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

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

We have a new mwmber Jeff whose introduction simply said

> Anirvacanīyo'ham

and prior to adding him to the list (for the long delay in doing this I 
apologize) I had an exchange with him about the validity of this 
statement.

I say it is not.  In the vyavaharik state ones self is known as having a 
certain name such as Jaldhar and a certain rupa such being of a particular 
height, particular weight, particular facial features etc.  Even if you 
don't know a particular self at the moment it is always possible to know 
given an accurate  description.  The income tax authorities have an 
uncanny ability to know selves even when they do not wish to be known :-)

But what about in the paramarthik state?  Here the self is not the limited 
ego but known as the limitless eternal Brahman.

He said:

> Turiyam is indescribable (avyapadeśyam).

and

> anirvachanIya also means incapable of being explained in words.

And this is true.  Shruti says of brahman neti neti "[It is] not this not 
this"  Brahman cannot be defined by words.  But it can be known by words. 
The very vakya that contains neti neti goes on to say atha nAmadheyaM 
satyasya satyamiti "it is called the truth of truth"  And their are many 
other positive statements such as ahaM brahmAsmi.  The difference is 
between the senses of "know" as definition and description.  I gave the 
example of the mathematical constant pi.  Most people reading this will 
know it as appeoximately 3.14 or 3,141597 or maybe a few digits more. 
Computers can calculate pi to millions of digits but even the most 
powerful computer is inadequate to  know all the digits.  But pi can be 
used and described inmathematical equations nonetheless.

The self is always knowable.  Only maya can be called anirvachaniya 
because it is nevet known; in fact it is the absence of knowledge through 
obfuscation and delusion.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>