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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

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, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>