[Advaita-l] Adhyaropa-Apavada Nyaya.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> If Neti Neti is only method available in Sruti what is the use of
> positive Mahavakyas like Tattwamasi, Aham Brahmasmi,  Ayam Atma
> Brahma.


Namaste.

All 'positive' mahavAkya-s too are first understood, by taking the tat-pada
and tvam-pada, after negating what they generally mean and the lakShaNa
meaning is retained.  So, 'tat' which generally means the 'jagat kAraNam,
sarvajna, sarvashakti Ishwara, is divested of all these attributes as 'this
is not the Brahman that the Upanishad wants me to realize as my Self'.  So
also with 'aham' which generally means 'I' with the body-mind apparatus is
divested of all these avidya-born accretions and only the pure Consciousness
which can never be negated is retained.  The identity, aikyam, abheda, is
established only after the divesting of attributes and inevitably neti neti
is involved in this process.


> Is it right to say Neti Neti removes the Adhyaropa and
> Tattwamasi points to remainder after the Dvaita Prapancha is removed?
> Otherwise we may think Neti Neti results in only Sunya like the
> Sunyavadis.
>

One expression that comes to mind immediately is:
अधिषठानावशेषो हि नाशः कल्पितवस्तुनः   (Source of this is unknown.
I thought hitherto that it is a line from Sureshwaracharya's VArtika.
Someone could
confirm. )
[adhiShThAnAvasheSho hi *nAshaH* *kalpita*-*vastunaH*]
//The remaining over of / as  just the substratum is what is termed as the
destruction of the superimposed (imagined) thing.//
OR //The destruction of the concocted is its remaining over as merely the
substratum.//
The above is quoted on p.697 of the book: SrIdakshiNAmurtistotram Vol.I.

Thus, there is never the possibility of the Upanishadic method of 'neti neti' or
the mahavakyas ending up in shUnya.  All the non-advaitic schools which have
objected to Advaita on the grounds of this 'possibility of the Advaitic method
ending up in shUnya' are thoroughly mistaken.  A fundamental misunderstanding
of the Upanishadic method is the cause for such objections/apprehensions.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v




>
>