Section III - The Two Forms of Brahman

At the end of the first section it has been said that the vital force is truth. Its secret names also have been explained in connection with those of Brahman, implying thereby that this is the same vital force. Of what does it consist, and how is it called truth?—these questions have to be answered. Hence this section is commenced in order to define the nature of the five elements, called truth, which consist of the body and organs. It is by the elimination of these limiting adjuncts that the Śruti wishes to define the nature of Brahman negatively, saying, ‘Not this, not this.’ Now Brahman has two forms: The Brahman that is (respectively) connected with the body and organs, which are the product of the five elements, is designated as gross and subtle, is mortal and immortal,^[1] and includes the impressions created by those elements, is the omniscient, omnipotent, conditioned Brahman, consisting of actions, their factors and their results, and admitting of all kinds of association. That same Brahman, again, is devoid of all limiting adjuncts, the object of intuition, birthless, undecaying, immortal, fearless, and beyond the reach of even speech and mind, being above duality, and is described as ‘Not this, not this.’ Now these are the two forms by the elimination of which Brahman is so described; hence the text begins:

 

Verse 2.3.1:

द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे—मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च, मर्त्यं चामृतं च, स्थितं च यच्च, सच्च, त्यच्च ॥ १ ॥

dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe—mūrtaṃ caivāmūrtaṃ ca, martyaṃ cāmṛtaṃ ca, sthitaṃ ca yacca, sacca, tyacca || 1 ||

1. Brahman has but two forms—gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

Brahman or the Supreme Self has but two forms, through the superimposition of which by ignorance the formless Supreme Brahman is defined or made conceivable. The word ‘Vāva’ (indeed) is emphatic. Which are those two forms? The gross and subtle. The other phases of the gross and subtle are included in them; so they are counted as two only. What are those phases of the gross and subtle? These are being mentioned: Mortal, subject to destruction, and im

mortal, its opposite. Limited, which goes a little distance and stops, and unlimited, which goes on, is pervasive, the opposite of ‘limited.’ Defined, having particular characteristics that distinguish it from others, and undefined, the opposite of that, which can only be distantly referred to, as something we know not what.

 

Verse 2.3.2:

तदेतन्मूर्तं यदन्यद्वायोश्चान्तरिक्षाच्च; एतन्मर्त्यम्, एतत्स्थितम्, एतत्सत्, तस्यैतस्य मूर्तस्य, एतस्य मर्त्यस्य एतस्य स्थितस्य, एतस्य सत एष रसो य  एष तपति, सतो ह्येष रसः ॥ २ ॥

tadetanmūrtaṃ yadanyadvāyoścāntarikṣācca; etanmartyam, etatsthitam, etatsat, tasyaitasya mūrtasya, etasya martyasya etasya sthitasya, etasya sata eṣa raso ya  eṣa tapati, sato hyeṣa rasaḥ || 2 ||

2. The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.

The gross and the subtle have each four phases. Now what are the phases of the gross, and what are those of the subtle? This is being separately shown. The gross (form) is: ‘Gross’ means having well-defined parts, with parts interpenetrating one another, i.e. compact or solid. What is it? That which is other —than what?— than the two elements, air and the ether; hence it refers to the three remaining elements, viz. earth etc. It, this triad of elements called gross, is also mortal, or perishable. Why? Because it is limited; it is only a limited thing which, when joined to some other thing, is checked by it, as a jar by a post or wall, for instance. Similarly the gross form is limited, being related to some other object, and mortal, because of its clash with the latter. And it is defined, having noticeable peculiarities of its own; and for that very reason it is limited, and being limited it is mortal, and hence it is also gross. Or because it is gross it is mortal, and being mortal it is limited, and being limited it is defined. Since these four features do not contradict one another, any one of them may stand to the others in the relation of principal and qualifying word, or of cause and effect. In any case, the three elements, each possessed of the four features, constitute the gross form of Brahman. Any one of these four epithets being taken, the others are automatically taken. This is stated as follows: The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined, i.e. of the three elements each having the four attributes, is the sun that shines, for the sun is the quintessence of the three elements. It is the perfection of them, because through it they get their features of varying colours. The shining solar orb is the representation of the cosmic body, for it is the essence of the defined, i.e. of the three elements; hence that is meant. Because the shining sun has a gross form and is the best product of the elements. About the cosmic organ within the solar orb, we shall now speak.

 

Verse 2.3.3:

अथामूर्तम्—वायुश्चान्तरिक्षं च; एतदमृतम्, एतद्यत्, एतत्त्यत्; तस्यैतस्यामूर्तस्य, एतस्यामृतस्य, एतस्य यतः, एतस्य तस्यैष रसो य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषः, तस्य ह्येष रसः—इत्यधिदैवतम् ॥ ३ ॥

athāmūrtam—vāyuścāntarikṣaṃ ca; etadamṛtam, etadyat, etattyat; tasyaitasyāmūrtasya, etasyāmṛtasya, etasya yataḥ, etasya tasyaiṣa raso ya eṣa etasminmaṇḍale puruṣaḥ, tasya hyeṣa rasaḥ—ityadhidaivatam || 3 ||

3. Now the subtle—it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

Now the subtle form is being described. It is air and the ether, the two remaining elements. Being subtle it is immortal, and unlimited, hence not clashing with anything, and therefore immortal, not subject to destruction. It is unlimited, the opposite of limited, i.e. pervasive. Because it cannot be distinguished from others, therefore it is undefined. The word 'Tyat' indicates something that can be only indirectly described. The relation among the four epithets is as before. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined, i.e. of the two subtle elements each having the four attributes, is the being that is in the sun, Hiraṇyagarbha as the cosmic organ,^[2] which is called the vital force. That is the quintessence of the two subtle elements, as in the previous instance (the solar orb was of the gross elements). This ‘being’ is the perfection of the two subtle elements, because they^[3] emanate from the Undifferentiated in order to form the subtle body of Hiraṇyagarbha. And because they seek to produce this, therefore it is the best product of them. For that is the essence of the undefined, because the ‘being’ that is in the sun is not perceived like the solar orb, and is the essence of the two elements. Hence there is a similarity between the being who is in the sun and the two elements. Therefore the reason furnished in the clause, ‘For that is the essence of the undefined,’ as if it were a familiar experience, is quite in order.

Some^[4] say that the word ‘essence’ means cause, referring to the self of Hiraṇyagarbha, which is a conscious entity. The past actions of Hiraṇyagarbha direct air and the ether, and with these as their support^[5] they direct the other elements. Therefore, being the director, through its own actions, of air and the ether, it is called their essence, or cause. This view is wrong, because it makes the essence of the subtle form dissimilar to that of the gross form. To be explicit: The essence of the three gross elements is, as we have seen, the solar orb, which is gross and of the same class as the three elements; it is not a conscious entity. Therefore it stands to reason that the essence of the two subtle elements also should be of the same class as they. For the trend of both passages is the same. For instance, the gross and subtle forms have been distinguished as having four attributes each; so it is but proper that the essences of the gross and subtle forms, like these forms themselves of which they are the essences, should also be distinguished on the same principle.^[6] One cannot cook one half of a hen and keep the other half for laying eggs.

Objection: Suppose we say that the essence of the gross form too refers to the corscious self that identifies itself with the solar orb^[7]?

Reply: You say too little. The Śrutis every where teach that all gross and subtle forms are Brahman.

Objection: Is not the word ‘being,’ as applied to unconscious things, inappropriate?

Reply: No. We find the word ‘being’ applied in the Śrutis to the subtle body having wings, tail, etc. In the following passage, ‘“We can never beget progeny (initiate activity) so long as we are thus divided. Let us make these seven beings^[8] into one (the subtle body).” They made these seven beings into one,’ etc. (Ś. VI. i. i. 3), we ñnd the use of the word ‘being,’ as also in another Śruti (Tai. II. i.) referring to the gross body, which is the product of the food we eat, and other finer bodies. The words, This is with reference to the gods, close the topic so as to introduce the next topic, which is relating to the body.

 

Verse 2.3.4:

अथाध्यात्मम्—इदमेव मूर्तं यदन्यत्प्राणाच्च, यश्चायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाशः; एतन्मर्त्यम्, एतत्स्थितम्, एतत्सत्; तस्यैतस्य मूर्तस्य, एतस्य मर्त्यस्य, एतस्य स्थितस्य, एतस्य सत एष रसो यच्चक्षुह्, सतो ह्येष रसः ॥ ४ ॥

athādhyātmam—idameva mūrtaṃ yadanyatprāṇācca, yaścāyamantarātmannākāśaḥ; etanmartyam, etatsthitam, etatsat; tasyaitasya mūrtasya, etasya martyasya, etasya sthitasya, etasya sata eṣa raso yaccakṣuh, sato hyeṣa rasaḥ || 4 ||

4. Now with reference to the body: The gross form is but this—what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.

Now the division of the gross and subtle with reference to the body is being set forth. What is that gross form? It is but this. What is it? What is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body, i.e. the three constituent elements of tbo body other than these two. It is mortal, etc.—to be explained as in the preceding paragraphs. The essence of that which is defined is the eye. The eye is the essence of the (three gross) materials that build up the body, for it is that which lends importance to the (three gross elements in the whole) body, just as the solar orb does with reference to the gods. Also because of their priority in point of time. (We have it in the Brāhmaṇa) that in the embryo it is the eyes that are first formed (Ś. IV. ii. i. 28). The Śruti too hints at this: ‘His essence, or lustre, came forth. This was Fire’^[9] (I. ii. 2). And the eyes possess lustre. The three elements in the body have the eyes as their essence. For it is the essence of the defined: The meaning of the reason is that the eye is gross and is also the essence (of the three gross elements in the body).

 

Verse 2.3.5:

अथामूर्तम्—प्राणश्च यश्चायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाशः; एतदमृतम्, एतद्यत्, एतत्त्यत्, तस्यैतस्यामूर्तस्य, एतस्यामृतस्य, एतस्य यतः, एतस्य त्यस्यैष रसो यो'यं दक्षिणे'क्षन्पुरुषः, त्यस्य ह्येष रसः ॥ ५ ॥

athāmūrtam—prāṇaśca yaścāyamantarātmannākāśaḥ; etadamṛtam, etadyat, etattyat, tasyaitasyāmūrtasya, etasyāmṛtasya, etasya yataḥ, etasya tyasyaiṣa raso yo'yaṃ dakṣiṇe'kṣanpuruṣaḥ, tyasya hyeṣa rasaḥ || 5 ||

5. Now the subtle—it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.

Now the subtle form is being described. The two remaining elements, (the corporeal) and the ether that is in the body—are the subtle form. The rest is to be explained as before. The essence of that which is undefined is this being that is in the rīght eye (i.e. the subtle body). The specification about the right eye is based on the evidence of the scriptures. For they declare that the subtle body is specially manifest in the right eye; we see it mentioned in all the Śrutis. For this is the essence of the undefined: as before, the meaning of the reason is that the subtle body is fine, because it cannot be definitely perceived, and is also the essence (of the two subtle elements in the body).

 

Verse 2.3.6:

तस्य हैतस्य पुरुषस्य रूपम् । यथा माहारजनं वासः, यथा पाण्ड्वाविकम्, यथेन्द्रगोपः, यथाग्न्यर्चिः, यथा पुण्डरीकम्, यथा सकृद्विद्युत्तम्; सकृद्विद्युत्तेव ह वा अस्य श्रीर्भवति य एवं वेद; अथात आदेशः—नेति नेति, न ह्येतस्मादिति नेत्यन्यत्परमस्ति; अथ नामधेयम्—सत्यस्य सत्यमिति; प्राणा वै सत्यम्, तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ ३ ॥
इति तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

tasya haitasya puruṣasya rūpam | yathā māhārajanaṃ vāsaḥ, yathā pāṇḍvāvikam, yathendragopaḥ, yathāgnyarciḥ, yathā puṇḍarīkam, yathā sakṛdvidyuttam; sakṛdvidyutteva ha vā asya śrīrbhavati ya evaṃ veda; athāta ādeśaḥ—neti neti, na hyetasmāditi netyanyatparamasti; atha nāmadheyam—satyasya satyamiti; prāṇā vai satyam, teṣāmeṣa satyam || 3 ||
iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam || 

6. The form of that ‘being’ is as follows: Like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman): ‘Not this, not this.’ Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this.’ Now Its name: ‘The Truth of truth.’ The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

The division of the gross and subtle, called truth, which are the limiting adjuncts of Brahman, into what relates to the gods and what relates to the body, in their twofold division of the body and organs, has been explained. Now we (the scriptures) shall describe the form of that ‘being’ identified with the organs, i.e. the subtle body. It consists of impressions, and is produced by the union of the intellect and the impressions of gross and subtle objects; it is variegated^[10] like pictures on a canvas or wall, is comparable to an illusion, or magic, or a mirage, and is puzzling to all. For instance, the Buddhistic Idealists (Yogācāras) are mistaken into thinking that the self is this much only. The Naiyāyikas and Vaiśeṣikas, on the other hand, maintain that like the colour of a cloth, these impressions are the attributes of the self, which is a substance. While the Sāṃkhyas hold that the mind, which is dependent on the Prakṛti^[11] and is possessed of' three tendencies, is a separate entity, subserves the purpose of the self, and operates for its highest good (liberation through experience).

Some self-styled followers^[12] of the Upaniṣads too spin out the following theory: The gross and subtle elements make one (the lowest) entity, the Supreme Self is the highest entity, and different from and intermediate between these two is the third entity, which is the sum total of one’s meditations, actions and previous experience, together with the individual self which is the agent and experiencer, the one that Ajātaśatru awoke. The actions etc. are the cause, and the gross and subtle elements mentioned above as also the body and organs, which are the means of meditations and actions, are the effect. They also establish a connection with the logicians by stating that the actions etc. abide in the subtle body. Then they are frightened lest this should smack of Sāṃkhya, and conform also to the Vaiśeṣika view by saying that just as odour, which abides in flowers, can be conserved in oil through boiling, even when the flowers are gone, so even when the subtle body is gone, all actions etc. are conserved in a portion of the Supreme Self. That portion, although transcendent, becomes conditioned through attributes—the actions etc.—coming from elsewhere.^[13] This individual self then becomes the agent _t and experiencer, and is subject to bondage and liberation. Those actions etc. are but adventitious things, coming from the elements; the individual self, being a portion of the Supreme Self, is in itself transcendent. Ignorance, which springs from the Self, although natural to It, is not an attribute of the Self, just as a desert does not affect the whole earth. Through this statement they conform also to the Sāṃkhya view.

They look upon all this as excellent because of its harmonising with the logicians’ view, but they do not see that it contradicts the verdict of the Upaniṣads as well as all reasoning. How? For instance, we have already said that if the Supreme Self be composed of parts (and the individual self be identical with It),’that view would be open to various objections, such as the Supreme Self being subject to transmigration and having wounds, besides the impossibility of Its going after death to places in accordance with Its past work. While if the individual self be eternally different from the Supreme Self, it can never be identical with It. If it is urged that the subtle body itself is figuratively referred to as part of the Supreme Self, like the ether enclosed in a jar, a bowl, the pores of the earth, etc., then it is impossible to maintain that even when the subtle body^[14] has ceased to be (as in the state of profound sleep), impressions persist in a part of the Supreme Self, or that ignorance springs from It, as a desert from the earth, and so on. Nor can we even mentally imagine that impressions move from one thing to another without the help of some object in which they can inhere. Nor would such Śruti passages as, ‘Desire, deliberation, doubt (etc. are but the mind)’ (I. v. 3), ‘It is on the heart (mind) that colours rest’ (III. ix. 20), ‘It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were’, (IV. iii. 7), ‘All desires that are in his heart’ (IV. iv. 7; Ka. VI. 14), and ‘He is then beyond all the woes of his heart’ (IV. iii. 22)—fit in with such a view. And it is not proper to explain these passages otherwise than literally, for they are meant to show that the individual self is no other than the Supreme Brahman. And all the Upaniṣads end by giving out this sole meaning. Therefore persons skilled only in fancifully interpreting the Śrutis all distort their meaning. Yet, if those interpretations are in consonance with the teaching of the Vedas, they are welcome; we have no grudge against them.

Moreover, the expression, ‘Brahman has but two forms,’ does not agree with the view that posits three entities. If, however, the gross and subtle forms together with the impressions respectively springing from them constitute two forms, gross and subtle, while Brahman is a third entity possessed of those two forms, and there is no fourth entity in between, then only is the assertion, ‘Brahman has but two forms,’ congruous. Otherwise we have to imagine that the individual self is a part of Brahman, and has the two forms; or that the Supreme Self, through the medium of the individual self, has them. In that case the use of the dual number, indicating only ‘two forms,’ would be inconsistent. The plural, denoting ‘many forms,’ including the impressions, would be more appropriate—the gross and subtle forms being two, and the impressions being a third entity. If it is maintained that the gross and subtle forms alone are the forms of the Supreme Self, but the impressions belong to the individual self, then the form of expression used, viz. that ‘the Supreme Self, which undergoes modification through the medium of the individual self, (has the forms),’ would be meaningless, since impressions too would equally affect the Supreme Self through the medium of the individual self. But we cannot at all imagine, except in a figurative sense, that a thing undergoes modification through the medium of something else. Nor is the individual self something different from the Supreme Self. To admit this is to contradict one’s own premise. Therefore this sort of interpretation has its origin only in the imagination of those who are ignorant of the-meaning of the Vedas, and is not warranted by the text. An interpretation of the Vedas that is not so warranted cannot be regarded either as a true interpretation or as helping towards it, for the Vedas do not derive their authority from any other source. Therefore the view that three entities are in question is untenable.

The subtle body has been introduced in connection with matters relating to the body in the clause, ‘The being that is in the right eye’ (II. iii. 5), and in connection with those relating to the gods in the clause, ‘The being that is in the sun’ (II. iii. 3). The word ‘that’ (in the expression, ‘The form of that being’) refers to something that is being discussed, in other words, that which is the essence of the subtle undefined, but not the individual self.

Objection: Why should not these forms belong to the individual self, since it too has a place in the discussion, and the word ‘that’ refers to something that is under discussion?

Reply: No, for the Śruti wants to teach the transcendent nature of the individual self. If the forms, ‘Like a cloth dyed with turmeric,’ etc. (II. iii. 6), really belong to the individual self, then it would not be described as indefinable in the terms, ‘Not this, not this.’

Objection: Suppose we say this is a description of something else, and not of the individual self.

Reply: Not so, for at the end of the fourth chapter (IV. v, 15), referring to the individual self^[15] in the words, ‘Through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the Knower?’ (IV. v. 15), it is concluded: ‘This self is That which has been described as “Not this, not this.”’ Besides, thus only can the statement, ‘I will instruct you (about Brahman),’ be relevant. That is to say, if the Śruti wants to teach the transcendent nature of the individual self—which is free from all differentiations of limiting adjuncts, then only can this assertion be fulfilled. Because, instructed in this way, the student knows himself to be Brahman, thoroughly understands the import of the scriptures, and is afraid of nothing. If, on the other hand, the individual self is one. and what is described as ‘Not this, not this’ is something else, then the student would understand just the reverse of truth, viz. that Brahman is something, and that he is something else. He would not ‘Know only himself as, “I am Brahman”’ (I. iv. 10). Therefore the forms given in the passage, ‘Now the form of that being,' etc. are only those of the subtle body.

Besides, in order to tell the nature of the Supreme Self, which is the Truth of truth, the latter must be told in its entirety. And impressions being the particular forms of that truth, these forms of the impressions are being mentioned. These are the forms of this being, i.e. of the subtle body that is being discussed. What are they? As in life we have a cloth dyed with turmeric, so in the presence of objects of enjoyment the mind gets a similar colouring of impressions, whence a man under such circumstances is said to be attached, as a cloth, for instance, is dyed. Also as sheep’s wool is grey, so are some other forms of impressions. Again, as in the world the insect called Indragopa is deep red, so also are some impressions of the mind. The colouring varies sometimes according to the objects presented to the mind, and sometimes according to the tendencies of the mind itself. As again a tongue of fire is bright, so are some people’s impressions at times. Like a white lotus too are the impressions of some. As in nature a single flash of lightning illumines everything so according to the intensity of the manifestation of knowledge, do the impressions of some people. It is impossible to ascertain the beginning, middle or end, or number, place, time and circumstances of these impressions, for they are innumerable, and infinite are their causes. So it will be said in the fourth chapter, ‘(This self is) identified with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred),’ etc. (IV. iv. 5). Therefore the examples given in the passage, ‘Like a cloth dyed with turmeric,’ etc. are not meant to indicate the exact number of the varieties of impressions, but merely to suggest their types, meaning that impressions are like these. The form of impression that has been cited at the end, viz. ‘Like a flash of lightning,’ belongs to Hiraṇyagarbha, which suddenly manifests itself like lightning, as he emanates from the Undifferentiated.^[16] He who knows that particular form of impression belonging to Hiraṇyagarbha, attains splendour like a flash of lightning. The particles ‘ha’ and ‘vai’ are for emphasis. Just like this, i.e. like that of Hiraṇyagarbha, becomes the splendour or fame of one who knows it, the form of impression last mentioned, as such, as described above.

Having thus completely described the nature of ‘truth,’ the Śruti, in order to ascertain the nature of what has been called ‘the Truth qf truth,’ viz. Brahman, begins this: Now therefore —since after ascertaining the nature of ‘truth,’ what remains is the Truth of truth, therefore the nature of that will be next ascertained. Description is a definite statement about Brahmân. What is this statement? Not this, not this.

How through these two terms ‘Not this, not this’ is it sought to describe the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words refer to something that has no distinguishing mark such as name, or form, or action, or heterogeneity, or species, or qualities. Words denote things through one or other of these. But Brahman has none of these distinguishing marks. Hence It cannot be described as, ‘It. is such and such,’ as we can describe a cow by saying,. ‘There moves a white cow with horns.’ Brahman is described by means of name, form and action superimposed on It, in such terms as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman’ (III. ix. 28), and ‘Pure Intelligence’ (II. iv. 12), ‘Brahman,’ and ‘Atman.’ When, however, we wish to describe Its true nature, free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, then it is an utter impossibility. Then there is only one way left, viz. to describe It as ‘Not this, not this,’ by eliminating all possible specifications of It that one may know of.

These two negative particles are for conveying all-inclusiveness through repetition so as to eliminate every specification whatsoever that may occur to us. Such being the case, the doubt that Brahman has not been described is removed. If, on the other hand, the two negative particles merely eliminated just the two aspects of Brahman that are being discussed (viz. the gross and subtle), then other aspects of It besides these two would not be described, and there would still be a doubt as to what exactly Brahman is like. So that description of Brahman would be useless, for it would not satisfy one's desire to know It. And the purpose of the sentence, T will instruct you about Brahman’ (II. i. 15), would remain unfulfilled. But when through the elimination of all limiting adjuncts the desire to know about space, time and everything else (that is not Brahman) is removed, one realises one's identity with Brahman, the Truth of truth, which is homogeneous like a lump of salt, is Pure Intelligence, and is without interior or exterior; his desire to know is completely satisfied, and his intellect is centred in 1 the Self alone. Therefore the two negative particles in 'Not this, not this' are used in an all-inclusive sense.

Objection: Well, after buckling to with such ado is it fair to describe Brahman thus?

Reply: Yes. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this, not this,’ therefore this is the only description of Brahman. The particle ‘iti’ covers all possible predications that are to be eliminated by the two negative particles, as when we say, ‘Every village is beautiful.’ It was said, ‘Its secret name is: The Truth of truth' (II. i. 20); it is thus that the Supreme Brahman is the Truth of truth. Therefore the name of Brahman that has been mentioned is appropriate. What is it? The Truth of truth. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

That is. relatively.

[2]:

Corresponding to the organs in the body. The subtle body of Hiraṇyagarbha is meant, and not his conscious self, as will presently be seen.

[3]:

Air and the ether are the principal, not the only ingredients of the cosmic subtle body. The other three elements also are there, but they play a subordinate part.

[4]:

The reference is to Bhartṛprapañca.

[5]:

That is, taking their form.

[6]:

That is, there must be a common feature between them, to maintain the parallelism. Since one is insentient, the other must be so too. Otherwise there will be absurdity.

[7]:

The cause and effect being one..

[8]:

The five sense-organs, the organ of speech, and mind.

[9]:

Since ‘essence’ is here used synonymously with ‘lustre.’

[10]:

All this shows that it is the mind that is being described, and not the self.

[11]:

The primordial material out of which the universe has been formed.

[12]:

A hit at Bhartrprapañca

[13]:

The elements forming the body and organs.

[14]:

Which is the repository of impressions.

[15]:

In its unconditioned aspect as the Witness.

[16]:

The unmanifested state of the universe.