Veda30- Describing the indescribable!

[Quick links]

 

We were talking about the two questions that Gargi posed to the great scholar Yajnyavalkya. Gargi says that her two questions are like two fierce arrows that she has sent to shoot down Yajnyavalkya’s claim that he knows what God is.

 

The first one was relatively simple albeit a loaded one. She wanted to know 

"what holds the worlds together while pervading the entire world from eternality. That thing should be all powerful, all pervasive, and at the same time beyond time. What is that thing?"

 

This question is akin to asking what matter is made up of? Modern science says that the so called ‘solids’ are nothing but atoms sparsely suspended in space. The sparsity is such that many even go to the extent of saying that this so-called material world is mostly empty space. And not just within, even outside, this is the same space that envelops everything that we know of. But this space is not made up of any material entity. So, we call it empty space. In a way, it is this space that holds together infinitely many atoms which we perceive as material world. In this light it is interesting to know how Yajnyavalkya replies to this question.

 

Yajnyavalkya replies that 

 

"that thing is a subtle entity called Akaasha or subtle space. It is the space that surrounds the universe. It is that which holds the worlds together. And also, pervades the entire world from time immemorial."

 

Her next question was – 

"what governs and pervades even this subtle space?"

 

It is like asking what comprises the empty space that science talks about? Probably even science does not have any answer to that question! But Gargi had other motive.

 

She was obviously hinting at God who governs not just the worlds, but also the subtle space that holds them together, while pervading them all through and through. But there is a catch. Yajnyavalkya has to verbalize his reply.

 

All our communication is using words. We can describe something either by comparing it with something of its kind. Or by mentioning the class to which it belongs. Or it could even be saying what could be done with it. Basically, we are limited by the words in our vocabulary. What if there exists something that cannot be described, something that is beyond words?

 

A crude example would be to ask how coffee tastes? You can never explain it completely to a person who has never tasted coffee. The closest you can do is to say how coffee does not taste like. It does not taste like tea, or wine for example. That is the limitation of words.

 

The Upanishads claim that God is something that is beyond words. One of the sages in the Kena Upanishad says

 

"The God cannot be seen, it cannot be described, it cannot even be thought about. It is inconceivable. There is no way of elaborating on it. It is surely different from whatever we know. It is even beyond what we do not know."

 

Now, we have a situation in which Yajnyavalkya is forced to describe such an entity. If he describes, then he is contradicting the idea that God is indescribable. If he does not, then Gargi can take it as acceptance of defeat. He cannot merely claim that he knows it, if he cannot explain it.

 

What do we do when we are put in a situation where we are asked to explain the taste of coffee to a person who has never tasted coffee? What do we do generally?

 

We start with what the other person knows. If the other person has ever tasted tea, then we would say – “coffee does not taste like tea”. That does not amount to describing what coffee tastes like. It only removes tea from one of the possible answers. Similarly, if the other person knows the taste of wine. you say – “coffee does not taste like wine either”. This is the so-called description by negation. This is the approach followed by the Upanishads to ‘describe’ God. They exclude one by one all that which is not God. That is why it is called “not this, not this” or“Neti Neti” approach.

 

Yajnyavalkya has no choice but to resort to this approach while addressing Gargi’s second question since the answer to that question happens to be God which is indescribable. He says

 

“Gargi, people who know God say that it is eternal”

 

Note that Yajnyavalkya does not make any direct comments on it since he does not want to contradict the fact that God is indescribable. He only quotes the experience of people who know it. It is like saying “coffee is very tasty”. You are still not saying what it tastes like! That statement takes care of the fact that God governs and pervades even the eternal subtle space which was talked about in the previous question.

 

Then he resorts to the “Not this not this approach”. He says 

“God is not perceptible, nor it is subtle. It is neither short nor long. It is not something what you have ever seen, nor what you have ever heard…. and so on."

He goes on negating things in the process of describing God without actually coming up with an explicit definition!

"Does that then mean that no such entity really exists? No. It exists since everything in this world is governed by that. The planets and stars are held in their respective places by it. Their movements owe to God’s rule. Even the time is controlled by God. In fact, whatever happens in this world and beyond are under God’s control.

 

Does it mean that it is just some mechanical force that governs the entire universe like say gravity for example? No. It is not passive and mechanical. It is the power behind all our perceptive capabilities and mentation. We owe our ability to see, listen, smell, and even think to this God which is behind all that. Without this God we are totally not capable of doing anything."

 

What is the use of knowing such an abstract entity that can neither be seen, nor even thought about? Now Yajnyavalkya goes on to say what one gains by knowing God. It is not knowledge for knowledge sake, he says.

"When people perform various rituals described in the Vedas, they do get all worldly pleasures. They may even attain heavenly abodes. But none of these last long. Sooner or later, whatever you gained through these rituals is going to dwindle away. They are not eternal. But if you know what this God is, you would have gained something beyond all material riches and that would last forever. You become a knower of God - A Brahmana in the true sense. Otherwise you would only be a greedy person going after trivial things. And when you finally leave this world, you will be departing empty handed."

 

Yajnyavalkya cleverly says what God is, without describing it explicitly. That way, he is saved from contradicting the fact that the God is indescribable. At the same time, he spells out why knowing God is superior to acquiring all worldly riches by performing Vedic rituals even for thousands of years. One gives you the knowledge of the eternal entity, the other merely gives you perishable things.

 

This is the core theme of Upanishads when it comes to talking about God. Yajnyavalkya’s answer totally spell binds Gargi, who was hoping that she could win over him. She advises the assembled scholars just to salute Yajnyavalkya and leave the place before loosing their face further. She declares Yajnyavalkya to be indeed a person who knows God.

 

Let us continue our discussion taking up another interesting topic from the Upanishads.

Start            Previous          Next

 

A series discussing the most ancient of the Indian scriptures, nay the world scriptures namely the Vedas. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2021-22