Of that which has no description, there is no quality; Being-Consciousness has no description, therefore it has no extension of qualities.

“Nirupākhyatva”—indescribability—is the ontological property of the ātman: it is not that we do not know how to describe it, but that it cannot be described, because all description presupposes distinctions, and the ātman is a-dvaita, non-dual. Qualities (guṇas) are always relative: something is large in relation to the small, something is good in relation to the bad. Brahman does not admit relations; therefore, it does not admit guṇas.

This does not mean that Brahman is “undifferentiated” in the sense of being homogeneous and bland. It means that its richness is not a richness of attributes, but a richness that transcends attributes. Just as space is not “colorless” in the sense of lacking color; it is the condition of possibility for all color, including “colorlessness.” Brahman is not “without guṇas” as a privation; it is “beyond guṇas” as transcendence.

The Aṣṭāvakra Gītā (III.13) states: “The yogī is without name and form.” It is not that he lacks name and form; it is that he does not identify with any of them. Name and form continue to function in the world of convention (vyavahāra), but the yogī knows they are conventions. The Haṭha Pradīpikā (IV.79) describes the liberated yogī: “Nothing clings to him, nor does he cling to anything.” Non-description is the most accurate description of one who no longer needs to describe himself, because he is no longer confused with what is described.

“Nirupākhyatva” — indescribability — is the ontological property of the ātman: it is not that we do not know how to describe it, but that it cannot be described, because all description presupposes distinctions, and the ātman is a-dvaita, non-dual. Qualities (guṇas) are always relative: something is large in relation to what is small, something is good in relation to what is bad. Brahman admits no relations; therefore, it admits no guṇas.

This does not mean Brahman is “undifferentiated” in the sense of being homogeneous and bland. It means that its richness is not a richness of attributes, but a richness that transcends attributes. Just as space is not “colorless” in the sense of lacking color; it is the condition of possibility for all color, including “colorlessness.” Brahman is not “without guṇas” as a privation; it is “beyond guṇas” as transcendence.

The Aṣṭāvakra Gītā (III.13) states: “The yogī is without name and form.” It is not that he has no name and form; it is that he does not identify with any. Name and form continue to function in the world of convention (vyavahāra), but the yogī knows they are conventions. The Haṭha Pradīpikā (IV.79) describes the liberated yogī: “Nothing clings to him, nor does he cling to anything.” Non-description is the most accurate description of one who no longer needs to describe himself, because he is no longer confused with what is described.