[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Adhyaropa apavada' found in Vivarana and other texts

[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.

>