'Adhyaropa apavada' found in Vivarana and other texts

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

In the following URL one can see instances of Adhyaropa Apavada mentioned in an assortment of texts:

Shankara Gita Bhashya, Siddhanta Lesha Sangraha (Sri Appayya Dikshitar), Nyayanirnaya (Anandagiri), gloss on Shankara Bhashy, Bhashyaa Ratnaprabha gloss (on Shankara Sutra bhashya), Nyaya Raksha mani of  Appayya Dikshitar, Purnandiya on Ratnaprabha, Vaktavya Kashika on the Panchapadika of Padmapada, Vedanta Sara of Sadananda.

It is widely known that Swami Vidyaranya was Vivarana.  In the Panchadashi we find this.

https://tinyurl.com/4wczvdrd

Panchadashi

आत्मा वा इअदमित्यादौ परोक्षं ब्रह्मलक्षितम् ।

अध्यारोपापवादाभ्यां प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म दर्शितम् ॥ ६८॥

In all the above instances, the AA nyaya is approvingly cited/used/mentioned.

It can't be said that post Shankara Advaitins did not know this or did not approve of it.

warm regards

subbu

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Dear Subbhuji, Namaste. SSSSji acknowledged post-Sankara Advaita vyakhyanakaras recognized Adhyaropa/Apavada but did not give it the status that Sruti, Bhasya and the ancient tradition taught. AA is not one among prakriyas but the one overriding prakriya of all Vedanta. 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 8:35 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste

In the following URL one can see instances of Adhyaropa Apavada mentioned
in an assortment of texts:

Shankara Gita Bhashya, Siddhanta Lesha Sangraha (Sri Appayya Dikshitar),
Nyayanirnaya (Anandagiri), gloss on Shankara Bhashy, Bhashyaa Ratnaprabha
gloss (on Shankara Sutra bhashya), Nyaya Raksha mani of  Appayya Dikshitar,
Purnandiya on Ratnaprabha, Vaktavya Kashika on the Panchapadika of
Padmapada, Vedanta Sara of Sadananda.

It is widely known that Swami Vidyaranya was Vivarana.  In the Panchadashi
we find this.

https://tinyurl.com/4wczvdrd

Panchadashi

आत्मा वा इअदमित्यादौ परोक्षं ब्रह्मलक्षितम् ।

*अध्यारोपापवादाभ्यां *प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म दर्शितम् ॥ ६८॥

In all the above instances, the AA nyaya is approvingly
cited/used/mentioned.

It can't be said that post Shankara Advaitins did not know this or did not
approve of it.

warm regards

subbu

_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

It can't be said that post Shankara Advaitins did not know this or did not approve of it.

Whoever has said this has no idea as to what post-Shankara advaitins said. adhyAropa-apavAda is the basic framework upon which all prakriyAs operate. Without adhyAropa-apavAda, srishTi in advitIya nishkriya Brahman and its subsequent negation cannot be explained.

adhyAropa-apavAda is like UPI, whereas the prakriyAs are like different apps viz GPAY, PhonePe, CRED etc. These all use UPI, but offer seemingly different interface.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

All the gurus who taught me Vedanta said that each prakriya has an Adhyaropa part and then an Apavaada to establish the svarupa of Brahma-Atma. So I don't think this is true. Even in a basic prakarana like Vedanta Sara after detailing Srishti, Avastha traya etc. the author says 

एवमध्यारोपः ॥२०॥

In my discussions with SSS followers one thing I have noticed is that when you point out the illogicality of their prakriya they will defend it by taking refuge under adhyAropa. Maybe this is a new contribution :-)

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDK6rgt6XhV-se7%2BEMn2LsCmGLCTW5_Tkw7mgvYHVGkiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Sudhanshuji, According to Smt Hegde's recent paper, you are markedly mistaken about adhyaropa/apavada's use by Post-Sankara Advaita: 

" SSS denounces the PSA—with the sole exception of Sureśvarācārya—for not recognizing adhyāropāpavāda as the chief pedagogical method of Advaita Vedānta. According to SSS, the failure to correctly understand the method has led to the reification of concepts like avidyā (ignorance); this, in turn, has undermined the central tenets of Advaita Vedānta. While avidyā—its nature, locus, etc—has engendered considerable discussions in academia,5 the method of adhyāropāpavāda itself has not been subject to critical examination.6 The pedagogic method, therefore, warrants scrutiny."

fn 4 " 4 We see here a nuanced difference in the interpretation of adhyāropāpavāda. For SSS, the ‘achievement’ of adhyāropāpavāda is strictly negative i.e., the removal of ignorance; for the PSA, on the other hand, while the method operates negatively, its ‘achievement’ is a ‘positive indication’ of brahman. Traditional commentators (PPV, p. 499; SŚ 1.257, etc.) and modern scholars (Comans 2000, p. 290ff; Rambachan 1991, p. 69, etc.) accord precedence to ‘positive’ indications over negations, and therefore frame adhyāropāpavāda within the context of ‘indication.’ Comans writes, “… negation itself functions in the context of lakṣaṇā … It is not sufficient merely to say: “not a snake, not a snake!”, the substratum of the error must also be positively pointed out (“this is not a snake, it is a rope!”) …,” (Comans 2000, p. 289). This, SSS vehemently refutes. See Saraswati 1990, p. 82. "

--

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Sudhanshuji, According to Smt Hegde's recent paper, you are markedly mistaken about adhyaropa/apavada's use by Post-Sankara Advaita: 

" SSS denounces the PSA—with the sole exception of Sureśvarācārya—for not recognizing adhyāropāpavāda as the chief pedagogical method of Advaita Vedānta. According to SSS, the failure to correctly understand the method has led to the reification of concepts like avidyā (ignorance); this, in turn, has undermined the central tenets of Advaita Vedānta. While avidyā—its nature, locus, etc—has engendered considerable discussions in academia,5 the method of adhyāropāpavāda itself has not been subject to critical examination.6 The pedagogic method, therefore, warrants scrutiny."

You base your opinion of post-Shankara AchAryAs on the basis of what Smt Hegde says. Smt Hegde bases her opinion on what SSS says. SSS ji has no clue what AchAryAs of VedAnta SampradAya have taught - as I have pointed out several times.

At least someone, either your or Manjushree Hegde or somebody else, has to study what AchAryAs said before contradicting them. That is basic requirement. Otherwise bhAva-vilakshaNA avidyA will be translated and argued against as positive avidyA based on what SSS erroneously understood. Studying post-Shankara-AchArya is tough, requires dedication, intellect, hard work which very few are willing to put in.

Someone has to study first before arguing against.

This fascination for VArtikakAra is also curious because there are direct verses in VArtika and NS against the very root of SSS' theory. Anyway, as is the case with works by other AchAryAs, VArtikakAra's works are seldom studied. What is studied is some klesha-apahAriNI which is completely non-sAmpradAyika, swa-kalpanA-prasUtA, and cannot distinguish between pUrvapaksha and siddhAnta. At one place, SSS confused pUrvapaksha as siddhAnta. If you wish, I can cite. 

fn 4 " 4 We see here a nuanced difference in the interpretation of adhyāropāpavāda. For SSS, the ‘achievement’ of adhyāropāpavāda is strictly negative i.e., the removal of ignorance; for the PSA, on the other hand, while the method operates negatively, its ‘achievement’ is a ‘positive indication’ of brahman. Traditional commentators (PPV, p. 499; SŚ 1.257, etc.) and modern scholars (Comans 2000, p. 290ff; Rambachan 1991, p. 69, etc.) accord precedence to ‘positive’ indications over negations, and therefore frame adhyāropāpavāda within the context of ‘indication.’ Comans writes, “… negation itself functions in the context of lakṣaṇā … It is not sufficient merely to say: “not a snake, not a snake!”, the substratum of the error must also be positively pointed out (“this is not a snake, it is a rope!”) …,” (Comans 2000, p. 289). This, SSS vehemently refutes. See Saraswati 1990, p. 82. "

Please cite exact sentences which you wish to be discussed. This positive-negative does not mean anything. Before "vehemently refuting", one has to understand what AchAryAs said. That is thoroughly lacking at every place in SSS' works and in subsequent "recent papers" based thereupon.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Self, Dear Sudhanshuji, 

I fail to understand how you could have ignored SSSS's 200 volumes including his 1000 page study of post-Sankara Advaita and have said, "SSS ji has no clue what AchAryAs of VedAnta SampradAya have taught." 

Sir, I greatly respect your scholarship but still you need support with evidence or your words are defective as mere hasty generalizations. Kindly find fact and reason that might refute SSSS's decades of argument and research. 

Here are just a few excerpts from his 1000pages showing the diminished or ignored role for Adhyaropa Apavada in post-Sankara. 

. 

This view of those who accept the power of Ignorance implies a different method of interpreting the Veda from the method of false attribution followed by subsequent retraction accepted by Bhagavatpada Sankara p392"

"But the prin¬ ciple appealed to here by Bhaskara, namely, 'Whatever the Veda teaches is an ultimate fact'* is wrong (because the Veda teaches many things by way of false attribution followed by later retraction). p487  "

" Nor can one claim that a distinction is introduced into the subject-matter in order to deny that there is any other Con¬ troller but the Lord, for the whole section is concerned with knowledge as the true nature of the Inner Ruler. There is no other Witness-of-all but He. And in any case, when it has been (solemnly) declared that He is the Witness of the deities and so on in the text 'He whom the earth-deity does not know' (Bphad-III.vii.3), this cannot afterwards be denied. (Bh.B.S. Bh.I.ii.20, p.U5)

//...Bhaskara makes an Innovation in adopting S3 the finally accep¬ ted view the very position that ilri Bhacravatpada has raised as an objection and refuted. Because all the opponents of the method of interpretation of false attribution followed by sub¬ sequent retraction follow him blindly on this point, it ought to be refuted here. So we will say a few words on the subject. on Bhaskara p522"

" Of the systems that oppose the method of false attribution followed by later retraction, BhSskara's is the earliest that has survived in complete form. It by no means follows Bhartpprapanca's system point for point. Some new arguments in favour of the system of Difference in Identity are produced p545"

" The teaching given here in the I;(a Siddhi is as follows. Ignorance is a power, itself non-conscious by nature and the material cause of all the non-conscious. Starting from here, it is maintained that knowledge puts an end to this power. And then finally it is held that, as a fire arising from a bamboo burns the bamboo that was its cause and then extinguishes it¬ self, so knowledge of the Absolute burns up Ignorance (its source) and then extinguishes itself (reading samyatve, nomi¬ native neuter dual). It is clear that, in this mode of expla¬ nation of enlightenment, knowledge is made into a factor of action. This contradicts experience, and also contradicts the method of teaching by false attribution followed by later retraction approved by the true experts in Vedanta. For the latter do not accept that the world or its. cause, Ignorance, are existent entities that have to be brought to an end through knowledge p708 on Ista Siddhi"

" Initial false attribution con¬ sists in accepting and conforming to erroneous cognition in the full consciousness that one is accepting and conforming to a mere appearance

//... But tlie doctrine of the Ista Siddhi and other works of its kind is not the same. They accept Ignorance in the form of the unmanifest (i.e. as a cosmic power). And they argue that it stands as material, cause to the body, sense-organs and mind, the latter being regarded as its effects. In the case of the enlightened person, there is conformity with a remnant or an impression of Ignorance conceived as a material cause undergo¬ ing transformation into various effects. And that is different from the teaching of the revered Commentator."p733 on Ista Siddhi

" And similarly in this work the method of explanation by cause and effect, introduced in the guise of a support for the doctrine of indeterminabillty, triumphs over the method of interpretation of the texts as false attribution followed by later retraction, and reigns supreme Ista Siddhi p751"

" In all this we have the assumption, in contradiction with Sri Sankara's commentaries, of the existence, over and above super¬ imposition of effect and cause, of a certain entity called 'Ignorance' which stands as their material cause. It is clear that such an assumption can only be made if one overlooks the fact that all our practical experience of cause and effect arises through superiraposition. Throughout the Karikas of !§ri Gautjapada and the commentaries of 6ri Sankara the distinction between the soul and the Absolute is always made in the same way; the adjunct that sets up the appearance of a Lord is the seed (unmanifest) condition of name and form, which are imagined through Ignorance; the adjunct which-sets up the appearance of the individual soul is one of cause and effect, set up by name and form. It is clear that the experience, in relation to one and the same Self, first of distinctions and later of the can¬ cellation of those distinctions, is explicable in terms of a system which accepts false attribution followed by later retraction. p771 Vivarana"

" It (the Vivarana) imagines something never per¬ ceived by anyone — an indeterminable Ignorance conceived as the material cause of wrong knowledge. It endows this neverperceived principle with embellishments like a 'remnant* and an 'impression'. And it openly contradicts the teaching of the Veda which runs 'One attains the Absolute here in this very body' (Bfhad.IV.iv.7) and 'Knowing the Absolute, he becomes the Absolute' (Huf4.HI.11.9); for the system of the Vlvaraga treats liberation essentially as the liberation that occurs with the fall of the body at death. Why the author of the Vivaraga resorts to this course is not clear. But anyone who does resort to it contradicts the doctrine, admitted in per¬ ceived by anyone — an indeterminable Ignorance conceived as the material cause of wrong knowledge. It endows this neverperceived principle with embellishments like a 'remnant* and an 'impression'. And it openly contradicts the teaching of the Veda which runs 'One attains the Absolute here in this very body' (Bfhad.IV.iv.7) and 'Knowing the Absolute, he becomes the Absolute' (Huf4.HI.11.9); for the system of the Vlvaraga treats liberation essentially as the liberation that occurs with the fall of the body at death. Why the author of the Vivaraga resorts to this course is not clear. But anyone who does resort to it contradicts the doctrine, admitted in principle by all philosophers, that knowledge is knowledge of what is actually perceived. And it la clear that the author also contradicts without warrant the traditional method of Interpreting the texts, which treats them as based on false attribution follower! by later retraction. p819-20"

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDVGg3%3D2HuYah_FnpU1HJbL_TUn2syu8aphxaSg-mwxiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Subbuji,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 6:05 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

In all the above instances, the AA nyaya is approvingly cited/used/mentioned.

It can't be said that post Shankara Advaitins did not know this or did not approve of it.

It stops being funny at this point and starts being ridiculous. What kind of akShepa is this! Whoever said this has not even the basic study of vyAkhyAnas, much less the eligibility to critique them! That is why I always opined that there are two possibilities with SSS' followers: they genuinely misunderstand vyAkhyAnas or they purposely present it wrong. Now, if SSS says so, this anyatara doSha applies to him as well.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//I fail to understand how you could have ignored SSSS's 200 volumes including his 1000 page study of post-Sankara Advaita and have said, "SSS ji has no clue what AchAryAs of VedAnta SampradAya have taught." //

The merit of an argument does not arise from the number of pages and number of volumes. It arises from the inherent logic in it. SSS ji indeed had no clue about teachings of VedAnta SampradAya, as I have demonstrated time and again. See, he made errors in understanding of fundamental concepts and his entire 1000 pages are hence, not worthy of attention.

 //Sir, I greatly respect your scholarship but still you need support with evidence or your words are defective as mere hasty generalizations. Kindly find fact and reason that might refute SSSS's decades of argument and research.//

I have always been specific.

//Here are just a few excerpts from his 1000pages showing the diminished or ignored role for Adhyaropa Apavada in post-Sankara.//

For your sake, I will respond to each of these and show the errors of SSS.

//This view of those who accept the power of Ignorance implies a different method of interpreting the Veda from the method of false attribution followed by subsequent retraction accepted by Bhagavatpada Sankara p392"//

This is your evidence? Power-of-ignorance is accepted by everyone from Shankara to Sureshwara to VivaraNa to everyone. See the evidence:

VArtika 4.3.1784 –  आत्माविद्यैव नः शक्तिः सर्वशक्यस्य सर्जने । नातोऽन्यथा शक्तिवादः प्रमाणेनावसीयते ।।

VArtikakAra accepts avidyA as the shakti. Further, no other kind of shakti-vAda is determined by pramANa. You mean VArtika has different method than adhyAropa-apavAda?

 What kind of logic is this? 

I ask you counter question. What is shakti? Define. Otherwise SSS’ statement is meaningless that acceptance of avidyA as shakti is violative of adhyAropa-apavAda. Essentially, SSS did not understand what is meant by shakti.

//"But the prin¬ ciple appealed to here by Bhaskara, namely, 'Whatever the Veda teaches is an ultimate fact'* is wrong (because the Veda teaches many things by way of false attribution followed by later retraction). p487  "//

Who is denying it? In sushupti and mukti, VedAs become aveda. Everyone knows it. What is the big evidence that SSS ji is bringing here?

//" Nor can one claim that a distinction is introduced into the subject-matter in order to deny that there is any other Con¬ troller but the Lord, for the whole section is concerned with knowledge as the true nature of the Inner Ruler. There is no other Witness-of-all but He. And in any case, when it has been (solemnly) declared that He is the Witness of the deities and so on in the text 'He whom the earth-deity does not know' (Bphad-III.vii.3), this cannot afterwards be denied. (Bh.B.S. Bh.I.ii.20, p.U5)//

This evidence to show that AchAryAs did not follow adhyArope-apavAda? Come on. Make your point clearly.

//...Bhaskara makes an Innovation in adopting S3 the finally accep¬ ted view the very position that ilri Bhacravatpada has raised as an objection and refuted. Because all the opponents of the method of interpretation of false attribution followed by sub¬ sequent retraction follow him blindly on this point, it ought to be refuted here. So we will say a few words on the subject. on Bhaskara p522"//

This is evidence?
 
//" Of the systems that oppose the method of false attribution followed by later retraction, BhSskara's is the earliest that has survived in complete form. It by no means follows Bhartpprapanca's system point for point. Some new arguments in favour of the system of Difference in Identity are produced p545"//

I do not expect mindless copy-paste from you Michael ji. How does this imply that AchAryAs did not follow adhyAropa-apavAda?

//" The teaching given here in the I;(a Siddhi is as follows. Ignorance is a power, itself non-conscious by nature and the material cause of all the non-conscious. Starting from here, it is maintained that knowledge puts an end to this power. And then finally it is held that, as a fire arising from a bamboo burns the bamboo that was its cause and then extinguishes it¬ self, so knowledge of the Absolute burns up Ignorance (its source) and then extinguishes itself (reading samyatve, nomi¬ native neuter dual).//

Same is stated by vArtika.

Ignorance is power - VArtika 4.3.1784 –  आत्माविद्यैव नः शक्तिः सर्वशक्यस्य सर्जने । नातोऽन्यथा शक्तिवादः प्रमाणेनावसीयते ।।

avidyA is itself non-conscious by nature – obviously no sane person can accept avidyA as chaitanya. It has to be non-chaitanya.

That avidyA is material cause is accepted by VArtika 1.4.371 – अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते।।

Destruction of avidyA by vidyA - ज्ञानेन तु येन अज्ञानेन आवृताः मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः तत् अज्ञानं येषां जन्तूनां विवेकज्ञानेन आत्मविषयेण नाशितम् आत्मनः भवति, तेषां जन्तूनाम् आदित्यवत् यथा आदित्यः समस्तं रूपजातम् अवभासयति तद्वत् ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं वस्तु सर्वं प्रकाशयति तत् परं परमार्थतत्त्वम्  - GItA 5.16

 ज्ञानेन नाशितम् आत्मनः अज्ञानं  [GItA 5.18]

These are all asserting the destruction of avidyA by vidyA. This is what IshTa-Siddhi-kAra is saying which is in unison with BhAshya.

//It is clear that, in this mode of expla¬ nation of enlightenment, knowledge is made into a factor of action.//

Knowledge removes ignorance. That is accepted by everyone. The mechanism thereof is explained. This does not mean that knowledge is a kAraka and not jnApaka. Removal of avidyA is within the ambit of jnAapakatva. This is basic. Such statements arise because SSS had no clue of mechanics of how knowledge arises and removes ignorance.

// This contradicts experience, and also contradicts the method of teaching by false attribution followed by later retraction approved by the true experts in Vedanta. For the latter do not accept that the world or its. cause, Ignorance, are existent entities that have to be brought to an end through knowledge p708 on Ista Siddhi"//

This is silly! What has it to do with existence of ignorance? Ignorance is stated to be bhAva-vilakshaNA. The fact that it is a covering and hence abhAva-vilakshaNA is stated by Shruti, smriti and proved by anumAna. An anirvachanIya vastu is stated to be removed by knowledge, like illusory snake. Nothing else can be removed by knowledge. Horns of hare are not removed by knowledge, Brahman is not removed by knowledge. Only anirvachanIya is removed by knowledge. Where does existence come into picture?

This objection arises from the fact that SSS did not understand that AchAryAs did not accept that avidyA has sattva. It is sattva-vilakshaNa. Therefore, this “objection” by SSS does not imply that AchAryAs contradicted adhyAropa-apavAda.  

 //" Initial false attribution con¬ sists in accepting and conforming to erroneous cognition in the full consciousness that one is accepting and conforming to a mere appearance//

 So?

//... But tlie doctrine of the Ista Siddhi and other works of its kind is not the same. They accept Ignorance in the form of the unmanifest (i.e. as a cosmic power).//
 
VArtika also accepts that as demonstrated above. BhAshya also says that - अविद्या ह्यव्यक्तम् [BSB 1.4.3]

आत्मनो माया अविद्या [MANDUkya]

 //And they argue that it stands as material, cause to the body, sense-organs and mind, the latter being regarded as its effects. In the case of the enlightened person, there is conformity with a remnant or an impression of Ignorance conceived as a material cause undergo¬ ing transformation into various effects. And that is different from the teaching of the revered Commentator."p733 on Ista Siddhi//

 This is the same teaching by BhAshyakAra and VArtikakAra within the model of SDV. It has nothing to do to show that AchAryAs did not follow adhyAropa-apavAda.

 //" And similarly in this work the method of explanation by cause and effect, introduced in the guise of a support for the doctrine of indeterminabillty, triumphs over the method of interpretation of the texts as false attribution followed by later retraction, and reigns supreme Ista Siddhi p751"//

A self-serving statement by SSS. Proves nothing. Mere allegation without demonstrating anything.

//" In all this we have the assumption, in contradiction with Sri Sankara's commentaries, of the existence, over and above super¬ imposition of effect and cause, of a certain entity called 'Ignorance' which stands as their material cause. //

Has SSS gone through the definition of anirvachanIya which is sat-vilakshaNa. So, how is he imputing existence to ignorance? Clearly absence of understanding.

//It is clear that such an assumption can only be made if one overlooks the fact that all our practical experience of cause and effect arises through superiraposition. Throughout the Karikas of !§ri Gautjapada and the commentaries of 6ri Sankara the distinction between the soul and the Absolute is always made in the same way; the adjunct that sets up the appearance of a Lord is the seed (unmanifest) condition of name and form, which are imagined through Ignorance; the adjunct which-sets up the appearance of the individual soul is one of cause and effect, set up by name and form. It is clear that the experience, in relation to one and the same Self, first of distinctions and later of the can¬ cellation of those distinctions, is explicable in terms of a system which accepts false attribution followed by later retraction. p771 Vivarana"//

Sir, this ignorance itself is a superimposition. That is – avidyA itself is spoken due to avidyA-adhyAsa. Failure to understand this has led SSS to mistakenly assume that adhyAropa-apavAda is not accepted by AchAryAs.

BhAshyakAra differentiates avidyA and superimposition. avidyA is the upAdAna of even this superimposition as irrefutably proved through anvaya-vyatireka. 

अविद्यया अध्यारोपितानां विद्यया विवेकज्ञानेन

अविद्यया अध्यारोपितः इति

अविद्याध्यासमात्रं हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः

 //" It (the Vivarana) imagines something never per¬ ceived by anyone — an indeterminable Ignorance conceived as the material cause of wrong knowledge.//

What a misunderstanding by SSS! avidyA is sAkshi-bhAsya. Everyone perceives it directly and says without any pramANa with full conviction – I am ignorant.

Where has SSS read that VivaraNa says that ignorance is not perceibed by anyone? In his 1000 pages, has he mentioned the source? Or is it his imagination?

// It endows this neverperceived principle with embellishments like a 'remnant* and an 'impression'.//

Again this “never perceived” is product of imagination of SSS.

avidyA-lesha is accepted in SDV to explain prArabdha and perception of jnAnI which is in tune with BhAshya.

//And it openly contradicts the teaching of the Veda which runs 'One attains the Absolute here in this very body' (Bfhad.IV.iv.7) and 'Knowing the Absolute, he becomes the Absolute' (Huf4.HI.11.9); for the system of the Vlvaraga treats liberation essentially as the liberation that occurs with the fall of the body at death.//

SSS ji has no idea of the teaching of Veda. BhAshyakAra says –

यथा च वर्तमाना ब्रह्मविदः #आरब्धभोगक्षये #कैवल्यमनुभवन्ति — ‘तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (छा. उ. ६ । १४ । २) इति श्रुतेः

AchArya Himself distinguishes the anubhava of kaivalya after fall of body of Brahma-vid. What is erroneous with it?

avidyA-nivritti is not Shuddha AtmA but prArabdha-rUpa-pratibandhaka-rahita-akhanDAkArA-vritti -upalakshita-AtmA. Failure to understand this, he has misunderstood what AchAryAs said.

//Why the author of the Vivaraga resorts to this course is not clear.//

SSS should have asked a shrotriya and BrahmanishTha guru. He could have gt clarity.

//But anyone who does resort to it contradicts the doctrine, admitted in per¬ ceived by anyone — an indeterminable Ignorance conceived as the material cause of wrong knowledge.//

His perception of contradiction is arising from non-understanding of mechanics of removal of ignorance by knowledge.

//It endows this neverperceived principle with embellishments like a 'remnant* and an 'impression'. And it openly contradicts the teaching of the Veda which runs 'One attains the Absolute here in this very body' (Bfhad.IV.iv.7) and 'Knowing the Absolute, he becomes the Absolute' (Huf4.HI.11.9); for the system of the Vlvaraga treats liberation essentially as the liberation that occurs with the fall of the body at death. Why the author of the Vivaraga resorts to this course is not clear. But anyone who does resort to it contradicts the doctrine, admitted in principle by all philosophers, that knowledge is knowledge of what is actually perceived.//

Repetition by you. Please be careful in putting arguments and not merely copy-paste.

//And it la clear that the author also contradicts without warrant the traditional method of Interpreting the texts, which treats them as based on false attribution follower! by later retraction. p819-20"//

Self-serving statement without substance.

In a nut-shell, these statements by SSS display his gross misunderstanding of texts by AcharyAs. Basic issues like sattva-vilakshaNatA of avidyA, anirvachanIyatA of avidyA, bhAva-vilakshaNatA of avidyA, sAkshi-bhAsyatva of avidyA, upalakshitatva of AtmA, upAdAna-kAraNatva of avidyA are all misunderstood by SSS.

So, these statements by SSS do not prove that AchAryAs did not adhere to adhyAropa-apavAda. Rather they display lack of rigour and understanding of SSS.

The teaching of post-Shankara AchAryAs are in line with Shankara and Sureshwara. Failure to appreciate this results from absence of understanding of bhAshya, vArtika and VivaraNa as manifested in 1000s of pages by SSS.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

Well articulated. I actually do not expect any reply. I understand that they do not have their fundamental definitions in place. Hence, their theories resemble gossip at a roadside tea stall. Since some followers are really sincere, they are worthy of indulgence.

Regarding the twin nyAyAs of prathama-utpanna-pradeep-prabhA and chaitra-pramA, I may like to point out that these are from VivaraNa. Advaita Siddhi merely explained them more.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

On Sat, 17 Aug, 2024, 13:56 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji
I am told that the idea of sAxI pratyaxa is absent or not accepted by Sri
SSS and followers.

There is no role of vedAnta paribhAShA or any equivalent canonical text of
epistemology in their particular understanding of AA.

Your Advaita Siddhi's quotation of the rigorous twin nyAyas for
bhAvarUpatvam of avidyA using the first rays of light example and the
caitra-pramA idea will likely go unanswered.

Also I understand anupalabdhi is not accepted as a pramaaNa.

So, basic epistemology is itself different.


The thinking in Sri SSS-based approach is very binary - of the kind "how
can there be anything which is sadasadvilaxaNa? Impossible!! " (The
exclamations take care of everything, I guess.)

Even saccennabAdhyeta, asaccennapratIyeta etc is regarded as not correct
and anirvacanIyatvaM is completely dismissed.

It is not appreciated that binary thinking does not always work -  both
matter and energy are today regarded as neither particles nor waves, and
that cannot be termed as, due to the "manipulations of later
vyAkhyAnakAras".


Om

Raghav









On Sat, 17 Aug, 2024, 8:43 am Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <

> *Where has SSS read that VivaraNa says that ignorance is not perceibed by

> anyone? In his 1000 pages, has he mentioned the source? Or is it his

> imagination?*

>
> // It endows this neverperceived principle with embellishments like a
> 'remnant* and an 'impression'.//
>

> *Again this “never perceived” is product of imagination of SSS.*

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

//I ask you counter question. What is shakti? Define. Otherwise SSS’ statement is meaningless that acceptance of avidyA as shakti is violative of adhyAropa-apavAda. Essentially, SSS did not understand what is meant by shakti.//

Your denial of a positive bhavarupa avidya as opposed to Sankara's intended teaching of adhyasa avidya flies in the face of emic free panditry confirming SSSS's understanding by Hacker, Mayeda, Alson and Andrianic, in their exhaustive philological surveys of all the instances of avdya - alone or in compound - and of its presuppositions, implications and ramifications in the Brahma Sutras, Upadesa Sahasri, Naiskarmya Siddhi and Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, respectively. The unanimous consensus is that Sankara's use of avidya in all these texts was distorted by post Sankara Advaita in various ways!!  -- references available on demand

Ignoring or side stepping these studies is disingenuous, imho. SSSS's corrective discoveries cannot be dismissed off handedly as some here have done. The serious investigation of his conclusions, if nothing else, is rich manana and because of their apta claim undermining the fundamental teaching of Adi Shanakara teaching, no student of Vedanta can stand firm in their conviction, it seems to me. 

  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBiL9konC8%2BQqb2udR%3DkpiYLN-U_OpMx5kF2xQqvf-nwA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

//I ask you counter question. What is shakti? Define. Otherwise SSS’ statement is meaningless that acceptance of avidyA as shakti is violative of adhyAropa-apavAda. Essentially, SSS did not understand what is meant by shakti.//

Your denial of a positive bhavarupa avidya as opposed to Sankara's intended teaching of adhyasa avidya flies in the face of emic free panditry confirming SSSS's understanding by Hacker, Mayeda, Alson and Andrianic, in their exhaustive philological surveys of all the instances of avdya - alone or in compound - and of its presuppositions, implications and ramifications in the Brahma Sutras, Upadesa Sahasri, Naiskarmya Siddhi and Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, respectively. The unanimous consensus is that Sankara's use of avidya in all these texts was distorted by post Sankara Advaita in various ways!!  -- references available on demand

Ignoring or side stepping these studies is disingenuous, imho. SSSS's corrective discoveries cannot be dismissed off handedly as some here have done. The serious investigation of his conclusions, if nothing else, is rich manana and because of their apta claim undermining the fundamental teaching of Adi Shanakara teaching, no student of Vedanta can stand firm in their conviction, it seems to me. 

Very well Michael ji.

Now please define what is Shakti, which you proceeded to answer but went to Hacker, Mayeda, Alston etc and God-knows-where who are liable to come within the ambit of this statement of BhAshyakAra - तस्मात् असम्प्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः ॥ 

//References available on demand//

Sorry. No demand from my side.

//If nothing else, is rich manana//

No. It is not rich manana. The indulgence in replying to what is said in their non-sAmpradAyik swa-kalpanA-prasUta-theories is only for the sake of some sincere sAdhakAs like your goodself and some other aspirants. Otherwise, personally, it is useless.

Regards. 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, Thank you for the list of PSA/post-Sankara Advaitins who acknowledged Adhhyaropa Apavada. I don't think there's any doubt the prakriya wsa employed variously in PSA. I think the issue recognizing it as fundamental.  One of SSSS's direct disciples, the anchorite and teacher of my teacher. declared that SSSS's great finding wasn't about mulavidya but rather in the recognition of the status of adhyaropa apavada.  

regards, mcc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBKGBjLaGn5UcwNYULXOkVUPZ_7Zj9HStnK5NF7%2Boq-UA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Thank you for the list of PSA/post-Sankara Advaitins who acknowledged Adhhyaropa Apavada.

All AchAryAs of advaita have adhyAropa-apavAda as the base of all of their prakriyAs. Where is the question of any list? I repeat, all AchAryAs have AA as the core of their prakriyAs. 

I don't think there's any doubt the prakriya wsa employed variously in PSA. I think the issue recognizing it as fundamental. 

Sir, I don't know how else to put it. I gave an analogy of UPI and GPay, PhonePe etc, if you are familiar with Indian mobile payment system. AdhyAropa-apavAda is the underlying framework in all the prakriyAs, be it DSV, SDV, ESV, STV.. whatever. ajAtivAda is the apavAda.

One of SSSS's direct disciples, the anchorite and teacher of my teacher. declared that SSSS's great finding wasn't about mulavidya but rather in the recognition of the status of adhyaropa apavada.  

regards, mcc

I am sorry but as per my understanding, SSS ji did not understand basic concepts of NyAya and VedAnta. So, there was no "finding" by him, leave aside "great finding". 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.  

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, can you provide examples where post-Sankara acharyas accept AA as 'the base of all their prakriyAs' or are you just claiming that ajati vada as apavada implies all these acharyas embraced understanding sastrika adhyaropa fundamentally? 

As to your spurious remark about SSSS's lack of nyaya and Vedanta, I offer these selections from SSSS's biography attesting to his intellectual and exegetical credibility :

 

On the Pandit pravara Sri H.AnantaMurthy Shastry:   

By 1928, he had already passed the new Nyaya Vidvat exams and received many prizes. In 1933 he passed the old Nyaya Vidvat exams and secured several prizes. In 1936 he passed the Vedanta Vidvat exams in the first place and again secured 3 gold medals and an accolade by name SuvarnavIra ShrinkhalA. After he passed the Shankara Mutt Vedanta exams in the first place, Sri Sringeri Jagad Guru blessed him and conferred the title "Pandit Pravara" and presented a couple of excellent shawls. He again received a gold medal and a prize for passing the Mysore Sahitya Vidvat exams in 1938. By 1939, he had passed the nyaya, sahitya and Vedanta exams in flying colots. It was very fortunate that Subbaraya obtained this great scholar's help and cooperation in his future tasks.P138    

...//The Pandit's own words  

"Though I partic ipated in the Shankara saptahas that Sri Subbaraya organized, I wasn't ready to accept his postulates and principles in the beginning. Until the completion of the saptaha at Tumkur, I wasn't bought into his thinking. In the beginning, I even hesitated to bow to him. I became very interested in learning and understanding those principles correctly; it came to my mind that Subbaraya always wanted us to pay close attention to the original Shankara's works. Finally, after a lot of analysis and close examination of the original works, and thorough reflection, I have now come to understand that Subbaraya's thinking is correct, and that it is in complete agreement with Shankara, the scriptures and intuition." 

 

His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore also conferred the title of "Asthana vidvan" to Subbaraya/SSSS pre-sanyas p162

The Jagad Guru ofSringeri who adorned the Sringeri Mutt - Sri Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swamiji was on his travels and arrived at Holenarasipura on Jrd May 1962. .... Our Swamiji, who had just published his VedAnta PrakRA;yApratyabIJij-nA, brought up and discussed some of the topics from this book. The Jagad Guru was immensely pleased with the book and the tremendous efforts that went into the book. He offered Rs.2S0 as a contribution to get the book published. Later he visited Adhyatma Prakash a Karyalaya and looked at all other activities of the organization. He genuinely praised thus - "You have dedicated your life to the propagation of Shankar a's philosophy. Even in this old age, you work with such enthusiasm - you are Shankara's genuine devotee!" He continued - In meeting you and discussing these topics in person, many of my doubts have vanished.' p215-6

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAn_UNBuKyNGYvFOPu6G1G6O-UJOh7VmA3dbM-u-JemVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//can you provide examples where post-Sankara acharyas accept AA as 'the base of all their prakriyAs' or are you just claiming that ajati vada as apavada implies all these acharyas embraced understanding sastrika adhyaropa fundamentally?//

Please check Samkshepa ShArIraka 2.82 to 2.94. The shlokAs are crystal clear and give the overview of all prakriyAs. They explain as to how adhyAropa-apavAda is in-built in all the prakriyAs and how paramArtha-drishTi (ajAtivAda) is apavAda-drishTi.

If interested, please check MadhusUdan SaraswatI jI's sAra-sangraha-TIkA thereupon.

I don't give credence to my imaginations and refer only to what AchAryAs in sampradAya have said.
 
//As to your spurious remark about SSSS's lack of nyaya and Vedanta,//

There is nothing spurious about what I said. I said what I feel from SSS ji's writings. His arguments are liable to be rejected by even a primary student of NyAya and VedAnta. Look at our present discussions itself -- he did not even acknowledge that avidyA is stated in siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNA and went on to write 1000s of pages to do mUlAvidyA-nirAsa. One should first understand the concept and then go on to do "nirAsa". So, I stand by my comments.

Let me ask you -- why did he not mention that avidyA is presented in siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNA? Did he hide it? Or he did not know it?

If he has mentioned it - then how can he argue that avidyA, being bhAvarUpa, cannot be removed by ajnAna?

//I offer these selections from SSSS's biography attesting to his intellectual and exegetical credibility ://

Despite the evidence you cite about Jagadguru of Sringeri and that of Panditapravara, I stand by my views as they are my own and reflective of my understanding of SSS ji's work. His works have fundamental infirmities which make them unacceptable, as demonstrated by several members of this forum from time to time. 

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, Thank you for you reply. I went to SS 2.82-94 and did not find adhyaropa apavada but a mukhya/gauna discussion - close but not the same. Consider: 

"By the knowledge of the senses of the words you do not attain the ultimate purpose, as the knowledge of the meanings of the words is only mediate. Hence the knowledge that would annihilate avidya will arise only from the major texts.SS2.94" 

'tthis knowledge that would annihilating avidya arising' is itself as an adhyaopita - Karika 2.32 is the apavada. 

Further, I went back to 2.279, " Understand that the limited thing along with its limiting condition is completely false. In the reflected image of the self also, a part is false1. But the original self, in its entirety, is real."  

what is this 'a part is false'? He probably means, the snake is false, the rope is real - but there is no part! There is only rope. That notion of 'a part' is bhavarupa avidya. It raises its head in often subtle phraseology but always undermines avidya as adhyasa only - because we don't know what's real, we imagine what's not real - that's abhavarupa avidya.   

//There is nothing spurious about what I said. I said what I feel from SSS ji's writings. His arguments are liable to be rejected by even a primary student of NyAya and VedAnta//

Please sir, do your best. I am no logician but very much value arguments that challenge my own understanding. . SSSS withstood formal challenges from many venerable vedavit-s. I gave examples in my previous message. That, I believe is the tip of the iceberg. SSSS has a long history of confront traditional pandits. Please don't think you alone are the defender of tradition. Please see the text, Vedantins Meet - perhaps some sagacious names you will recognize. If you find nyaya lacking, I suggest you look deeper or converse with a better informed interlocutor than myself. 

// he did not even acknowledge that avidyA is stated in siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNA and went on to write 1000s of pages to do mUlAvidyA-nirAsa. One should first understand the concept and then go on to do "nirAsa".... why did he not mention that avidyA is presented in siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNA? Did he hide it? Or he did not know it? If he has mentioned it - then how can he argue that avidyA, being bhAvarUpa, cannot be removed by ajnAna?//

Sorry, I don't follow. Would you mind spelling out what the issue is

regards, mcc

lone 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCXZ9U%3D_Q%2B_g_ezDMs5%3DA7RwZx3630ybFHA%3D923SPWMgg%40mail.gmail.com.