‘That’ arose as a response to investigating Brahman without the benefit, the necessary platform of the [yet-to-be birthed] construct of Shūnyam. Of getting enmeshed in the coils of the Self-Loop in this most dangerous of terrains, the ‘All’.

A principal expression of Vedic insight is Tát [literally, ‘That’]. The Summum Bonum of popular, if redacted Dharmic Teaching is: Tát Tvam Asi, the same Tát [‘That’] of the Rig Veda. In translation: ‘That are’t Thou’.

‘That’ is an Expression of Inexpressibility. Just to have called it ‘Inexpressible’ is to stand in violation of its inexpressibility. [It might be more revealing to unwind: ‘All Words Lie!- itself an assertion in words, to intuit its meaning.]

A self-scuttling assertion in negation, an immediate, unregenerate self-contradiction. It is neither noun nor verb, is grammatically homeless, a lexicographer’s nightmare, and meant to be so.

It includes all markers, any and every whiff of presumption to identity. Aspects, elements, endowments, features, qualities, temperament, tendencies. You may not source it for ethical or social directives [rules], go philosophical or poetic on its attributes…

Point a finger, draw a line, a thought, emote a feeling towards ‘That’ and by that very act, what you have pointed a finger to, drawn a line of, thought, emoted, is not ‘That’.

‘That’ can be rewritten in the layout of the Axioms of Sight. ‘You may not express ‘That’. Anything you express as ‘That’, by that very fact, is not ‘That”. To even call it ‘Inexpressible’ violates its inexpressibility.

Shūnyam borrows and carries forward the same Logical Form as ‘That’. And in that sense, is its direct progeny. In Shūnyam, what is the ‘Inexpressible’ of ‘That’ becomes visible as the ‘Absence of the Expressed’.