Non-duality

and the Language of Paradox in the Bhagavad Gita

According to the Advaita interpreta0on of the Bhagavad Gita, the ul0mate reality Brahman, is non-
dual. This means that it is the only exis0ng reality, there being no second en0ty apart from it. This
also implies that the world of duality which we experience, and habitually take for granted, is false or
mithya. Language, opera0ng within the dualis0c world appearance, is incapable of expressing the
non-dual Brahman. We shall examine the philosophy of language implicit in this quandary, and see
how language operates and why exactly it fails to express Brahman. The Gita, being a text, obviously
uses language to communicate. How does the Gita use language to do what language cannot do?
How can the inexpressible be expressed?

It is here that this paper will focus aGen0on on the use of paradoxical language - the language of
contradic0ons and tautologies - in the Gita. What exactly is being said in instances such as ‘He who
sees inac0on in ac0on, and ac0on in inac0on, he truly sees!’, ‘That which is night for all beings, there
wakes the enlightened..’? How does such paradoxical language solve the problem of expressing the
inexpressible? This paper will undertake an analysis of these and related issues.

Page 1 of 9
The Secret of Action

The Bhagavad Gita can be read as the Vedantic philosophy of action. Arjuna’s
questions arise in the field of action (the battlefield) and are concerned with his
moral dilemma about the nature of the actions which he is about to undertake, viz.,
fighting a war. The philosophy of action, Karma Yoga, is certainly one of the main
themes of the Gita, along with devotion (Bhakti Yoga), contemplation (Dhyana Yoga)
and knowledge (Jnana Yoga).

In the fourth chapter of the Gita, Krishna says that the nature of action is mysterious.
‘For there is something to be known even about action…and something has to be
known about inaction. The true nature of action is inscrutable.’1 One who
understands the secret of action sees inaction in action, and conversely, action in
inaction. The actual verse goes

Karmanyakaram yah pashyet akarmani karma yah,

Sa budhhiman manushyeshu sa yuktah kritsnakarmakrit. (4.18)

‘He who finds inaction in action, and action in inaction, he is wise among men; he is
engaged in yoga and is a performer of all actions!’2

Having promised to unveil the mystery of action, Krishna now appears to speak in
riddles. How can one see no action where there is action and vice-versa? And even if
one could, how would it be wisdom? What is the point of this paradoxical
statement? These are the issues which we hope to explore in this paper.

Brahman – The Nondual Reality

The essential thesis of Advaita Vedanta is that, ‘Reality is nondual, duality is a false
appearance, and the individual is none other than that nondual reality.’ The nondual
reality is called Brahman (literally, ‘the vast’). This means that it is the only existing
reality, there being no second entity apart from it. Brahman is absolute existence,
consciousness and bliss (Sat-Chit-Ananda). Existence, consciousness and bliss are not
qualities or properties of Brahman. It is not that Brahman exists, but that it is
existence itself. Not that Brahman is a conscious entity, rather it is consciousness
itself. And not that Brahman is happy, it is bliss itself.

Advaita holds that we are one with Brahman, that we are verily Sat Chit Ananda.
This is the purport of all Upanishadic teaching, succinctly expressed in the
mahavakyas (‘profound statements’) like Tat tvam asi 3 – That thou art. And

Page 2 of 9
everything else, all other living beings, the whole universe, is Brahman. All beings
are in you, and you are in all beings – the real you, of course.

Our true Self, Sat, is not a thing, an object, among other objects of the universe.
Rather It is the very existence of all things and they are not apart from It. To the
enlightened, each object is an appearance which derives its very being from Sat.

Our true Self, Chit, pure consciousness, is not an empirical experience - not
perception, nor apperception - yet all experiences shine in Chit. Chit is the pure
consciousness illumining every thought, every experience through the medium of
mind, senses and body. To the enlightened, Chit is experienced in each experience.

All the happiness we seek in the world is but a particle of the ocean of our own
Ananda swarupa – our true Blissful Self. To the enlightened, all experiences,
apparently pleasant or unpleasant, reflect Bliss.

Brahman is free of all differentiation (bheda). It does not have internal differentiation
(swagata bheda) like a tree has constituent branches, leaves, trunk and roots. Nor are
there similar entities from which it differs (sajatiya bheda) like one tree differs from
other trees. And finally, there are no dissimilar entities from which Brahman can
differ (vijatiya bheda) like a tree differs from cats or birds or mountains. Brahman is
absolutely free of difference. There is no entity which can exist apart from Brahman,
i.e., there is no second entity apart from Brahman – hence advaitam (literally, ‘without
a second’).

Avidya – Ignorance

The natural question of course is how does Advaita explain the world of
multiplicity? Why do we not know this nondual Brahman if that is what we really
are? And if we are Brahman what is the point of ethics, religion, spiritual practice
and even Advaita philosophy?

Avidya (ignorance) is the key philosophical concept in Advaita as it is used to

formulate the Advaitic position in ontology, epistemology and axiology.
Ontologically, Advaita has to explain the ontological status of the experienced world
of multiplicity, and more specifically, how the many has come from the One
Brahman. Giving the famous example of the rope mistaken for the snake, Advaita
postulates ignorance or avidya as the cause of the world. Just as we might mistake a
rope in semi-darkness for a snake, because we are in ignorance of the rope, we are in
error when we perceive a world of multiplicity and this error is the outcome of our
ignorance of Brahman - or in one word, avidya. It is due to the avidya about

Page 3 of 9
Brahman that we posit the world and see ourselves as limited individual beings. The
One is mistaken as the many and this mistake is due to avidya.

In epistemology, we necessarily postulate a knower, the known and knowledge.

Advaita holds that it is due to avidya that Brahman appears as these three. It is
Brahman as pure consciousness shining upon the mind which makes knowledge
possible.

In axiology, the realm of values, the whole aim of life becomes liberation from the
bondage caused by avidya. Due to avidya, we imagine ourselves as limited mind-
body complexes subject to birth, change, disease and death. We act in accordance
with our fears and desires and are bound by the consequences of our actions. This is
suffering, and freedom from suffering can come only by overcoming avidya. Only
knowledge can overcome ignorance and error – only vidya can overcome avidya. So
the quest is for vidya – spiritual knowledge. The quest is to discover who we truly
are. And in this quest, ethics, religion and spirituality are all relevant. They are all
valid and indeed, necessary, till enlightenment is attained. Enlightenment is the
intuitive realization that the self, Atman, is not body/mind but, Brahman, the
ultimate nondual reality.

Krishna compares vidya and avidya to day and night respectively (Gita 2.69).
Brahman, the ultimate reality, is like the darkness of the night to those in the thrall of
avidya, while it is as clear as day to the enlightened who have overcome avidya.

The Limits of Language

Language can be used only when certain conditions are met. These are called Sabda
pravritti nimitta – occasions/causal conditions for the use of language, and they are
five in number. If in an entity, one or more of these conditions are present, we can
successfully use language to refer to that entity. Brahman, as we shall now see, meets
none of these conditions.

1. Jati or class – If the object belongs to a class, we can use the class/species/set
as a description. A ‘cow’ refers to an animal which belongs to a class of
animals called ‘cow’. Brahman, being singular, does not belong to any class.

2. Guna or quality- When we say ‘red lotus’ the colour red indicates the lotus
and differentiates it from, say, a ‘blue lotus’. But, Brahman is qualityless
(nirguna).

3. Kriya or action – The presence of an action or function can serve to distinguish

an entity from others. Terms like ‘driver’ or ‘cook’ work by using the
functions of cooking or driving. But Brahman has absolutely no change or
action (nishkriyam).

Page 4 of 9
 4. Sambandha or relation – Relations are a very useful basis for the use of
language. ‘Teacher ’, ‘student’, ‘father ’ or ‘child’ are relation based
descriptions. But, relations require at least two entities. Brahman, being
nondual, has no second entity to which It can bear some relation.

5. Rudhi or convention – We can name something just by convention. Most

proper names are given by convention. But, this requires the entity to be
pointed out, distinguished from all others. If I say, ‘He is John,’ I must,
physically or otherwise, point out John. Brahman, being imperceptible, cannot
be pointed out.

Since Brahman does not possess any of the causal conditions for the use of language,
it lies beyond the limits of language.4 Language cannot refer to Brahman, we cannot
speak of it. Brahman remains forever inexpressible. Brahman is a-vak-manasa-gocara
‘beyond the reach of words and thought.’

But this won’t do as it puts Advaita in an impossible situation. On one hand, the
scriptures like the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita are supposed to reveal Brahman,
and on the other, they cannot, for they are after all, only words. So, how do they
manage to do the impossible – express the inexpressible?

Expressing the Inexpressible

Shankaracharya mentions the story of an enquirer who asks a spiritual master

repeatedly about Brahman but the answer is always silence. The master finally
explains his silence thus, ‘I teach but you comprehend not – silence is the Self.’ 5The
teaching of Brahman through silence is well known in the Advaita tradition.6 But, if
we are to speak at all, is there any way in which Brahman can be meaningfully
spoken about? Advaita has some very innovative strategies to do exactly that. Some
of those strategies are briefly noted below.

1. The via negativa or apophatic method– Neti, neti ‘not this, nor that’:

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes the true Self as ‘neti, neti Atma’. By
eliminating every entity that is an object of perception or thought, there
remains that inexpressible Self which is not an object, which is the pure
subject. The Taittiriya Upanishad proceeds by this method of negation by
relegating to anatman (non-self) the physical, vital, mental, intellectual and
causal sheaths whereafter the Atman remains not as an object or a sheath, but
as the pure subject, the witness of the five sheaths. This has to be intuitively
grasped.

2. By implied meaning – lakshyartha:

Page 5 of 9
 Words cannot directly refer to Brahman but they have a certain power by
which they can indirectly indicate Brahman. This is the power of implied
meaning. Imagine the Mr. Smith whom you knew thirty years ago as a young,
fit scholar at Oxford is now middle aged, portly and a successful businessman
in London. And you are moved to exclaim, ‘He is that Smith!’ We have no
difficultly in understanding what you mean. We naturally ignore the
contradictory characteristics of past and present, young and old, fit and fat,
scholar and businessman, Oxford and London. We understand you mean the
person himself, bereft of all these contradictory adjectives. Similarly, when the
Upanishad says ‘You are God!’ we are to ignore the contradictory qualities of
creature and Creator, human and Divine, and understand God and you are
the essentially the same Brahman, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

3. By using incidental (non-essential) qualities:

Brahman is without qualifying attributes by which we mean Brahman has no

intrinsic qualities. But there are incidental or non-intrinsic qualities which the
scripture can skillfully utilize to indicate Brahman. Just as you point out a
house saying, ’Its that house over there with the crow sitting on the roof,’
where the crow, while not in any way an intrinsic part of the house,
nevertheless performs the very useful function of differentiating the house
from other houses (which presumably are not adorned with sundry crows at
that moment!). Similarly, Brahman can be provisionally defined as the
Creator, Preserver and Destroyer of the universe (which It is not in reality, for
there is no real world to create, maintain or destroy). Or the Self can be
indicated as the witness of the mind. This is perhaps the main stratagem
adopted by Advaita. Incidental qualities are superimposed and then negated
so that the student can, hopefully, intuitively grasp Brahman as the ground of
negation. Shankaracharya himself says, ‘adhyaropa-apavadabhyam nisprapancam
prapancyate’ 7 - the traditional spiritual teachers have taught Brahman, which
is Transcendent, by the method of superimposition and de-superimposition.

4. The language of paradox:

This is pertinent to our present problem. Advaita teachers take the help of
paradoxical language, playing off contradictory assertions against each other
to indicate Brahman in which all contradictions are subsumed and
transcended. Thus we find ‘That moves and moves not, It is far and near’,
‘Minuter than the minutest, vaster than the vastest…’ (Isha Upanishad) or, in
our present discussion, ‘Inaction in action, and action in inaction’.

Page 6 of 9
Paradox Revisited

Let us return now to our paradox. How is it wisdom to see inaction in action and
vice versa? The commentator, Shankaracharya, predictably uses the concept of
avidya to dissolve the paradox.

According to the commentator, Krishna’s purpose in deliberately using paradoxical

language is to correct an error. Under the influence of avidya, the unenlightened
tend to superimpose the actions of body/mind upon the actionless Atman.
Correction of this error would involve ‘seeing’(realizing) that our true self does not
act at all even when the body/mind is acting. Shankaracharya comments,

‘…viparyaya nivritti artham Bhagavato vacanam ‘karmani akarma yah ityadi.’8

‘…it is to correct the error that the Lord speaks thus, ’He who sees inaction in
action’ etc’

The commentator uses a telling image. To a man in a boat sailing on a river, the
motionless trees on the bank may suddenly appear to move. Similarly, the actions of
body/mind are attributed to the unchanging Self and we feel, ‘I am walking, talking
and thinking.’

Equally, to the unenlightened, sitting down quietly means inaction. Still identified
with the body/mind, they are unable to see that the enforced stillness of the body is
also action. The enlightened see that this so called ‘inaction’ is actually action. Such
an enlightened person, seeing oneself as the actionless Atman while active in body
and mind, and understanding the inactivity of the unenlightened to be as good as
action, is truly wise. He is ever established in Brahman (yuktah) and has
accomplished what human life is really meant for (spiritual enlightenment).

The Secret of Action

Advaita guides us through an analysis of our daily experience (action and inaction
in this case) to distinguish the true Self (Atman) from the non-self (anatman). The real
Self is pure consciousness, while the apparent self is the ego (ahamkara) which is
merely a function of the mind (antahkarana). Like the filament in a bulb which glows
because of electricity, the ego is lit up by pure consciousness and we become aware
of ourselves and others. Then the ego appropriates to itself the mind with all its
memories, hopes and fears, knowledge and limitations. Encased in this body-mind
complex, the ego then engages in various actions (or tries to be inactive) and sets in
motion the whole cycle of karma, karmic results, birth and death. This is our life as
we know it now. The whole exercise is to discriminate pure consciousness from the

Page 7 of 9
ego and to know that we are pure consciousness, Atman, and not the ego. The Atman
neither acts, nor gets any karmic consequences and, therefore, does not transmigrate.

All actions are in the pursuit of fulfilment. The ego acts only because it feels itself to
be a limited human being, unfulfilled and subject to hopes and desires, fears and
frustrations. The enlightened person, knowing himself to be Infinite existence-
consciousness-bliss is always fulfilled. Hence, he is called kritsna-karma-krit, the one
who has accomplished all actions, because he is ever fulfilled. This does not mean
that the enlightened Yogi is inactive. There is no more action prompted by
dissatisfaction, but there could very well be altruistic action. There could be the most
intense action for the welfare of the world.

Karma Yoga requires involvement with society and the world. The karma yogi must
seek peace and calm within the hurly-burly of work and not by running away from
society. The karma yogi, in the midst of the greatest silence and solitude, finds the
most intense activity, and in the midst of the most intense activity finds the silence
and solitude of the desert. He goes through the busy streets of London, and his mind
is as calm as if he were in a Himalayan cave, where not a sound could reach him;
and he is intensely working all the time. That is the ideal of karma yoga, that is the
secret of work.

We do see this in the lives of the great enlightened spiritual teachers of humanity
whether it be Krishna himself, or the Buddha, Christ, Prophet Muhammad,
Shankaracharya or Vivekananda. All of them led the most active lives, working for
the welfare of all till their last breath, without the least trace of selfishness.

In essence, what we have to do is to have to recognize the actionless pure

consciousness within and claim it alone to be the true Self, not the ego. And this is
possible even when the ego is engaged in action, even in the midst of the most
intense action. Eternal serenity in the midst of intense altruistic action is the ideal of
Karma Yoga – the philosophy of action taught in the Bhagavad Gita.

1 The Bhagavad Gita 4.17

2 The Bhagavad Gita 4.18

3 Chhandogya Upanishad, Chapter 6

4 Shankaracharya, Mandukya Upanishad bhashyam, introduc0on to the 7th mantra

5 Shankaracharya, Brahmasutra Bhashya, 2.2.17

Page 8 of 9
6 See Shankaracharya’s Dakshinamur0 Stotra, ‘The Guru’s teaching is through silence, and all doubts of the

disciples are dispelled…’

7 Shankaracharya, Bhagavad Gita bhashya 13.3

8 Ibid., 4.18

Page 9 of 9