ये त्वक्षरमनिर्देश्यमव्यक्तं पर्युपासते।सर्वत्रगमचिन्त्यं च कूटस्थमचलं ध्रुवम्॥
ye tv akṣaram anirdeśyam avyaktaṃ paryupāsatesarvatra-gam acintyañca kūṭa-stham acalandhruvamsanniyamyendriya-grāmaṃ sarvatra sama-buddhayaḥte prāpnuvanti mām eva sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ
Word by word
The verse says
But those who worship the imperishable, which cannot be pointed at, the unmanifest, present everywhere, beyond thought, unchanging, unmoving, fixed —
In plain words
Six words for what cannot be described, piled up one after another.
Each one takes something away: not pointable, not manifest, not thinkable, not changing, not moving.
That is how this kind of language works. It cannot say what the thing is, so it says what it is not, six times.
Where you've felt this · in community
Try explaining to somebody what silence sounds like. Everything you say is a removal — no traffic, no voices, not the fridge. You never arrive at a description of silence itself, and yet the person you are talking to knows exactly what you mean.
Going deeper
Describing something only by what it is not is a real method with a long history, and it has a known cost.
Each negation here is accurate. The imperishable cannot be pointed at, cannot be pictured, does not change. Nothing false is being said. But a mind given six negations has nothing to rest on, which is precisely the difficulty verse 5 is about to name.
That is not an argument against the method. Chapter 8 used it, and so do large parts of the Upaniṣads.
It is a statement about what it costs the person using it. Approaching something by removing every handle works, and it works for people who can hold a question open for a long time without needing anywhere to put their attention — which is rarer than those who recommend it tend to allow.