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

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Jaldhar ji,

Here is an incident related to the 34th Jagadguru Sri Chandrashekhara
Bharati Mahaswamin:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.127155/page/n107/mode/2up?q=cart

Please read from the last paragraph on p.104 of this book.  It has a
telling lesson on how both the jagat and Brahman are both beyond speech:
anirvachaniyam.

Also in the Bh.gita Bh. 13. 12 Shankara dwells at length on this topic. A
detailed post on this is here:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/vedapraamaanya/

regards
subbu


On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 9:20 AM Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>