[Advaita-l] Is brahman indescribable? [was: Introduction to Vedanta...]

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkateshji,
​
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ​​
> On page
> 58 it is said 'Brahman is indescribable, indefinable and unqualifiable'.
> How? I think Jagat is called as Anirvachaniya because we cannot define it
> is Real or False. It is not Sat, not Asat and not Sadasat. Brahman is Sat.
> Brahman has to be Sat, Cit and Ananda or Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam.
>
> ​
​
The ​jagat and Maya termed as anirvachanIya/ indescribable has a different
shade of meaning than saying ​brahman is indescribable. The former has a
qualification as it is categorically indescribable as sat or asat, etc. The
latter can be categorically said to be sat, but is still indescribable as
an object is describable, as said by yatra na vAg gaccati, na manaH, etc.
Even the lakShanavAkya is only a pointer to it. The final understanding is
via neti neti prakriyA since the self is self-evident and self-revealing.

Bhagavan Bhashyakara says under Mandukya that the highest truth is revealed
by itself and all Shruti vAkyas just work like a ChidikriyA (cutting). The
cut the wrong notions, and right one shines as is, as it was and as it will
be.

The objection to this we see is why is it that the self that always is not
known? And the answer given is that it is not that it is not known, but it
is not known fully, since it is known with other add-on upAdhis. The
removal of these is *itself* knowing the self.

​gurupAdukAbhyAm
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
​