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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Yes ji
I was reminded of the vAkyavRtti verse
"*त्वमर्थमेवं निश्चित्य तदर्थं चिन्तयेत्पुनः। अतद्व्यावृत्तिरूपेण
साक्षाद्विधिमुखेन च।"*

*sAxAt-vidhi-mukha vAkyas are also certainly required for unfolding
brahmAtmaikyam.*

*Om*
*Raghav*



On Tue, 24 Sept, 2024, 9:49 pm Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l wrote:
>
> >
> > Just when I thought I had understood a little vedAnta and that Brahman
> does
> > not have jAti, guNa, kriya and sambandha, now you are saying Brahman has
> > all of the above.  :)
>
> Brahman has or Brahman is denoted by? It makes quite a difference!  Back
> to the vakya I have been mentioning, why is Brahman called satyasyasatya
> and not just satya?  Satya is a word.  We have an approximate idea of what
> it means from our everyday lives.  However as we meditate further and
> further we eventually realize that Brahman in fullness is beyond what
> words can express.  The person who as a party trick can recite 1000 digits
> of pi is actually no closer to "knowing" pi than the one who thinks it is
> 3.14.  But 3.14 may be practically good enough for some calculations about
> circles.
>
> Really this is no different than accepting Brahman as saguNa even though
> the final understanding should be as nirguNa.
>
> > ......why does Ishvara have to make everything so complicated !!
>
> As complicated as necessary and no more.
>
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l wrote:
>
> > Here is an article on the above topic with citations from Anandagiri,
> > Vivekachudamani/commentary, etc.  Owing to its length it is uploaded here
> > instead of posting in the forum:
> >
> >
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/brahman-is-sadasad-$
>
> Note even in the bhashya on Gita 3:13 it is said Brahman despite being
> atIndriya (beyond the senses) is GYeyam (known in a positive sense.)  How?
> shabdaikapramANyamyatvAt (solely through shabdapramANa i.e. shruti)
>
> I'm a bit confused by the quote from Swami Anandagiri.  If it is saying
> Brahman is _not_ anirvAchyam isn't that contradicting the bhAShya?  Or is
> the implication that Brahman is anirvAchya vis-a-vis pramANas like
> pratyakSha and anumAna but not vis-a-vis shabda?  Please clarify.
>
> (Aside: the translators usage of "perception" for dhI is not the best.  I
> would translate it as "cognition".  However as the types of cognitions
> being discussed are ultimately based on perception, it is not altogether
> wrong just misleading.)
>
> (Aside 2:  many readers might be wondering if all these debates over
> terminology are necessary or just pedantic hair-splitting.  Yes, they are
> necessary from the practical point of view too.  If you wish to seek
> anything let alone the Self, you must have at least a provisional idea of
> what it is that you are looking for,)
>
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>