It is being explained in Kena-upanisad 1.3: na tattra cakṣurgacchati | na vāggacchati |
no mano na vidmo na vijānīmo yathaitadanuśiṣyāt|
anyadeva tadviditādatho aviditādadhi iti śuśruma pūrveṣām yenastadvyācacaksire ||1.3|| With reference to brahman, the eyes do not objectify. The speech doesn't go there. The mind doesn't know. We don't know brahman as object which can be described, therefore how would we teach brahman as an object. Indeed that brahman is different from known (as the object which is different from me) and different from unknown (as object which is not known by me). In this manner we have heard from our teacher, how that brahman is explained to us.
Brahman is being negated as any object which can be objectified by eyes or other organs of perception - na tattra cakṣurgacchati. It is also not the meaning of any object where no words uttered by organ of speech can denote brahman - na vāggacchati. Word is there to convey its meaning. The connection between word and its meaning can be understood by four factors:
1. jāti - species, a donkey can be conveyed as the same species as horse. 2. guna - qualities, silver can be conveyed as something having the quality of shine.
3. kriya - action, a driver can be conveyed as someone who drive.
4. sambandha - relationship, elderly can be conveyed as someone who has walking stick.
But brahman can't be conveyed through any of these factors since brahman is ekam - only one where one entity can't be group into species, brahman is nirguna - no attribute / qualities, brahman is akārta - non-doer where no action can denote, and advitiya - no-second where relationship is possible with minimum two entities.
Similarly the mind can't objectify brahman - no manah, due to the borrowed consciousness of brahman alone, the mind can do the job of objectifying, but the objectifier can't objectify its inner essence, just like a burning wood can't burn the fire itself. Since brahman is out of scope for sense organs and mind, thus we do not know brahman as object with attributes or as particular knowledge (viśesa-jñānam) - na vidmah. Therefore we don't know how a teacher would teach this kind of brahman to his students - na vijānīmo yathaitadanuśiṣyāt. Because only that which is accessible through five means of knowledge is possible to communicate. These five means of knowledge are: 1. pratyaksa - perception 2. anumāna - inference
3. upāma - comparison
4. arthapatti - multi-step inference
5. anupalabdhi - non-apprehension
But brahman can't be known by all these five means of knowledge. Therefore the impossibility of the teaching of brahman is made possible only by veda śabda pramanam through the method of negation.
anyadeva tadviditād - that brahman is indeed different from the known (any manifested product), since only manifested can be objectified by sense organs. atho aviditādadhi - also it is different from unknown (unmanifest). To negate brahman as any manifested object, we are negating any given name and form which can limit brahman and by negating brahman as unmanifest, we are negating brahman as the cause of the effect (the status being the creator of the universe is also incidental). When I negate brahman as sat and asad means negating brahman as object of negation, and what left out is only me the negator which is brahman itself. When all the attributed body-mind-sense-complex are negated, what left is only the consciousness me who is that brahman which is not a different entity from myself (na sat) and is evident by me - self evident self (na asat). That is me ātmā which is brahman. This is how brahman being taught by our teachers - iti śuśruma pūrveṣām yenastadvyācacaksire.
Comments