Explanation of key terms in Advaita – No. 3
Anirvacanīya: Navigating the Inexplicable in Advaita Vedānta
In the study of Advaita Vedānta, seekers eventually encounter a logical wall: If there is only one non-dual reality (Brahman), how do we account for the diverse, changing world we see every day? If Brahman is changeless, how does it appear to change? To resolve this without contradicting the core experience of the world or the absolute truth of non-duality, the tradition employs a sophisticated technical term: anirvacanīya (often transliterated as anirvachanIya).
Literally translated as “indescribable,” “unutterable,” or “not able to be categorized,” anirvacanīya is the cornerstone of Advaitic epistemology and ontology. It provides a way to talk about the world, ignorance, and the creative power of the Absolute without granting them ultimate reality.
The Logical Dilemma: Neither Real nor Unreal
The primary function of the term anirvacanīya is to define the ontological status of things that are perceived but lack independent existence. In Indian philosophy, reality is typically viewed through two poles:
- Sat (Real): That which exists in all three periods of time (past, present, and future) and is never sublated or negated. Only Brahman/Consciousness fits this definition.
- Asat (Unreal): That which is absolutely non-existent and can never be perceived, such as “the son of a barren woman” or “the horns of a hare”.
The phenomenal world (jagat) poses a problem because it fits neither category. We cannot call the world sat because it is transient, constantly changing, and its apparent separateness is negated upon the dawn of Self-knowledge. However, we cannot call it asat because, unlike a “square circle,” the world is experienced; we interact with it, and it has practical utility.
Since the world is experienced but not eternal, and since it is logically impossible for something to be both real and unreal at the same time (the law of contradiction), Advaita classifies it as anirvacanīya—categorically indeterminable.
The Status of Ignorance (Avidyā) and Māyā
Anirvacanīya is most famously applied to avidyā (Self-ignorance) and māyā (the power of manifestation). Seekers often ask: “Whence did ignorance arise?” or “Where is it located?”.
Traditional Advaita explains that ignorance is beginningless (anādi) but terminable. If ignorance were real (sat), it could never be removed by knowledge; if it were totally unreal (asat), it could not cause the delusion of saṃsāra. Therefore, ignorance is said to be anirvacanīya. It is an “interim” explanation to satisfy the mind’s quest for causality until the final realization is reached—that there was never any creation or ignorance to begin with (ajāti-vāda).
Similarly, māyā—the “magical force” that causes the non-dual to appear as manifold—is described as anirvacanīya. It is not a second reality alongside Brahman, which would violate non-duality; rather, it is a way of describing the relationship between the Absolute and the appearance. It is real to the worldly-minded but seen as non-existent to the enlightened.
Anirvacanīya vs. Mithyā
In many texts, anirvacanīya is used synonymously with mithyā (dependent reality). Both describe the “middle ground” of existence. However, there is a subtle difference in their focus:
- Mithyā emphasizes that an object’s existence is dependent on a substratum. For example, a gold ring is mithyā because it is only a name and form that depends on gold for its “is-ness”.
- Anirvacanīya emphasizes the logical inexplicability of that appearance. We cannot define a pot as “just clay” because it has functions clay does not (like holding water), yet we cannot define it as “other than clay” because it has no substance apart from it.
Thus, the world is mithyā because it depends on Brahman, and it is anirvacanīya because its precise relationship to Brahman cannot be formulated in words.
Perceptual Error: The Shell and the Silver
To explain anirvacanīya, post-Śaṅkara authors like Vimuktātman developed the theory of Anirvacanīya-khyāti (the apprehension of the indefinable). They used the classic metaphor of shell-silver: a person sees the nacre of a seashell in the distance and is certain they see silver.
- The silver is not unreal (asat) because it was actually perceived and triggered a physical response (the desire to go and pick it up).
- The silver is not real (sat) because it vanishes the moment the nacre is seen for what it is.
- The silver is not a memory because the person feels they are seeing it “here and now”.
The Advaitin concludes that the silver is a temporary, indefinable manifestation (anirvacanīya) that arises due to partial ignorance of the substratum (the shell). This serves as an analogy for the entire universe appearing on the substratum of Brahman.
The Pedagogical Function
For the seeker, anirvacanīya is not just a philosophical label but a pedagogical tool. Traditional teaching proceeds via adhyāropa-apavāda (provisional attribution followed by rescission).
A teacher might initially say, “Brahman created the world through māyā”. This satisfies the seeker’s common-sense experience of a created world. Once the seeker understands that the world is a manifestation of Brahman, the teacher moves to a higher rung of the ladder, explaining that māyā is itself anirvacanīya—it has no real existence. Finally, even the term anirvacanīya is dropped as the seeker realizes that there never was an illusion to explain, only the self-luminous reality of Brahman.
Conclusion: Why Silence is the Final Answer
Ultimately, the use of anirvacanīya is an admission that language and thought can only operate in the realm of duality. When we try to reach the Absolute with the mind, we find that all descriptions are mithyā. Brahman is achintya (inconceivable) and avyapadeshya (indefinable).
Anirvacanīya is the “gate” that lets us approach the truth by acknowledging that the world we see is a beautiful, functional, but logically impossible mystery. Upon enlightenment, the “mystery” does not vanish in a physical sense; rather, the delusion that it was real in itself is destroyed.
The Metaphor of the Movie Screen Think of a cinema screen. On it, you see fires, floods, and epic battles. Are these images real? No, because when the light turns off, they are gone, and the screen is not wet from the flood or burnt by the fire. Are they unreal? No, because you sat and watched them for two hours. Their status is anirvacanīya—inexplicable—appearing as reality while being nothing other than a modulation of the light. Enlightenment is not turning off the movie, but realizing you are the screen, and the “inexplicable” drama of the film can never affect your true nature.