Adhyasa Bhashya - Reflections On Scope And Relevance

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram,

A vidwan of another sampradhayam once questioned the scope and relevance of Adhyasa Bhashya. Some of the questions are:

• What is the need for Adhyasa Bhashya as a prelude to the Brahma-Sutras?
• Why doesn’t Adhyasa Bhashya include even a single scriptural reference if it is meant to preface the highest Brahma-Sutras, which systematize the Upanishads?
• The logical explanation offered is that Swami Sankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta as a whole - and Adhyasa Bhashya in particular - arose primarily as a pro-Vedic response to Buddhist and Jaina critiques, thereby helping displace much of those philosophies from India; and that, it is claimed, is the full scope of Advaita Siddhanta.
• The implication then drawn is that Advaita Vedanta was not intended to faithfully elucidate the deepest, highest aspects of Vedanta; rather, that task was later taken up by other great acharyas of the Vedanta sampradhayam, who built upon a “cleaned-up” foundation set by Swami Sankaracharya.

Here is an attempt to clarify the scope and relevance of Adhyasa Bhashya, and to show that its intent and purpose are significantly more expansive than the narrow focus and scope suggested by the above questions and implications.

https://archive.org/details/adhyasa-bhashya-reflections-on-scope-and-relevance

The article is merely a systematic reflection of my current understanding. I humbly request respected members to critically review it and kindly share feedback on its efficacy and shortcomings.

Dhanyosmi!

prostrations,
Vikram

[V Subrahmanian]

In fact all the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita start with the claim, pratijnaa, of stating the problem underlying bandha and offering the solution. Even the Brahmasutra commences this way: the statement of ignorance about Brahman which is the truth of the jiva, and the solution.

Mundaka, Chandogya: explicit initial declaration of 'eka vijnanena sarva vijnanam.' Again, the statement of avidya. One can do this for the rest.

The Bh.Gita starts with shoka moha and going forward, the solution. 

So, it's all solving the human problem.  Shankaracharya says that most explicitly and convincingly in the Adhyasa document. No need for Upanishadic quotes at that point. 

Regards

subbu 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLf0Nq%2BXgaC%2BOjfj5rLv9V1njqMzA%2Bfi4816bnmie2xmEg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Vikram ji.

I went through the write-up. It is a well-written document. 

To appreciate the error, we don't need shAstra. We need shAstra to come out of error. 

To appreciate the bondage, we don't need shAstra. We need shAstra to come out of bondage.

First and foremost step in spiritual journey is to appreciate the bondage. I must feel that my neck is throttled, that I am in a prison, that I am in bondage. 

What is this bondage? Isn't it being slave to desires. Propelled by same desires again and again and again, we act like the proverbial ox who goes round and round in circle. We indeed act like slaves to desires. We want to eat a particular tasty food, we want name and fame and act in pursuance thereto. Day in and day out, all our activities are in pursuance of desires. 

This needs to be badly appreciated so that our existing bondage is deeply felt and then one can truly ask -- how do I get rid of this bondage!! How can I breathe peacefully!!

AdhyAsa bhAshya explains the nature of bondage. That it is an error.

Logic and experience take us this far. They make us appreciate our bondage, and they explain us the nature of bondage. We do not need shAstra for this. We need a clear thinking and sensitive mind.

Once this is done, that is, we appreciate the bondage and we know its nature as being born of ignorance -- shAstra takes over and gives the requisite knowledge which removes ignorance!!

So, step 1 is appreciation of bondage. Step 2 is knowing the nature of bondage (adhyAsa bhAshya). And step 3 is getting knowledge (Brahman Sutra).

My humble view.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Subbu ji, Sudhanshu ji, Krishnaprakasha ji,

Thank you for your responses. Your responses validate my current understanding. Since this article would be shared with scholars from other sampradhayams, I am requesting for additional pairs of eyes to possibly double-check accuracy and correct representation of mainstream Advaita siddhanta.

There is a modern popular view amongst others that, restating the 3rd question from the original thread, Swami Sankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta as a whole - and Adhyasa Bhashya in particular - arose primarily as a pro-Vedic response to Buddhist and Jaina critiques, thereby helping displace much of those philosophies from India; and that, it is claimed, is the full scope of Advaita Siddhanta.

This to me undermines the true value of Advaita siddhanta and also patronizes it in an attempt to reconcile with others.

H. H. Kanchi Kamakoti Mahaperiyaval, in the 3rd chapter of the book Hindu Dharma, has communicated the following:

Many believe that Buddhism ceased to have a large following in India because it came under the attack of Sankara. This is not true. There are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical of that religion, a religion that was opposed to the Vedas. Far more forcefully has he criticised the doctrines of Sankhya and Mimamsa that respect the Vedic tradition. He demolishes their view that Isvara is not the creator of the world and that it is not he who dispenses the fruits of our actions. He also maintains that Isvara possesses the laksanas or characteristics attributed to him by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra and argues that there can be no world without Isvara and that it is wrong to maintain that our works yield fruits on their own. It is Isvara, his resolve, that has created this world, and it is he who awards us the fruits of our actions. We cannot find support in his commentaries for the view that he was responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.

prostrations,

Vikram

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 9:09 AM Krishnaprakasha Bolumbu <kpbol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pranamam

To say that “the later acharyas perfected what Shankara only began” is really a sectarian statement, not a philosophical one. Each of the later teachers — Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, and others — certainly gave their own interpretations of the Brahma Sutras, but always in relation to the basic framework of Adhyasa that Shankara had already set. Each of them, in one way or another, takes a position on whether adhyasa is real or unreal, whether ignorance has a positive existence or is only an absence, and whether liberation is based on knowledge or on devotion. In that sense, Shankara’s Adhyasa Bhashya becomes the philosophical ground zero for all later Vedanta traditions, even for those who disagreed with him.  

KP

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram,

A quick addition - full reference to Shri Mahaperiyaval's quote:
https://lakshminarayanlenasia.com/articles/HinduDharma.pdf

Part 12, Chapter 3, Page 452 in the PDF.

prostrations,

Vikram

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

Can you attach the file as a pdf? My phone and iPad are unable to open the archive link?

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Putran ji,

Please find attached the pdf version. 

Thanks!

prostrations,
Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rnrh94LUEA2M17aTD%2B_8b5iUWmx4MvgS8LQVGW2%2Bn2dQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar dear Vikram:

It is nice to see your logical and persuasive presentation supporting the relevance of Adhyasa Bhashya in Vedanta.  You have made a bold attempt to show that Adhyasa Bhashya's purpose is significantly more expansive than the narrow focus and scope portrayed through the above questions and their implications. The document is well written and my special appreciations to you for your contributions.  

You probably be aware of a series of lectures by Swami Paramarthanandaji on Adhyasa Bhasya which was later transcribed by his students.  As I understand, Swamiji is quite thorough in explaining the importance of Adhyasa Bhasya and Brahma Sutras in the lecture series.  A summary of the entire lectures  were transcribed and type-set by Sri Rāmu, who lives in Nana Nani Homes, Coimbatore.  I  tired to attach the pdf file of this summary for those who want to pursue to get more clarifications in understanding the relevance of Adhyasa Bhashya. Google will not permit me to send it because it is too long. 

Once again thank you for your scholarly presentation,

Ram Chandran 

[Ram Chandran]

namaskar:

The referenced files containing Swamiji's lecture content can be downloaded from the site provided below:

https://arshaavinash.in/index.php/download/brahma-sutra-bhashyam-by-swami-paramarthananda/

The pdf file is too long and Google will not allow me to post it here!

Ram Chandran

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

 

Those who are interested to know the view points of Sri SSS on the adhyAsa bhAshya can refer the work called : ‘sugama’ written originally in Sanskrit by Sri SSS, available in Kannada and English also.  And also, Kannada work called :  adhyAsa bhAshyArtha vimarshe. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

To appreciate the bondage, we don't need shAstra. We need shAstra to come out of bondage.

So, step 1 is appreciation of bondage. Step 2 is knowing the nature of bondage (adhyAsa bhAshya). And step 3 is getting knowledge (Brahman Sutra)

 

 

• I like the way you articulated the nature of adhyAsa and explanation with regard to why we don’t need shAstra to appreciate the avidyA/adhyAsa but to efface the same we need shAstra. 

 

 

First and foremost step in spiritual journey is to appreciate the bondage. I must feel that my neck is throttled, that I am in a prison, that I am in bondage. 

 

• In addition I would like to add, the ultimate goal of shAstra jnAna or adhyAtmika sAdhana is to purify the mind which helps us to reveal what is already existing.  So in that sense, shAstra jnAna or shravaNAdi sAdhana not to literally acquire the Atma jnAna itself, afresh but when once the mind is purified and ready the knowledge of the self which was always present reveals itself. 

 

• And the covering of the jnAna by the ajnAna like a car covered by plastic sheet is not feasible considering the true nature of jnAna.  Hence when we say we get the rope jnAna by getting rid of the misconception about rope, the rope is Atman the true/constant/changeless/kUtastha.  The illusion of the snake is the misconception of tiny self (jeevaatma) who is bound by the BMI.  And due to this adhyAsa (wrong knowledge) he suffers.  And the correct knowledge of rope is just removal of ajnAna about rope i.e. ever present truth of Atman / svayaM prakAshita/svayaM siddham.  And in this process of acquiring knowledge rope never ever undergoes any changes nor appear afresh after getting rid of wrong knowledge.  The dawn of rope knowledge immediately dispels the illusion of the snake the person realizes that rope was / is / will always be there all along and rope itself never changed. 

 

• Can the jnAnAgni be covered with silky veil of ajnAna??  Asks Sri SSS somewhere. 

 

praNAms Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 In addition I would like to add, the ultimate goal of shAstra jnAna or adhyAtmika sAdhana is to purify the mind which helps us to reveal what is already existing.  So in that sense, shAstra jnAna or shravaNAdi sAdhana not to literally acquire the Atma jnAna itself, afresh but when once the mind is purified and ready the knowledge of the self which was always present reveals itself. 

I do not disagree with it. But I have a slightly different take on it. While in the beginning, it seems alright that the mind needs to be purified for revelation of shuddha chaitanya. However, one needs to understand as to what exactly is this purity of mind?

Purity of mind simply means the eligibility or capacity to situate in jnAna.

And what is this jnAna? The jnAna is - I am not the mind.

So, jnAna ensures that this whole obsession with purification of mind ceases. When I am not the mind, where is the point of caring for purity of mind!

So, one starts with the practises of karma-yOga, dhyAna-yOga for attaining the purity of mind i.e. jnAna-nishThA-yOgyatA, but eventually becomes unconcerned therewith. So, ultimate aim is not purity of mind but to situate as oneself. 

//And the covering of the jnAna by the ajnAna like a car covered by plastic sheet is not feasible considering the true nature of jnAna.//

Covering of jnAna by ajnAna like a fog etc, which is stated by Rigveda, is from the frame of reference of ajnAna. From the frame of reference of ajnAna, ajnAna is anirvachanIya. However, from the frame of reference of jnAna, ajnAna is tuchchha and hence covering is a non-starter.

Since we start from the frame of reference of ajnAna, ShAstra uses our default position to teach about ajnAna from the frame of reference of ajnAna. 

//Hence when we say we get the rope jnAna by getting rid of the misconception about rope, the rope is Atman the true/constant/changeless/kUtastha.  The illusion of the snake is the misconception of tiny self (jeevaatma) who is bound by the BMI.  And due to this adhyAsa (wrong knowledge) he suffers.  And the correct knowledge of rope is just removal of ajnAna about rope i.e. ever present truth of Atman / svayaM prakAshita/svayaM siddham.  And in this process of acquiring knowledge rope never ever undergoes any changes nor appear afresh after getting rid of wrong knowledge.  The dawn of rope knowledge immediately dispels the illusion of the snake the person realizes that rope was / is / will always be there all along and rope itself never changed. Can the jnAnAgni be covered with silky veil of ajnAna??  Asks Sri SSS somewhere.//

All these have been deliberated in detail. VidyAraNya SwAmI succinctly puts in Panchadashi 6.130 -

तुच्छानिर्वचनीया च वास्तवी चेत्यसौ त्रिधा ।

ज्ञेया माया त्रिभिर्बोधैः श्रौतयौक्तलौकिकैः ॥

This shloka reveals the siddhAanta clearly about Maya/avidyA.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

First of all, we see that the purvapakshin here does not take an extreme antagonistic stance against Shankara or his followers. We are not quite evil, or demons, or anti-dharma and dangerous. advaita has a place in thwarting nastika schools and aiding confused vaidikas to have faith in the Vedic path. Later they can graduate to the dvaitic understanding of Vedanta. So the purvapaksha of this type sees us as a part of the family and wants to consider Shankara as a valid and important stepping stone to Vedanta. At least formally. This is somewhat similar to how advaita also regards other schools of thought and their teachers (like we see in the discussions over Buddha); no one is condemned to hell.

Now I see in my Brahmasutra book translated by Swami Gambhirananda that the adhyasa bhashya takes up 6 pages and the sutra-bhashya afterwards runs some 900 pages. And the main bhashya is full of scriptural quotations and so is intended to address primarily the vaidikas. It is illogical then to think that the adhyasa bhashya was meant to respond to nastika schools when the acharya has given it as a preface to a huge work that is addressing astikas. The purvapakshin perhaps wants to disconnect the adhyasa bhashya from the sutra-bhashya, and suggest the former is the real intent of shankara - independent of Vedic connection. 

But again, that does not negate the astika intent shown by Shankara within sutra bhashya. As the kanchi acharya says, the bhashya (or shankara's works in general) itself is arguing primarily against sankhya and mimamsa, upholding the integral necessity of Ishvara against their thinking which undermines Him. So to focus on adhyasa bhashya's apparent independence from shabda pramana and thereby create a theory that shankara's primary concern is countering nastika darshanas rather than to propound Vedanta in completeness is an insincere attempt to bypass the bhashya as a whole and claim the real matter is what they have to say. But that's what they want to do, and so have concocted this type of argument that satisfies them (but as we see holistically is not a strong argument).

Shankara says at the end of the adhyasa bhashya "Thus occurs this superimposition that has neither beginning nor end but flows on eternally, that appears as the manifested universe and its apprehension, that conjures up agentship and enjoyership, and that is perceived by all persons. In order to eradicate this source of evil and in order to acquire the knowledge of unity of the Self, is begun a discussion (after the study) of all the Upanishads. We shall show in this discussion about the nature of the embodied soul, that this is the purport of all the Upanishads."

So the acharya is very clear that the fundamental problem for the 'embodied soul' is adhyasa and the way out of this problem is acquiring the knowledge of the unity of the Self, and this knowledge that frees us from this problem is the purport of all the Upanishads. In fact, the first chapter of the sutras and sutra-bhashya is on reconciling the Upanishads' position on Brahman. The purvapakshin need not agree with the acharya on his conclusions but the pp cannot twist the acharya's explicit statements regarding the role of adhyasa and the purport of the Upanishads and pretend he did not mean really what he said here and instead was merely formulating a pro-Vedic response to the Buddhists. That is disingenuous on the pp's part. 

Next let us consider the subject matter of adhyasa. Leave aside whether acharya quotes scripture here, we have to ask why a dvaita sampradayin feels it is incongruous to make adhyasa the central problem? 

If adhyasa of non-self upon Self is stated to be the only problem, then the removal of this adhyasa will result in the realization of the Unity of Self. The seer-seeing-seen triple is resolved in the adhishtanam Sat. This means the duality present in "I am the servant of the Lord" is also an adhyasa on the non-dual Self. For a dvaitin, that duality is to be held as real, so not all constructs of "I am this" can be called adhyasa on non-dual I. Adhyasa for them only pertains to a jivatma's identifications with particular body, things etc. Its eternal relationship with God however cannot be deemed adhyasa. For the jiva-self, God is different from itself and the right knowledge of God vs self and establishing in the one-pointed relationship with Him are all in the category of knowledge of reality. That is not adhyasa of non-self on Self, nor is the Self to be realized in a truly non-dual adhishtanam manner.

So they say that adhyasa is part of (but not all) the problem, but once the body-mind adhyasa is transcended, the jiva has to realize its relationship with God. So ignorance of God etc. is the higher problem of Ignorance that has to be solved through Vedanta. Because this is their position, they will not accept adhyasa-bhashya as a complete description of the problem and is insufficient as a prelude to the Brahma sutras. 

Will add if I think of more later.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

I thought some more on adhyasa after reading section 3. I was wondering whether there could be some rephrasing of definitions there.

In the rope-snake analogy, adhyasa is the superimposing of snakeness onto rope and knowing the rope as snake. The way I am understanding, in the case of Self, the nondual I is known as-if conditioned by "this", resulting in the knowledge "I am/see/do this". The I points to the adhishtanam "Existence-Consciousness". The "this" is the limiting-adjunct. The am/see/do is the cognitive connecting of I to 'this’ (or adhyasa of this on I), how the Self is known as seer-seeing-seen through the lens of the limiting adjunct. The I is constant, unchanging. The non-Self "this" is constantly changing. The "I am this" is the snake, the Rope conditioned/superimposed by the limiting adjunct of snakeness. 

In Ignorance the Self is imagined as having the attributes of or a real association to the “this”, through the am/see/do connectives. This is misapprehension of Self. In knowledge there is “ascertainment of the nature of the real entity by separating the superimposed thing from it”, and the “Unity of Self” is realized. Knowledge destroys the misapprehension of Self but not necessarily the cognitive dualistic apprehension, which adhyasa is mithya.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram,

Thank you Krishnaprakasha ji, Ram ji, Bhaskar ji and Putran ji, for your valuable opinion and comments.

Ram ji, yes, Swami Paramarthananda ji's explanation is exhaustive, lucid and deep. Thank you for sharing the transcript. I am also familiar with Swami Ramakrishnananda ji's (Chinmaya Mission) video classes on Chatusutri - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlNdduOe1pp2mtrGgraNYD9cvbLpFE3rg&si=rom9ubmi4Qb3V_uA

Putran ji, excellent notes and observations, as always; will share my takeaways separately.

prostrations,

Vikram

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oj55qP_gVrJfn154vwJViHo1N3V7DPZ_C%2B%3DaAoiOtxiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I sent this version to my personal group:

In the rope-snake analogy, adhyasa is the superimposing of snakeness onto rope and knowing the rope as snake. In the case of Self, the nondual I is conditioned by the consciousness of "this", resulting in the knowledge "I am/see/have/do this". The I points to the adhishtanam "Existence-Consciousness". The "this" is the limiting-adjunct, the lens-of-identification that Consciousness projects and through which bounds, divides itSelf as seer-seeing-seen. The am/see/do is the cognitive connecting of I to 'this’ (or the adhyasa of this on I). The Self "I" is constant, unchanging. The non-Self "this" is constantly changing. The "I am this" is the snake, the Rope conditioned/superimposed by the limiting adjunct of snakeness. 

In Ignorance the Self is imagined as having the attributes of or a real association to the “this”, through the am/see/do connectives. This is misapprehension of Self. In knowledge there is “ascertainment of the nature of the real entity by separating the superimposed thing from it”, and the “Unity [and Immutability] of Self” is realized. Knowledge destroys the misapprehension of Self but not necessarily the cognitive dualistic apprehension of "this", which adhyasa is mithya (not absolutely negatable but having status of imagination).

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

thollmelukaalkizhu