[Advaita-l] Can the self be called anirvachaniya?

[V Subrahmanian]

The central part of the Sringeri Acharya's message:

Here is an incident related to the 34th Jagadguru Sri Chandrashekhara
Bharati Mahaswamin:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.127155/page/n107/mode/2up?q=cart

Please read from the last paragraph on p.104 of this book.  It has a
telling lesson on how both the jagat and Brahman are both beyond speech:
anirvachaniyam.

//.Then I recollected that all objects in the universe came under either of
two categories, the True and the False. The True is Brahman and the False
is the world of form. Either of these two things must therefore be spoken
of. But the Vedanta has declared in unmistakable terms that Brahman the
True is beyond all speech and even all thought.* So Brahman as an object of
speech was out of the question. There was thus only the world to be talked
about. But regarding the world, the Vedanta was equally emphatic that it
was Anirvachaniya or incapable of being explained in words.* So the world
also seemed to be out of the question as a fit object of speech. There was
no third entity available. There was therefore no fit object of speech. For
want of an object, there could be no speech.//

Apte 1890

*अनिर्वचनीय a. 1 Unutterable, indescribable, undefinable, epithet of the
Supreme Being. *

2 Improper to be mentioned.

*यं ( In Vedānta ) 1 Māyā or illusion, ignorance. *

2 The world.

Comp.

सर्वस्वं N. of a work by Śrīharṣa, also called खंडनखंडखाद्य

तत्र सर्वेषां पदार्थानां इदंतया निर्वक्तुमशक्यता दर्शिता.

regards

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:58 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> In the Bhagavadgita 13.12 the Lord says:
>
>
> ज्ञेयं यत्तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते ।
>
> *अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते ॥*
>
>
> [That which has to be known I shall describe; knowing which one attains
> the Immortal. Beginningless is the Supreme Brahman. * It is not said to
> be ‘sat or ‘asat’.]*
>
> Shankaracharya, in the course of the commentary, raises a question:
>
> ननु महता परिकरबन्धेन कंठरवेणोद्घुष्य ’ ज्ञेयं प्रवक्ष्यामि’ इति,
> अननुरूपमुक्तं ’न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ इति । न, अनुरूपमेवोक्तम् । कथं ? *सर्वासु
> ह्युपनिषत्सु ज्ञेयं ब्रह्म ’नेति नेति’ , ’अस्थूलमनणु’,
> इत्यादिविशेषप्रतिषेधेनैव निर्दिश्यते, न ’इदं तत्’ इति, वाचोऽगोचरत्वात् ।*
>
> Objection: After proclaiming very loudly that He is going to speak of the
> Knowable, it does not become the Lord to describe It as neither ‘sat’ nor
> ‘asat’.
>
> Reply: No; it is quite the right thing that has been said by the Lord.
> How? It is thus: Being inaccessible to speech, Brahman, the Knowable, is
> defined in all Upanishads only by a denial of all specialities, such as
> ‘Not thus’ (Br.Up.2.3.6) and ‘not gross, not subtle’ (Br.Up.3.8.8) and NOT
> in the terms ‘It is this’.
>
> ननु न तदस्ति यद्वस्तु अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते । अथास्तिश्ब्देन नोच्यते, नास्ति
> तज्ज्ञेयम् । विप्रतिषिद्धं च ’ज्ञेयं तत्’ ’अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते’ इति च । न
> तावन्नास्ति, नास्तिवुद्ध्यविषयत्वात् ।
>
> Objection: That thing (alone) exists which can be spoken of as existing.
> If the Knowable cannot be spoken of as existing, then It cannot exist. And
> it is a contradiction in terms to say that Brahman is knowable and that It
> cannot be spoken of as existing.
>
>
> One can read the rest of the bhashya, etc. here:
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/vedapraamaanya/
>
> regards
>
> subbu
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:37 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Hari Om Chandramouli ji.
>>
>> In advaita SiddhAnta, anirvachanIya is not used in the sense of inacapable
>> > of being defined in words. It is to be understood as inacapable of being
>> > categorized as * सत् (sat)* or *other than सत् (sat)*. The Bhashya, in
>> > three places, states as below
>> >
>>
>> Exceptional!!
>>
>> Advaita Siddhi also says exactly what you said - नहि
>> निरुक्तिविरहमात्रेणानिर्वाच्यत्वं ब्रूमः, किंतु सत्त्वादिना निरुक्तिविरहेण
>> ।
>>
>> Mere inability to define/state is not meant by anirvachanIyatva, but the
>> inability to state as sat or asat is called anirvachanIyatva.
>>
>> Since Brahman can be stated in words as sat, it is not anirvachanIya.
>> Similarly, tuchchha is not anirvachanIya either. mAyA/avidyA however
>> cannot
>> be stated as either sat or asat on account of bAdhaka-sattva, it is held
>> to
>> be anirvachanIya.
>>
>> 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
>>
>