The Atma Jyoti Blog

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This is Part 6 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

9) “The form of that person is like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the scarlet insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows this–his splendor is like a flash of lightning.

“Now, therefore, the description of Brahman: Not this, not this [Neti, Neti]; for there is no other and more appropriate description than this: ‘Not this.’ Now the designation of Brahman: The Truth of truth. The vital breath is truth and It [Brahman] is the Truth of that.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2:3:6)

It is a fundamental tenet of the upanishadic philosophy that neither the Supreme Self nor the individual Self have any form or quality whatsoever. So what is the first part of this verse talking about? It is saying that any “form” of the Self is really only a kind of symbolic indication of its presence, just like a person is not his voice, but when we hear the voice speaking we know the person is present. To get this idea across several examples are given: 1) A cloth may be dyed yellow, but the yellowness is superficial, having nothing at all to do with “clothness.” 2) Sheep’s wool is the thing, and greyness merely incidental. 3) Being an Indragopa insect has nothing to do with being red. 4) A tongue of fire is just a momentary condition, but the fire persists because that is the reality. 5) Lotuses may be many colors–whiteness is not lotusness. 6) Lightning is a process of purifying the atmosphere, its flash is just happenstance. Those who know these truths about the Self are splendid, but that splendor is just what others perceive–it is not the Self of those enlightened people. They alone “see” their Self.

There is a further lesson here: the Self can take on many attributes or forms, but it never really is any of them–they are appearances only. Yet, the Self’s capacity for assuming form and quality must not be forgotten. The simplistic denial of this is a mark of ignorance, not discrimination, and certainly is not Advaita.

Brahman cannot be described as an object, for It is not separate from us nor does It have attributes or qualities. Yet, the upanishad says that Brahman can be “described” by saying It is “not this, not this.” The idea is that when we negate all that can be said, what remains is a hint of Brahman, the No Thing (not to be confused with Nothing, as Westerners are wont to do). We can say what God is not–and nothing more. It is most interesting to note that early Christian theology made a great point of this truth. Just as it also taught that God alone was real, and that evil did not exist. These three principles reveal the Indian origin of Jesus’ teaching, however far contemporary Christianity has strayed from it.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.