Verse 2.647

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

पदार्थव्यतिरेकेण न चावाक्यार्थवाचकः ।
अतोऽवाक्यार्थरूपोऽयं योऽहं ब्रह्मेति निश्चयः ॥ ६४७ ॥

padārthavyatirekeṇa na cāvākyārthavācakaḥ |
ato'vākyārtharūpo'yaṃ yo'haṃ brahmeti niścayaḥ || 647 ||

English translation of verse 2.647:

“Being not denoted by a word, (Brahman cannot be denoted by a sentence); and what cannot be denoted by a sentence cannot be conceived by speech. So the (non-relational, direct) knowledge, “I am Brahman”, is not the import of a sentence.”

Notes:

The argument of the Niyogavādin which commenced in verse (G39) is concluded in this verse.

Though Brahman cannot be directly referred to by a word, should it not be said that it can be indicated by implication (lakṣaṇā)? Even this, says the Niyogavādin, is not possible. If an object can be directly referred to by a word, it can be indirectly indicated by some other word. For example, the word tīra directly conveys the sense of a bank. It is possible to say that the word "Ganges” in a particular context conveys the sense of a bank through implication. If an object cannot be directly referred to by a word, then it cannot be indicated by implication through another word. The difficulty in the case of Brahman is that it cannot be stated by any word; if so, it cannot also be indicated by implication (lakṣaṇā) through another word. It only means that Brahman cannot be the import of a sentence directly dr by implication.

How do we, then, obtain the direct, non-relational knowledge of Brahman? When the indirect, relational knowledge conveyed by the Upanishadic text is constantly meditated upon, there arises therefrom the immediate, non-relational knowledge: “I am Brahman.” The Niyogavādin argues that it is this immediate, non-relational knowledge which is enjoined.