Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Advaita Vedanta, propounded by Gaudapada and Shankaracharya, posits a non-dual reality where Brahman is the sole truth. A crucial aspect of understanding this system is the concept of *Anirvacanīyata*, often translated as indescribability. This doesn’t imply a lack of existence but rather a transcendence of all categories of thought and language. However, the same term is also applied to Māyā, the illusory power of Brahman, creating a seeming contradiction. This question asks us to unpack this apparent paradox, clarifying the distinct ways in which both Brahman and Māyā are considered indescribable within the Advaita framework.
Understanding Anirvacanīyata
The term *Anirvacanīyata* literally means ‘not capable of being expressed’ or ‘indescribable’. In Advaita Vedanta, it signifies that Brahman, being the ultimate reality, transcends all limitations of human cognition. Our minds, conditioned by duality and empirical experience, can only grasp things within the realm of name and form. Brahman, being beyond these, cannot be adequately captured by any positive attribute or negative description. Any attempt to define Brahman inevitably limits it.
Anirvacanīyata of Brahman
The indescribability of Brahman is a positive assertion of its transcendence. It’s not that Brahman *lacks* qualities, but that all qualities are ultimately unreal when applied to it. This is often explained through the *neti neti* (not this, not this) approach – negating all possible descriptions to point towards what remains. This negation doesn’t deny the existence of the phenomenal world, but rather its ultimate reality. Brahman is the substratum upon which all phenomena appear, but it is not itself a phenomenon. It is *satyam* (real) and *akatham* (indescribable).
Anirvacanīyata of Māyā
Māyā, on the other hand, is the power of illusion that projects the phenomenal world. Its indescribability is of a different nature. Māyā is *anirvachaniya* not because it transcends all categories, but because it is *adhyāropa-apavāda* – superimposition and sublation. It appears real (superimposition) but is ultimately unreal (sublation). For example, a rope is mistaken for a snake in dim light (superimposition). Upon closer inspection, the snake vanishes, revealing the rope (sublation). Māyā is similarly a false appearance superimposed on Brahman. Its indescribability stems from its being neither entirely real nor entirely unreal – it’s *mithyā* (relatively real).
Comparative Analysis
The key difference lies in the nature of negation. In the case of Brahman, the negation is of all limiting attributes, pointing towards its infinite, unqualified nature. In the case of Māyā, the negation is of its ultimate reality, revealing the underlying Brahman. Here's a table summarizing the differences:
| Feature | Brahman | Māyā |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Indescribability | Transcendence of all categories | Relatively real, subject to sublation |
| Type of Negation | Negation of limiting attributes (*neti neti*) | Negation of ultimate reality (*mithyā*) |
| Reality Status | Ultimate Reality (*satyam*) | Illusory Reality (*mithyā*) |
| Purpose of Indescribability | To point towards its infinite nature | To highlight its dependent and transient nature |
Furthermore, Brahman is the unchanging reality, while Māyā is constantly changing and evolving. The indescribability of Brahman reflects its eternal, immutable nature, whereas the indescribability of Māyā reflects its fleeting, illusory character. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grasping the core tenets of Advaita Vedanta.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both Brahman and Māyā are described as *Anirvacanīyata*, the nature of this indescribability differs significantly. Brahman’s indescribability points to its transcendence and unqualified reality, while Māyā’s indescribability highlights its illusory nature and dependence on Brahman. Recognizing this distinction is fundamental to understanding the Advaita Vedanta’s conception of reality and the path to liberation (moksha) through the realization of Brahman.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.