This chapter is a critical-creative evaluation of apophatic theology in Sankara's Advaita Vedanta. Sankara, the non-dualist philosopher of classical India, made a case for systematic negative theology for the superiority of negative language over positive. When Sankara explains ‘neti-neti,’ Brahman is not described positively. Sankara asserts that Brahman is the foundation [adhisthana] upon which the world-form is based; it serves as the foundation for all other Vikaras, or modifications. Four core Vedantic claims that indicate the nature of Brahmanubhava are examined in this chapter. These statements—That art Thou (Tat Vam Asi), I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi), This Self is Brahman (Ayamatma Brahma), and Brahman is consciousness (Prajnanam Brahman)—are not just symbolic; they are fundamental assertions of the absolute identity between Brahman and Atman. Brahmanubhava must be direct and instantaneous since it is a non-dual, objectless experience. Consequently, it cannot be acquired through our senses, intellect, or mind, in contrast to empirical knowledge. The ultimate and absolute view of enduring Reality, or Paramarthika Satta, which is timeless, formless, unsurpassable, undifferentiated, objectless, and unchanging consciousness, Sankara contends, cannot support plurality and difference, which structure the empirical world of our senses that surges up in time and space. Thus, Advaita contains two fundamental teachings. The first is that subject-objectless consciousness, which is non-dual, is the ultimate Reality. The second lesson is that the empirical and transient objects—including the atman or self—are superimposed upon the subject-objectless consciousness. Advaitin identifies the Self with the body, the senses, or the objects of the senses, which is why it claims that all experiences begin and proceed in an error. According to Sankara, words like “sat” or “asat” cannot adequately convey the essence of Brahman because each word in an empirical language designates a genus, act, quality, or relation. Brahman, however, cannot be so designated since it is not a genus; it is qualityless and, as a result, it does not act or relate to other beings. Because Brahman is non-empirical, superimposed on what is observed, and transient, Sankara believes that language as an empirical tool is unsuitable for characterizing it. Thus, by consistently disclosing through apophatic techniques, Brahman can be expressed. Therefore, the indescribable is described in the Advaita literature using several negative attributes, such as nirguna (qualityless), nirvikalpa (changeless), nirvisesa (distinctionless), nirupadhi (unmediated), arupa (formless), Ananta (endless), aksara (imperishable), atindriya (supersensual), vikalpa-sunya (indeterminate), prapanca-sunya (non-plural), and anirvacaniya (inexpressible/indescribable). According to Sankara, the phrase “not this, not this” [neti, neti] itself affirms the self's identity. This is conceivable since the complete absence of any relations—which implies separateness—is the conceptual and formal definition of identity. Differentiating characteristics, species, and qualities affect separateness. As a result, the apophatic practice is fuelled by the suspicion that Reality is something that is beyond rational understanding.