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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

While reading Sarva-SAra-Upanishad, I came across this definition of Maya
-- which is akin to सदसदभ्याम् अनिर्वचनीयम्।

माया नाम अनादिरन्तवती प्रमाणाप्रमाणसाधारणा न सती नासती न सदसती स्वयमधिका
विकाररहिता निरूप्यमाणा सतीतरलक्षणशून्या सा मायेत्युच्यते ।

Appears that no much point in distinguishing between सदसदभ्याम्
अनिर्वचनीयम् and तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीयम्।

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

On Sun, 24 Jan, 2021, 10:37 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>