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

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Bhagavadgita 13.12 the Lord says:


ज्ञेयं यत्तत् प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते ।

*अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते ॥*


[That which has to be known I shall describe; knowing which one attains the
Immortal. Beginningless is the Supreme Brahman. * It is not said to be ‘sat
or ‘asat’.]*

Shankaracharya, in the course of the commentary, raises a question:

ननु महता परिकरबन्धेन कंठरवेणोद्घुष्य ’ ज्ञेयं प्रवक्ष्यामि’ इति,
अननुरूपमुक्तं ’न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ इति । न, अनुरूपमेवोक्तम् । कथं ? *सर्वासु
ह्युपनिषत्सु ज्ञेयं ब्रह्म ’नेति नेति’ , ’अस्थूलमनणु’,
इत्यादिविशेषप्रतिषेधेनैव निर्दिश्यते, न ’इदं तत्’ इति, वाचोऽगोचरत्वात् ।*

Objection: After proclaiming very loudly that He is going to speak of the
Knowable, it does not become the Lord to describe It as neither ‘sat’ nor
‘asat’.

Reply: No; it is quite the right thing that has been said by the Lord. How?
It is thus: Being inaccessible to speech, Brahman, the Knowable, is defined
in all Upanishads only by a denial of all specialities, such as ‘Not thus’
(Br.Up.2.3.6) and ‘not gross, not subtle’ (Br.Up.3.8.8) and NOT in the
terms ‘It is this’.

ननु न तदस्ति यद्वस्तु अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते । अथास्तिश्ब्देन नोच्यते, नास्ति
तज्ज्ञेयम् । विप्रतिषिद्धं च ’ज्ञेयं तत्’ ’अस्तिशब्देन नोच्यते’ इति च । न
तावन्नास्ति, नास्तिवुद्ध्यविषयत्वात् ।

Objection: That thing (alone) exists which can be spoken of as existing. If
the Knowable cannot be spoken of as existing, then It cannot exist. And it
is a contradiction in terms to say that Brahman is knowable and that It
cannot be spoken of as existing.


One can read the rest of the bhashya, etc. here:
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/vedapraamaanya/

regards

subbu

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:37 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om Chandramouli ji.
>
> In advaita SiddhAnta, anirvachanIya is not used in the sense of inacapable
> > of being defined in words. It is to be understood as inacapable of being
> > categorized as * सत् (sat)* or *other than सत् (sat)*. The Bhashya, in
> > three places, states as below
> >
>
> Exceptional!!
>
> Advaita Siddhi also says exactly what you said - नहि
> निरुक्तिविरहमात्रेणानिर्वाच्यत्वं ब्रूमः, किंतु सत्त्वादिना निरुक्तिविरहेण
> ।
>
> Mere inability to define/state is not meant by anirvachanIyatva, but the
> inability to state as sat or asat is called anirvachanIyatva.
>
> Since Brahman can be stated in words as sat, it is not anirvachanIya.
> Similarly, tuchchha is not anirvachanIya either. mAyA/avidyA however cannot
> be stated as either sat or asat on account of bAdhaka-sattva, it is held to
> be anirvachanIya.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>