A fundamental difference in Svami Saccidanandendra Sarasvati’s (SSS) and the Post-Saṅkaradvaitins’ (PSA) exegeses of Advaita Vedanta lies in the Upaniṣadic pedagogical method of adhyaropa-apavada (deliberate attribution of characteristics to the attribute-less brahman, and its corresponding/complementary contradiction). According to SSS, adhyaropapavada is the sole method to negate avidya (ignorance) and engender the maturation of reflexivity in which liberating de-individuation occurs; other Upaniṣadic methods—lakṣaṇa and netivada—are subsumed under it. For the PSA, on the other hand, adhyaropapavada plays a subsidiary, less consequential role in engendering gnosis; the primary role is that of mahavakyas (the ‘great’ Vedantic statements). The ramifications of this difference are profound: When a sruti-vakya is construed as an adhyaropa, the focus shifts from the (explicit) content of the statement to the erroneous ideas annulled through its articulation. Because the adhyaropa itself stands negated in due course, the method forestalls the potential reification of the constructs. If, on the other hand, a sruti-vakya is not construed as an adhyaropa, then its primary connotation assumes a ‘positive’ assertion of the constructs—temporary or otherwise. This leads to two problematic repercussions: (a) it fosters the reification of the constructs, and (b) it contradicts the premise on which the validity of sruti, as a pramaṇa, stands: negation (nivartakatva). SSS denounces the PSA—with the sole exception of Suresvara—for their (purportedly incorrect) interpretation of the method; he contends that it has led to the lamentable reification of concepts in Advaita Vedanta, and ultimately undermined its basic tenets. The objective of this study is to assess SSS' critique of reification in the commentarial tradition of Advaita Vedanta in terms of its tenability and ramifications, with particular focus on the construal of the method of adhyaropapavada.