is limited, but he is the
unlimited, the basis of all. "That which is inaudible, intangible,
invisible, indestructible, which cannot be tasted, nor smelt, eternal,
without beginning or end, greater than the great (_mahat_), the fixed.
He who knows it is released from the jaws of death [Footnote ref 2]."
Space, time and causality do not appertain to him, for he at once forms
their essence and transcends them. He is the infinite and the vast, yet
the smallest of the small, at once here as there, there as here; no
characterisation of him is possible, otherwise than by the denial
to him of all empirical attributes, relations and definitions. He
is independent of all limitations of space, time, and cause which
rules all that is objectively presented, and therefore the empirical
universe. When Bahva was questioned by Va@skali, he expounded
the nature of Brahman to him by maintaining silence--"Teach
me," said Va@skali, "most reverent sir, the nature of Brahman."
Bahva however remained silent. But when the question was put
forth a second or third time he answered, "I teach you indeed but
you do not understand; the Atman is silence [Footnote ref 3]." The way
to indicate it is thus by _neti neti_, it is not this, it is not this.
We cannot describe it by any positive content which is always limited
by conceptual thought.

The Atman doctrine.

The sum and substance of the Upani@sad teaching is involved
in the equation Atman=Brahman. We have already seen that the
word Atman was used in the @Rg-Veda to denote on the one hand
the ultimate essence of the universe, and on the other the vital
breath in man. Later on in the Upani@sads we see that the word
Brahman is generally used in the former sense, while the word
Atman is reserved to denote the inmost essence in man, and the

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: B@rh. IV. 5. 15. Deussen, Max Muller and Roer have all
misinterpreted this passage; _asito_ has been interpreted as an
adjective or participle, though no evidence has ever been adduced;
it is evidently the ablative of _asi_, a sword.]

[Footnote 2: Ka@tha III. 15.]

[Footnote 3: Sa@nkara on _Brahmasutra_, III. 2. 17, and also Deussen,
_Philosophy of the Upanishads_, p. 156.]

46

Upani@sads are emphatic in their declaration that the two are one
and the same. But what is the inmost essence of man? The self
of man involves an ambiguity, as it is used in a variety of senses.