The Indefinable That Defines Everything: Brahman, the Limits of Language, and the Mystery of the Foundation of Existence

 

The Indefinable That Defines Everything: Brahman, the Limits of Language, and the Mystery of the Foundation of Existence

A philosophical investigation into Vedic literature, the nature of reality, and that which perhaps transcends the limits of all human definition.

1. Introduction — When Language Encounters Its Own Limits

Since the earliest civilizations, humanity has sought to answer one of the most fundamental questions of its existence: What is the origin of everything that exists? What sustains reality? Is there a fundamental principle behind the diversity of forms, phenomena, living beings, and structures that comprise the universe?

In the ancient philosophical tradition of India, especially within the Upanishads, we find an extraordinary reflection on these questions. One of the central concepts of this inquiry is Brahman, understood in certain schools of Indian thought as ultimate reality, the foundation of existence, or the absolute principle that cannot be reduced to the particular characteristics of the things we know.

The question becomes even more intriguing when we recognize a logical difficulty: all definitions seek to establish limits, identify characteristics, and distinguish what is being defined from other things. But if what we are investigating is precisely the foundation of all things, how could we define it without turning it into merely another object of our thought?

This is the question that guides this study.

We will not start from an obligation to accept a religious doctrine, nor from the necessity of rejecting it in advance. Our goal is to examine the ancient texts, their philosophical interpretations, and possible connections with contemporary thought, distinguishing what the sources actually state from the interpretations we can develop from them.

The investigation begins with a philosophical hypothesis: perhaps that which makes all definitions possible cannot be defined by the same categories we use to describe existing objects.

If this hypothesis is correct, we will be confronting an issue that transcends the boundaries of a specific religion. We will be investigating the very relationship between language, knowledge, and reality.

2. Brahman: The Foundation That Is Not Just Another Thing

The Sanskrit word Brahman designates a complex concept whose interpretation varies according to the era, the text, and the philosophical school. It should not be confused with Brahmā, the creator deity present in later Hindu traditions.

In the Upanishads, Brahman appears associated with the investigation into fundamental reality, the origin of existence, and the relationship between the ultimate principle and what we perceive as the world.

A particularly important passage is found in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.1):

Sanskrit: सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म Transliteration: Satyam jñānam anantam brahma. Approximate Literal Translation: “Brahman is reality, knowledge, and the unlimited.”

The terms deserve attention:

• Satyam: Truth, reality, or that which is true.
• Jñānam: Knowledge, wisdom, or consciousness, depending on the adopted philosophical interpretation.
• Anantam: Unlimited, infinite, that which possesses no final limit.
• Brahma: In this construction, a grammatical form related to Brahman, the ultimate reality.

This translation should not be treated as a mathematical formula nor as a definition universally accepted by all schools. In the interpretation of Advaita Vedānta, for example, the passage points to a reality that is not limited by ordinary distinctions among subject, object, and particular attributes. Other vedantic traditions interpret the relationship between Brahman and the world in different ways.

The central point remains philosophically relevant: How can we comprehend a reality that, by hypothesis, is not limited by the same boundaries that characterize particular phenomena?

If we define a tree, we can distinguish it from a stone. If we define a planet, we can differentiate it from a star. If we define an idea, we can compare it with another idea.

Every definition operates through some distinction.

However, if Brahman is understood as the foundation of reality itself, it cannot be treated simply as an object situated alongside other objects, as if there existed an exterior and independent category from which we could delimit it.

This does not prove that such a foundation exists exactly as certain philosophical schools describe it. It demonstrates, however, the internal coherence of a metaphysical question: Is it possible to define the universal foundation of existence using concepts that arise within the very reality we intend to explain?

3. Neti, Neti: Investigation Through Negation

One of the best-known expressions in Upanishadic literature is neti, neti, found in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.3.6).

Sanskrit: नेति नेति Transliteration: Neti, neti. Literal Translation: “Not this, not this.”

The expression results from the combination of na (“not”) with iti, a particle that can mean “thus,” “this,” or mark a quoted formulation. In the traditional construction, the repetition indicates a reiterated negation: “not this, not this.”

But what exactly is being denied?

This does not necessarily mean asserting that the universe does not exist, that the senses are useless, or that all human experience is false. In the Advaita interpretation, the expression is used to ward off limited identifications of ultimate reality: Brahman cannot be fully grasped as a particular characteristic, a delimited form, or an object observed by consciousness from the outside.

The philosophical importance of this approach lies in its method.

Instead of trying to capture the absolute through a definitive description, thought examines possible descriptions and questions their limits.

We can say that Brahman is infinite. But the word “infinite” is a human concept. We can say it is consciousness, reality, or foundation. But each of these words possesses meanings that depend on our experience and our capacity to think.

Language points to something; it does not necessarily exhaust that toward which it points.

The neti, neti method can therefore be understood as a form of investigation that questions whether any particular concept is sufficient to encompass the totality of what it aims to describe.

There is a fundamental difference between asserting “nothing can be known” and recognizing “no isolated description manages to exhaust the object investigated.”

The first assertion closes the investigation. The second allows it to continue.

It is in this second possibility that we find the philosophical strength of the concept.

4. The Paradox of Definition: Can That Which Sustains All Distinctions Be Distinguished?

Consider a simple question: What is a definition?

To define means to establish the meaning of a word or concept, identifying characteristics that allow us to understand what it refers to. A definition can be perfected, corrected, or replaced when new information appears.

Language works because we manage to distinguish things, properties, relations, and events.

Now, let us imagine someone trying to define the foundation of absolutely everything.

If this foundation is described as a thing with specific properties, it will be necessary to ask what differentiates it from other things. If it is described as a reality situated within the universe, it will be necessary to investigate what sustains the universe as a whole. If it is described as a reality external to the universe, it will be necessary to explain the meaning of “external” when we are speaking of something supposedly fundamental.

The difficulty does not disappear simply through the choice of more abstract words.

Therefore, the question of Brahman is not merely religious. It involves the logical structure of our concepts.

If the foundation of all things is not just another element among existing elements, perhaps ordinary categories of definition are not sufficient to describe it.

However, we must preserve an important distinction: failing to formulate a complete definition does not demonstrate, by itself, that the object of investigation is infinite, absolute, or transcendent.

There are things we cannot define because our knowledge is insufficient. Others are difficult to describe because language is limited. And there are metaphysical concepts whose very formulation defies the categories used by ordinary thought.

Brahman belongs to a philosophical tradition that explores precisely this difficulty.

The merit of the question lies in forcing us to distinguish the limits of our understanding from the limits of what we seek to understand.

5. The Rigveda and the Hymn That Questions the Very Origin of the Universe

Reflection on the limits of knowledge does not appear only in the Upanishads. We find an extraordinary passage in the Rigveda, one of the oldest texts of the Vedic tradition.

This is hymn 10.129, known as the Nāsadīya Sūkta, frequently translated as the “Hymn of Creation” or “Hymn of Origin.”

Its first verse begins thus:

Sanskrit: नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं Transliteration: Nāsad āsīn no sad āsīt tadānīm. Approximate Literal Translation: “Then, neither non-existence nor existence was there.”

This translation seeks to preserve the paradoxical structure of the verse. The hymn continues by questioning whether there was space, sky, or any condition that could be described by known categories.

Later, in the seventh verse, appears one of the most thought-provoking passages in all of Vedic literature:

Sanskrit: यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद Transliteration: Yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman, so aṅga veda yadi vā na veda. Approximate Translation: “He who is its overseer in the highest heaven knows—or perhaps even he does not know.”

The context is decisive. The hymn questions who truly knows the origin of creation, observes that the gods appeared after the emergence of the universe, and ends by leaving open whether the very instance that contemplates it knows its origin.

Translations vary, and the passage should not be isolated from its poetic context. Even so, its general meaning is extraordinary: the text does not close the question of the cosmos's origin with an unquestionable explanation. It turns the very possibility of knowledge into an object of investigation.

This does not mean the Rigveda anticipated current scientific theories about the Big Bang. These are different historical contexts, languages, and methods of knowledge.

The philosophical relevance lies elsewhere: thousands of years before contemporary science, a composition of the Vedic tradition was already formulating questions about the origin of existence and the possibility of anyone knowing that origin definitively.

The hymn allows for an open reading, without requiring the reader to accept a religious answer.

We can interpret it as a poetic reflection on cosmological mystery, as an investigation into the limits of knowledge, or as an expression of human consciousness facing questions for which it possesses no sufficient answers.

In all these readings, an idea remains: recognizing that we do not know can be a more rigorous form of investigation than pretending to possess a definitive answer.

6. Parā Vidyā and Aparā Vidyā: Are There Different Forms of Knowledge?

The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (1.1.4–5) presents another fundamental distinction.

Sanskrit (Verse 1.1.4): द्वे विद्ये वेदितव्ये इति ह स्म यद्ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति परा चैवापरा च Transliteration: Dve vidye veditavye iti ha sma yad brahmavido vadanti, parā caivāparā ca. Approximate Literal Translation: “Two forms of knowledge are to be known, say those who know Brahman: the higher and the lower.”

The terms are:

• Dve: Two.
• Vidyā: Knowledge, wisdom, or discipline of knowledge.
• Parā: Higher, most elevated, or supreme.
• Aparā: Lower, relative, or belonging to a distinct category from the first.

In the following verse, the text enumerates the four Vedas and traditional auxiliary disciplines as aparā vidyā, while associating parā vidyā with the knowledge through which the imperishable is known.

This distinction must not be transformed into a simplistic opposition between science and religion. The text belongs to an ancient context, with its own categories of knowledge, and subsequent interpretations vary.

In the Advaita tradition, the distinction is usually understood as the difference between relative knowledge and the liberating knowledge of ultimate reality. This does not mean empirical investigation is useless. It means that knowing many things about the world is not necessarily equivalent to resolving all questions about the nature of existence or consciousness.

We can know the chemical composition of a star, calculate its mass, and estimate its age. Such knowledge possesses objective value, its own methods, and criteria of verification.

However, when we ask why there exists a reality capable of presenting physical regularities, or how conscious experience relates to the physical world, we enter conceptual problems that are not resolved merely by the accumulation of data.

This does not make such problems inaccessible to investigation. It merely means we must identify which method is appropriate for each question.

The Vedic distinction between forms of knowledge thus offers an opportunity to reflect on the different levels of human comprehension, without diminishing the importance of scientific knowledge nor transforming a metaphysical interpretation into a demonstrated fact.

7. Brahman and the Different Indian Philosophical Schools

There is no single interpretation of Brahman accepted by all traditions that developed from Vedic literature. This point is essential for any study without dogmas.

7.1. Advaita Vedānta: Non-Dualism

Associated primarily with the interpretation of Ādi Śaṅkara, Advaita Vedānta maintains that ultimate reality is non-dual.

In this tradition, Brahman is understood as fundamental reality, and the distinction between the deepest self, ātman, and Brahman does not constitute, in the final analysis, an absolute separation.

Everyday experience presents a multiplicity of objects, individuals, and events. Philosophical investigation seeks to understand the status of this multiplicity in relation to ultimate reality.

The expression neti, neti plays an important role in this approach, preventing Brahman from being definitively identified with any particular attribute.

This interpretation is not the only possible one, but it represents one of the most influential formulations of the idea of a non-dual ultimate reality.

7.2. Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta: Unity with Differentiation

Associated with Rāmānuja, Viśiṣṭādvaita—generally translated as “qualified non-dualism”—comprehends Brahman as supreme reality, but does not eliminate the reality of souls and the universe in the same way Advaita does.

Fundamental unity admits real differentiations. The world and individual beings maintain a constitutive relationship with Brahman.

This school shows that the expression “foundation of all things” does not need to mean that all differences are simply illusory or irrelevant.

7.3. Dvaita Vedānta: Real Distinction

Associated with Madhva, Dvaita Vedānta emphasizes the real distinction between God, individual souls, and the world.

In this perspective, the relationship between the supreme principle and other beings is not interpreted as absolute identity.

The comparison among these three schools reveals something important: Indian thought developed different interpretations for similar questions. It is incorrect to attribute a single conclusion about the nature of reality to the entire Vedic tradition.

Philosophical investigation begins to gain depth when we recognize the differences among interpretations rather than artificially gathering them into a single doctrine.

8. What Can Contemporary Philosophy Add to This Discussion?

The question concerning the limits of definition remains present in contemporary philosophy.

Philosophy of language investigates how words acquire meaning, how concepts relate to reality, and what the limits of our descriptions are.

Epistemology, in turn, examines what it means to know, what the justifications of our beliefs are, and how we distinguish knowledge, hypothesis, and speculation.

Metaphysics investigates questions such as the nature of existence, the relationship between properties and objects, and the possibility of a ultimate foundation of reality.

These areas do not need to accept the existence of Brahman to consider the philosophical problem the concept represents legitimate.

We can formulate the question independently of any religious belief:

If all our knowledge is expressed by human concepts, to what extent are these concepts able to describe reality without simplifying it?

There is no single answer to this question. Some positions maintain that scientific knowledge can progressively expand our comprehension of reality. Others highlight that certain problems involve conceptual limits that do not disappear simply through the accumulation of information.

The recognition of limits, however, must not be confused with the assertion that reality is necessarily supernatural or impossible to investigate.

A question still without an answer does not automatically constitute proof of a specific explanation.

Therefore, we can establish a dialogue between Brahman and contemporary philosophy without asserting that ancient Vedic texts already contained all the answers we seek today.

The tradition's contribution is presenting a particularly profound formulation of the problem. Contemporary thought's contribution is offering other tools to examine it, question it, and, when possible, clarify its presuppositions.

9. Contemporary Physics and the Temptation to Transform Analogies into Proofs

The discussion becomes even more interesting when we bring the metaphysical question closer to the foundations of physics.

Contemporary physics investigates the structure of matter, fundamental fields, nature's interactions, the origin and evolution of the observable universe, and the limits of current theories.

Quantum mechanics, for example, describes phenomena that defy many of our everyday intuitions. Its predictions are extraordinarily precise across diverse domains, but its philosophical interpretation remains an object of debate.

It is tempting to compare Brahman to a quantum field, the physical vacuum, or a fundamental reality underlying observable phenomena.

These comparisons can function as analogies, provided their limits are respected.

The quantum vacuum does not simply mean absolute nothingness. It is a physical concept defined within a theoretical framework, with mathematical properties and observable consequences. Nor is there scientific consensus that quantum mechanics demonstrates a universal consciousness or a spiritual reality.

Brahman, in turn, belongs to a metaphysical and religious tradition whose comprehension does not depend on a specific physical theory.

They are not interchangeable concepts.

Even so, the comparison raises a legitimate question: Does what we perceive as everyday reality represent the entire structure of physical reality, or is it merely a part accessible to our senses and instruments?

Science answers questions of this type through observations, mathematical models, experiments, and the revision of theories. Metaphysics seeks to clarify presuppositions and formulate questions about the ultimate meaning of concepts such as existence, foundation, and reality.

These approaches can converse, but they must not be confused.

The similarity between two ideas does not prove they describe the same phenomenon. The antiquity of a conception does not prove its scientific validity. And the absence of a complete scientific explanation does not authorize automatically filling the gaps with a metaphysical hypothesis.

Intellectual openness demands two simultaneous attitudes: not discarding a question simply because it is difficult, and not declaring an answer proven that has not yet been demonstrated.

10. A Philosophical Hypothesis: The Foundation Cannot Be Reduced to the Categories It Founds

Let us return to the central question.

If Brahman is interpreted as the foundation of all things, then it would not simply be an element that could be located and described in the same manner as other objects.

The hypothesis suggests that there is a difference between knowing the elements of a reality and comprehending the principle that makes reality itself possible.

We can know countless properties of the universe without this automatically resolving all questions about why something exists, how reality should be conceptually understood, or what the limits of our capacity to know it are.

This does not mean the universe necessarily possesses a foundation in the sense proposed by Vedānta. This is precisely the question that needs to remain open to philosophical analysis.

There are at least three conceptual possibilities that deserve consideration.

1. First: Reality possesses an ultimate foundation that we do not yet adequately comprehend.
2. Second: The search for an absolute foundation perhaps transcends what our methods of knowledge can establish.
3. Third: The question concerning the ultimate foundation may demand a reformulation, because it presupposes categories—such as cause, origin, and sustenance—that perhaps do not apply in a simple way to the totality of existence.

These possibilities are not necessarily equivalent, nor do they exhaust all philosophical positions. They are different paths to investigate the same problem.

The merit of Brahman as a philosophical concept lies in forcing thought to examine its own limits. We do not need to assume in advance that the traditional answer is true to recognize the depth of the question it formulates.

11. Reflection — What Happens When We Try to Define the Indefinable?

Imagine someone asserting they know the definitive definition of reality.

It would be legitimate to ask: How does this person know their definition encompasses everything? What criteria do they use to demonstrate they left nothing out? And how could they verify the limits of a reality that, by hypothesis, possesses nothing external to it?

These questions do not automatically refute any definition of ultimate reality. They show that such a comprehensive assertion demands careful analysis of its presuppositions.

Language is an extraordinary tool. Through it, we formulate theories, transmit knowledge, construct models, and discuss what we do not yet comprehend.

Yet a tool can have limits without being useless.

A map represents a territory without reproducing every detail of its expanse. A scientific description outlines certain aspects of the world without necessarily answering every possible question about it. A word can indicate an experience without entirely reproducing the experience of the one who lived it.

Perhaps the difficulty of defining Brahman is related to this difference between a representation and what it seeks to represent.

This is a possible philosophical interpretation, not a demonstration that Brahman exists as an independent reality.

The reflection also invites us to question a recurring human tendency: transforming what we partially comprehend into an absolute certainty.

When a tradition offers an answer, we can study it. When science presents a theory, we can examine its evidence. When a hypothesis arises, we can investigate its coherence and limits.

None of these attitudes requires abandoning critical thinking.

On the contrary: the deeper the question, the greater must be the care given to the answers.

The Nāsadīya Sūkta reminds us that the very origin of the universe can be formulated as an open question. Neti, neti demonstrates a way of investigating the limits of descriptions. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad distinguishes forms of knowledge and invites us to reflect on what it means to know.

Read comparatively, these texts offer more than a religious answer: they offer instruments for thinking about the relationship between knowledge, language, and reality.

12. Conclusion — Perhaps the Limit Lies in Definition, Not Necessarily in Reality

The investigation into Brahman leads to a question that remains relevant: Can we fully comprehend what, according to a certain philosophical hypothesis, constitutes the foundation of everything that exists?

The Vedic tradition does not present a single uniform interpretation. Advaita Vedānta emphasizes non-dualism; Viśiṣṭādvaita preserves a unity qualified by real differentiations; and Dvaita maintains fundamental distinctions between supreme reality, souls, and the world.

The Rigveda, in turn, presents questions in the creation hymn that remain philosophically provocative regarding the origin of the universe and the possibility of knowing it. The Upanishads deepen the inquiry through expressions like neti, neti and distinctions among different forms of knowledge.

None of this requires us to accept these traditions as unquestionable truths. We can examine them as historical expressions of a human investigation into the foundations of existence.

Nor do we need to equate Brahman with quantum physics, universal consciousness, or any contemporary scientific hypothesis to recognize the value of the philosophical problem.

The central point is simpler and, at the same time, deeper.

Every definition establishes distinctions. But if what we seek to comprehend is the foundation of all distinctions, perhaps our habitual categories are not sufficient to exhaust its meaning.

This does not prove that the absolute foundation exists, nor that it is impossible to know it. It means we must distinguish what we can assert with security from what remains in the field of investigation.

The most intellectually honest answer is perhaps not declaring that the mystery has been solved, but recognizing that the question remains open.

If everything we define can be distinguished from other things, how do we define that which, by hypothesis, makes all things and all distinctions possible?

Perhaps the issue is not simply finding the right word.

Perhaps it is understanding how far language can reach, where our concepts begin to fail, and which paths remain available to continue investigating.

Because recognizing the limits of a definition does not mean renouncing knowledge.

It means refusing the illusion that a word, a doctrine, or a theory has already closed all possibilities of comprehension.

And it is precisely in this space between what we know, what we can demonstrate, and what we do not yet comprehend that philosophical investigation remains alive.

Fundamental References for Further Study

• Ṛgveda, 10.129 — Nāsadīya Sūkta, the hymn on the origin of creation and the limits of knowledge.
• Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 2.3.6 — The expression neti, neti and the investigation into Brahman.
• Taittirīya Upaniṣad, 2.1.1 — Satyam jñānam anantam brahma.
• Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, 1.1.3–5 — The inquiry into the knowledge by which everything becomes known and the distinction between parā vidyā and aparā vidyā.
• Śaṅkara — Commentaries on the Upanishads (Advaita interpretation of ultimate reality).
• Rāmānuja — Śrībhāṣya (Viśiṣṭādvaita interpretation of the relationship between Brahman, souls, and the world).
• Madhva — Commentaries on the Vedānta (Dualist interpretation of the relationship between supreme reality and individual beings).

Methodological Note: The Sanskrit translations presented in this study are approximate. The interpretation of terms such as jñāna, Brahman, and neti, neti varies according to textual context and philosophical tradition. Comparisons with contemporary science are proposals for reflection, not assertions of equivalence or scientific proof of metaphysical concepts.