The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s2.t1.3

c9.s2.t1.3

The terms Brahman and âtman both denote, therefore, the first principle of the universe, and in this sense are ordinarily employed in the Upanishads as synonymous, and are interchanged with one another in the same text or stand side by side, as in the question proposed in Chând. 5. 11. 1:—*ko na' âtmâ, kim brahma?* where S'ankara remarks that Brahman denotes the term to be defined, *vis'eshyam*, and âtman that which defines it, *vis'eshanam*, (which is true in general, if not precisely so here), that by Brahman the limitation implied in âtman is removed, and by âtman the conception of Brahman as a divinity to be worshipped is condemned. Both expressions however are, as this remark already shows, of indefinite connotation. The conception of Brahman is very complex, and the conception of the âtman is a negative and relative idea, which declares to us rather wherein the essence of man and of the universe is not to be sought, than affords us any positive information as to its real nature. Precisely in this its philosophical value consists. For the essence of things remains, as far as its nature is concerned, eternally unknown; and every attempt to make it an object of knowledge compels us to impose upon it definitions which are borrowed from that sphere of experimental knowledge that alone is accessible to our intelligence, and these again do not penetrate to the essential reality of things. From this realistic tendency the many false or imperfect attempts to explain Brahman and the âtman arise, which are rejected by the teachers of the Upanishads themselves, and which we have now to discuss.