Part 2

Chapter 2 Negation
2.1 to 2.4                                                                                                                        Sruti (Br Up 2.3.6) says: Not this, not this. Self is the left over after negation of everything, i.e., objects of experience. As they are mithyA and changing, they are negated to realize the unchanging remainder. This remainder, the negator cannot be negated. It is the Self and is of the nature of consciousness. It is the true nature of the negator. Self cannot be negated because it is based on pramAna (evidence). Self is the ultimate subject and is the reality. It has an independent existence. Objects are non-Self and are mithyA.

If consciousness is the true nature, why do we not identify with it?  It is seen that a person identifies himself with body, mind or intellect depending on how he uses the word, ‘I’? When he says, ‘I am tall’, ‘I’ refers to body. In ‘I am sad’, I refers to mind. In ‘I know Devadutta’, I refers to intellect. When ‘I’ stands for mind or body, it is not Self. It is ego (ahankAra). Wrong use of ‘I’ is due to ignorance. It is not an ordinary ignorance as it causes mutual superimposition. Self (I) is transferred to mind-body as in I am tall or I am sad. Simultaneously, limitedness of mind-body is transferred to Self (I) and I feel limited and miserable.                                                                                                  Self-knowledge arises on destroying the knowledge of egoism. The author concludes that a seeker reaches the innermost Self by crossing (negating) the forest of mind and body. He draws parallel with a man from Gandhara who is blindfolded by robbers in the forest, and as he is lost in the forest, he is desperate for help.  The bandage is removed by a kind passerby who also guides him how to reach Gandhara. He reaches Gandhara by making inquiries from the villagers on the way back. The passerby is the teacher. The story is in Ch Up 6.14.

Chapter 3 IsvarAtmaprakarnam (Self-Brahman)
3.1 to 3.4                                                                                                                          The second chapter has explained the method of negation employed in the scriptures to lead an aspirant to Self. In the third chapter, it is shown that the opposite view that Self is different from Brahman has four defects. The first defect is Sruti-virodha because Upanishads unequivocally claim identity of Self and Brahman, e.g., Tat tvam asi, Aham Brahmasmi. According to scriptures, Brahman is not available for objectification, as such, it cannot be different from Self. The knowledge that Self is Brahman is not only in accordance with the scriptures it destroys ignorance and a seeker claims liberation.
                                                                                                                                        The second defect is Nishproyajanatva (purposeless) defect explained in verse 2. Sruti describes Brahman as ‘not large’, ‘not small’, etc (Br Up 3.8.8). Such description has to be of Self for then only it is possible to negate the ideas such as largeness, smallness from Self. The third defect is in the 3rd verse. The existence of any object can be established only in two ways. One is that the object must be available for cognition with the help of pramAna and other is that it is svam-siddha (self-evident). The scriptures declare that Brahman is not available for cognition (PramAna Agocharam or Aprameyam). As Self alone is self-evident, Self is Brahman otherwise Brahman will be non-existent. It is Sunyata (nothingness) defect.                                                         

The process of negation is valid only if Brahman is recognized as the Self because negation enables the seeker to falsify the apparent limitations which he superimposes on himself due to ignorance. A non-Self, such as, an elephant cannot be known by the process of negation. If elephant is to be known, it means properties of elephant are unknown. Then how can negation be applied? It is non-starter, so to say.

The last (4th) verse is known as defect of meaningless negation (Aprasakta Pratisheda Dosha). Manduka Up 2.1.2 talks of Brahman as devoid of prAna, devoid of mind, etc. Such negation will be meaningful if Brahman is recognised as Self in as much as, such recognition helps a seeker to claim that he is different from three types of bodies.

If the four verses are seen together, two reasons stand out, namely, authenticity of scriptures and process of negation. The negation process is a powerful tool and perhaps unique to Vedantic teachings. Even at empirical level, the surest way to ascertain the truth is by negating all that is untrue.
Contd Part 4