‘That’: The Origins Of Shūnyam


Long before the putting together of Shūnyam [‘True Nothing’] there was a principal expression of Vedic insight, 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. 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.

You may not say a word about ‘That’. And any word you say about ‘That’, by that very fact is not ‘That’ [‘The Axioms of Sight’].

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’.

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…

Even to call it ‘Inexpressible’ places it in counterpoint to the binary clutch of ‘Expressible’. All such duals need to be exhausted before the reason for the choice of ‘That’ becomes evident. 

Effecting this yields the Logical Form of the Self-Negating Expression. And the Self-Negating Expression is your most reliable and tested tool to work your way through this backward maze.

And the Symbol ‘0’ [Shūnyam] is simply this Logical Form taken to its natural, necessary and inevitable limit.

Shūnyam is explicit, irreducible, achievable and verifiable. And unlike with ‘That’, long cloaked in an occult opacity, you cannot fudge it. You either sight Shūnyam or you don’t. Like the Nerds say: ‘It’s a ‘0,1’ thing’.