Mandukya Karika, verse 3.26

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

स एष नेति नेतीति व्याख्यातं निह्नुते यतः ।
सर्वमग्राह्यभावेन हेतुनाजं प्रकाशते ॥ २६ ॥

sa eṣa neti netīti vyākhyātaṃ nihnute yataḥ |
sarvamagrāhyabhāvena hetunājaṃ prakāśate || 26 ||

26. As the Śruti passage, “It is not this, not this” on account of the incomprehensibility of Ātman, negates all (dualistic) ideas described; (as the means for the attainment of Ātman), therefore the birthless (Ātman alone) exists (and not any duality).

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

The Śruti ¹ in such passage as, “This is the final instruction. It is not this, not this,” has determined the nature of Ātman by the refutation of all specific characteristics. But knowing this Ātman to be incomprehensible² the Śruti has again sought to establish the very same Ātman through other means and finally refuted what have been described (as the means for the attainment of Ātman). That is to say, the Śruti, in such passage as, “It is not this, not this,” demonstrates the incomprehensibility of Ātman or in other words, refutes the idea that Ātman ³ can be realised or understood. Those⁴ who do not understand that the means (suggested for the realisation of Ātman) have only one purpose, viz., the realisation of the end (i.e., the non-dual Ātman), make a mistake by thinking that what are suggested as the means have the same reality as the end. In order to remove this error, the Śruti negates the reality⁵ of the means by⁶ pointing out the incomprehensibility of Ātman, as its reason. Subsequently,⁷ the student knows that the means serve their purpose by pointing only to the end and the end itself is always one and changeless. To such a student the knowledge of the unborn Self which is both within and without reveals itself.⁸

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)

¹ The Śruti—The reference is to the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.3.1) which begins with the statement: “There are two forms of Brahman, the material and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the solid and the fluid” The chapter ends thus: “Next follows the teaching (of Brahman) by ‘No, no’; for, there is nothing else higher than this (if one says): ‘It is not so’....” Those who cannot meditate on Brahman, free from all attributes, are advised to concentrate on some characteristics (of Brahman) superimposed upon Brahman for the facility of meditation. Then the students are asked to negate those attributes also, because thus alone can they realise the undifferentiated Brahman which alone is the Supreme Reality.

² Incomprehensible—It is because the knowledge of the Self is extremely subtle.

³ Ātman, etc.—That is to say, the Ātman is never the effect of any thought or words. It is not an object of meditation or speech. For it is our very self. Thus the Śruti advises the students to dissociate from Ātman all words, or thoughts which were at first accepted as means for its realisation. That which is thought by the mind is merely an idea. It is changeable and negatable. Hence it is not Reality. Therefore any idea associated with Ātman is not the Ātman itself.

⁴ Those, etc.—The unwary students, unable to understand the real significance of Vedānta, make the mistake of thinking that the attributes which are superimposed upon Brahman are as real as Brahman itself. That is to say, they think that these attributes have an independent existence.

⁵ Reality—i.e., a reality independent of Brahman.

⁶ By pointing out—This is the Advaitic method of reasoning. Brahman or Ātman, being beyond time, space and causality, is ever incomprehensible through any empirical means. It is the eternal subject having no object through which one can comprehend it. This incomprehensibility of Ātman is the very reason for refuting any attribute that may be otherwise associated with it. If Ātman can be known by any positive attribute, it no longer remains incomprehensible. It becomes an object of our thought like any other perceived object. Such Ātman can never be the changeless Absolute.

⁷ Subsequently, etc.—The discriminating student, through his superior power of reasoning, refutes all attributes superimposed upon Ātman. He realises that these attributes have no independent reality. Then he understands that all attributes are the same as the non-dual Brahman, as one who knows the true nature of the rope realises that what he formerly thought of as the snake is nothing but the rope. That which was superimposed upon the rope is identical with the substratum. Only the idea of the existence of the snake apart from the rope is illusion. Similarly all attributes of Ātman, such as materiality or immateriality, etc., are, in reality, identical with Ātman. To concede any separate existence to the attributes independent of Ātman is illusion. Ātman, the non-dual, changeless and causeless Reality, alone exists. All that exists is Ātman. Even that which is imagined as means for the realisation of Ātman is not separate from Ātman.

⁸ Itself—i.e., the final revelation of Ātman does not depend upon Śruti or anything else. A knower of Ātman realises that Ātman always exists and is self-luminous; and needs no external means to illumine it.