In this transcript, the speaker explains the Advaita Vedanta concept of Brahman (the ultimate reality) and why it is considered to be beyond language, as analyzed by the 8th-century philosopher Shankaracharya.
The Five Factors of Language
Shankaracharya argues that language can only be used when at least one of five factors is present:
- Jati (Class or Species): You can refer to something as a “cow” because it belongs to a specific class with shared characteristics. However, Brahman has no species or class, so this factor does not apply.
- Guna (Quality): A quality like “red” can distinguish a flower from others. Brahman is described as being “quality-less” and transcendent, so you cannot use a quality to describe it.
- Kriya (Function or Action): You can identify a person by their function, such as a “speaker” or a “cook.” But Brahman is believed to be beyond all action, so it cannot be defined by a function.
- Sambandha (Relationship): A relationship requires two or more entities (e.g., a “teacher” needs students). Since Brahman is non-dual and one, it has no other to be in a relationship with.
- Rudi (Convention): Naming a person “John” is a convention, but it requires pointing out the individual. Brahman is not perceptible to the senses and cannot be pointed out, making convention useless for its description.
Since Brahman lacks all five factors that enable language, Shankaracharya concludes that it is fundamentally inexpressible through words.
Expressing the Inexpressible
The speaker then explores how spiritual traditions attempt to communicate about Brahman despite this limitation.
- Silence: While silence can be a profound form of teaching, it is not practical for sustained communication.
- Via Negativa (Neti Neti – “Not this, Not this”): This is a key method from the Upanishads. The phrase “Not this, Not this” is a two-step negation:
- First “Not this”: It corrects the mistake of thinking that Brahman does not exist. It affirms that Brahman exists.
- Second “Not this”: It corrects the mistake of thinking that Brahman is a “thing” that exists. Instead, Brahman is existence itself—the underlying reality of all things, much like gold is the reality of various ornaments.
The speaker shares an anecdote about a Buddhist conference where the negative approach of Neti Neti resonated deeply with the Buddhist lamas, who also avoid positive descriptions of the ultimate truth. This demonstrates how this method transcends religious boundaries, providing a way to point towards the truth without limiting it with conceptual language.