[Advaita-l] अनिर्वचनीयख्यातिः (सदसद्विलक्षणत्वम्) in the श्रीमद्भागवतम् Part 2 (2) - Concluded
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 12 09:25:54 CST 2011
Namaste Sri Subrahmanian
Some people say Brahman also is Anirvachaniya because it cannot be
described by words. Yato Vacho Nivartante is the Vakya. The mind also
cannot understand it cannot imagine it. Siva Mahimna Stotra Sloka is
तव तत्त्वं न जानामि कीदृशोऽसि महेश्वर।
यादृशोऽसि महादेव तादृशाय नमो नमः॥ ४१॥
I do not know the truth of your nature and how you are. My Pranams to
you Mahadeva however you are.
The words cannot describe Brahman.
There is confusion now regarding Anirvachaniya-tva. Kindly explain.
2011/3/12 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
> (Continued from Part 1)
> The verse
> देहं मनोमात्रमिमं* *गृहीत्वा *ममाहमित्य*न्धधियो मनुष्याः |
> *एषोऽहमन्योऽयमिति** **भ्रमेण* दुरन्तपारे तमसि भ्रमन्ति ||
> quoted above is also a fine study in the understanding of the adhyAsa
> bhAShya (AB) of Shankaracharya. The word ममाहमित्यन्धधियो is reminiscent of
> the words: ’अहमिदं ममेदं इति नैसर्गिकोऽयं लोकव्यवहारः’ of the AB. Shankara
> demonstrates how the fundamental adhyAsa translates into the thinking of the
> samsAri in ignorance: He is always, inseparably as it were, endowed with the
> thinking 'I am so-and-so' and 'these are mine'. Sri PurandaradAsa in
> his famous
> song: ಇನ್ನು ದಯೆ ಬಾರದೆ ದಾಸನ ಮೇಲೆ ’innu daya bAradey dAsana mEle' uses these
> two terms: ’nAnu-nannadu emba narakadoLage biddu..' ('having fallen in the
> hell characterized by 'I' and 'mine'...').
> The term: *एषोऽहमन्योऽयमिति** **भ्रमेण*.. is also interesting. This can be
> taken as the Bhagavatam's refutation of the 'jiva-jiva' / 'jiva-Ishwara'
> bheda since it calls it a 'bhrama'. In the BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad
> *अन्योऽसौ*, अन्योऽहं इति न स वेद (He who knows he is different and the deity
> is different, does not really know; he is indeed cattle for the Deva-s)
> (1.4.10) This sentence occurs in the context of the teaching of 'अहम्
> ब्रह्मास्मि', Aham Brahmasmi. *...*
> The Briharadranyaka Upanishad 2.4.14 teaches:
> यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति…..[Where there is duality as it
> were, one sees something else as different from oneself….]
> The Bhaagavatam echoes the above statement of the Upanishad. By teaching
> that the vision of difference is 'भ्रम’, the BhAgavatam makes it clear that
> भेददृष्टिः is born of ignorance.
> It also specifies that knowledge, vidyA, is 'आत्मनि भिदाबाधः’ (विद्या
> आत्मनि भिदाबाधः ...11.14.40), the sublation/destruction of difference
> constitutes knowledge.
> नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति (There is not
> a wee bit of duality/multiplicity here.. Whoever sees duality as it
> weregoes from death to death. Br.Up. 4.4.19 and Kathopanishad 2.1.11)
> By using
> the particle इव ‘as it were’, the Upanishad says in unmistakable terms that
> *dvaita is only an appearance*, not the reality. However, the dualistic
> schools have found it a great discomfiture to handle this ‘इव” particle and
> give some completely irrelevant, artificial, out-of-context meaning to avoid
> the straightforward Non-dualistic purport.
> In the foregoing the phenomenon of the world being categorized in the nature
> 'अनिर्वचनीयत्वम्’ being सदसद्विलक्षणम् was presented with various verses
> from the srImadbhAgavatam. The anvaya and vyatireka methods of defining
> what is 'mithyA' was also seen:
> - सत् चेत् न बाध्येत, असत् चेत् न प्रतीयेत (if it is existent, it would
> not get sublated upon the knowing of the substratum. On the other hand, if
> it is non-existent, like a hare's horn, it would not have become an object
> of experience, knowing.)This constitutes the व्यतिरेकमुखेन मिथ्यात्वकथनम्
> . In other words, what is not sublatable, बाध्यमानत्वम्, and what is not
> experienceable, प्रतीयमानत्वम्, cannot constitute mithyAtvam. If
> something is sublatable yet being experienceable it will qualify to be
> designated as mithyA. प्रतीयमानत्वे सति बाध्यमानत्वम् मिथ्यात्वम्. The
> hare's horn/sky-flower, etc. will never come into this category.
> - Then what is mithyAtvam? The answer to this question is available in
> the bhAgavatam verse we saw above: मनोमात्रत्वम्. Having no real
> existence other than being only a mental idea is what qualifies to be
> mithyA. This is the अन्वयमुखेन मिथ्यात्वकथनम्. Clearly, this being
> मनोमात्रम् is the BhAgavatam’s way of admitting the category of
> सदसद्विलक्षणम्. The absolutely non-existent sky-flower, hare's horn,
> etc. will never qualify to be मनोमात्रम् and thereby fit to be called
> - Most importantly what the bhAgavatam has done is to prove the category
> of 'mithyaa' the way the Advaita system has done: that which is distinct
> from both 'sat' and 'asat'.
> - It will be impossible for anyone to disprove the above.
> - Like several verses of the BhAgavatam, especially the uddhavagItA
> portion, even the above verse containing the word 'मनोमात्रम्’ has
> several parallels in the GaudapAdakArikA. The verses 3.29, 30, 31 and 32
> are particularly noteworthy. Even here, verse 31 reads thus along with the
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list