[Advaita-l] अनिर्वचनीया ख्याति anirvacaniiyaa khyaati post-Shankara origin?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 2:02 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbu ji
> Thank you for the response.
> You quoted
>
> ? शृणु यथा नोच्यते —  सर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्यात्मभूते इवाविद्याकल्पिते नामरूपे
> > तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये संसारप्रपञ्चबीजभूते सर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्य
> > मायाशक्तिः प्रकृतिरिति च श्रुतिस्मृत्योरभिलप्येते
>
> I understand you to be saying that the use of the idea of anirvacanIyatvam
> of the relation between effects and causes i.e., karya (nAmarUpa) and
> kAraNam (being tattva-anyatvAbhyAm anirvacanIyam) is the same as the
> anirvacanIyatvam  involved in bhrama or perceptual errors like mirage water
> and its "relation" with its adhiShThAnam viz.,. sand.
>
> (Btw We note that the nAmarUpa called pot has tAdAtmya sambandha with clay)
>
> In other words, the anirvacanIyatvam  involved in  tattva-anyatvAbhyAm and
> sadasadbhyAm is not different. Correct?
>

Yes, Raghav ji, you have put it nicely.  As a blessing we just finished the
study of a few verses in the Panchadashi 13th Chapter, from verse 30 to 44
where this nuance is very nicely explained by Swami Vidyaranya/Bharati
Teertha.  Shakti, Maya, is anirvachaniya on these grounds:  It does not
have an existence independent of its locus.  We cant say it exists on its
own. Nor can we say it does not exist since we see its effect happening in
that locus.  And the effect of maya is also anirvachaniya on these grounds:
the pot, e.g. does not exist before its being produced. It does not exist
after its destruction. We use a new word 'pot' only upon its production but
not while it was just clay.  So, a pot, product of maya, had no existence
before and after, has only a name uttered to designate it. Apart from the
name and apart from clay, its cause, it has no existence. We can't say it
does not exist since it appears and is experienced. Finally, the shakti and
its kArya, are not always existent; the shakta/cause alone is ever
existent. A reading of the Panchadashi with Ramakrishna commentary will
give a lot of clarity.

regards
subbu



>
>
>
>
>
>
>