Chapter 13 - Verse 12

That which has to be known, I shall fully describe as It is.—The Lord then goes on to describe what the result of that knowledge will be, in order to call the hearer’s attention by way of creating in him a desire to know of It. It, the unsurpassed One, the Brahman, just spoken of as’That which has to be known,’ has no beginning.

With a view to avoid tautology * some split the expression ‘anadimatparam’ into ‘anadi matparam’, and explain it differently; thus: Brahman is beginningless, and I am Its Para-Śakti, the Supreme Energy called Vasudeva.

Tautology involved in taking “anadimat” as one compound, as the Bhashyakara has done.

(But we say)—True, tautology might thus be avoided, provided the given interpretation were possible. But the interpretation does not hold good, for it is intended here to expound the nature of Brahman by denying all specific possessed of a particular kind of energy and at the same time as devoid of all specific attributes. Therefore tautology should be explained as due to the exigencies of the metre.

Brahman is beyond speech and thought.

After saying that He is going to speak of what, as leading to immortality, is worth knowing, and after having thus called the hearer’s attention by creating a desire for the knowledge, the Lord says : It is not said to be’sat (existent)‘or’asat (non-existent).’

(Objection) :—After proclaiming very loudly that He is going to speak of the Knowable, it does not become the Lord to describe It as neither ‘sat’ nor ‘asat.’

(Answer) :—No; it is quite the right thing that has been said.—How?—Thus : being inaccessible to speech, Brahman, the Knowable, is defined in all Upaniṣads only by a denial of all specialities,—‘Not thus’ (Bri Up. 2-3-6) and ‘not gross, not subtle’ Ibid, 3-8-8)—in the terms “It is not this.”

(Objection) :—That thing (alone) exists which can be spoken of as existing. If the Knowable cannot be spoken of as existing, then It cannot exist. And it is a contradiction in terms to say that. It is knowable and that It cannot be spoken of as existing.

(Answer) :—Neither is It non-existent, since It is not an object of the consciousness of non-existence.

(Objection) :—Every state of consciousness involves either the consciousness of existence or that of non-existence. Such being the case, the Knowable should be comprehended either by a state of consciousness accompanied with the consciousness of existence, or by a state of consciousness accompanied with the consciousness of non-existence.

(Answer) :—No; for, being beyond the reach of the senses, It is not an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of either (existence or non-existence). That thing, indeed, which can be perceived by the senses, such as a pot, can be an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of existence, or an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of non-existence. Since, on the other hand, the Knowable is beyond the reach of the senses and as such can be known solely through that instrument of knowledge which is called ‘Sabda’ (the Word, i.e., Revelation), It cannot be, like a pot, etc., an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of either (existence or non-existence) and is therefore not said to be ‘sat’ or ‘asat’.

Now, as regards the allegation that it is a self-contradiction in terms to say that the Knowable is not said to be ‘sat’ or ‘asat’, (we say that) there is no contradiction; for, the sruti says.

‘It is other than the known and above the unknown’— (Kena Up. 2-3.)

(Objection) :—Even the passage of the sruti just quoted is self-contradictory, * just as the sruti is self-contradictory when, after putting up the hall for the sacrifice, it says “(who knows) there exists (any good) in the next world?” (Taittiriya-Samhita, 6-1-1).

If so we do not accept the passage as authoritative, since that passage alone is accepted as authoritative which contradicts no accepted authority.—(A).

(Answer) :—No; the passage which says that “It is other than the known and above the unknown,” teaches, by itself, something which should be accepted as true, † whereas the passage quoted by the opponent—“who knows if there exist any good in the next world?”—is a mere artha-vada, a statement which, to be understood in its full import, should be read along with the injunction to which it is subsidiary. ‡

That is to say, we should not reject the passage as teaching no new truth.; for it teaches this new truth, namely, that Brahman is no other than one’s own Inner Self, and it should therefore be accepted as authoritative in itself.—(A).

Hence it is no authority in itself—(A).

Moreover, it stands to reason to say that Brahman cannot be expressed in words such as ‘sat’; for. every word employed to denote a thing denotes that thing—when heard by another—as associated with a certain genus, or a certain act, or a certain quality, or a certain mode of relation. Thus: cow and horse imply genera, cook and teacher imply acts, white and black imply qualities, wealthy and cattle-owner imply possession. But Brahman belongs to no genus* wherefore It cannot be denoted by such words as ‘sat (existent)’. Being devoid of attributes, It possesses no qualities. If It were possessed of qualities, then It could be denoted by a word implying a quality. Being actionless, It cannot be indicated by a word implying an act. The Śruti says:

Brahman is described in the sruti as belonging to no class, as possessing no colour, and so on.—(A).

“It is without parts, actionless and tranquil.” (Svet. Up. 6-19).

It is not related to anything else; for It is one, It is without a second, It is no object (of any sense), It is the very Self. Wherefore, it is but right to say that It can be denoted by no word at all; and the passages of the sruti like the following point to the same thing:

Whence (i.e., away from Brahman, unable to approach Brahman) all words return,—(Tait. Up. 2.4.1.)

Brahman is the source of all activity.

When it is said that Brahman the Knowable is not accessible to the word or thought of ‘sat’ (existent), one may perhaps suppose It to be ‘asat’ or none-existent. To prevent this supposition the Lord proceeds to declare Its existence as, manifested through the upadhis, through the senses of all living beings.

[To explain: Since nothing is found which is devoid of all conditions and quite beyond all speech and thought,—nay, since everything we experience is of a contrary nature,—one may suppose that Brahman as described above must be a void or non-entity (sunya). To prevent this supposition, the Lord proceeds to teach that Brahman exists (1) as the Inner Self (Pratyak), (2) as the source of all activity of the senses and the like, (3) as the source whence arises our consciousness of existence with reference to all duality which is imaginary, (4) as Īśvara or the Lord of the universe. First of all, here, the Lord proves, by way of inference, the existence of Brahman as the Inner Self-consciousness: there must be some self-conscious principle (pratyak-chetana) behind insentient principles in activity, such as the physical body; for, we invariably find self-consciousness lying behind all insentient objects in activity, such as a carriage in motion.—(A)]