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

[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"




On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:28 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>> --
> 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+unsubscribe at 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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDVGg3%3D2HuYah_FnpU1HJbL_TUn2syu8aphxaSg-mwxiQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>