This article is taken from the book Pravachan Mala

(Translated from Hindi Original by Google Gemini)

Pravachans : Brahma Vastavik Swarup

The Real Nature of Brahman

Commencing the story of the Upanishads, it was said that Sage Gargya had questioned King Ajatashatru regarding the nature of Brahman, leading to a detailed dialogue between the two. Although many important subjects' secrets were revealed in that context, today, relevantly, we must consider what the real nature is of that Brahman about which various thoughts have been presented for so many days, and which the entire Upanishad is also propounding. Propounding this subject, the Shruti (scripture) says:

"Athata adesho neti neti na hyetasmadviti netyanyatparamastyatha namadheyam satyasya satyamiti prana vai satyam teshamsha satyam." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2-3-6)

First, we are telling you the brief summary of this mantra, thereafter we will narrate its detailed explanation. After describing the manifest and unmanifest forms of Brahman and the desire-filled form of the mind, now only the nature of Brahman remains. Therefore, the order, instruction, or direction (adesh, upadesh, nirdesh) of the nature of Brahman is being given. What is that instruction or direction?—in response to this question, the Shruti itself says 'Neti Neti' (Not this, Not this). In this sentence, the word 'Iti'...

160 Lecture Series (Pravachan-Mala) ...is used twice. The first 'Iti' word means 'manifest' (murt) and the second 'Iti' word means 'unmanifest' (amurt). Grammarians consider the repetition of the same word twice as 'Vipsa', which means the pervasive relationship of that object with some action or quality. That is, the relationship of this action or quality is not with just one object, but with all objects. For example, 'Vriksham vriksham sinchati' (He waters tree after tree); here, the use of the word 'tree' with Vipsa indicates the action of watering is related to all trees, not just one.

Therefore, due to the Vipsa of the word 'Iti', all visible objects—whether graspable by senses or the mind—are directed by the word 'Iti'. Here, the negation of all that is visible must be accepted by both 'Na' (not) words. The meaning is that Brahman is neither manifest nor unmanifest. Then what is it? It must be said that the limit (the ultimate point) of the negation of all manifest and unmanifest visible things is Brahman. Whenever the negation of any imagined visible thing occurs, it is done through some actual object, like silver from a shell or a snake from a rope; for example, 'this shell is not silver', 'this rope is not a snake'.

This proves that the elimination or negation of any object can only happen by leaving some object remaining. Here, manifest and unmanifest are being negated; therefore, there must certainly be a limit from which they are being negated, and that limit which remains is Brahman. Secondly, one must certainly accept a witness (sakshi), illuminator (prakashak), or prover (sadhak) of the negation; without accepting this, the negation itself cannot be established. In this way, Brahman alone can be the limit of the negation of the manifest/unmanifest and the witness of that negation.

One more thing to be known is that negation is possible only of an imagined (kalpit) object. The imagination of the imagined can only be done on some substratum (adhishthana). Imagination is not possible without a substratum. Therefore, like the shell being the substratum for the imagined silver, that which is the substratum for the imagination of the manifest/unmanifest world being negated is Brahman. The conclusion is that the object which is the limit of the negation of the manifest/unmanifest world, the witness of the negation, and the substratum of its imagination, is Brahman.

This is the deep intention of the 'Neti-Neti' Shruti. A question may arise here: is no other way of describing Brahman possible, such that it had to be called by the words 'Neti-Neti'? The Shruti itself has resolved this: 'Nahi etasmadviti neti anyat paramasti'—because there is no instruction of Brahman better (superior) than this 'Neti' instruction; hence it was directed by the words 'Neti-Neti'.

The Real Nature of Brahman 161 The second meaning of this sentence is also this: 'Etasmat anyat na asti iti neti'—meaning 'there is no other object besides this Brahman'; it is with this intention that 'Neti' was said. Its meaning should never be understood to be that Brahman does not exist at all. Because Brahman is the ultimate real object, which is different/other than the imagined. Without an unimagined substratum, the imagination of the imagined is not possible at all. Because the origin of an illusion (bhanti) is not possible without a substratum.

Now the Shruti is concluding (upasamhar) the name of Brahman suitable for worship mentioned in the first Brahmana: 'Atha namadheyam'. Here the word 'Atha' indicates the conclusion. The word 'Upanishad' specified in the sentence 'Tasyopanishat satyasya satyam', 'Prana vai satyam' of the twentieth mantra of the first Brahmana of the second chapter, has been explained by the word 'Namadheyam'. 'Namadheyam'—Upanishad is the name of that Brahman suitable for worship: 'Satyasya Satyam' (Truth of Truths). And the Prana (vital breaths), the subtle body (linga-sharira), and their cause—the five elements like earth (the five un-individualized elements), which have been called the manifest and unmanifest forms of Brahman—are true from the perspective of the gross world, i.e., they are relative truths. Compared even to them, Brahman is Truth. That is, Brahman is the absolute truth which can never be sublated (badh) at any time.

This summary according to the literal meaning of the mantra has been narrated. Now we are narrating its detailed explanation to you. The manifest and unmanifest forms of the Truth-natured Brahman have been described. The real nature of that Brahman is as small as 'Neti Neti'. Whoever has understood the meaning of these four letters, it is as if they have understood the secret of all the Upanishads. The matter is very deep, but the answer has been given in very few words. This is also logical, because the essence of a thing is usually very small. For example, milk is plenty and its essential butter is little. Similarly, the essences of other things are also small. In the same way, the essential solution to the nature of Brahman is 'Neti Neti'. Beyond this, Brahman has no other name. This Brahman is the Truth even of truths.

In the phrase 'Satyasya Satyam', the 'Truth' in the possessive case (Satyasya) means the five elements that are the cause of the Pranas, i.e., the senses. These five elements (earth, water, fire, air, and space) are also true. These themselves are the two forms of Brahman—manifest and unmanifest. Among these, earth, water, and fire, being perceivable by senses, are Brahman's...

162 Lecture Series (Pravachan-Mala) ...manifest, gross, or functional forms; and since air and space have no form, they are the unmanifest forms of Brahman. These five elements appear true because while they remain, many eras have passed, and the kingdoms of many kings and emperors have ended. Right before the eyes of these elements, our fathers and grandfathers also passed away. But these five elements remain exactly as they were. Just as before, the earth has supported the creation. The sky is also visible above the earth in the same way. River-streams filled with water have been flowing the same way since the beginning of time as beautiful sights; similarly, mountain ranges also stand talking to the sky and remain calm and steady as before. There is no change in them. They are as they were. But living beings come and go. Therefore, it must be said that compared to us, these objects are more true, more eternal.

If we see a human living for a hundred or two hundred years, we say that he has become ageless and immortal. But these elements have existed for millions and billions of years. So can we not call them true? Granted that these objects are also true. But the Truth of even these truths is that Brahman. That is why it has been said— "Nityo nityanam chetanashchetananam." Meaning, that Brahman is the Eternal among the eternals, the Consciousness among the conscious.

The same thing has been said here—that He is the Truth of truths, just as it is said that he is the King of kings. Even small kings are called kings, and a big king is also a king. But he is called the King of kings, i.e., Rajadhiraja. The same point is here—that He is the Eternal even of the eternal. We have known the eternal objects like earth, etc., but how to know the Eternal of even these eternals, because He has no form, no action in Him, and no quality in Him? He is neither accessible to the mind, nor accessible to visual knowledge, nor graspable by hands, etc. None of our senses are capable of experiencing Him. That is why it is said in the Kena Upanishad: "Na tatra chakshurgachhati na vaggachhati no mano na vidmo na vijanimah." (Kena Upanishad 1-3)

The Real Nature of Brahman 163 Meaning, neither can the eye sense grasp His form, nor can His name be told by speech, nor can a resolution (sankalp) be made about Him by the mind. Although all these senses are performing their respective tasks by obtaining that very Brahman-power, the wonder is that they cannot know that very Brahman from whom they receive power. This indeed is the strangeness (vichitrata) of that Brahman. That is why it was said 'Satyasya Satyam'. We are making this clearer through an illustration.

With Maharaja Ranjit Singh's general Hari Singh, there used to be five to seven such soldiers who wore the same attire (vesh-bhusha) as Hari Singh and whose body height and width were also exactly like Hari Singh's. Hari Singh's enemies were usually on the lookout—if he were found alone somewhere, he would be sent straight to the abode of Yama. But due to being with five to seven men who looked alike, it became difficult to identify who among them was actually Hari Singh. Nowadays, too, many kings do the same. If they go out somewhere, they take along four or five people of similar attire, similar color-form, and similar height-width, so that the enemy cannot know who the real king is among them.

Now you consider here that if the names of the people with the king were told one by one—that so-and-so has this name, so-and-so has that—then after knowing everyone's names, etc., the one who remains is accepted as the king. After telling the names of the king's companions, there is no need to tell that "this is the king" because the remaining person is automatically understood to be the king. Similarly, we cannot call Brahman's manifest forms—earth, water, and fire—Brahman; and we cannot call Brahman's unmanifest forms—air and space—Brahman either. So now, like the king, who remained? In answer, it must be said "Brahman", because when we negated each of these—that this is not it, that is not it—then what remained automatically became Brahman.

The universe (brahmand) you are seeing is a transformation of Brahman. Brahman cannot be imagined within this, because all this is imagined within that Brahman itself. Brahman is its substratum (adhishthana). That is why it was said: 'Neti'—this is also not it, meaning the manifest like earth, etc., is not Brahman...

164 Lecture Series (Pravachan-Mala) ...then 'Neti' was said a second time, which means that the unmanifest like air, etc., is also not Brahman. The intention of saying 'Neti Neti' twice here is that what you are seeing with your senses like earth, etc., is also not Brahman—this point was echoed by the first 'Neti' word. From the second 'Neti' word, the meaning emerged that the air and space which we cannot see with our senses are also not Brahman. Thus, when you have negated everything, then what is it? Simply, that which remains besides this is Brahman.

Things are of two types: one false (mithya), the other real (yatharth). By the sublation (negation/badh) of the false, the knowledge of the real object is gained. For example, if there is an illusion of a snake in a rope (rajju), then to remove this false knowledge, we say—'Nayam sarpah' (this is not a snake), 'Neyam jaldhara' (this is not a stream of water), 'Neyam pushpamala' (this is not a flower garland), 'Nayam dandah' (this is not a stick), 'Nayam bhittigavakshah' (this is not a wall-window). We might have these five false knowledges in the rope first. After negating all five, what remained? The rope. This is the remaining real object.

Here, with the help of the false object, the knowledge of the real object is gained. In Brahman, too, we are having the illusion of the five false elements. When these were negated—that earth is not Brahman, water is also not, fire is not, air is not, and space is also not—then what remained? Pure Brahman. In this way, the existence that remained after negating everything is Brahman.

You can also understand it in this way: suppose you had a dream in which you got married. Sons were also born. They even became educated and were established in very high positions. Someone became a member of the assembly, someone a magistrate. You saw all this in the dream. But when your eyes opened, what happened? Nothing remained: neither that woman, nor those sons, nor is there that magistrate. Now if someone asks you, "Are you there?" then you will say, "Yes, only I am," and all others have gone who knows where. Actually, the same point is here—that when all the imagined objects that were in the dream were removed, now only the one seer (drashta) who did the imagining remained. Similarly, we have imagined the manifest and unmanifest in Brahman. When those imagined manifest and unmanifest were removed, then Brahman, the substratum of the imagination, alone...

The Real Nature of Brahman 165 ...remained. That is why it was said 'Neti', meaning manifest earth, etc., is also not Brahman. Again, it was said by 'Neti' that unmanifest air and space are also not Brahman. Meaning, when all these five elements were dissolved (lay) into Brahman itself, then only Brahman remained.

Just as a pot is made of clay only. If the pot is broken, what will remain? Clay. Because it was born from clay and it merged into clay. Similarly, the five elements considered to be true are born from Brahman and all merge back into Brahman. In this way, only Brahman remains. This is the meaning of 'Satyasya Satyam' and this is also the significance of 'Neti Neti'. [ October 12, 19... ]