A brief introduction

In the Śivamogga district, there is a renowned Vedic village called Mattūr, famous as a “Saṃskṛtagrāma” (village of Sanskrit). Among the six children of the blessed couple, Ve. Br. Śrī Subrāya Avadhāni and Cennammā, residing in that village, the author of this work was the fifth. He was born on 24-2-1960. At the tender age of eight, he underwent Upanayana and continued his traditional Vedic studies. Without diverting his attention towards modern education, he completed the entire Yajurveda by the age of fifteen. Subsequently, he spent two years at the Bengaluru branch, studying Sanskrit and Vedānta under Ve. Br. Śrī K.G. Subrāyaśarmā. Further, from the age of eighteen to twenty-five, he received instruction in Sanskrit grammar, (Vedānta) Śāṅkarabhāṣya, and an introduction to Vedic commentaries from his elder brother, Ve. Br. Śrī Aśvatthanārāyaṇa Avadhāni, and an introduction to Jyotiṣa from his father. In 1989, he established his own Vedic school in Mattūr, where he imparted knowledge of Sanskrit, Veda, Vedānta, and Jyotiṣa to numerous students. From February 2003, he served as the Principal at Adhyātma Prakāśa Kāryālaya, Holenarasipura, conducting classes on Śāṅkarabhāṣya, Sanskrit, Jyotiṣa, and Veda. Here too, many students completed their studies in Prasthānatrayabhāṣya under his guidance. Even today, traditional Bhāṣya classes and discourses continue to be held daily. In May 2010, he embraced Tūrīyāśrama and came to be known as Śrī Śrī Advayānandendra Sarasvatī. In December 2011, with the sole aim of disseminating Śāṅkarabhāṣya to aspiring seekers, he established the flourishing institution called Śrī Sacchidānanda Advaitāśrama. Through this institution, he continues to conduct Vedānta discourses in various locations. His teachings and lectures on Vedānta strictly adhere to the Śuddha Śāṅkara tradition and are characterized by their clarity, precision, and adherence to scriptural authority. Even now, he dedicates his life to the study, teaching, and propagation of Śāṅkarabhāṣya, considering it his very breath and finding fulfillment in serving his Guru.

Our thanks to Smt. Manjushree Hegde for kind advice to reading the text.

 

André Marques Santana Santos

---

It is well-known among those engaged in Vedānta that all methods are undertaken only to realise the nature of Brahman as Ātman. In that regard, there is an inquiry into how the method of cause and effect establishes that. An effect (kārya) is a produced entity, because of the etymological derivation that “it is effected, therefore it is an effect”. A cause (kāraṇa) is a producing entity, because of the etymological derivation that “it produces, therefore it is a cause”. In this context, the effect, the produced entity, is the manifold world beginning with space (ākāśa). But the cause is Brahman alone.

By the aphorism “tadananyatvamārambhaṇaśabdādibhyaḥ” (“On the authority of the texts on origin, etc., there is no difference between those”, BSŚBh II.1.14) the non-difference of cause and effect is to be understood. Although it appears that creation is taught in incompatible forms in the various Upaniṣads – somewhere beginning with fire (tejas), somewhere with ether, somewhere without sequence – the venerable author of the [Vedānta] Sūtras has encompassed all these explanations of the effect, beginning with “na viyadaśruteḥ” (‘Nor has it ever been heard that space [has an origin]’, BSŚBh II.3.1).By merely pointing in that direction, the unity of all the inconsistent statements on creation should be again understood with reference to the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad in particular, because it is stated there in its entirety. By reflecting on the topic of creation, Brahman becomes inclined towards creation due to the karma-s of living beings who wish to manifest the world. That is, like a seed desiring to produce a sprout. Then, the unmanifested food (avyākṛtamanna), the potencial seed form imagined by ignorance, was born; it attained the state of desiring to manifest, is the meaning. From that unmanifested (avyakta), arose Hiraṇyagarbha, endowed with the faculties of knowledge and action. He is described as the thread-Self (sūtrātman) born from that (avyakta). Then, the mind (manas), which is of the nature of saṅkalpa (inclination, intention), vikalpa (doubts, fancy), etc., the tattva of the composite internal organ, was produced. It should be understood that all the senses were produced from that, because of the subsequent text ‘manassarvendriyāṇi ca’ (‘the manas and all indriya-s’, MU II.1.3). And because the senses have the same function as the mind. Here, it should be known that having created all the non-physical senses, the text then teaches the creation of the physical. Next, the truth (satyam), which refers to the five subtle elements in tangible and intangible form. From those five elements, were created in the sequence the seven worlds of the cosmic egg (aṇḍa). It must be understood that here is also implied the creation of Virāṭ. For that purpose, the creation of the fivefold gross elements is also stated, it should be known. The Gods, sages, humans, animals, birds, deer, trees, creepers, bushes, etc. of Virāṭ were born, it should be understood. Then, karma-s and their fruits were produced. This is the sequence of creation.

At this point, it should be noted that just as the non-difference (ananyatva) of objects like pots and pitchers made from clay, and of ornaments like earrings made from gold is observed; but, in the present context, non-difference between the space and wind, fire and its abode, water and its container, or light and its source is not observed. However, here too, the non-difference must exist for the fulfilment of the aphorism. The non-difference of Brahman and the world, or the fact that everything is of the nature of Brahman, cannot be understood through perception (pratyakṣa) etc. How then is the principle of the non-difference of cause and effect, or the fact that everything is of the nature of Brahman, reconciled? There is no flaw here.

Although individuals (jīva) within the world (jagat), observing from their own point of view (dṛṣṭi) as subjects (pramātṛ), do not perceive the non-difference between the elements, nevertheless, they can understand it by inference (anumāna), as Bhagavatpāda [Śaṃkara] has shown when he states: “sūkṣmatāvyāpite jñeye gandhāderottaram”

Although individuals (jīvā) within the world (jagat), viewing through their own perspectives (dṛṣṭi) as subjects (pramātṛ), do not perceive the non-difference between the elements, nevertheless, they can understand it by inference (anumāna), as [Śaṃkara] Bhagavatpāda has shown when he states:’sūkṣmatāvyāpite jñeye gandhāderottarottaram’ (US IX.2)¹. Therefore, it is possible to understand that because the entire duality of phenomenal existence (dvaita prapañca) is not found apart from consciousness (caitanya), which is the nature of Brahman, the non-difference of the world from Brahman can be understood, and it is feasible to know the mutual non-difference of the five elements (pañcabhūta) as well. This is also indicated in “This appearance (māyā) of the ultimate Reality in the form of the three states is indeed mere illusion” (BSŚBh II.1.9).

And there is another point: The origination of all things like pots, cloth, etc. within the world (prapañca) happens with the support of time and space (kāla-deśa). But when the origination of the entire world along with space and time itself is intended to be expressed, how can that origination be intended to be expressed with the support of space and time? Therefore, the definition of an invariable antecedent cause applies to the objects within the world, but not to the entire world consisting of time, space, effect, cause, name and form (kāla-deśa-kārya-kāraṇa-nāma-rūpa). Hence, here, an effect means an imagination (kalpanā), and a cause means the substratum of imagination, it should be understood.

Just as one has to understand that the effectivity (kāryatva) of the serpent and the causality (kāraṇatva) of the rope are imagined, in the same way one has to understand that the world is imagined as effect and that Brahman, as cause, is the substratum of that imagination. As the world is imagined, then its effecthood also is removed. In the absence of effecthood, causehood is also absent. Thus, it is established that Brahman is free of both effect and cause.

Then, the mind comes to rest in Brahman alone, illumined by the scriptures. Indeed, the method of cause and effect is imagined for this purpose alone. Otherwise, if both are real, there would be the consequence of duality, which would undermine the established conclusion and lead to the consequence of no liberation (anirmokṣa prasaṅgaḥ). Such a nature devoid of both forms is experienced by all in deep sleep (suṣupti). This is perceptible to all of us. It should not be forgotten that causehood in Brahman and effecthood of the world are stated from the perspective of superimposition (adhyāropa-dṛṣṭi). In the absence of the effecthood of the world, Brahman’s causehood is also absent. Therefore, this manner of thinking should be understood. Having stated that it is the Self of all, peaceful, auspicious, non-dual, I conclude.

 

There is no doubt among the learned that the Vedānta texts, in order to guide seekers towards the experience of the ultimate Reality (paramārtha Tattva) as their own true nature, employ the method of superimposition (adhyāropa). They do this by using terms like “Sat-Brahman” and “Ātman” to describe this Reality and then ascribe to it various unreal attributes like existence, knowability (jñeyatva), being the essence of Consciousness and Bliss, being attainable through the teachings of scriptures and teachers, being the cause of the universe, and entering into the created universe as the individual soul (jīva-ātman).

However, one should not suspect that these superimposed attributes actually belong to the ultimate Reality. To dispel any such doubts, the Vedānta texts [Upaniṣad-s], after using these attributes for the purpose of instruction, explicitly refute each of them. They specifically deny that the indescribable ultimate Reality has any knowable attributes like substance, quality, and action, and this should not be forgotten.

It is important to remember that the Vedānta texts do not claim their own validity based on their ability to reveal previously unknown truths, like perception and other means of knowledge do. Instead, they are figuratively considered as pramāṇa [because] they negate the false superimpositions and convey that ultimate Reality that transcends the pramāṇa-prameya vyavahāra.

Therefore, there is no difference between the profane superimpositions (laukikādhyāropaiḥ) and the superimpositions used by the Śāstra-s and masters for teaching purposes (śāstra ācārya prakalpita upadeśa artha adhyāropa), nor between their respective refutations (apavāda). None of these descriptions can affect Brahman, which is eternally immutable and beyond the worldly domain. It is only the ignorant and saṃsāra individuals who imagine Brahman as being associated with the world and subject to change and suffering.

This is why the Vedānta texts and teachers, in conformance (anuvāda) with our empirical experience³, instruct us: “Brahman alone is real, free from all diversity and One without a second. The universe does not exist apart from Brahman, nor does any individual soul exist separately from it.”

It cannot be imagined that the scriptures or Guru-s, through their teachings, are negating a universe that actually exists. Nor do the Vedānta texts anywhere suggest that the distinction between Guru and disciple or the ignorance present in the disciple are real entities that are removed by the teachings.

Everything is employed as a means of instruction, as a provisional tool. In reality, nothing exists apart from the ultimate Truth, neither before, during, nor after the teaching process. This is the essence of the teaching.

This adhyāropāpavāda prakriyā is the single method renowned in all Upaniṣad-s, taught by the revered Ādi Śaṅkara and other preceding Vedānta masters who were well-versed in the tradition. This is understood from the verse quoted in the commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā: “That which is devoid of all features, is described by deliberate superimposition and subsequent negation.”⁴

The method employed throughout Vedānta, though one in essence, assumes many different forms. The seemingly different methods of cause and effect, etc., observed are merely variations within this primary method. Other teachers contemporary to Ādi Śaṅkara or prior to him, who adhered to different schools of thought, were unable to recognize the paramount importance of this method in the Vedānta. They believed that the seeker could achieve Liberation by removing a really existing bondage or ignorance through some particular form of spiritual practice. Therefore, they devised numerous varieties of methods, and the reason for this was their lack of understanding of the method of adhyāropa-apavāda.

Now, let us explain the nature of this method. First and foremost, the root of all superimpositions is the notion of “avidyā” (ignorance) residing in the Ātman (Self). It is due to this avidyā that other misconceptions about the Ātman arise. The Vedānta texts utilize the term avidyā to denote this ignorance, and by negating it, the true nature of Brahman is established.

Therefore, upon Brahman, which is beyond all distinctions, the essence of all, and eternally ‘attained’, the quality of being attainable (āpyatva) is superimposed at times. However, through this [deliberate] superimposition, the doubt of attainability through means other than knowledge (jñāna) is dispelled. Similarly, at times, the quality of being knowable (jñeyatva) is superimposed, thereby negating the knowability of any entity other than Brahman. Sometimes, the quality of being a witness (sākṣitva) is superimposed to refute the notion of being a knower (jñātṛtva). And at times, even the quality of being a witness is negated through the statement “neti neti” (not this, not this) in reference to the true nature of Brahman.

Likewise, the understandability through sentences (vākyagamya) is acknowledged at certain instances to demonstrate the limitations of direct perception (pratyakṣa) as a means of knowledge. In some cases, considering the nature [of Brahman] to be beyond the scope of speech and mind (vāṅmanasa), it is denied that it is knowable through sentences or comprehensible by the mind. Similarly, having superimposed the quality of being the cause of the world (jagatkāraṇa) onto Brahman, its nature as an effect (kāryatva) is negated. Then, negating even its nature as a cause (kāraṇatva), only its true nature (svarūpa) is revealed.

The five sheaths (pañcakośa) are superimposed progressively, and the identification with each preceding sheath is negated, leading to the realization of being beyond the five sheaths and ultimately beyond all duality (dvaita). Similarly, through the superimposition of the seer (dṛk) and the seen (dṛśya), the notion of being the seen is negated, followed by the comprehension and subsequent negation of duality itself. By superimposing the three states of consciousness (avasthātraya), the identification with each preceding state is negated, and then through the understanding of the Fourth (Turīya), the very notion of having states is refuted.

In short, whatever is superimposed for the purpose of revealing the true nature of Brahman is subsequently negated, so that the intellect may find its ultimate rest in the true nature itself. Whatever is presented as a means to understand the ultimate Reality (paramārtha Tattva) is merely a superimposition and is repeatedly negated through the process of “neti neti” (not this, not this), ultimately revealing the “Ātman” (Self). The undifferentiated nature of the Ātman, beyond all negation, shines forth on its own. This is the essence of the teaching.

Here, it is important to understand that the essence of the method of adhyāropa-apavāda is as follows: first of all, one superimposes false concepts on Brahman, thus denying any reality opposed to those superimposed concepts; afterwards, one refutes the superimposed concept itself. Until all superimpositions are completely removed without any residue, one must continue to falsify them. It is explicitly declared in the commentaries on the three fundamental texts (prasthāna traya) that only through the negation of all forms of superimposition can the true nature of Brahman be realized, and there exists no other means for its comprehension.

Sarve bhadrāṇi bhavantu!

May this be auspicious for all!

---

1. “It is to be known that [in the series] beginning with earth and ending with the inner Ātman, each succeeding one is subtler and more pervasive than the preceding one which has been abandoned.” Sengaku Mayeda (Ed. by), Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, New York, State University of New York Press, 1992, p. 121.[↩]
2. DakṣiṇaBhārata-ŚāṅkaraVedānta-Vidvad Goṣṭhi (Commemoration Volume), Holenarasipura, Adhyātma Prakāśa Kāryālaya, 2011, pp. 1-2.[↩]
3. Bhrāntiprasiddhyānūdyārthaṃ tattatvaṃ bhrāntibādhayā. ayaṃ netyupadiśyeta tathaivaṃ tattvamityapi. “When a man wishes to dispel the erroneous notion of another, he first conforms his speech to that erroneous notion as if it were a fact, and then he says ‘it is not so’… (Sūerśvara, Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, III.73). This “conformity to erroneous notion as if it were a fact” is anuvāda, a mere restatement of the erroneous notions we believe are true. Every adhyāropa entails an anuvāda, a restatement, of the non-deliberated misconceptions we entertain. So, when the texts of Vedānta teachers state, “…The universe does not exist apart from Brahman, nor does any individual soul exist separately from it”, etc, they are not denying the existence of a truly existing entity. Rather, the very mention of a universe constitutes anuvāda – a restatement of our erroneous idea of an independently existing universe. It is mentioned and negated. This employing of the empirical experience is called anuvāda. Here, this word anuvāda is important because it is contrasted with that of other ācārya-s who believe that they are refuting an ignorance that truly exists.[↩]
4. “Adhyāropāpavādābhyāṃ niṣprapañcaṃ prapañcyate” (BhGŚBh XIII.13).[↩]