Not this, Not that

Description through negation

What is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything?

Douglas Adams tells us that it’s 42 according to the calculations of Deep Thought in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Philosophers, on the other hand, are still debating about the answer to this metaphysical question.

“Metaphysics is concerned with the question of ultimate reality,” says Peter van Inwagen, the Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. The subject has a wide scope with deep investigations in various topics related to existence, objects, properties, causality, and many more.

But there’s one metaphysical topic that has been historically important for both philosophy and religion. It’s the quest for knowing the governing principle, the ultimate power, the Absolute. Aristotle called it the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. It’s God for religion, the One for Plotinus, and Substance for Spinoza. While contemporary philosophers don’t deliberate much about it, some of the best thinkers in history have expressed their thoughts about the Ultimate.

The idea of an absolute, supreme entity has been of special importance in Classical Indian Philosophy. It was deeply inquired in the Upanishads and then properly systemized and debated in Vedānta.

This metaphysical concept that denotes the ultimate reality is known as Brahman (ब्रह्मन) in Upanishads and Vedānta. Note that Brahman is different from the God Brahmā (ब्रह्मा) or the caste Brhāman (ब्राह्मण)।

What is Brahman? It is the ultimate transcendent principle that is uncreated but is the material and instrumental cause of the universe.

While such descriptions are not uncommon in philosophy and theology, what’s interesting is the way Brahman has been described through negation and non-properties in Upanishads.

In Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद्) (2.3.6), the sage Yājñavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य) describes Brahman:

अथात आदेशः—नेति नेति, न ह्येतस्मादिति नेत्यन्यत्परमस्ति

Now, therefore, the description (of Brahman): ‘Not this, not this.’ Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this.’

This description through negation is referred to as Neti, Neti नेति नेति (Not this, Not this/that ) He later elaborates it in passage 3.8.8

स होवाच, एतद्वै तदक्शरः, गार्गि ब्राह्मणा अभिवदन्ति, अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घमलोहितमस्नेहमच्छायमतमोऽ-

वाय्वनाकाशमसङ्गमचक्शुष्कमश्रोत्रमवागमनोऽ-

तेजस्कमप्राणममुखममात्रमनन्तरमबाह्यम्, न तदश्नाति किंचन, न तदश्नाति कश्चन ॥ ८ ॥

Brahman is neither gross, nor fine, neither short, nor long, neither like fire, nor like water, neither shadow, nor darkness, neither air nor space, unattached, without taste, without smell, without eyes, without ears, without voice, without mind, without radiance, without breath, without mouth, without measure, having no within and no without. It eats nothing, and no one eats it. 

Yājñavalkya takes the negation of the apparent to describe the transcendent. That which lies beyond the mundane experience of the world cannot be described with experience. But the philosophical inquiry takes a remarkable turn when Yājñavalkya identifies Brahman with Self (Ātman (आत्मन्)). We can realize Brahman, the pure consciousness, once we get rid of our desires and the ignorance resulting from our senses.

One of the most powerful statements from Chāndogyopaniṣad (छान्दोग्योपनिषद्) Upanishad says,

तत् त्वम् असि - You are That. The universe is within you. There’s no need to look for something external because you are what you seek.

The identification of Brahman with the Ātman is the most impressive philosophical and soteriological teaching of the Upanishads. Perhaps there is a learning here for all of us. When facing uncertainty with your identity and existence, look inside rather than outside to find your answers. The reflection will lead to rejuvenation.

In the next issue, we will dive into the teachings of one of the greatest philosophers the world has ever seen.