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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

Well articulated. I actually do not expect any reply. I understand that
they do not have their fundamental definitions in place. Hence, their
theories resemble gossip at a roadside tea stall. Since some followers are
really sincere, they are worthy of indulgence.

Regarding the twin nyAyAs of prathama-utpanna-pradeep-prabhA and
chaitra-pramA, I may like to point out that these are from VivaraNa.
Advaita Siddhi merely explained them more.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

On Sat, 17 Aug, 2024, 13:56 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>