fact is a given.  There is no

need to deliberately invent facts.  Of course, there may be a need to

call attention to them in certain contexts or circumstances.

 

3.  Even cultures which are totally unaware of this vedantic AA

acknowledge the existence of  a Supreme Creator.  This has happened

quite naturally and not due to any deliberate need or efforts.

 

4.  The only difference is that the Vedantin goes further ahead of

them and does an apavAda on this Supreme Cause to conclude that the

Cause is Absolute and Advaitic.

 

5.  That is AA as per many Vedantic texts.  Yes, you are right.  The

whole Mandukya concludes in Advaita.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji.

>

> Your post 31604 refers.

>

> I can't resist repeating the following which I had mentioned when

> AdhyAropa - ApavAda  (AA) was discussed here some time back.

>

Namaste Madathil ji,

 

Questions are welcome inasmuch as they help clearer understanding of

concepts.  Let me provide some responses within  

> 1.  From where are we getting the meaning of 'deliberate

> superimpostion' for AdhyAropa? The dictionary says the word only

> means  a wrong attribution or erroneous transferring of a statement

> from one thing to another.   An error cannot be deliberate.

>

 

[You are right; the dictionary says only the above.  But we have our

Acharya's words: Quote: tathA hi sampradAyavidAm vachanam 'adhyAOpa-

apavAdAbhyAm niShprapancham prapanchyate' iti.' = 'Accordingly there

is the saying of the sampradaayavids - 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 superimposition and negation, by attribution and denial.'Bhashya

on the Bhagavadgita Chapter 13 verse 13 (tr. by Alladi

M.Sastry).unquote. The earlier sentence of the Bhashya in English

is: 'Though what is caused (in Kshetrajna) by upadhis is illusory,

still it is spoke of - in the words that 'It has hands and feet

everywhere'- as though it were an attribute of the Knowable, only

with a view to indicate Its existence.' unquote.

 

Thus, we have in the context of the 13th chapter, a situation that

adopts this method of superimposing attributes to the Absolute only

with a view to help us grasp It.

So we have our Acharya's words, Himself quoting the sampradaya that

existed even before Him.  Thus, in the sampradaya, this word is also

used in this sense.

 

 

That such a method is used in our daily lives needs no special

mention.  We can think of several instances. 

 

When someone unfamiliar with the Indian subcontinent wants to visit

say, Shankara Mutt in Bangalore.  He has a good map.  He first

locates India written in very bold letters and searches for Bangalore

in somewhat smaller print and then locates Shankar Mutt in very fine

print.  Now, once he has located his object, the other details are no

longer relevant for him.  Yet, to locate that particular place, he

had to be shown the other, unconnected, 'attributes' in larger

print.  This is an example of adhyaropa on the part of the one who

guides this man to locate the place on the map.

 

In religious practice this method is very commonly used.  The famous

shastraic example is: 'sAligraame ViShNubuddhiH'.  The saaligrama is

a stone said to be available in the GaNDaki riverbed, Nepal.  The

person who retrieves them and sells might consider them as just

merchandise.  But the one who buys it for puja

purposes, 'superimposes' Vishnu in it and worships it with the

feeling, 'Lord Vishnu is in this.'  In fact he offers abhishekam,

neivedyam and namaskaram to it with the faith that he is doing all

this to Vishnu Himself.  He even addresses it and prays for solutions

for problems.  This example is given by Acharya in his bhashya.

 

An example for adhyaropa and apavada: In the olden days, my Mother

used to perform a MAriamman Puja during the Tamil month of ADi.  ON a

friday,  the 'ammi kozhavi' (pestle) is devoutly bathed and decorated

with turmeric and vermillion (manchal kumkumam).  Even eyes are drawn

on the vertical stone and a 'paavaaDai' is draped around it. 

Particular red flowers and bunches of neem are placed and a worship

is conducted with 'pacchai maavu' ( a delicious  paste of jaggery and

raw rice flour)as neivedyam.  My sisters would carry small lumps of

this sweet dish for distrubtion among relatives in the

neighbourhood.  On that day, the pestle acquires a Divine Mother

status (adhyaropa).  The next day it is back doing its job of

grinding (apavaada).

 

Then, while commencing the making of the pre-fried murukku, a tiny

lump is first made in the shape of a cone and vermillion applied. 

This is the Pillaiyar to take care of the successful completion of

the Murukku affair.  At the end, even this Pillaiyar is either fried

or immersed in water.  So, adhyaropa of Pillaiyar in the dough and

its apavada are very much a practice in households.

 

In regular homams also, a Manjal Pillaiyar is made and all the puja

is offered to it.  AT the end, the Pillaiyar is dissolved in water

and preserved for the Sumangalis of the house to use the yellow water

for bathing the next day.

I have heard it said that in Physics and Mathematics this method is

employed in order to teach a subtle concept.  Since i am not versed

in those subjects, i am not quoting instances. 

 

Then there is the example of the 'sthUla arundhati nyaya'.  arundhati

is a star not easily visible.  To show it to a person, an expert

first points to some other stars that are brightly visible and slowly

guides the pupil to the real arundhati.

 

These are all examples for the use of this method. ]             

   

> 2.  I can't see any deliberate superimposition in either "Pot is

the

> effect of clay" or "Clay is the cause of the pot".  They are just

two

> ways of mentioning the same fact.  A fact is a given.  There is no

> need to deliberately invent facts.  Of course, there may be a need

to

> call attention to them in certain contexts or circumstances.

 

[Madathilji, let me tell you one more personal fact.  It was in my

twentyfifth year or so that i first sat in a Vedanta class.  Till

then i had not read even one book on Vedanta.  I did not know that

there was such a thing called Moksha till a few days before i started

attending the classes.  When concepts like cause-effect in clay-pot

and gold-ornaments were being taught, it was for the first time that

my attention was drawn to this concept.  For days i revelled in the

feeling of having secured a great nidhi, a fortune, in knowing those

concepts.  Before that, umpteen times i had visited the jeweller with

my Mother and others.  I had myself handled ornaments on several

occasions.  Yet, not once had the thought that there exists such a

kArya-kAraNa bhava had even remotely crossed my mind.  I said all

this just to point out that even the mere mention of the concept of

an effect and something as its cause, in my case at least, had to be

an instruction.  There are 'manda matis' like me who require even

such things to be told.

 

Now, the avowed objective of mentioning something as an effect and

something else is its cause is to ultimately show that there is no

such concept as cause-effect at all in the  final considered view. 

It is just an unenquired-into misconception.  Now,in the process of

establishing this final view,  as the first step, the shastram 

alludes to the 'avichArita drishTi' that is held in common parlance. 

This alluding on the part  of the shastra is called 'laukika drishTim

abhyupagamya..', and is the deliberate adhyaropa undertaken by the

shastram.  If this 'erroneous' view is not highlighted, the value of

the final view where this stands negated will not be appreciated. 

Hence the need to follow step 1 first and go further.  And there will

be misconceptions regarding the causehood too.  The material cause

and the intelligent cause have to be separately specified and this is

the purpose of step 2.  Thus, on the face of it, the first two steps

will appear superfluous. 

 

As an aside point, let me mention something amusing.  Swami

Paramarthanandaji once mentioned that in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

there is a very long discussion just on the origin of the pot.  It is

known as 'ghaTabhAshyam'!]    

>

> 3.  Even cultures which are totally unaware of this vedantic AA

> acknowledge the existence of  a Supreme Creator.  This has happened

> quite naturally and not due to any deliberate need or efforts.

>

[There is not much surprise in doing that.  Swami Dayananda, it

seems, would say, that all such schools are 'Tourism promoters'. 

For, they all say that a person on liberation will go this loka or

the other.]

> 4.  The only difference is that the Vedantin goes further ahead of

> them and does an apavAda on this Supreme Cause to conclude that the

> Cause is Absolute and Advaitic.

 

[That this apavada presupposes an adhyaropa is explained by the above

clarifications that are given.  In His bhashya for the Gita 9th

chapter 5th verse, the Acharya says: vibhajya dehAdisanghAtam

tasminnahankAram adhyaaropya lokabuddhimanusaran vyapadishati

(Bhagavan) mamaatmeti. = Separating from the Real Self the aggregate

of the physical and other material environments, and regarding that

aggregate as the 'I', the Lord speaks of the SElf as 'My Self' - so

far folowing only the popular conception; not certainly He believes,

as the masses ignorantly believe, that the Atman, the Self, is

distinct from Himself. unquote.

 

Thus we have here, in the Acharya's words, that Bhagavan adopts this

method of adhyaropa, alluding to the ignorant view of the masses.] 

 

>

> 5.  That is AA as per many Vedantic texts.  Yes, you are right. 

The

> whole Mandukya concludes in Advaita.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

PraNAms Madathil ji,

subbu

[Guest guest]

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:    

 

 

 

 

Dear sir,

                 I should be inclined to think in the following way apropos your exposition on the method of deliberate superimposition and subsequent negation. The ideas of the reality of the universe as an emanation from a source, and further the universe being not different from the source, belong only to the stage of intellectual analysis, intellectually negating the objective universe as an entity existing in its own right. This is only an one-pointed idea, meant for eschewing the ideas of the non-self. But this also being found to be a sort of conceptualization engaging the mind in the place of erstwhile worldly cogitatons, is fit to be abandoned in quest of the one who is raising such questions, which is self-enquiry. This perhaps constitutes the denial of even the concept of causality, which is applicable only to the phenomenal transactions. Ultimately, in the light of self-enquiry even this type of analysis is a detour, one having only to trace one's source, being

well aware that only after the arising of the individual I, all these cogitations arise. This I have understood from the teachings of Bhaghavan Ramana.

  

  with warm regards

  

  yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

  Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

Everyone is raving about the  all-new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji.

 

Your post 31615 refers.

 

Thanks for the detailed clarifications.  I am a little late due to

several other personal preoccupations and preparations for a holiday.

 

Actually, I was planning to write out a long post.  In order to put

my thoughts together, I just referred to my old post on the topic (#

25656 dated 4th January 2005) and found that all that I wanted to

tell you were already there in that message.  Grateful if you can

kindly read it.

 

You will see that, in that post, I had also referred to the import of

AA in mathematics to show that AA is not anything unique to just

vedanta as was made out to be.

 

Thanks for Shri Alladi's translation of Sankara Gita Bhashya 13.14

(It is not 13.13.  Am I right?).  We didn't have Shri Alladi's when

we discussed AA before.  We were then going by Sw. Ghambhirananda's

translation.

 

Subbuji, you know Sanskrit very well.  Just translate for me the

pertinent part of the sentence, i.e. "adhyAOpa-apavAdAbhyAm

niShprapancham prapanchyate' iti."  I can't find any "is described

etc." there.  I would read it simply as "the non-dual is dualed by

AA".  And that is the truth about AdhyAropa. 

 

Don't take my hair-splitting as vithanda vAda.  You seem to have

taken it so from your opening statement: "Questions are welcome

inasmuchas they help clearer understanding of concepts.".  Mine is

just another point of view.

 

Please also read Shri Chittaranjan Naik's responses in the old thread

if you have time. 

 

To summarize, "sarvada pAnipAdam...." is subtle apavAda (not

deliberate superimposition).  The verse only shows the all-

pervasiveness of Brahman and not a deliberately superimposed form

with several hands, heads etc. like Ravana.  When we use language in

vyAvaharik duality, such imagery is unavoidable.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji.

>

> Your post 31615 refers.

>

> Thanks for the detailed clarifications.  I am a little late due to

> several other personal preoccupations and preparations for a

holiday.

>

> Actually, I was planning to write out a long post.  In order to put

> my thoughts together, I just referred to my old post on the topic

(#

> 25656 dated 4th January 2005) and found that all that I wanted to

> tell you were already there in that message.  Grateful if you can

> kindly read it.

>

> You will see that, in that post, I had also referred to the import

of

> AA in mathematics to show that AA is not anything unique to just

> vedanta as was made out to be.

 

> Thanks for Shri Alladi's translation of Sankara Gita Bhashya 13.14

> (It is not 13.13.  Am I right?).  We didn't have Shri Alladi's when

> we discussed AA before.  We were then going by Sw. Ghambhirananda's

> translation.

>

> Subbuji, you know Sanskrit very well.  Just translate for me the

> pertinent part of the sentence, i.e. "adhyAOpa-apavAdAbhyAm

> niShprapancham prapanchyate' iti."  I can't find any "is described

> etc." there.  I would read it simply as "the non-dual is dualed by

> AA".  And that is the truth about AdhyAropa. 

>

> Don't take my hair-splitting as vithanda vAda.  You seem to have

> taken it so from your opening statement: "Questions are welcome

> inasmuchas they help clearer understanding of concepts.".  Mine is

> just another point of view.

>

> Please also read Shri Chittaranjan Naik's responses in the old

thread

> if you have time.

 

Namaste Madathil ji,

 

Let me assure you that i never considered your questions as vithanda

vada.  I read your earlier post on the subject ( year 2005).

To tell you frankly, the meaning of the word 'adhyaropa' employed in

the famous quotation that Shankara refers in that Gita Bhashyam

(verse 13.13) is not the one that you understand when that word is

generally used.  I could make this out from your last year's post. 

Let me clarify.

 

A synonym for the particular usage in that famous quote

is 'buddhipUrvaka adhyAsa'.  This is also likely to start a storm as

nowhere is it seen an adhyasa taking place with one who is in his

full senses.  But that is the word used in teaching circles to put

across the point.  A word about the verse number: In standard books,

the verse is numbered 13 and not 14.  This is because, there is a

supposed opening verse : PrakRitim purusham chaiva kshetram

kshetrajnam eva cha | Etadveditum icchaami Jnaanam jneyam cha Keshava

||  As no one has commented upon this verse, it is ignored by most

publishers.  Thus, the first verse of this chapter is: idam sharIram

Kaunteya....

 

Now, coming to the point, the meaning of the saying: 'adhyaropa

apavaadaabhyam nishprapancham prapanchyate' will be this:

 

adhyaropashcha apavaadashcha = adhyaropaapavaadau (in dual number).

thaabhyaam adhyaropaapavaadaabhyaam = by employing these two (bhyaam

is the tRitiya vibhakti, dvivachanam, to denote their instrumental

case.)  By employing these two, what is sought to be accomplished?

nishprapancham = that Truth which is free from, devoid of, the world.

prapanchyate = is explained.

Now, the word 'prapancha' has these following meanings as per the

Apte Sanskrit - English dictionary:

 

1. Display, manifestation. 2.Development, expansion, extension 3.

Amplification, expatiation, explanation, elucidation 4. Prolixity,

diffusiveness, copiousness 5.Manifoldness, diversity 6.Heap,

abundance, quantity 7. An appearance, phenomenon 8.Illusion, fraud 9.

The visible world or universe, which is illusory and th sene of

manifold action.

Then, the verb form of the word is given: prapanchayati: 1. To show

forth, display. 2. To expand, amplify.

Then the past participle is given: prapanchita: 1.Dislayed

2.Expanded, amplified 3.Dilated upon 4.Erring, mistaken 5. Deceived,

tricked.

 

Thus,with such an array of meanings, let us conclude the meaning of

the quote as: By the employment of the tools of adhyaropa and

apavada, superimposition and negation, the Truth that is ever free

from the world is elucidated. 

 

We have another work of Acharya Shankara where this term is used:

 

The Sarva-vedanta-siddhanta-sara-sangrahaH (801) says:

 

adhyaaropa-apavaada-kramam-anusarataa deshikenaatra vetraa

vaakyArthe bodhyamAne sati sapadi sataH shuddhabuddheramushya |

nityaanandAdvitIyam nirupamamamlam yatparam tattvamekam

tadbrahmaivAhamastItyudayaat paramAkhaNDatAkAravRittiH ||

 

(No sooner is the meaning of the Mahavakya 'That thou art' made known

to the seeker by the enlightened Master, BY THE METHOD OF

SUPERIMPOSITION AND NEGATION, than there arises in the man of pure

intellect, the supreme plenary experience of that Brahman which is

Eternal,Bliss, Secondless, without comparison, untainted, the One

Transcendent Reality, as 'I am verily Brahman.)

 

Now, it is pertinent to note that it is called a 'method'.  If

adhyaropa, superimposition, were to mean in this context what you

have held (as 'a product of ignorance' that has to be corrected by

the Vedanta), it would not have been called an important segment of

the teaching methodology. 

 

I shall quote below the gloss 'Bhashyotkarsha dipika', a work that

elucidates the Acharya's Bhshyam on the Gita (verse 13.13):

 

nanu, pANyAdimattvasyaiva upAdhikRitasya mithyAtvAt,

gneyapravachanAdhikAre taduktiH apArthA iti chet, na. GneyAstitiva

bodhanAya GNEYADHARMAVATPARIKALPYA tathAbhUtapANyAdyukteH

sArthakatvAt. taduktam sampradAyavidbhiH 'adhyaropaapavaadaabhyaam

nischprapancham prapanchyate' iti.

 

The above means:

objection: That since (the notion) being endowed with hands etc.,

being a product of upaadhi, is itself mithyaa, unreal, to say that

the Truth to be known is endowed with hands, etc. is incorrect while

a teaching of the Truth is initiated.

Reply: No. such is not the case.  With a view to teach that the Truth

to be known EXISTS, the property of being endowed with hands, etc. is

SHOWN (by positing them on It)TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE TRUTH. Hence,

a teaching on these lines is certainly not without purpose. This is

in accordance with the saying of those who are versed in the method

of teaching: adhyaropa......

(note: the word 'sampradaya' is a technical word connoting 'the

method of giving out the teaching' samyak pradaanam)

 

Now, let us consider why this kind of method  was employed by

Bhagavan.  The Acharya says in the beginning of the commentary for

this verse:

In the earlier verse, it was indicated: The Gneyam, the Truth 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'.

 

Now, since that Truth was said in the earlier verse as not 'sat',

that is, It is beyond the word 'sat' and the sense generated by the

word 'sat', one could doubt its very existence.  To ward off such an

eventuality, the teaching in this 13th verse is by establishing Its

Existence through Its Total Upadhi of the instruments (organs) of all

the living beings.  That is, behind the functioning of organs, a

chetanavastu is inferred.  In the same way, behind the functioning of

all the organs everywhere, the Existence of the Total Chetanavastu

can be inferred. This wards off the doubt of Its very Existence that

is a possible fallout of the earlier declaration that 'It is not

sat'.  This is the purpose of 'attributing' the upadhi of possessing

the Total Organs.

 

The bhashyam continues, Hands, feet and the like, constituting the

limbs of all bodies in all places, derive theiry energy from the

Energy inherent in the Knowable (that is, they act in virtue of the

mere presence of that Energy), and as such THEY ARE MERE MARKS OF ITS

EXISTENCE AND ARE SPOKEN OF AS BELONGING TO IT ONLY BY A FIGURE OF

SPEECH. (unquote)

 

The 'figure of speech' is what is meant by 'adhyaropa' in this

context.  Surely, the adhyaropa that is done ignorantly by all

unenlightened ones is not a figure of speech.  Hence there is nothing

wrong in terming it a deliberate superimposing, a method adopted by

Bhagavan to teach the Truth.             

 

      

>

> To summarize, "sarvada pAnipAdam...." is subtle apavAda (not

> deliberate superimposition).  The verse only shows the all-

> pervasiveness of Brahman and not a deliberately superimposed form

> with several hands, heads etc. like Ravana.  When we use language

in

> vyAvaharik duality, such imagery is unavoidable.

 

I agree that the verse shows the all-pervasiveness of Brahman.  But

the point is not in finally showing Brahman as endowed with hands,

etc. but to only 'attribute' them to Brahman to enable one to

appreciate Its Existence and then once this is accomplished, the 

negation - of what was attributed with a purpose - is undertaken in

the next verse. Surely, the adhyaropa done by the ignorant is not

with this purpose; it is only to perpetuate those upadhis life after

life and continue in ignorance.  I mentioned this just to contrast

the two types of 'adhyaropa'.  I mentioned all this in such detail

only to show that there is not just one type of adhyaropa, the

commonly acknowledged one, but there is this other type also that has

been used by the Knowledgible Teachers, predating Shankara Himself. 

Which is why He calls them 'sampradaaya vid's.

 

I earnestly hope the point is now clear beyond any doubt.  Again, you

are welcome to present your views.

 

Pranams,

subbu

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji.

 

Your message 31646.

 

Hats off  to you for an excellent expatiatory translation which I

fully appreciate and accept.  AAP THO SABKE GURU NIKALE!

 

I had noticed the tritheeya/dwivachanam/instrumental case

of "adhyAOpa-apavAdAbhyAm".  The hard nut to crack

was "prapancyate".  Perhaps, I was too biased to see that it gave the

meaning of "described, expressed, explained or elucidated".  My own

undoing!

 

This raises a question - a rather naive one.  Please forgive me for

asking it.  Without unflinching faith and trust in the words of your

teachers and Shri Alladi, would you have arrived at the translation

on your own?  Not only me, but the whole List would like to listen to

you on this.

 

Well, this is the first time anybody explained a doubt to me so

well.  You are, indeed, a great blessing bestowed on this List.

 

The only issue that my still biased mind has to come to grip with is

whether such metaphorical superimpositions are a deliberate must to

understanding vedanta.  Well, let me bury the question in my oncoming

holidays to germinate and sprout the right answer.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji.

>

> Your message 31646.

>

>The hard nut to crack

> was "prapancyate".  Perhaps, I was too biased to see that it gave

the

> meaning of "described, expressed, explained or elucidated".  My own

> undoing!

>

> This raises a question - a rather naive one.  Please forgive me for

> asking it.  Without unflinching faith and trust in the words of

your

> teachers and Shri Alladi, would you have arrived at the translation

> on your own?  Not only me, but the whole List would like to listen

to

> you on this.

 

Namaste Madathil ji,

 

As you have rightly guessed, the word 'prapanchyate' did engage me

for some days.  The overall meaning was given to me in the class

itself and while involved in the production of the

work: 'Sridakshinamurtistotram'.  The unimaginable range of

quotations that are used in this work, to which i was exposed to

while working for the book, gave me a lot of instances where the

maxim of AA was used widely by the scriptures.  Prapancham is usually

understood as world and that prapanchyate could not mean the same and

could only mean something like establishing, delineating, teaching,

etc. was the conclusion that i had arrived at.  The close look at

Alladi and the dictionary happened only while penning that reply to

you.  So, thanks for making that happen.  

 

> > The only issue that my still biased mind has to come to grip with

is  whether such metaphorical superimpositions are a deliberate must

to > understanding vedanta.  Well, let me bury the question in my

oncoming  holidays to germinate and sprout the right answer.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

One extreme reply to your above 'bombshell' question would be:

Anything short of 'maunavyaakhyaa'(Silent Teaching) will come under

the AA umbrella alone.  This brings the entire Sruti, Smriti and all

the other literature that contain ' esoteric teaching' under the AA

category.  Glaring instances will be: the Creation Srutis.  By

talking about creation, the Sruti draws our attention to Cause-effect

realtionship that we are so attached to in the vyavaharic world. 

By 'portraying' the Absolute Truth as the cause of everything, the

Veda engages in the 'ploy' of turning our attention from the created

multiplicity to the Creator unity.  Once this is sufficiently

accomplished, even the causehood of the Absolute is dropped. 

 

There is a maxim: 'paradaNDenaiva parasya tADanam'= hitting the

opponent with his own stick.  This is the way of the Sruti.  The

ignorance-born notion of ours is utilised by the Sruti in a clever

way to remove that very ignorance.  When we do a 'kalpana', it is a

concoction.  When Sruti does a kalpana, it is elevated to a 'prati-

kalpana' and becomes a teaching tool.  While our kalpana lands us in

even more bondage, the Sruti's kalpana liberates. Our kalpana is

adhyaropa-1 and the Sruti's pratikalpana is adhyaropa-2. 

 

We can identify several instances of this.  We identify with someone

in the world as 'father, mother etc.' The scripture shows the

Absolute as 'Father' or 'Mother' and asks us to direct the

appropriate bhakti to the Supreme in these bhaavas.  In madhurabhava

even the 'beloved' bhaava is allowed with the Supreme.  Vaatsalya

bhaava is another where the Lord is approached as one's own

child 'kocchu GuruvAyUrappan'.  Again, we have the notion of a King,

or Landlord or Estate Owner.  The Veda allows that bhava to be had

with the Supreme, considering It as the Lord of the entire universe,

and so on. 

 

In the context of the 13th chapter, since we attribute existence to

something or someone that has a form, the Lord 'attributes' such a

form (of hands, feet, ears, etc.) to the Truth and assists us to

recognise It's existence.  The PurushasUkta 'sahasra shIrShA

puruShaH, sahasraakShaH sahasrapaat'= the Cosmic Purusha has

innumerable heads,eyes, feet, etc. is the basis for the 13th chapter

teaching that way.

 

The compassionate Veda employs all sorts of methods to make us see

the Truth that is extremely subtle; atIva sUkShmam.  Let me take the

liberty of saying this: In Tamil there is a saying:'Ayiram poi solli

oru kalyANam naDathu' 'even by telling a thousand lies  bring about a

marriage'.  KalyAnam has the sublime meaning of Supreme Good.  So

does the Veda accomplish the Supreme Good of Enlightening us by

resorting to this method of AA.

 

Thank you Madathilji for your questions; they helped in strengthening

my own understanding.  That indeed is the process of manana; asking

questions to bring greater understanding.

 

Wishing you a great vacation,

Pranams,

subbu   

[Guest guest]

Nairji writes :

 

"AAP THO SABKE GURU NIKALE!"

 

 

Yes! i agree wholeheartedly. A woman is always the first to recognize

a 'gem' when she sees it - the moment i started reading Subbuji's

posts (specially on Bhakti and jnana) , i knew this (subbuji) is no

ordinary pearl ! such a pearl must be born from the womb of a great

oyster - sure enough, subbuji comes from a great lineage of Sringeri

peetham!

 

may i recall a story i read in 'Vedanta Kesari' sometime ago?

 

"Swamiji Vivekanandaji) once had an encounter with Ingersoll, the

famous agnostic. He provoked Swamiji by saying: 'Whatever you might

say, I believe in squeezing the orange dry, for I know that this life

is all that I'm sure of. So, I believe that one must make the best of

it.' This is the well-known Charvaka view.

 

In a sparkling repartee Swamiji said:

 

'Is that so? I too preach squeezing the orange dry. But then, I have

my own method of squeezing. I know that my life is eternal therefore

I am not in a hurry. I am not afraid and I enjoy the squeezing.

Squeeze the orange in my way, and you would get every drop!'

 

(http://www.sriramakrishnamath.org/magazine/vk/2006/04-3-2.asp )

 

Guru parampara is of great significance in imparting knowledge ! may

i recall a verse from Srinmad Bhagwat Gita ?

 

evam&#769; parampar&#257;-pr&#257;ptam

 

imam&#769; r&#257;jars&#803;ayo viduh&#803;

 

sa k&#257;leneha mahat&#257;

 

yogo nas&#803;t&#803;ah&#803; parantapa (BG 4.2)

 

 

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic

succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in

course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science

as it is appears to be lost.

 

Well, time to revive Guru parampara AGAIN !

 

SRI GURUBYO NAMAHA!