Definition for Anirvachaniya

December 7, 2007

Namaskarams, I wrote the following for definition of anirvachaniya

(for novices :-). The first four parts I - IV were written yesterday

and part V was written in October/November. I - III is also my excuse

for writing what I know in general. IV uses the translation of

inexplicable whereas V uses indefinable; I am not sure if both are

admissible. Please give corrections or elaborations where necessary.

thollmelukaalkizhu

----

Anirvachaniya may be translated as " inexplicable " or " indefinable " . I

will write what I understand about this term and how it is used in

Advaita.

I. Basic review

The Advaita philosophy affirms a non-dual substratum Reality

(Brahman) behind the manifold universe of our experience. The common

analogy is that of the rope being seen as the snake in dull light;

similarly Brahman is seen as universe in the context of upadhis (or

avidya, or maya).

This " context of upadhis " defines the subject-object divide in

consciousness. It is non-absolute (relative, " ever changing " ) and

hence unreal. The effect/correspondence to this divide is the

superimposition of duality (ego-world/God), again non-absolute and

unreal. (The upadhis or limiting-adjuncts determine the frames of

reference relative to which Brahman appears in such and such manner.)

II. The individual

Now who asks a question? The individual.

The individual is ('continually') predefined through/in the upadhis

and so is the universe that is (seemingly) " observed and analysed " .

For the individual however, observation, analysis and conclusion are

real processes. The referential context though evidently non-absolute

is continually regarded as real unto itself, and duality/change is

affirmed as the only truth.

III. What to ask?

Any valid question that the individual may hope to answer must

therefore lie within the bounds of the starting assumption of

individuality. We may ask about the body, mind, world, and of

change/relativity. Firm belief in karma-karmaphala (cause-effect)

corresponds with our starting assumption and serves as the basis for

our answers.

We may also enquire regarding the enquirer, the witness to all. Who

am I? A rational enquiry will perhaps conclude that the Self is non-

different from the context of upadhis that defines the individuality

and thereby characterize the Self either as ephemeral consciousness

or as product of material law. Thus the individual ever aware of its

own non-absolute status convinces itself that the Self is also

unreal, and that the inescapable proclamation of " I am " from within

is sheer imagination.

IV. Anirvachaniya (one attempt)

According to Advaita however, the Self/I is the nondual Reality

(Brahman) that in the referential context appears divided as ego and

world. This conclusion is transcendental, beyond the individual's

reach. Itself a product of superimposition and pertaining to upadhis,

the individual cannot fathom the Self/Brahman nor can it hope to

answer questions of " how/why this Real appears thus unreal? " The

answer to such questions is " anirvachaniya " /inexplicable. At best,

the individual can assess what is truth in the referential contexts --

karma, Ishvara, big-bang, etc, or what the scripture says is the

underlying Truth (devoid of individuality) of all referential

versions of existence.

V. Anirvachaniya (another attempt)

Duality is real/true in the individual's referential context

(vyavahaarika) and yet unreal/non-existent in the " context of

Brahman " (paramaarthika), i.e. devoid of the " context of upadhis " . In

view of this dichotomy, Advaita classifies the status of duality as

anirvachaniya or indefinable. It exists (as if real) relative to a

referential context (individuality) that is concurrent with it

and 'vanishes' (into the Real) with the surrender of

individuality `in' Brahman. Questions regarding its origin and nature

can either be answered within a relative context (for instance,

Ishvara, big-bang, etc.) or by simply pinpointing the fact of

questioning itself. Why universe - Because individual. Why duality –

because you see it. It is the avidya or ignorance of the questioner

that this world is.

This type of answer is given because the questions do not belong in

the context of Brahman. If the questioner retains individuality (as

real), the best answer is Ishvara (or karma-karmaphala) and not

(nirguna) Brahman: Ishvara brings forth this duality through His

power of Maya and is the antaryami (inner controller) of all beings.

Such an answer is either a correct reply to a weaker empirical

question, or simply a disguised way of saying, " we don't know,

ultimately " to those who seek a deterministic response. Duality is an

inexplicable fact of experience for the mind experiencing; it is

anirvachaniya. The goal is to realize the non-dual Truth/Unity

(that " aham Brahmaasmi " ) and not to dwell upon the duality for its

own sake; the latter method cannot resolve the problem of ignorance.

December 7, 2007

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Namaskarams, I wrote the following for definition of anirvachaniya

> (for novices :-). The first four parts I - IV were written yesterday

> and part V was written in October/November. I - III is also my excuse

> for writing what I know in general. IV uses the translation of

> inexplicable whereas V uses indefinable; I am not sure if both are

> admissible. Please give corrections or elaborations where necessary.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

Just to say, I know nothing about the difference of vijnanavada and

advaita and all that; so what I say should necessarily be taken with a

bit of salt -- could be off from advaita here and there. I had told

Dennisji that I can provide the (beginner's) definition of this term,

for which I wanted a proper definition (place in advaita, how other

schools consider this explanation, etc) myself. That I gave, but the

drawback of not having proper references is there. I can quote some

book or general quotations of Ramana/Vivekananda: if others have

specific quotes from Shankara's main works, please give. I found myself

writing a general outline in order to properly arrive at the term.

thollmelukaalkizhu

PS Part V was written mostly in Oct/Nov.

December 7, 2007

Dear Putran-ji,

I am sure that your definition will trigger some comments/alternatives from

other members but I for one find it an excellent one - thank you! The only

significant comment I have at first reading is that it would be nice if you

now defined upAdhi, since you rely quite a lot upon it!

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of putranm

07 December 2007 14:59

advaitin

Re: Definition for Anirvachaniya

advaitin <advaitin%40> ,

" putranm " <putranm wrote: