Author Topic: Anirvachaniya:  (Read 2321 times)

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Anirvachaniya:
« on: January 29, 2013, 01:54:43 PM »


It is not understood by those who understand
It is understood by those who do not understand.

                                  - Kena Upanisahd II.3.

Where there is duality, there you understand another, you think of and think the other, but by what do you understand the
the understander or think the thinker? for you cannot see the seer, you cannot understand the understander, and know the
knower.

                                - Brhadaranayaka Upanishad, III. 4.2.

Anirvachaniya means 'ineffable; inexplicable; inexpressible; indeterminable.' Sri Ramana remarked, 'Although the Self is real, as it
comprises everything, it does not give room for questions involving duality about its reality or unreality. Therefore it is said to be
different from the real and the unreal.       (S. Natananda, Spiritual Instruction.)

Sri Ramana, like Advaitins, states that the non dual Reality appears as this pluralistic world through ignorance - avidya; maya.
Ignorance is said to have a peculiar ontological status, because it is neither real (like Brahman, Atman) nor an absolute non entity
like a square-circle.

The world possesses practical efficiency. As such, it is not totally non existent. Water in an image is neither existent nor non existent.
Though it is psychologically given, it cannot be logically established. This gives it a special status. The world appears, even  if it eventually disappears. Thus it is inexplicable - anirvachaniya.

In answer to a seeker's question, 'How did ignorance arise?' Sri Bhagavan replied: 'Ignorance never arose. It has no real being. (Talks).
The Self alone is and nothing else. (S.S. Cohen, Guru Ramana). When you try to trace the ego, which is basis of the perception of the world, and everything else, you find the ego does not exist at all, and neither does all this creation that you see. (Day by Day with
Bhagavan, Devaraja Mudaliar). This is, on the face of it, mysterious and inexplicable!

The totally non existent is that which cannot exist. It is not a case of 'factual' or 'empirical' non existence, but of logical impossibility.
And, on the other hand, when he existent appears as-it-is-not, error arises. This leaves us with the three categories of existence.
The existent; The appearance; The Non Existent.

continues.....

Arunachala Siva,.   

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Re: Anirvachaniya:
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2013, 01:22:45 PM »
continues.....

(From Mountain Path, Oct.-Dec. 2009)

What is existent can appear in two forms. Either it can be observed as an Existent that is known as-it-is or it can be observed
as-it-is-not. Appearance is a common characteristic of these two cases, thus appearance itself is not the decisive feature of the
Existent. What is given in experience cannot, by itself, be the criterion of validity of an experience. For validity, the ontological
requirement that something must appear as-it-is, is necessary. Obviously the water in the mirage does not fulfill this requirement.
Hence, its existence is not valid or the same, as when its appearance is cognized as sand. This shows that a 'mere appearance' (not appearance as-it-is, but as-it-is-not) falls into a regions that neither real nor non real. Sublambility is the litmust test.

The water in a mirage appears and disappears. Even so the world of multiplicity appears and disappears. Neither entity fits the category of an eternally changeless existent. This experience of a changing existent is a riddle. To exist, by definition, is to be oneself, in one's
own nature. To exist contingently is to be oneself for a certain duration of time. Sri Ramana remarked, 'You want somehow or other to
maintain that the world is real. What is standard of Reality? That alone is Real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and
which is eternal and unchanging. (Maharshi's Gospel.).               

Interestingly, in Vedantic thought, ignorance (avidya / maya) is declared to be mysterious, ineffable, inexplicable, (anirvachaniya) and
Brahman / Atman is also said to be mysterious, ineffable and inexplicable --- though for very different reasons. Sri Ramana said, "The Self is beyond the expressions of  existence, non existence etc., (Talks.)

continued.....

Arunachala Siva.       

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Re: Anirvachaniya:
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2013, 12:57:37 PM »
continues......

In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, ignorance is spoken of in three ways: 1) for the common individual, who lacks the ability to discern
the real from the unreal, the world is considered to be real. The question does not even arise as to whether the world around them
is real or not. 2) For the individual who possesses reason and enquires into the reality of the world, ignorance becomes inexplicable,
Such a person cannot say whether the world is real or not, and thus continues to enquire into its ontological status. 3) For the sage,
the Jivanmukta, the world no longer possesses the capacity to delude. Though the world is perceived, its chains are broken. For such
a one, ignorance is non existent, false and unreal. Sri Ramana said, "Ignorance .... does not function in a Jnani at all. (Maharshi's
Gospel).

continued....

Arunachala Siva.     

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Re: Anirvachaniya:
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2013, 02:24:58 PM »

continues....

Ignorance has a mysterious power. It is that which makes the impossible possible. (Maya Panchakam - Sri Sankara.)

Though it has no ultimate reality itself, yet it can seemingly project creation and produce multiplicity. Seemingly omnipotent
ignorance vanishes when one  inquires into the Self.

To pursue avidya / maya is only to fall deeper and deeper into its morass. The Self must be inquired into, for there is no solution
to ignorance, only dissolution! Contrary to what critics say, this facet of ignorance is not a defect, but an ornament. This mysterious
power of ignorance both obscures and projects. Not does it (innocently enough), obscure or conceal the Self, but then it (insidiously)
pretends to be what-it-is-not by projecting the world  of multiplicity.

The snake which is cognized as a rope has no being of its own apart from the rope, the substratum, on which it is superimposed.
By itself it is non existent. It is wrongly imagined to exist due to ignorance that not only conceals the nature of the rope, but also
projects the appearance of a snake which is false. The same thing is true of the world. What the rope is to snake, Brahman is to
the world. The world no doubt is existent or real to an ignorant person who does not inquire into its ontological status. To an
inquiring mind, however, the world is a puzzle defying rational inquiry. Owing to its existence to ignorance, which is itself
indeterminable, the world too, does not admit of a rational explanation as either real or unreal.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.       
 

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Re: Anirvachaniya:
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2013, 03:54:57 PM »

continues....

In this regard, there is the important rule, in Indian epistemology (nyaya): for an object /entity to truly exist, it must possess
certain distinguishing features (lakshanas) by which it can be defined precisely. Secondly, it must be capable of being revealed
by a valid means of knowledge (pranmana). Thus an object cannot be deemed to have real existence, if it lacks either lakshana
or pramana or both. When we apply this rule to determine the reality of the world, a deep analysis reveals that the world is '
devoid of both these parameters. Interestingly, quantum physics too has unumbiguously established the illlusory nature of the
world, which lacks intrinsic reality, by investigating into the fundamental nature of the matter. It eludes precise definition of lakshana
and also escapes the capture by a valid means of independent testing which is invariable. (pramana.). Thus the world is not available
for definition, even though it is experienced very much like the case of the mirage-water, or the rope-snake phenomena. On the other
hand, the Self has any number of definitions or pointers, lakshanas, and supported by sabda pramana (Upanishads). It can be
intuited besides being self evident, which makes possible Its direct and immediate apprehension, once the prerequisite eligibility
and competence are gained through proper sadhana. Thus that alone, namely, the Self, which exists forever immutably is real.

contd.,,

Arunachala Siva.             

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43550
    • View Profile
Re: Anirvachaniya:
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2013, 01:17:46 PM »
Anirvachaniya:

continues....

The world is not real, because it exists only so long as there is ignorance. It ceases to exist when the ignorance gets removed
at the onset of Self Knowledge. Nor can the world be treated as non existent or non real. What is non real, like a square-circle,
can never be cognized. The world, however, is cognized, and so it cannot be disimissed as non real. It cannot be both real and
non real simultaneously, as that would violate the law of non contradiction. Since its ontological status, cannot be determined,
as such-and-such in terms of the categories known, it is said to be indeterminable. - anirvachaniya.

Ignorance cannot have parts, since if it it did, it would also require another entity as its cause, which would lead to infinite regress.
If it was part less, it could not  be the cause of, and one with, the world's multiplicity, It cannot have both parts and be part less,
since that is again contradictory. Ignorance cannot be something other than Brahman, because there is no second to Brahman. It
cannot constitute the nature of Brahman, or else it would not be known as avidya. to say that avidya exists is to limit Brahman, and yet
to say that it does not exist is to fly in the face of experience and the appearance of the world will not be accounted for. It is real enough to produce the world, but not real enough to constitute a limit to Brahman. Absence of reality does not render perception
invalid.  That which defies all categories of human thought is truly a wonder. How wonderful!  Both the Self and avidya/ maya share
this trait --- though for very different reasons.

concluded.