Definition for Anirvachaniya

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all

 

The simplest definition to anirvacaniiyam is

anirvacaniiyam it self - that which cannot be defined.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> 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

 

Sri Dennisji, thanks; I was worried I was blabbering things. As to

your comment on upadhi, it occurred to me as well. I tried to write a

sentence on it in part I. The fact is I am afraid it may lead into

circles; it is like asking what is the Cause of all causes. I can

call it upadhi, or Mind or Ishvara, and go in circles either

explicitly or implicitly. Our term anirvachaniya is itself a

confession to this fact, in some sense. That is why it is Maaya!

 

Avoiding the technical traps: Upadhi, I consider, is the pre-affirmed

basis (referential context) to which this individuality is the follow-

through. To the upadhi of human body, the " human " ego-world

corresponds. For the upadhi of pig body, a different ego-world

corresponds.

 

Apart from my attempts, my thanks to Sri Shastriji's brief

definitions and clarifications to my doubts. Actually I like the

inexplicable usage; Swami Vivekananda also hinted at this usage in

Hinduism paper at the parliament of religions. Whereas in an Advaita

book I found the indefinable usage that Sri Shastriji has given.

Thanks also for giving the correct definition of upadhi.

 

As for Sunderji's references, many thanks but I am a bit surprised

that this word primarily appears in Shankara's secondary works and

not the main bhashyas, and also surprised that it is directly found

in our scriptures (perhaps for different purpose). I was under the

impression that Shankara had originally started using it in Advaita,

and this usage was banged upon by later opponent schools.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

Your post # 38430.

 

Real good, solid thoughts. I liked your method and style.

 

In a manner of speaking, " I don't know " is anirvacanIya. " I don't

know " is ignorance too. Is, therefore, anirvacanIya ignorance? A

scandalous thought, indeed!

 

No, Sir, anirvacanIya cannot be ignorance. The conclusion that this

duality or IshwarA's vibhUti or lIlA is anirvacanIya demands

considerable thinking and analysis on the part of the concluder. It

is a knowledgeable conclusion and not the fool's usual I don't

know " . AnirvacanIya is therefore knowledge, still empirical, which

propels the enquirer into more sublime areas of thought, total

surrender and bhakti. It is the very basis of spirituality,

incidentally, not restricted to Vedanta or India alone. It applies

the world over in as much as it relates to intelligent enquiry about

God and creation.

 

Does the sense of anirvacanIya survive post the dawn of Knowledge?

What makes anirvacanIya really anirvacanIya is the great awe factor

involved in it. Realization might remove the awe in the magic but

would still leave the lIlA effably lovable.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm

wrote:........

> 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.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> In a manner of speaking, " I don't know " is anirvacanIya. " I don't

> know " is ignorance too. Is, therefore, anirvacanIya ignorance? A

> scandalous thought, indeed!

>

 

Sri Nairji, thankyou for the pointers. Definitely my definition goes

only so far; where I lack inner knowledge, I tried to be academic.

 

Here I am and this duality I experience. Its origins, I truly do not

know. Whether Ishvara (say a personal God) created it or not, I do

not know. There is ignorance there, and creation theories etc may

well be a " disguise of our ignorance " . Not only for me, I would guess

also for the Knower of the Self, " by knowing which everything is

known " . Obviously that does not mean the Knower of the Self knows how

a microwave works; the reference to Knowledge is not in regard to the

details of maaya or its precise origins. THAT ASPECT WAS AND IS

ANIRVACHANIYA (due to ignorance). Perhaps, we can hope to take a

standpoint within a particular dual framework and seek to understand

the nature of this duality. Physical science for example is one such

approach: it gives correct answers to a " weaker empirical question " .

Yet like running after the Cause of causes, this " theory of

everything " will always have something more to figure out --

anirvachaniya (of ignorance) will this duality remain.

 

Now the (stronger nonempirical) question we are concerned with has on

one side the assertion of Brahman and on the other the experience of

duality. The first is the scriptural assertion founded on the

realization of sages (and the undeniable Truth of Self within

ourselves). The issue is whether one can take a dual-framework

standpoint of individuality and understand the advaita satya of

Brahman. No. It is not ignorance here; just a fact of where the

boundaries lie: this Knowledge of (NIRGUNA) Brahman is outside of the

scope of the ego-bound mind (for which only weaker questions apply).

If such a mind is to accept the scripture, then it has to admit that

this duality is anirvachaniya for it is every bit " changefully real "

to the senses and yet 'every bit' unreal to the scripture. Here this

knowledge of anirvachaniya leads to reflection on its cause that is

avidya/ignorance and to the surrender of the small-ego.

 

I hope this is close to what you are stating.

 

Finally, if that ego-bound mind attempts to draw a causal connection

between Nirguna Brahman and its world of experience, and asks

why/how, etc., then we must again point out that the questions are

improperly put. We must advice against that approach or provide

answers suitable for settings applicable to that questioner. This

also I tried to state in part V.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

> No, Sir, anirvacanIya cannot be ignorance. The conclusion that

this

> duality or IshwarA's vibhUti or lIlA is anirvacanIya demands

> considerable thinking and analysis on the part of the concluder.

It

> is a knowledgeable conclusion and not the fool's usual I don't

> know " . AnirvacanIya is therefore knowledge, still empirical, which

> propels the enquirer into more sublime areas of thought, total

> surrender and bhakti. It is the very basis of spirituality,

> incidentally, not restricted to Vedanta or India alone. It applies

> the world over in as much as it relates to intelligent enquiry

about

> God and creation.

>

> Does the sense of anirvacanIya survive post the dawn of Knowledge?

> What makes anirvacanIya really anirvacanIya is the great awe factor

> involved in it. Realization might remove the awe in the magic but

> would still leave the lIlA effably lovable.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ____________________

>

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@>

> wrote:........

> > 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.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

> AnirvacanIya is therefore knowledge, still empirical, which

> propels the enquirer into more sublime areas of thought, total

> surrender and bhakti. It is the very basis of spirituality,

> incidentally, not restricted to Vedanta or India alone. It applies

> the world over in as much as it relates to intelligent enquiry about

> God and creation.

>

 

Sri Nairji,

 

Can you please elaborate on the above comments? Do you mean it in a

general sense, or do you have in mind specific examples in non-Indian

religions where the concept of anirvachaniya was held as the basis of

spirituality? How did they express this notion? Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

I have few questions.

 

My understanding is that Brahman, Ishwara, Maya are not quantifiable, though

probably qualifiable (atleast I understand so for the nature of Brahman is

satchitananda)

 

Why does Brahman exist? ( I understand that the nature of Brahman is

Existence itself )

Why does Ishwara Exist?

Why does Maya exert it's influence?

 

would anirvachaniya be applicable for Brahman, Ishwara and Maya in these

circumstances?

 

At the mundane life level (vyaaharika),

 

the nature of consciousness we feel of being aware of things,

the quality of being alive (what is life?), [Does life equate to Existence

or is it something else?]

the nature of mind (what is mind? bundle of thoughts is the common refrain.

what is then the nature of thought?) does vedanta categorize them also as

anirvachaniya?

 

That begs the question also whether each of the qualities of Existence,

Consciousness and Bliss themselves are also anirvachaniya.

 

Regards,

Ravi

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

The issue is whether one can take a

> dual-framework

> standpoint of individuality and understand the

> advaita satya of

> Brahman. No. It is not ignorance here; just a fact

> of where the

> boundaries lie: this Knowledge of (NIRGUNA) Brahman

> is outside of the

> scope of the ego-bound mind (for which only weaker

> questions apply).

 

Putranmji - PraNAms

 

My apologies for jumping in the middle before I could

read all the mails related to the topic.

 

Issue you posed is how one goes from duality to

understand the advaita satya of (Nirguna) Brahman. If

that can not be done, then scripture becomes useless.

If it can be done without scriptures then scripture

becomes useless. There are no other direct paths,

contrary to what people assume.

 

'How does the mind know?' is the fundamental

epistemological issue. The mind can only know or have

knowledge of... and the very of .. Indicates that it

is the knowledge of an object that can be well defined

(presumably) in terms of its attributes. Hence mind

can only know or have attributive knowledge. We have

two problems here - both from the advaita point and

from dvaita point.

 

1. From the dvaita point - mind cannot have the

absolute knowledge of the object since it is only

attributive and not substantive. As I had discussed in

other posts no object can be defined unequivocally

through attributes since all objects are fundamentally

are assembled in terms of its constituents and they do

not have swaruupa laxana that unequal attributes that

can provide both necessary and sufficient

qualification to define that object. Hence in any

science, the more you want to know about the object,

the more it opens up into its fragments and one can

become a super super specialist in one fragment of the

object without knowing fully even that object. This is

inherent in the objective knowledge since there is no

substantive knowledge in all these. Hence

epistemologically all knowledge through pramaaNa is

relative knowledge and not absolute knowledge. Or

vyaavarika satya.

 

Hence if you pose a question can I know the

substantive through objective knowledge or dvaita - it

is beyond the senses to know since Brahman is the

substantive. We would not know that unless we open the

scriptures. Hence without the support of the

scriptures the knowledge of the dvaita is useless to

know Brahman.

 

2. If the scripture is going to tell us about what

dvaitins call as Para Brahman that is para or beyond

us then also we would not know Brahman by ourselves.

Hence upaasana and Bhakti and moksha after death etc

all have to come in that we may 'know' Brahman or his

infinite grace. Who knows what happens after death?

 

 

3. Scriptures becomes a pramaaNa for that which is

aprameyam (unknowable) only in a peculiar way - like

the 10th man's story. Here words of scripture through

a teacher, which are finite, can work only and only if

attributeless Brahman, the 'object' to be known, is a

self-evident fact as in the 10th man's case. Again it

cannot be Brahman 'out there' - for that we again are

falling into the same trap as knower-known and

knowledge limitation. It works only as scripture

declares that Brahman which is one without a second

(cannot be 'out there' since 'out there' is different

form 'in here' by virtue of which Brahman gets

limited and ceases to be Brahman) and which is

substantive for all the knowledge of.. It is your own

self which is not an object to be known. Hence 'you

are that' or tat tvam asi - it is not of a kind of

knowledge of ..but knowledge of one's own self where

one is constantly aware of as knower in all the

knowledge of...

 

Hence pursuit of dvaita can never lead to advaita

unless one understands that advaita is substantive for

all dvaita. In the knowledge of one, everything is

known, works only if for everything that is there, the

material or substantive cause is Brahman. Just as

knowing gold all ornaments made of gold are 'as good

as' known. This is called kaarya kaaraNa

samaanaadhikaraNa. knowing kaaraNa, all kaarya for

which that kaaraNa is the upaadaana, is 'as good as'

known.

 

The anirvacaniiyam is inherent only if the cause that

is one without a second becomes many without

undergoing itself a mutation. That is where maayaa or

mithyaa is brought in as beginningless entity which

appears to be different from Brahman but yet not

different. How one becomes many and how consciousness

ends up appearing as unconscious entity - we cannot

say - it is just like waking mind projecting many in

the dream world. We can say first space came then air

etc, but can we know exactly how we start creating our

dream world and dvaita in the dream? Can we have the

knowledge of dvaita of the dream to arrive at advaita

that pervades the dream? - It is anirvacaniiyam - How

and why etc is like setting a panel to enquire 'How is

this house that I am sitting right now is getting

burned? who put my house on fire? First thing is to

get out of the house before the heat becomes

unbearable. But when one gets out, there is no house

or fire to worry about. I am immaculately pure eternal

Brahman one without a second where there is no dvaita

at any time - nay even time was not there. The truth

is even now I am that - but the mind is getting

entagled in the apparent dvaita and misses the

adviatic truth underlying it.

 

Now can one know advaita from dvaita? only if one uses

scriptures to know the fundamental fact that there is

nothing to be known but just BE. For that mind has to

be tuned to perfection so that it can stop looking or

searching for answers in the dvaita.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

> The anirvacaniiyam is inherent only if the cause that

> is one without a second becomes many without

> undergoing itself a mutation. That is where maayaa or

> mithyaa is brought in as beginningless entity which

> appears to be different from Brahman but yet not

> different. How one becomes many and how consciousness

> ends up appearing as unconscious entity - we cannot

> say - it is just like waking mind projecting many in

> the dream world. We can say first space came then air

> etc, but can we know exactly how we start creating our

> dream world and dvaita in the dream? Can we have the

> knowledge of dvaita of the dream to arrive at advaita

> that pervades the dream? - It is anirvacaniiyam - How

> and why etc is like setting a panel to enquire 'How is

> this house that I am sitting right now is getting

> burned? who put my house on fire? First thing is to

> get out of the house before the heat becomes

> unbearable. But when one gets out, there is no house

> or fire to worry about. I am immaculately pure eternal

> Brahman one without a second where there is no dvaita

> at any time - nay even time was not there. The truth

> is even now I am that - but the mind is getting

> entagled in the apparent dvaita and misses the

> adviatic truth underlying it.

>

 

Sri Sadaji, thanks for this detailed explanation. If I follow things

correctly, I think what I have intended in my definition and

clarified in the post to Nairji is in agreement with this. More or

less.

 

Sri Raviji, I think you are correct: Brahman cannot be wholly

comprehended through words. See Sadaji's post. So it is anirvachaniya

in one sense, as also Ishvara. The nature of duality is nonabsolute;

so any time we fix a word to denote something specific in the dual

context, we do it for convinience of discussion, for no such thing

exists as real: it is only a superimposition in Consciousness. Take

science's notion of particle/electron: it is relevant in a relative

sense only. The actual thing we are trying to point to is

anirvachaniya in an absolute sense, for the only Thing is the

substratum Brahman.

 

Swami Vivekananda stated that Maaya is a statement of facts. It is

not an objective entity exerting its influence from outside; rather

it denotes the fact of our experience of duality/relativity whereas

the Self is absolute. Not being too carefull here; the point is that

when we categorize this fact externally as Maaya or shakthi of

Ishvara, it provides a basis of understanding that has validity from

a relative context and not from the absolute. So again, once you do

this, this objectification called maaya is ultimately anirvachaniya

for the Reality is only Brahman (beyond classification/words).

Tattvamasi.

 

Now this does not mean the word anirvachaniya is used in the Advaita

philosophy in any manner one finds it applicable. See Sri Shastriji

post for the precise usage.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

In that sense, duality is anirvachaniya for words attempt to

categorize the unreal as real: the Reality is always Brahman. And

this fact of our inability to