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

[khaaksaar]

Sriman Subrahmanian prabhuji, Pranaams!

Thanks for your lucid explanation.I found both your explanation and what is
written in the *adbhutam* blog to be supremely helpful.

Gratefully and in appreciation,
🙏

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:36 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>