Ways to learn: Avroha and Negation
SB 10.13.57
Brahmā was mystified about Krsna's opulence (nija-mahimani) because this opulence was atarkya, or inconceivable. With one's limited senses, one cannot argue about that which is inconceivable. Therefore the inconceivable is called acintya, that which is beyond cintya, our thoughts and arguments. Acintya refers to that which we cannot contemplate but have to accept. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has said that unless we accept acintya in the Supreme, we cannot accommodate the conception of God. This must be understood. Therefore we say that the words of śāstra should be taken as they are, without change, since they are beyond our arguments. Acintyā khalu ye bhāvā na tāms tarkena yojayet: "That which is acintya cannot be ascertained by argument." People generally argue, but our process is not to argue but to accept the Vedic knowledge as it is. When Krsna says, "This is superior, and this is inferior," we accept what He says. It is not that we argue, "Why is this superior and that inferior?" If one argues, for him the knowledge is lost.
This path of acceptance is called avaroha-panthā The word avaroha is related to the word avatāra, which means"that which descends." The materialist wants to understand everything by the āroha-panthā — by argument and reason — but transcendental matters cannot be understood in this way. Rather, one must follow the avaroha-panthā, the process of descending knowledge. Therefore one must accept the paramparā system. And the best paramparā is that which extends from Krsna (evam paramparā-prāptam). What Krsna says, we should accept (imam rājarsayo viduḥ). This is called the avaroha-panthā.
Brahmā, however, adopted the āroha-panthā. He wanted to understand Krsna's mystic power by his own limited, conceivable power, and therefore he himself was mystified. Everyone wants to take pleasure in his own knowledge, thinking, "I know something." But in the presence of Krsna this conception cannot stand, for one cannot bring Krsna within the limitations of prakrti. One must submit. There is no alternative. Na tāms tarkena yojayet. This submission marks the difference between Krsna-ites and Māyāvādīs.
The phrase atan-nirasana refers to the discarding of that which is irrelevant. (Atat means "that which is not a fact.") Brahman is sometimes described as asthūlam anaṇv ahrasvam adīrgham, "that which is not large and not small, not short and not long." (Brhad-āranyaka Upanisad 5.8.8) Neti neti: "It is not this, it is not that." But what is it? In describing a pencil, one may say, "It is not this; it is not that," but this does not tell us what it is. This is called definition by negation. In Bhagavad-gītā, Krsna also explains the soul by giving negative definitions. Na jāyate mriyate vā: "It is not born, nor does it die. You can hardly understand more than this." But what is it? It is eternal. Ajo nityah śāśvato 'yam purāno na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre: "It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain." (Bg. 2.20) In the beginning the soul is difficult to understand, and therefore Krsna has given negative definitions:
nainam chindanti śastrāni
nainam dahati pāvakah
na cainam kledayanty āpo
na śosayati mārutah
"The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can it be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind." (Bg. 2.23) Krsna says, "It is not burned by fire." Therefore, one has to imagine what it is that is not burned by fire. This is a negative definition.
Brahmā was mystified about Krsna's opulence (nija-mahimani) because this opulence was atarkya, or inconceivable. With one's limited senses, one cannot argue about that which is inconceivable. Therefore the inconceivable is called acintya, that which is beyond cintya, our thoughts and arguments. Acintya refers to that which we cannot contemplate but have to accept. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has said that unless we accept acintya in the Supreme, we cannot accommodate the conception of God. This must be understood. Therefore we say that the words of śāstra should be taken as they are, without change, since they are beyond our arguments. Acintyā khalu ye bhāvā na tāms tarkena yojayet: "That which is acintya cannot be ascertained by argument." People generally argue, but our process is not to argue but to accept the Vedic knowledge as it is. When Krsna says, "This is superior, and this is inferior," we accept what He says. It is not that we argue, "Why is this superior and that inferior?" If one argues, for him the knowledge is lost.
This path of acceptance is called avaroha-panthā The word avaroha is related to the word avatāra, which means"that which descends." The materialist wants to understand everything by the āroha-panthā — by argument and reason — but transcendental matters cannot be understood in this way. Rather, one must follow the avaroha-panthā, the process of descending knowledge. Therefore one must accept the paramparā system. And the best paramparā is that which extends from Krsna (evam paramparā-prāptam). What Krsna says, we should accept (imam rājarsayo viduḥ). This is called the avaroha-panthā.
Brahmā, however, adopted the āroha-panthā. He wanted to understand Krsna's mystic power by his own limited, conceivable power, and therefore he himself was mystified. Everyone wants to take pleasure in his own knowledge, thinking, "I know something." But in the presence of Krsna this conception cannot stand, for one cannot bring Krsna within the limitations of prakrti. One must submit. There is no alternative. Na tāms tarkena yojayet. This submission marks the difference between Krsna-ites and Māyāvādīs.
The phrase atan-nirasana refers to the discarding of that which is irrelevant. (Atat means "that which is not a fact.") Brahman is sometimes described as asthūlam anaṇv ahrasvam adīrgham, "that which is not large and not small, not short and not long." (Brhad-āranyaka Upanisad 5.8.8) Neti neti: "It is not this, it is not that." But what is it? In describing a pencil, one may say, "It is not this; it is not that," but this does not tell us what it is. This is called definition by negation. In Bhagavad-gītā, Krsna also explains the soul by giving negative definitions. Na jāyate mriyate vā: "It is not born, nor does it die. You can hardly understand more than this." But what is it? It is eternal. Ajo nityah śāśvato 'yam purāno na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre: "It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain." (Bg. 2.20) In the beginning the soul is difficult to understand, and therefore Krsna has given negative definitions:
nainam chindanti śastrāni
nainam dahati pāvakah
na cainam kledayanty āpo
na śosayati mārutah
"The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can it be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind." (Bg. 2.23) Krsna says, "It is not burned by fire." Therefore, one has to imagine what it is that is not burned by fire. This is a negative definition.
posted by Vyoma at Thursday, July 07, 2005
<< Home