The superficially contradictory ‘descriptions’ of Brahman as ‘neti, neti’ and ‘sarvaM khalvidaM brahma’ [all this is verily Brahman] are brought out in adjacent verses of the Atma bodha, attributed to Shankara (Swami Chinmayananda translation):

63. Brahman is other than this, the universe. There exists nothing that is not Brahman. If any object other than Brahman appears to exist, it is unreal like the mirage.

64. All that is perceived, or heard, is Brahman and nothing else. Attaining the knowledge of the Reality, one sees the Universe as the non-dual Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss-Absolute.

 Here, it is first stated that the universe is not Brahman. But it is also said that any other appearance will be unreal, like a mirage. The mirage is a powerful metaphor because the water that appears is in reality only the sand upon which the appearance takes place. I.e. sand is the substratum of the water appearance, just as Brahman is the substratum of the world appearance. It is then stated that all appearances are, in fact, nothing other than Brahman. But this is realized, of course only upon enlightenment. Until then, the world remains very real. Similarly, to the seeker after water in the desert, the mirage is very real.

 Here is what Sri Atmananda has to say on the aphorism ‘sarvaM khalvidam brahma’ from the Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1:

 “The Truth about this world is that the Reality, which is imperceptible to the senses, appears as this world when looked at through the senses. The ordinary man sees only the appearance and attributes complete reality to it. At the same time, he sees also the changeability of the appearance, but he shuts his eyes to it. All spiritual paths attempt first to show the Reality behind the appearance. When looked at from the Reality itself, there is no appearance either.

 “To take the disciples to the Truth, phenomenal illustrations are often made use of. For example take the gold and the ornament. The ordinary man, at the first glance, sees only the ornament. But on second thought, he admits that it is made of gold. He still lays greater emphasis on the form rather than on the gold, because he relies on his sensual perceptions. After some more thought, he admits that between the form and the gold of the ornament, the form frequently changes, while the gold remains constant. Since gold is the essential constituent of all gold ornaments and since the form is only a temporary appearance leaving nothing behind, he is forced to admit that the gold alone is permanent and that the form is merely an illusion. Thus, having been shown gold in its pure formless nature, he is asked to look at the ornaments from the standpoint of gold. Then he sees nothing but gold in the ornaments (just as a banker would). Even in the appearance it is the gold that appears and not the ornament. An ‘ornament’ is an ‘ornament’ only by convention, but actually it is only gold.

 “Now applying the illustration to the Self and the world, having separated the world including your own body, senses and mind from the Self, you are shown the Self in its pure nature. Taking your stand in that pure Self, if you look at the world, you see the whole world as nothing but your own real Self. This is how you are helped to experience the Truth of the aphorism: ‘All is Brahman’. The object of Vedanta is not to help you not to perceive the appearance; but to help you to see the essence, even when perceiving the appearance through the senses.”

(Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda No. 1114 taken by Nitya Tripta – downloadable from http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/downloads/notes_pdf.zip or now published by Non-Duality Press & Stillness Speaks, 2009, in three volumes, ISBN 978-0-9563091-2-9, -3-6 and -4-3.)

 The Bhagavad Gita (13.14 - 15) points out that, though the Self is revealed through the functioning of the senses, it is nevertheless free from the senses; though it experiences the guNa, it is free from them; it is unattached but maintains everything. It exists both inside and outside all beings, moving and unmoving, It is incomprehensible because so subtle; it is far away, yet near.

 Swami Dayananda mentions the metaphor of electricity in connection with this verse. “Electricity can say ‘I am all fans, I am all lights, I am all refrigerators; yet I am free from them all… A street lamp shines, illumining whatever you do in its light. It is neither happy nor miserable on account of good or bad things that happen under it. So too, I, Awareness, witnesses all and permits all… Free from qualities, Awareness sustains all qualities. It is undivided among divided things, like the space which is undivided, but appears divided because of walls. See the wonder of it. You are undivided, but appear divided.” [The Teaching of the Bhagavad Gita, Swami Dayananda, Vision Books Pvt., 1989. ISBN 81-7094-032-X. You can buy this from Arsha Vidya Gurukulam - http://www.arshavidya.org/.]

 With modern teachers, there is a reluctance to use the word ‘Brahman’, perhaps because of concern that readers might drop the book like a hot potato, thinking that it is some traditional, Sanskrit-ridden, mumbo-jumbo. Instead, they try to use more familiar words that will not disturb anyone. This brings its own danger and I prefer to use the Sanskrit terms, since they will not already have prior connotations in the mind of the reader. Thus, the expression sarvaM khalvidam brahma has been metamorphosed into ‘Everything is Consciousness’. Here is Robert Adams, a direct disciple of Ramana Maharshi and thus not influenced by any traditional sampradAya:

 “Everything is Consciousness – everything. When you ask ‘what is Consciousness?’, there is no valid answer. When someone asks me to write a book or give a lecture, then I have to explain Consciousness in about fifty different words, and each word has another fifty words to explain that, then those words have another fifty words. So your volume of the book is written. What does it say? "Everything is Consciousness." I could have written one page. And in the middle of that page I would say: "Everything is Consciousness," and the rest would be blank. This is the reason why I do not write books, because there is nothing to say. See how confusing it is? You read so many books during the week. Usually you do not remember what you read, and if you do, it's intellectual. You are using somebody else's words and not having your own experience.

 “I don't know what Consciousness is, but I am That. If I knew what Consciousness was, it wouldn't be That, because I would be voicing a word and the word would be limited by the very voicing of the word. So Consciousness is a no-thing. It's nothing you can pin down. It's nothing you can describe. It's nothing you can write a book about. Consciousness is Silence. Sometimes I'm saying Consciousness is Absolute Reality, which is more words, and I have to explain Absolute Reality.

 “Consciousness is Ultimate Oneness, Pure Intelligence. Consciousness is all of those things. But what are those things? Again they are just words. Sometimes I say Consciousness is Love, Bliss, Sat-Chit-Ananda, Knowledge, Being, Existence. Those are just words. And you get a good feeling from the words, but the feeling doesn't last too long, for you have not digested the words. You have not become a living embodiment of Consciousness.

 “You are an asset to the human race, an asset to your Self, an asset to God. You are a wonderful person just the way you are. Just the way you are! Do not judge by appearances. Do not even judge yourself. You are a beautiful person just the way you are. When I say just the way you are, I am referring to your real Self, Consciousness. You are beautiful just the way you are. Not what you think you are. Not what you appear to be. Not what the world shows you, but just the way you are right now. Stand up tall. Do not be afraid any longer. There is nothing that can hurt you. There is nothing in this world that can actually do anything to you. You are free! You are the substratum of all existence. Everything is an image on Consciousness. The whole universe, all the planets, all the galaxies, are all images on Consciousness. And you are Consciousness. Know yourself and be free!”

[Silence of the Heart, Robert Adams, Acropolis Books, 1999. ISBN 1-889051-53-5. Buy from Amazon US or UK.]

 And here is ‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson, a direct disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj:

 “And when I say that pure consciousness is to be acknowledged rather than experienced, do not think that I am not extraordinarily content and thrilled beyond words in the periods when "the rubbish has been scraped away" and I am seeing clearly. Of course I am. The feeling is wonderful, and afterwards I even find myself labeling the occurrence an experience. But it is not an experience. The definition of "experience" is "the apprehension of an object, a thought, or an emotion through the senses or mind." Pure consciousness, or presence awareness, is not that; it is more like the absence of that. As I see it, it only appears to be an experience because of how dramatically the clarity contrasts with my normal activity where thoughts and feelings obstruct my true nature.

 “To call the clarity an experience is similar to referring to a ‘blue’ ocean and a ‘blue’ sky. Of course, they both appear blue and we experience them as such. But in reality they are not. If we want to know the truth, we must remember that they are not blue. Likewise, if we want to know the truth of our existence, we must see that unboundedness, or presence awareness, is not an experience. It is who we are. During periods when thoughts and feelings have so receded that I know my unbounded Self, the feeling is as good as or better than anything I have ever felt. But under close scrutiny, it is clear there is no experience occurring. The unboundedness that I am is beyond experience. I am constant, with no beginning and no end.

 “And when I say that unboundedness, or pure consciousness, is forever present but is sometimes seemingly obstructed by ‘clouds’ (thoughts and feelings, and so on), I say ‘seemingly’ because, again, this is our experience, but it is not reality. It may be our experience that a mirage appears to be water or, or a rope appears to be a snake, but that does not make it real. The clouds of thoughts and feelings can obstruct our view, but they cannot obstruct our true selves any more than the rope can bite us or the mirage can quench our thirst. This is why the ancients said, ‘I am That, thou art That, all of this is That.’ They understood. They understood that everything is an expression of consciousness, even thoughts, feelings and desires. In other words, even the ‘clouds’ are consciousness. And they understood this whether they felt unbounded and peaceful, or agitated and restless, whether they felt good, bad, or indifferent.”

[Living Reality: My Extraordinary Summer with “Sailor” Bob Adamson, James Braha, Hermetician Press, 2006. ISBN 0935895-10-8. Buy from Amazon US or UK.]

 To be concluded…

Positive ‘definitions’ of Brahman are given by such expressions as satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma, in the Taittiriya Upanishad. The words are to be understood as svarUpa lakShaNa, i.e. a definition that differentiates what is described from all other objects. The example often given for svarUpa, which literally means ‘own form or nature’ is sweetness, as being the svarUpa of sugar. But the word ‘sweet’ does not actually convey the quality of sweetness; it only works if we have had the experience of tasting something that is sweet – then there is no problem at all. In the case of Brahman, however, we cannot have the experience of Brahman because it is not an object of experience. Our understanding of Brahman comes from the shruti.

 In the expression, Brahman functions as the noun with satyam, j~nAnam and anantam functioning as adjectives. But, as already noted, Brahman cannot have any attributes so that we cannot really use adjectives at all. Therefore, instead of the noun-adjective relationship [visheShya-visheShaNa], this is what is called a lakShaNa-lakShya sambandha [relationship between an indirect pointer and the thing to be defined]. anantam means eternal, limitless; satyam incorporates the ideas of truth, reality and existence, and j~nAnam means knowledge. But a simple translation will not do – this is where the guru needs to come in to ‘unfold’ the explanation step by step. satyam, for example, has to convey the meaning of absolute existence; anantam, free from all limitations of time and space; never changing; j~nAnam, pure awareness, consciousness (neither knower, known object nor means of knowledge), and again unlimited. And so on! 

 When something outside of our experience is described to us, we gain only an indirect understanding of what is being said. An example that is often used is trying to describe to you the taste of a fruit that you have not actually tasted yourself. I can attempt to categorize it in terms of those fruits with which you are familiar but this will be very hit and miss. When you actually taste the new fruit yourself, the knowledge is immediate and direct. Now, in the case of Brahman, although we cannot experience it as an object, it is not something that is unfamiliar to us, since we are Brahman. Accordingly, when carefully explained, direct knowledge is possible.

 As things stand at present, I know that I am “I” and that Brahman is “That” – it is unthinkable that I can be Brahman. I think I am an insignificant, limited, body-mind which is a created thing whereas Brahman is the unlimited, all-powerful, ubiquitous creator. How can we be the same? But the mahAvAkya tattvam asi cancels out all of these contradictory elements and tells me that “I” am “That,” i.e. Brahman. This canceling out of contradictory elements, leaving an equality of the non-contradictory parts is called bhAga tyAga lakShaNa. The oneness that is pointed to (lakShaNa) is understood by “giving up” (tyAga) the contradictory parts (bhAga).

 There is an excellent metaphor that explains how this works. Suppose that you and a friend, A, both went to school with a third person, X. Although you were not particularly friendly with X, you knew him quite  well but, since leaving school you lost touch and have forgotten all about him. Today, you happen to be walking along with A and see Y, who is a famous film star, walking by on the others side of the street. You have seen films starring Y and admire him very much. A now makes some comment such as “Y has come a long way in the world since we knew him, hasn’t he?” You are mystified since you have never even spoken to Y as far as you know and you ask A to explain himself. A then makes the revelatory statement: “Y is that X whom we knew at school.”

 “All of the contradictory aspects, that X is an insignificant, scruffy, spotty oik that you once knew at school, while Y is a rich, famous and talented actor, are all cancelled out, leaving the bare equation that X and Y are the same person. Furthermore, the knowledge is aparokSha – immediate. We do not have to study the reasoning or meditate upon it for a long time.

 “In the example of tat tvam asi, the canceling out of body, mind etc. is possible because of what has gone before. We have investigated these beliefs and exercised our reason, negating the false impressions (neti, neti), as we did in Chapter 1. Without this preparation, there could not have been the sudden understanding that tat and tvam are indeed the same. On the face of it, the Neo-Advaitin teaching of “This is It” is also an example of bhAga tyAga lakShaNa. Here, however, the vital difference is that the mental preparation and reasoning to undermine our initial belief (that this is certainly not it) has not taken place. Although the true situation is already the case, the layers of ignorance have to be uncovered before this can be clearly seen. This is why there remains a need to follow the traditional “path,” even in today’s climate of supposedly superior understanding and fast-track capability.

 [The above is quote from Back to the Truth: 5000 Years of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2007. ISBN 978 1 905047 61 1. Apologies to those who have seen it before, since I have used it several times, but it is obviously relevant in this context.]

 One of the most famous statements in advaita is attributed to Shankara as being an effective summary of the entire philosophy, condensed into a single sentence: brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH (jIvanmuktastu tadvidvAniti vedAtadindimaH). (You may not have seen the last part of this sentence before; it is usually just the first part that is quoted.) It means: Brahman is the reality; the world is mithyA [just name and form of that same reality]; the individual person is Brahman alone and not anything else; (one who has realized this is a jIvanmukta [person enlightened in this lifetime] – thus announces the Vedanta philosophy).

 D. B. Gangoli elaborates as follows:

“there is an Ultimate Reality which is eternally true (satyam), Pure Consciousness or Knowledge (j~nAnam), Pure Bliss, or Happiness (Anandam). This Ultimate Reality is called ‘Brahman’. The word Brahman means greater or bigger than all other things, an Entity beyond the limitations or restrictions of time, space, causation categories. There is another name, bhUmA, for this Entity. bhUmA also means super-abundance of greatness alone. Wherein nothing else is seen, nothing else is heard, nothing else is known, That alone is bhUmA (ChAndogya Upanishad 7-22 1). This has yet another name - AkShara. AkShara means indestructible. It has no changes like birth, growth, withering or emaciation, wearing out, destruction. Therefore, It has the name of 'sat' or that which really exists. puruSha is one more name for It ; because It exists in toto or completely everywhere, It has been given this name.

 “Because Brahman or the Ultimate Reality pervades all distinctions or divisions like time, space, states of consciousness etc and Itself shines in their forms also, to Brahman the name of 'puruSha' suits in all respects too. The other puruSha-s (jIva-s) are not puruSha-s in the true sense; if they i.e. the souls or jIva-s, are called puruSha-s, then this Brahman will have to be called puruShottama. It has also the nomenclature of 'Atman'. Atman means the essential nature or core of Being, Whatever moving or immobile creatures there are in the world, whatever inert or insentient things exist in this world - for all those things this Brahman alone is Atman or the essential nature of Being. In all these names one opinion or purport is implicit ; that is - Brahman is ananta or endless, eternal. There are no time, space, things devoid of It. Apart from It a second entity does not exist at all. So much meaning is implicit in the sentence – ‘brahma satyam’ or ‘Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is satyam or the eternal or Absolute Truth or Reality.’”

[The Magic Jewel of Intuition (The Tri-Basic Method of Cognizing the Self), D. B. Gangolli, Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, 1986. No ISBN. Note that this book is no longer available and you are unlikely to find it, since only 1000 copies were printed.]

 To be continued...