The Atma Jyoti Blog

This is Part 7 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

10) “It [Brahman] is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, neither fiery nor watery; It is neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor akasha; It is unattached; It is without taste or smell, without eyes or ears, without tongue or mind; It is non-effulgent, without vital breath or mouth, without measure and without exterior or interior. It does not eat anything, nor is It eaten by anyone.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:8:8)

This is extremely important for us to grasp. Brahman and the Self cannot be spoken about, but they also really do not have any qualities. They are neither gross nor subtle, large nor small, far nor near, within nor without–or any kind of duality whatsoever. They relate to no thing and no thing relates to them. We really cannot say anything at all–except that we cannot say anything at all.

11) “This Self is That which has been described as “Not this, not this.”

“It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury.

“That Person [Purusha] is to be known only from the upanishads, who definitely projects those beings and again withdraws them into Himself and who is at the same time transcendental.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:9:26)

Point Nine speaks of Brahman as “not this, not this,” and now the upanishad says the same about the Self to underline their identical nature.

The second section indicates both that the Self never changes, either of itself or as a result of its experiences within relativity.

It is very easy at this point in time to fall into a major error: to assume that in the upanishads and Gita “veda” means the collection of hymns (samhitas) known as “the Vedas.” In actuality, veda is a derivation of vidya–knowledge–and only means teachings and books of spiritual wisdom. That may include the Vedas, but it certainly is not an exclusive designation of them. Another error would be to think that in this verse “upanishads” means the writings now appended to the Vedic samhitas and officially called “upanishads.” For one thing, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad predates all the other upanishads except perhaps the Isha Upanishad. “Upanishad” comes from shad which means “to sit,” upa which means “near,” and ni which means “down.” So the whole word means “to sit down near,” and refers to the teachings heard while sitting down near. In other words, “upanishad” in this verse means the teaching, the philosophy that later was written down in the upanishads we presently have.

Having said what we must not think, we can consider what this verse does mean–namely that the teaching on the Self, the Purusha, is to be known only from the upanishadic philosophy. An informed person can hardly disagree with this, because in no religion other than Sanatana Dharma can we find such clear, detailed, and uncompromising statements regarding the Self as in these citations by Shankara as “a method of enlightening a disciple.” Certainly, hints are to be found in the words of mystics and the scriptures of all religions, but hints only, never the complete expositions such as can be found in the upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. (The exception would be the modern teachers in various deficient religions who shamelessly plagiarize the teachings of Sanatana Dharma, pretending that they are expressions of their own religions–whose scriptures usually deny or denounce those teachings.)

The description of the Purusha given here indicates that all things proceed from the Purusha and are withdrawn into It as Its conscious intention. Yet the Purusha remains beyond all those things, untouched and untouching.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.