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

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l wrote:

>
> Just when I thought I had understood a little vedAnta and that Brahman does
> not have jAti, guNa, kriya and sambandha, now you are saying Brahman has
> all of the above.  :)

Brahman has or Brahman is denoted by? It makes quite a difference!  Back 
to the vakya I have been mentioning, why is Brahman called satyasyasatya 
and not just satya?  Satya is a word.  We have an approximate idea of what 
it means from our everyday lives.  However as we meditate further and 
further we eventually realize that Brahman in fullness is beyond what 
words can express.  The person who as a party trick can recite 1000 digits 
of pi is actually no closer to "knowing" pi than the one who thinks it is 
3.14.  But 3.14 may be practically good enough for some calculations about 
circles.

Really this is no different than accepting Brahman as saguNa even though 
the final understanding should be as nirguNa.

> ......why does Ishvara have to make everything so complicated !!

As complicated as necessary and no more.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l wrote:

> Here is an article on the above topic with citations from Anandagiri,
> Vivekachudamani/commentary, etc.  Owing to its length it is uploaded here
> instead of posting in the forum:
>
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/brahman-is-sadasad-$

Note even in the bhashya on Gita 3:13 it is said Brahman despite being 
atIndriya (beyond the senses) is GYeyam (known in a positive sense.)  How? 
shabdaikapramANyamyatvAt (solely through shabdapramANa i.e. shruti)

I'm a bit confused by the quote from Swami Anandagiri.  If it is saying 
Brahman is _not_ anirvAchyam isn't that contradicting the bhAShya?  Or is 
the implication that Brahman is anirvAchya vis-a-vis pramANas like 
pratyakSha and anumAna but not vis-a-vis shabda?  Please clarify.

(Aside: the translators usage of "perception" for dhI is not the best.  I 
would translate it as "cognition".  However as the types of cognitions 
being discussed are ultimately based on perception, it is not altogether 
wrong just misleading.)

(Aside 2:  many readers might be wondering if all these debates over 
terminology are necessary or just pedantic hair-splitting.  Yes, they are 
necessary from the practical point of view too.  If you wish to seek 
anything let alone the Self, you must have at least a provisional idea of 
what it is that you are looking for,)


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