Kenopaniṣat Complete English Explanation by- Sri Adi Sankaracharya
Kena
Upanishad – Introduction – « »
॥
अथ केनोपनिषत् ॥
..
atha kenopaniṣat ..
Sri
Adi Sankaracharya’s introduction
This
ninth chapter is begun for the purpose of publishing the Upanishad beginning
with Keneshitam etc., and, treating of the Brahman. Before the beginning of the
ninth chapter, all Karma has been explained and the different forms of
worshipping Prana, the source of all activity, have been laid down and all
about the Sarnaus (songs) preliminary to the rituals have been given. Next the
Gayatra Saman has been explained and the genealogical list of preceptors and
disciples has been given. All this Karma and Knowledge (of the deities)
properly observed, as enjoined, tend to purify the mind of one who being-free
from desires, longs for emancipation. In the case of one who cherishes desires
and has no knowledge, Karma by itself as laid down by the Srutis and the
Smritis secures for him the southern route and return to Samsara. Activity
following natural impulses and repugnant to the Sasiras entails degradation
into low births from beasts down to immovables.The Sruti says:
“Travelling
by neither of these two paths, these small creatures are constantly returning,
of whom it may he said: ‘Be born and die.’ This is the third course.”
Another
Sruti says
“The
three kinds of living beings (going by neither of these two paths) reach this
miserable state.”
The
desire to know the Brahman springs only in the person whose mind is pure, who
is free from desires and who, free from deeds done in this birth or in previous
ones, becomes disgusted with the external, ephemeral medley of ends and means.
This
Brahman is depicted in the Upanishad beginning with Keneshitam. etc., appearing
in the form of questions and answers. Kataka says
“The
self-existent has made the senses external in their activity and man therefore
looks outward, not at the self within.”
Some
wise man having turned his eyes inward and being desirous of immortality saw
the inner self.
“Having
examined the worlds reached by Karma, let the Brahmin grow disgusted (and learn
to think that) nothing which is not made can be reached by Karma. In order to
know that, let him, Samidh (sacrificial sticks) in hand, approach a preceptor,
who is well read in the Vedas and who is centred in Brahman.”
Kena
Upanishad – Invocation – « »
॥
अथ केनोपनिषत् ॥
ॐ
आप्यायन्तु ममाङ्गानि वाक्प्राणश्चक्षुः
श्रोत्रमथो
बलमिन्द्रियाणि च सर्वाणि ।
सर्वं
ब्रह्मौपनिषदं
माऽहं
ब्रह्म निराकुर्यां मा मा ब्रह्म
निराकरोदनिराकरणमस्त्वनिराकरणं
मेऽस्तु ।
तदात्मनि
निरते य
उपनिषत्सु
धर्मास्ते मयि सन्तु ते मयि सन्तु ।
ॐ
शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
..
atha kenopaniṣat ..
oṃ
āpyāyantu mamāṅgāni vākprāṇaścakṣuḥ
śrotramatho
balamindriyāṇi ca sarvāṇi .
sarvaṃ
brahmaupaniṣadaṃ
mā’haṃ
brahma nirākuryāṃ mā mā brahma
nirākarodanirākaraṇamastvanirākaraṇaṃ
me’stu .
tadātmani
nirate ya
upaniṣatsu
dharmāste mayi santu te mayi santu .
oṃ
śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ..
Invocation
Om. May Brahman protect us both (the preceptor and the disciple)! May Brahman
bestow upon us both the fruit of Knowledge! May we both obtain the energy to
acquire Knowledge! May what we both study reveal the Truth! May we cherish no
ill feeling toward each other!
Om.
Peace! Peace! Peace!
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 1 « »
ॐ
केनेषितं पतति प्रेषितं मनः
केन
प्राणः प्रथमः प्रैति युक्तः ।
केनेषितां
वाचमिमां वदन्ति
चक्षुः
श्रोत्रं क उ देवो युनक्ति ॥ १॥
oṃ
keneṣitaṃ patati preṣitaṃ manaḥ
kena
prāṇaḥ prathamaḥ praiti yuktaḥ .
keneṣitāṃ
vācamimāṃ vadanti
cakṣuḥ
śrotraṃ ka u devo yunakti .. 1..
1
The disciple asked: Om. By whose will directed does the mind proceed to its
object? At whose command does the prana, the foremost, do its duty? At whose
will do men utter speech? Who is the god that directs the eyes and ears?
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
।।1.1.1।। Kena, by what agent; being isitam, willed, directed; manah,
the mind; patati, goes, goes towards its own object-this is the construction.
Since the root is cannot be taken here to imply either repetition or going;
[‘Since the intention here is not to make the mind an object of the concept of
either repeated occurrence or going, and since the desire is for knowing some
special director of the mind.’-A.G.] it must be understood that the present
form of the root is in its sense of desiring. The form in which the suffix it
is used in the word isitam is a Vedic licence [The correct form should have
been ‘esitam.’-A.G.]. Presitam is a form of the same root, with pra prefixed to
it, in the sense of directing. If the word presitam alone were used (without
isitam) there would arise such an iniry about the particular kind of director
and the direction as; ‘By what particular director? And how is the direction?’
But the attribute isitam being there, both the questions are set at rest,
because thery is ascertained a special meaning, viz ‘directed (presitam)
through whose mere will ?’ [‘ By mere presence that involves no effort.’-A.G.]
Objection:
If this be the meaning intended, the purpose is served by the expression willed
by alone, and the expression directed need not be used. Moreover, since it is
reasonable that an additional word should imply an additional meaning, it is
proper to understand some special sense as: ‘By what is it directed-by will,
act, or speech?’
Answer:
This cannot be so because of the trend of the question. For the reasonable
conclusion derived from the trend (of the question) is that the iniry is made
by a man who has become disgusted with the ephemeral works and their results,
such as the assemblage of the body, senses, etc., and seeks to know something
other than these, which is unchangeable and eternal. If it were not so, the
question would be surely meaningless, since the directorship of the group of
body etc. (over the mind) through will, word, and act is a familiar fact.
Objection:
Even so, the sense of the word directed is not certainly brought out.
Answer:
No, since the word directed can reasonably convey a special sense, viz that it
is the question of a man in doubt. Both the adjectives isitam (willed) and
presitam (directed), in the sentence willed by whom the directed mind goes, are
justifiable as implying: ‘Does the directorship belong to the aggregate of body
and senses, which is a well-known fact; or does the directorship through mere
will, over the mind etc., belong to some independent entity which is different
from the aggregate?’
Objection:
Is it not a well-known fact that the mind is free and goes independently to its
own object? How can the question arise with regard to that matter?
The
answer is this: If the mind were independent in engaging and disengaging
itself, then nobody would have contemplated any evil. And yet the mind, though
conscious of conseences, wills evil; and though dissuaded, it does engage in
deeds of intensely sorrowful result. Hence the question, kenesitam patati etc.,
is appropriate.
Kena,
by whom; Pranah, the vital force; being yuktah, engaged, directed; praiti,
goes, towards its own activity? Prathamah, first, should be an adjective of the
vital force, for the activities of all the organs are preceded by it. Imam
vacam, this speech, consisting of words; which ordinary people vadanti, utter;
kena isitam, by whom is it willed (during that utterance)? Similarly, kah u
devah, which effulgent being; yunakti, engages, directs towards their
respective objects; caksuh srotram, the eyes and the ears?
To
the worthy disciple who had asked thus, the teacher said, ‘Hear what you have
asked for in the question, ‘Who is that effulgent being who is the director of
the mind and other organs towards their own objects, and how does he direct?”
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।1.1.1।।. The eight Mantras of this Khanda are very elevating and
inspiring. They will take you gradually to the goal if you meditate on these
ideas. They will make you realise that the Self is very close to you. These
Mantras are good for constant repetition, reflection and meditation. They will
turn the mind rewards. They will take you to the door of intuition very ickly
if you meditate on these ideas with concentration at Brahmamuhurta (4 a.m.)
when the mind is free from the currents of Rajas and Tamas.
Kena-by
whom, by what agent; Ishitam-wished desired directed; Patati-falls, lights
upon, proceeds or goes (towards its objects); Preshitam-sent forth.
The
questioner is an intelligent man who is endowed with discrimination. He is a
real enirer. He is thirsting for real knowledge. He is eager to know that
Supreme entity which is unchangeable and eternal. He thinks that some superior,
independent intelligence controls and guides the mind, life (Prana) and the
senses.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 2 « »
श्रोत्रस्य
श्रोत्रं मनसो मनो यद्
वाचो
ह वाचं स उ प्राणस्य प्राणः ।
चक्षुषश्चक्षुरतिमुच्य
धीराः
प्रेत्यास्माल्लोकादमृता
भवन्ति ॥ २॥
śrotrasya
śrotraṃ manaso mano yad
vāco
ha vācaṃ sa u prāṇasya prāṇaḥ .
cakṣuṣaścakṣuratimucya
dhīrāḥ
pretyāsmāllokādamṛtā
bhavanti .. 2..
2
The teacher replied: It is the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind, the Speech
of speech, the Life of life and the Eye of the eye. Having detached the Self
from the sense-organs and renounced the world, the Wise attain to Immortality.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
।।1.1.2।। Srotrasya srotram, the Ear of the ear. The srotram is that by
which one hears, the instrument for the hearing of sound, the organ of hearing
which reveals words. He about whom you put the question, ‘Who is the effulgent
being who directs the eyes and the ears?’-is the Ear of the ear.
Objection:
Is it not incongruous to answer, ‘He is the Ear of the ear’, when the reply
should have been, ‘So-and-so, with such and such attributes, directs the ears
etc.’?
Answer:
This is no fault, because His distinction cannot be ascertained otherwise. If
the director of the ears etc. could be known as possessed of His own activity,
independently of the activities of the ears etc. just as it is in the case of
the wielder of sickle etc., then this answer would be incongruous. But as a
matter of fact, no director of ears etc., possessed of his own activity, is
apprehended here like a mower possessed of a sickle etc. But He can be known
(as existing unmixed with the ear etc.) from the logical necessity that such
activities as deliberation, volition, determination, of those very composite
things, viz the ear etc., must be meant for some one,s benefit. Just as in the
case of a house, so also (in this case) there does exist some one, standing
outside the conglomeration of ears etc., by whose necessity is impelled the
group of ears etc. Thus from the fact that composite things exist for the need
of some one else, a director of the ears etc. can be known (i.e., inferred).
[‘Ears etc. are subsidiary to some one different from themselves, for they are
composite things, like a house etc.-by this inference the master of the ears
etc. can be known. If he, too, should be a part of the combination, then he
will be insentient like the house etc. Then we shall have to imagine another
master for him, and so also a third for this. Thus to avoid an infinite
regress, a Consciousness that is not a part of the combination is apprehended.’-A.G.]
Hence the reply, ‘He is the Ear of the ear’, etc. is ite appropriate.
Objection:
What, again, can there be in the significance here of the expression, ‘The Ear
of the ear’ etc? For just as a light has no need for another light, so in this
context the ear can have no need for another ear.
Answer:
There is no such fault. The significance here of the expression is this: The
ear, to wit, is seen to be able to reveal its own object. This ability of the
ear to reveal its own object is possible only when the eternal non-composite,
all-pervading light of the Self is there, but not otherwise. Hence the
expression, ‘Ear of the ear’ etc. is justifiable. To the same effect there are
other Vedic texts: ‘It is through the light of the Self that he sits’ (Br. IV.
iii. 6), ‘Through His light all this shines’ (Ka. II. ii. 15; Sv. VI. 14; Mu.
II. ii. 10), ‘Kindled by which light the sun shines’ (Tai. B. III. xii. 9.7),
etc. And in the Gita, ‘(Know that light to be mine), which is in the sun and
which illumines the whole universe’ (XV. 12), and ‘(As the one sun illumines
the whole universe), so does He who reside in the body, O descendant of
Bharata, illumine the whole body’ (XIII. 33). So also in the Katha Upanisad,
‘the eternal among the ephemeral, the the consciousness among all that is
conscious’ (II. ii. 13). It is a commonly accepted belief that the ears etc.
constitute the Self of all, and that these are conscious. This is being refuted
here. There does exist something which is known to the intellect of the men of
realization, which dwells in the inmost recesses of all, which is changeless,
undecaying, immortal, fearless, and unborn, and which is the Ear etc., of even
the ear etc., i.e. the source of their capacity to act. Thus the answer and
significance of the words can certainly be justified.
Similarly,
manasah, of the mind, of the internal organ; (He is) the manah, Mind; because
the internal organ is not able to perform its own functions-thinking,
determination, etc.-unless it is illumined by the light of consciousness.
Therefore He is the Mind of the mind, too. Here the mind and the intellect are
jointly mentioned by the word manah (mind). Yad vaco ha vacam: the word yat,
used in the sense of because, is connected with all such words as srotra (ear)
in this way: because He is the Ear of the ear, because He is the Mind of the
mind, and so on. The objective case in vaca ha vacam is to be changed into the
nominative in consonance with the expression pranasya pranah (the Life of
life).
Objection:
In conformity with vaco ha vacam, why should not the conversion be into the
objective case thus; pranasya pranam?
Answer:
No, for it is reasonable to conform to the majority. So in consonance with the
two words, (sah and pranah), in sah u pranasya pranah (where they are in the
nominative case), the implication of the word vacam is vak, for thus is the
reasonable conformity with the majority maintained. Moreover, a thing asked
about should properly be denoted in the first (nominative) case. He, of whom
you ask, and who is the Life of prana-of that praticular function called life,
by Him, indeed, is ensured the capacity of the vital force to discharge its
functions of sustaining life, and this is because there can be no sustaining of
life by anything that is not presided over by the Self, in accordance with the
Vedic texts: ‘Who, indeed, will inhale, and who will exhale, if this Bliss
(Brahman) be not there in the supreme Space (within the heart)?’ (Tai. II. vii.
1), ‘Who pushes the prana upward and impels the apana inward’ (Ka. II. ii. 3),
etc. Here, too, it will be said, ‘That which man does not smell with prana (the
organ of smell), but that by which prana is implelled, know that to be Brahman’
(1.9).
Objection:
Is it not proper to understand prana as the sense of smelling (and not life)
[The word prana is used in different senses in different contexts. It may mean
vital force, exhaling, sense of smell, etc.] in a context which deals with the
senses-ears etc.?
Answer:
This is true. But the text considers that by the mention of prana (meaning the
vital force) the sense of smell is referred to ipso facto. The meaning intended
in the context in this: That for whose purpose occurs the activity of all the
(motor and sensory) organs is Brahman.
So
also He is the caksusah caksuh, the Eye of the eye; the capacity to perceive
colour that the eye, the organ of sight, possesses is merely by virtue of its
being presided over by the consciousness of the Self. Hence He is the Eye of
the eye. Since a questioner’s desire is to know the thing he asks for, the
expression, ‘having known has to be supplied thus: ‘Having known Brahman, as
the Ear etc. of the ear etc., as indicated before.’ This (addition) is also
necessary, because the result is stated thus, ‘They become immortal’ (II. 5),
and because the result is stated thus, ‘They become immortal’ (II. 5), and
because immortality is attained through realization. From the fact that a man
becomes free after getting realization, it follows (that he becomes immortal)
by giving up, (through the strength of knowledge), the group of organs beginning
with the ear; that is to say, since by identifying the Self with the ear etc. a
man becomes conditioned by these and takes birth, dies, and transmigrates,
therefore having realized, as one’s Self, the Brahman that is defined as the
‘Ear of the ear’ etc., and atimucya, giving up selfidentification with the ear
etc.-(he becomes immortal). Those who give up self-identification with the ear
etc. are the dhirah, intelligent, because the selfidentification with the ear
etc. cannot be given up unless one is endowed with uncommon intellect. Pretya,
desisting; asmat lokat, from this world of emperical dealings involving ideas
of ‘I and mine’ with regard to sons, friends, wives, and relatives; i.e. having
renounced all desires; (they) bhavanti, become; amrtah, immortal, immune from
death. This is in accordance with the Vedic texts: ‘Not by work, not by
progeny, not by wealth, but by renunciation some (rare ones) attained
immortality, (Kai. 1.1.2।।), ‘The self-existent Lord
destroyed the outgoing senses; hence one perceives the external things and not
the Self within. A rare, discriminating man, longing for immortality, turns his
eyes away and then sees the indwelling Self (Ka. II. i. 1), ‘When all desires
that cling to one’s heart fall off, ৷৷৷৷then
one attains Brahman here’ (Ka. II. iii. 14), etc. Or, renunciation of desires
being implied in the expression atimucya (giving up) itself, asmat lokat pretya
means separating from this body, dying.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।1.1.2।।. This verse is an answer to the questions in the first verse.
The preceptor give answer to the worthly disciple who had questioned him.
Behind the mind, breath and the senses there is Brhaman or the supreme Self. He
who knows this Brahman attains immortality.
Ignorant
people identify themselves with the body, mind, prana and senses on account of
nescience or Avidya. They mistake these false perishable limiting adjuncts or
vechicles for the pure immortal Atman, and so they are caught in the round of
births and deaths. But some wise people abandon this false identification,
separate themselves from these limiting adjuncts through eniry, discrinination
and Anvaya-vyatireka Yukti and practice of Neti-neti-doctrine (I am not this
body, I am not this Prana, I am not this mind, I am not the senses), identify
themselves with the all-pervading, immortal, pure Brahman, obtain knowledge of
Brahman and attain immortality.
Atimuchya-being
free; having renounced I-ness in the limiting vehicles such as body, mind,
prana, senses; having renounced the false notion that the ear, mind, Prana,
etc., is the Atman. Pretya-on departing, having turned away; Asmat-from this;
Lokat-world or body.
Some
commentators take Asmallokat pretya to mean ‘departing from this world’ or
‘having left this mortal body.’ It may mean also ‘rising above sense-life,’
because they attain immortality as soon as they rise above sense-life and live
in the Atman. They become immortal while living in this body. They need not
wait till they leave the body or the world to become immortal. This rendering
is more appropriate.
Just
as the water in a cup borrows its heat from the sun or fire, so also the mind,
prana and senses borrow their light and power from the Atman. The Atman is the
source for all these organs. The ear hears through the light of the Atman, the
tongue speaks through the power of the Atman, the mind thinks through the
intelligence of the Atman and prana performs its function through the power of
the Atman only. Mind and these organs are inert and non-intelligent. They
appear to be intelligent through the light and power of the Atman. Brahman or
the Atman gives to the ear the power of hearing, gives to the mind the power of
thinking, gives to the tongue the power of speaking, gives the power of life to
the first Prana, gives to the eye the power of seeing. It is, therefore, said
that It is the ear of ear, the mind of mind, etc.
There
is a director of the ear, eyes, tongue, mind, life-force who is distinct from
the ear, mind, prana and others. The ears, eyes, mind, Prana, etc., exist for
His use, just as the house exists for the use of the owner. The director is
Brahman or the Atman.
The
Srutis say: “Brahman shines by His own light,” “By His light all this universe
is illumined.” “The sun, the moon, the stars, the fire and the lightning shine
by His light,” “Who could live and breathe if there were not the self-luminous
Brahman.” “He leads Prana up and Apana down.” The Bhagavad-Gita (XIII-33) says:
“As sun illumines the whole world, so does the Atman (Kshetri), O Bharata,
illumines all the bodies (Kshetra).”
One
becomes immortal by renouncing all desires. In this world man talks always ‘my
son,’ ‘my wife,’ ‘my house,’ etc. The wise abandon all such worldly talks and
worldly desires (Pretya asmallokat) and attain immortality by meditating on
Brahman who is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, etc. The Sruti says:
“Not by works, not by offspring, not by wealth, but by renunciation alone did
some attain immortality.” “When all desires are abandoned, here they attain the
Brahman.” “Having turned his senses inwards for desire of immortality.”
Thus
in the Atharvanopanishad. In this way, and not otherwise, a man free from
desires becomes qualified to hear, contemplate and acquire knowledge of the
inner self. By the knowledge of the inner self, ignorance, which, is the seed
of bondage, and the cause of Karma performed for the realisation of desires, is
entirely removed.
The
Srutis say:
“There
is no grief or delusion to one who sees this unity.”
“He
who knows the Atman overcomes grief.”
“When
He. that is both high and low, is seen, the knot of the heart is cut, all
doubts are resolved and all Karma is consumed.”
If
it be urged that even by knowledge coupled with Karma this result is attained,
we say no; for the Vajasaneyaka shows that that combination produces different
results.
Beginning
with “Let me have a wife,” the texts go on to say,
“by
a son should this world be gained, not by any other means: by Karma, the abode
of the manes (Pitris); and by Knowledge, the world of the deities;”
thus
showing how the three worlds different from the Atman are reached. In the same
place we find the following reason urged for one becoming a Sanyasin: “What
shall we, to whom this world is not the Atman, do with offspring?” The meaning
is this: What shall we do with offspring, Karma, and Knowledge combined with Karma,
which are the means to secure the world of the mortals, the world of the manes,
and the world of the Gods; and which do not help us in securing the world of
the Atman? For, to us none of the three worlds, transitory and attainable by
these means, is desirable. To us that world alone which is natural, unborn,
undecaying, immortal, fearless and neither augmented nor diminished by Karma,
and eternal, is covetable; and that being eternal cannot be secured by any
other means than the removal of ignorance. Therefore, the renunciation of all
desires preceded by the knowledge of the Brahman who is the inner Self should
alone be practised by us. Another reason is that the knowledge of the inner
Self is antagonistic to Karma and cannot therefore coexist with it. It is well
known that the knowledge of the Self, the one Atman of all, which abhors all
perception of difference, cannot possibly co-exist with Karma whose basis is
the perception of the difference of agent, results, etc. As knowledge relating
to the reality, the knowledge of the Brahman is independent of human efforts.
Therefore, the desire of a person, who is disgusted with visible and invisible
fruits achievable by external means, to know the Brahman which is connected
with the inner Self, is indicated by the Sruti beginning with Keneshitam, etc.
The elucidation of the Brahman in the form of a dialogue between the preceptor
and the disciple is, considering the subtle nature of the theme, for the easy
understanding thereof. It will also be clearly pointed out that this knowledge
is not to be attained solely by logical discussion.
The
Srutis say
“This
state of mind cannot be obtained by logical discussion.”
“He
knows who has studied under a preceptor.”
“Such
knowledge only as is acquired by studying under a preceptor does good.”
The
Smriti lays down also “Learn That by prostration.”
It
should be inferred that someone duly approached a preceptor centred in Brahman
and finding no refuge except in bis inner Self and longing for that which is
fearless, eternal, calm and unshakable, questioned the preceptor as expressed
in ‘Keneshitam. etc.’
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 3 « »
न
तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनः ।
न
विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यात् ॥ ३॥
na
tatra cakṣurgacchati na vāggacchati no manaḥ .
na
vidmo na vijānīmo yathaitadanuśiṣyāt .. 3..
3
The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor the mind. We do not know It; we do
not understand how anyone can teach It.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By S. Sitrama Sastry (This and
next verse)
For
the reason that the Brahman is the ear of the ear, i.e., the Atman of all. the
eye cannot go to the Brahman; for it is not possible to go to one’s own self.
Similarly speech does not go there. When a word spoken by the mouth enlightens
the object denoted by it, then the word is said to go to that object. But the
Atman of that word and of the organ that utters it is the Brahman. So the word
does not go there. Just as fire that burns and enlightens things does not
either enlighten or burn itself, so the mind, which wills and determines in
respect of external objects, cannot will or determine in respect of its self,
because its Atman is also the Brahman. A thing is cognised by the senses and
the mind. We do not, therefore, know the Brahman, because it cannot be an
object of perception to these; and we do not, therefore, know what the Brahman
is like, so as to allow us to enlighten the disciple about the Brahman.
Whatever can be perceived by the senses, it is possible to explain to others by
epithets denoting its class, its attributes and modes of activity; but the
Brahman has no attributes of class, etc. It, therefore, follows that it is not
possible to make the disciple believe in the Brahman by instruction. The
portion of the text beginning with ‘Navidmah’ (we do not know) shows the
necessity of putting forth great exertion in the matter of giving instruction
and understanding it, in respect of the Brahman. Considering that the previous
portion of the text leads to the conclusion that it is impossible by any means
to instruct one about the Atman, the following exceptional mode is pointed out.
Indeed it is true that one cannot be persuaded to believe in the Brahman by the
evidence of the senses and other inodes of proof; but it is possible to make
him believe by the aid of Agamas (Scriptures). Therefore the preceptor recites
Agamas for the purpose of teaching about the Brahman and says: ‘It is something
distinct from the known and something beyond the unknown, etc.’ ‘Anyat,’
‘something distinct’; ‘Tat,’ ‘the present theme i.e., that which has been
defined to be the ear of the ear, etc., and beyond their (ear. eye, etc.,)
reach. That is certainly distinct from the known. ‘The known,’ means ‘whatever
is the object of special knowledge;’ and as all such objects can be known
somewhere, to some extent and by some one and so forth, the whole (manifested
universe) is meant by the term ‘the known;’ the drift is, that the Brahman is
distinct from this. But lest the Brahnan should be confounded with the unknown,
the text says: ‘It is beyond the Unknown.’ ‘Aviditat’ means ‘something opposed
to the known;’ hence, unmanitested illusion (avidya) the seed of all
manifestation. ‘Adhi’ literally means ‘above’ but is here used in the
derivative sense of ‘something different from for, it is well known that one
thing placed above another is something distinct from that other.
Whatever
is known is little, mortal and full of misery and, therefore, fit to be
abandoned. Therefore when it is said that Brahman is distinct from the Known,
it is clear that it is not to be abandoned. Similarly, when the Brahman is said
to be distinct from the Unknown it is in effect said that the Brahman is not
fit to be taken. It is to produce an effect that one seeks for a cause.
Therefore there can be nothing distinct from the knower, which the knower could
seek for, with any benefit. Thus, by saying that the Brahman is distinct from
both the Known and the Unknown and thus disproving its fitness to be abandoned
or to be taken, the desire of the disciple to know anything distinct from Self
(Atman) is checked. For, it is clear that none other than one’s Atman can be
distinct from both the Known and the Unknown; the purport of the text is that
the Atman is Brahman. The Srutis also say: “This Atman is Brahman:” “this Atman
who is untouched by sin.” “This is the known and the unknown Brahman;” “This
Atman is within all;” etc. The preceptor next says how this meaning of the
text, that the Atman of all, marked by no distinguishing attributes, bright and
intelligent, is the Brahman, has been traditionally handed down from preceptor
to disciple.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।1.1.3।।. The eye and the organs cannot go to Brahman. They cannot
approach Him, for one cannot go to one’s own Self. How can the eyes see the
seer of sight? The eye is an object of perception for the mind and the Atman.
However clever an acrobat may be, he cannot jump on his own shoulders. So is
the case with the senses. They eye can only see the external objects of the
universe. That is its only function. How can it know or reach its source which
is extremely subtle? For, it is not possible to go to one’s own Self.
Similarly, speech cannot go there. When you utter the word cow, that word
enlightens the object cow denoted by it. Then it is said that the word goes to
the object. The source or support or abode or resting place for the word, and
the organ that utters it, is Brahman. Therefore, the speech or the mouth does
not go there i.e., approach Brahman.
The
mind also cannot go there. How can it know the knower? Just as fire that burns
and enlightens other objects, cannot either burn or enlighten itself, so the
mind which knows the external objects through the avenues of the senses, cannot
know the Atman or Brahman, because Brahman is the source for the mind also, and
the mind is gross, inert and finite. How can the finite know the Inifinite? The
gross impure mind only cannot approach Brahman; but the subtle, pure mind can
go there, for pure mind is Brahman itself.
Brahman
cannot be an object of perception, because He is pratless, attributeless,
extremely subtle. He is beyond the reach of the senses (Atindriya, Adrisya). He
can only be intuitively realised through miditation. The senses and the mind
can perceive only the external objects of this universe.
You
can explain to others about objects that are cognised by the senses by giving a
description of their attributes, class, modes of activity, etc. But, Brahman is
without attributes, class, etc. So, it is not possible to teach about Brahman
to the disciples. To define Brahman is to deny Brahman. Sat-Chit-Ananda is only
a provisional definition. That is the reason why Srutis explain Brahman through
Neti-neti doctrine. The preceptor should exert very much in giving instruction.
The disciple should possess a subtle, sharp, pure and one-pointed intellect.
It
is not possible to make the pupil believe in the Atman by instruction, by the
evidence of the senses and other proofs, but it is ite possible to make him
believe and understand by the aid of Srutis or scriptures
Brahman
cannot be known like the objects of the world. It cannot be explained also by
mere words just as you explain to others the nature of objects by words.
Tat-that,
Brahman, the ear of the ear; Viditat-from the known Vyakta or the whole
manifested universe, all objective phenomena; Anyat-something distinct;
Aviditat-from the unknown or the Avyakta, the seed for all manifestation;
Adhi-literally means above, superior, different or something different from.
Brahman
is distinct from the known, from the whole manifested universe and the unknown
(Avyakta).
When
it is said ‘Brahman is distinct from the known,’ people may take the Avyakta or
the unknown as Brahman. To avoid this confusion or misconception, the text
says, ‘Brahman is beyond the unknown also.’
Ignorant
people may think by going through the text, ‘Brahman is different from what is
known and it is beyond what is unknown also,’ that Brahman is the only reality.
He is the bliss or source for everything. Brahman is not an object. He is
all-pervading, mysterious, incomprehensible, Chaitanya or pure consciousness.
He must be known through intuition or self-cognition. It is very difficult to
understand the nature of Brahman. It is very difficult to explain the nature of
Brahman, because there is no means or language. The Rishis of yore have tried
their level best to make the idsciples understand Brahman by various ways of
expression. Those who are endowed with pure and subtle intellect, can easily
grasp the subtle ideas of the Upanishads. For the passionate and the
worldly-minded who are endowed with an impure, outgoing mind, Upanishad is a sealed
book. Everything is Greek and Latin for them.
As
Brahman is beyond the reach of the senses and the mind, the aspirant should at
first have a comprehensive understanding of Brahman through the study of the
Upanishads and the instructions of an illumined preceptor. He should eip
himself with the four means, and practise constant meditation. Then he will
attain knowledge of Brahman. He will realise Brahman like an Amalaka fruit in
his hand. Then all doubts and delusions will vanish.
That
which is distinct from both the known and the unknown is Brahman or the Atman.
The knowledge of Brahman has been traditionally handed down from preceptor to
disciple. Gaudapada taught the Brahma Vidya or Govindapada; Govindapada to
Sankara; Sankara to Padmapada, and so on. Brahman can be known only by
instruction from an illumined teacher or realised sage and not by logical
discussions, nor by intelligence, great learning, expositions, austerity or
sacrifical rites, etc. We have heard this saying of the preceptors who clearly
taught us the Brahman.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 4 « »
अन्यदेव
तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि ।
इति
शुश्रुम पूर्वेषां ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे ॥ ४॥
anyadeva
tadviditādatho aviditādadhi .
iti
śuśruma pūrveṣāṃ ye nastadvyācacakṣire .. 4..
4
It is different from the known; It is above the unknown. Thus we have heard
from the preceptors of old who taught It to us.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
।।1.1.5।। Anyat eva, different indeed; is tat, that which is the topic
under discussion and which has been spoken of as the Ear etc., of the ear etc.,
and as beyond their reach. It is, indeed, different from the known. The known
is very much within the grasp of the act of knowing, that which is the object
of the verb, ‘to known’. Inasmuch as everything is known somewhere by somody,
all that is manifested is certainly known. The idea is that, It (Brahman) is
different from that. Lest, in that case, It should be unknown, the text says,
(It is,) atho, again; different aviditat, from the unknown, from what is
opposed to the known, from that which consists of the unmanifested ignorance,
which is the seed of the manifested. The word adhi, used in the sense of
‘above’, means ‘different’ by a figure of speech; for it is well-known that
anything that exists above another is different from that other. Whatever is
known is limited, mortal, and full of misery; and hence it is to be rejected.
So when it is said that Brahman is different from the known it amounts to
asserting that It is not to be rejected. Similarly, when it is affirmed that It
is different from the unknown, it amounts to saying that It is not a thing to
be obtained. It is for the sake of getting an effect, indeed, that somody
different from it acires some other thing to serve as a cause. For this reason,
too, nothing different (from the Self) need be acired to serve any purpose
distinct from the knower (Self). Thus the statement, that Brahman is different
from the known and the unknown, having amounted to Brahman being denied as an
object to be acired or rejected, the desire of the disciple to know Brahman
(objectively) comes to an end, for Brahman is nondifferent from the Self. (Or,
according to a different reading-the desire of the disciple to know a Brahman
different from the Self, comes to an end). [The expression concerned is
svatmano’ nanyatvat brahmavisaya jijnasa, or svatmano’ nyabrahmavisaya
jijnasa.] For nothing other than one’s own Self can possibly be different from
the known and the unknown. Thus it follows that the meaning of the sentence is
that the Self is Brahman. And this also follows from such Vedic texts as: ‘This
Self is Brahman’ (Ma. 2; Br. II. v. 19, IV. iv. 5), ‘that Self which is
untouched by sin’ (Ch. VIII. vii. 1), ‘the Brahman that is immediate and
direct-the Self that is within all’ (Br. III. iv. 1), etc. In this way, the
text, ‘Thus we heard’ etc., states how through a succession of preceptors and
disciples, was derived the purport of the sentence which establishes as Brahman
that Self of all which is devoid of all distinguishing features, and is the
light of pure consciousness. Moreover, Brahman is to be known only through such
a traditional instruction of preceptors and not through argumentation, nor by
study (or exposition), intelligence, great learning, austerity, sacrifices,
etc. -iti, such (was what) ; susruma, we heard; purvesam, of the ancient
teachers; the teachers ye, who; vyaccaksire, explained, taught clearly; nah to
us; tat, that Brahman.
The
idea that the Self is Brahman having been established through the sentence,
‘That is surely different from the known, and again, that is above the
unknown’, the hearer has this doubt: ‘How can the Self the Brahman? For the
Self is familarly known to be that which is entitled to undertake rites and
meditation and which, being subject to birth and death, seeks to attain either
the gods headed by Brahma (Creator ) or heaven by undertaking the practice of
rites or meditation. Therefore some adorable being other that that (Self), e.g.
Visnu, Isvara (Siva), Indra, or Prana (vital force or Hiranyagarbha) may well
be Brahman, but not so the Self; for this is opposed to common sense. Just as
other logicians say that the Self is different from the Lord, so also the
ritualists worship other gods saying, ‘Sacrifice to that one’, ‘Sacrifice to
that one’. Therefore it is reasonable that, that should be Brahman which is
known and adorable; and the worshipper should be one who is different from
this.’ Having noticed this doubt either from the looks or the words of the
disciple, the teacher said, ‘Don’t be in doubt thus;’-
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 5 « »
यद्वाचाऽनभ्युदितं
येन वागभ्युद्यते ।
तदेव
ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ५॥
yadvācā’nabhyuditaṃ
yena vāgabhyudyate .
tadeva
brahma tvaṃ viddhi nedaṃ yadidamupāsate .. 5..
5
That which cannot be expressed by speech, but by which speech is expressed-That
alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
Yat,
that-whose essence consists of Consciousness alone-, which; (is not uttered)
vaca, by speech-. Vak (speech) is the organ which, clinging to the eight localities,
viz the root of the tongue etc. [Chest, throat, head, root of the tongue,
teath, nose, lips, and palate.] , and being presided over by (the god of) Fire,
expresses the letters. The letters, too, as limited in their number and as
subject to a certain seence, in conformity with the meaning intended to be
conveyed, are also called vak. [The word gau (cow), for instance, consists of
the letter g and au which are fixed as regards their seence so as to be able to
express the meaning cow. This is the view of the Mimamsaka school.] Thus also
the soud expressible by them, which is the pada (sphota), [This is the view of
the Sphotavadi grammarians. ‘Sphota is derived from the root sphut in the sense
of that which is manifested by letters, i.e., that which imparts definite
knowledge of word (pada), sentence, etc. Their idea is that this (pada-) sphota
has to be admitted since a unified idea (conveyed by the word) cannot be
contingent on a multiplicity of letters.’-A.G.] is called vak. this is in
accordance with the Vedic text: ‘The letter a, indeed, is all speech. [‘That
power of Consciousness is vak which is indicated by Om, in which a
predominates. (Om is a combination of a, u, m), and this Om is called
sphota,-A.G.] And that speech, being manifested as the sparsa letters, the
antahstha letters (semi-vowels), and usma letters (aspirates), [Sparsa-25
consonants from ka to ma; antahstha-y, r, l, v; usma-s, s, s, h.] becomes many
and multifarious’ (Ai. A. II. iii. 7. 13). (Yat, that which) is anabhyuditam,
not expressed, not uttered; vaca, by vak, by speech, which has these
modifications, viz regulated (material, Rk), non-regulated (prose Yujuh),
musical (Sama), true, and false-by that vak which becomes defined as words and
to which the organ of speech is subordinate; [‘The power of speech that human
beings have, is established in sounds and letters, for it is expressed by
these.’] yena, that by which-that Brahman, the light of Consciousness, by
which-; vak, speech, together with its organs; abhyudyate, is uttered, is expressed,
that is to say, is used in relations to the desired meaning-. That which has
been spoken of here as ‘the Speech of speech’ (1.2), and as ‘When It speaks, It
is called the organ of speech’ (Br. I. iv. 7), and ‘He who controls the organ
of speech from within’ (Br. III. vii. 17), etc., in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad,
and about whom the question has been raised thus, ‘The (power of) speech that
is found in men, is established in sounds. Does any Brahmana know it?’, and the
answer has been given by saying, ‘That by which one speaks is dream is speech,-
that eternal power of speech which a speaker has is vak which is in essence,
the light of Consciousness. And this follows from the Vedic text, ‘For the
speaker’s power of speech can never be lost’ (Br. IV. iii. 26). Tat eva, that
indeed, that Self in its true nature; tvam, you; viddhi, know; as brahma,
Brahman-(so called) because of its extensity (or unsurpassability)-that which
is allsurpassing and is called Bhuma, great (Ch. VII. xxiii. 1). The significance
of the word eva is this: Know the Self alone to be the unconditioned Brahman
after eradicating all such adjuncts as speech because of which there occur such
empirical expressions, with regard to the transcendental, unconditioned,
unsurpassable, and eipoised Brahman, as ‘It is the Speech of speech’, ‘the Eye
of the eye’, ‘the Ear of the ear’, ‘the Mind of the mind’, the agent, the
enjoyer, the knower, the controller, governor. ‘Consciousness, Bliss, Brahman’
(Br. III. ix. 28.7), etc. Na idam, this is not; brahma, Brahman; Yat, which;
people upasate, meditate on; as idam, this, (as a limited object) possessed of
distinctions created by limiting adjuncts-as a non-Self, e.g. God, etc.
Although in the sentence, ‘Know that alone to be Brahman’, it has already been
stated that the non-Self is not Brahman, still with a view to enounciating as
explicit rule (that leaves no scope for option) the idea is repeated in the
sentence, ‘This is not Brahman’; or this may be with a view to excluding the
identification of Brahman with what is not Brahman. [In Mimamsa philosophy
Niyama-vidhi pins one down to one thing only when alternatives are possible.
Here the possibilities are, thinking of both Brahman and non-Brahman as
Brahman. And the rule fixes us to the pursuit of Brahman only. Parisankhyavidhi
merely excludes something-here the thought of non-Brahman as Brahman. So the
text may be interpreted from either point of view.]
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
Yat-what,
that which is intelligence itself, Pure consciousness; Yena-by whom, by
Brahman.
The
disciple entertained the doubt that the Jivatma cannot be Brhaman. He thought
that the Jivatma
is
the performer of sacrifice and enjoyer of fruits of Karmas. The teacher found
out the condition of his disciple from his looks and speech and said: ‘Do not
doubt thus, the Atman is Brahman.’
The
soul of man is the Atman. The soul of the universe is Brahman. The Atman is
identical with Brahman.
Speech
cannot reveal or illumine Brahman. Brahman is Beyond the range of speech. The
tongue speaks through the power or light of Brahman. Speech is finite. How can
the finite speech reveal the infinite Brahman! Brahman only illumines speech
and its organ, Vak, which is presided over by fire (Agni). So Brahman is speech
of speech, tongue of tongue. The Vajasaneyaka says: ‘Brahman is within speech
and directs speech.’ This Atman is Brahman or Bhuma (Infinite or the
unconditioned). Brahman is unsurpassable, big, great, highest of all, all
pervading. So He is called Brahman.
Brahman
is eternal, unchangeable, self-luminous, formless, colourless, attributeless,
timeless, spaceless, indivisible, unborn, undecaying, immortal.
Idam-this
(Loka), people here. Brahman is not what people worship here such as Isvara and
other extra-cosmic minor deities, for the satisfaction or desires.
Some
may think that this text depreciates Bhakti or devotion. Vedanta is certainly
not hostile to devotion. Here, it only depreciates worship of minor deities
with selfish interests. A Vedantin or a sagae is a perfect devotee. Para Bhakti
or supreme devotion and Jnana are one. Vedanta says that Isvara whom people
worship is your own Self. It teachers an expanded form of Bhakti or higher form
of devotion.
Start
your devotion by worshipping an image. Superimpose all the attributes of the
Lord in the image, but do not end your devotion in that image alone. Expand.
See God in every object. Feel that the word is the manifestation of the Lord.
See the world as God. The image or the Picture will stimulate divine love in
your heart, and ultimately lead you to the realisation of loneness or unity of
the Self. The image will serve as a prop to lean upon in the beginning. Some
ignorant people think that the image only is the Lord. Vedanta depreciates only
this sort of worship.
Brahman
is the silent witness of the activity of the organ of speech.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 6 « »
यन्मनसा
न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम् ।
तदेव
ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ६॥
yanmanasā
na manute yenāhurmano matam .
tadeva
brahma tvaṃ viddhi nedaṃ yadidamupāsate .. 6..
6
That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind
is apprehended-That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here
worship.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
Manas
means the internal organs, mind and intellect being taken as one entity. The
word manas, derived from the root man in the sense of that by which one thinks,
is common to all organs, since, it embraces all objects. In accordance with the
Vedic text, ‘Desire, deliberation, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness,
unsteadiness, shame, intelligence, and fear-all these are but the mind’ (Br. I.
v. 3), mind is that which has desire etc. as its functions. Yat, that-the light
of Consciousness illumining the mind-, which; one na manute, does not think nor
determine, with that mind, because It rules the mind by virtue of being the
enlightener of the mind-. Since the Self, indeed, constitutes the essence of
everything, therefore the mind cannot act with regard to its own Self. The mind
can think only when it is illumined by the light of Consciousness within. That
Brahman, yena, by which;-they, the knowers of Brahman, ahuh, say-; manas, the
mind, together with its modes; matam, is tought of, encompassed-. Therefore
viddhi, know, tat eva, that very one, the Self of the mind, the internal
illuminator, as Brahman. Na idam, etc. is to be understood as before.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
He
who cannot be comprehended by the mind, but who causes the mind to apprehend
all objects, know Him alone as Brahman.
Manah-mind,
that by which one thinks; not only Manas, the entire Antahkarana is meant here.
The
mind is connected with all organs. It is the ?nder or the chief. The Sruti
says: ‘Desire, volition, deliberation, faith, negligence, courage, timidity,
shame, intelligence, fear-all these the mind.’
Mind
is the Drik or seer, the objects are the Drisya (visible objects). The Atman or
Brahman is the Drik or Seer, mind is the Drisya. The mind cannot approach
Brahman. The mind is enlightened by the intelligence of Brahman shining within.
The mind functions through the light and power of Brahman. The mind is pervaded
by Brahman. So say the knowers of Brahman. The interior intelligence of the
mind is Brahman. The mind comprehends the world or objects through the power or
light or intelligence of Brahman.
The
senses carry the sense-impressions or images of objects to the mind. The mind
presents them to the Self or the Atman or Purusha. The Purusha beholds them,
gazes and fixes His seal and returns them back to the mind, just as the king,
or Raja puts his seal on papers and returns them back to the prime Minister or
Dewan. Then only comprehension of objects becomes perfect or complete.
Brahman
is the silent witness of the activities of the mind.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 7 « »
यच्चक्षुषा
न पश्यति येन चक्षूँषि पश्यति ।
तदेव
ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ७॥
yaccakṣuṣā
na paśyati yena cakṣūm̐ṣi paśyati .
tadeva
brahma tvaṃ viddhi nedaṃ yadidamupāsate .. 7..
7
That which cannot be perceived by the eye, but by which the eye is
perceived-That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
Yat,
that which; caksusa, with the eye, associated with the functions of the
internal organ; na pasyati, (a man) does not see, does not make an object of
perception; yena, that by which; man pasyati; sees, perceives, encompasses,
through the light of Consciousness; caksumsi, the activities of the
eye-diversified in accordance with the modes of the internal organ-. Tat eva,
etc., as before.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
Pasyati-sees.
‘See’ means perceive as an object. Brahman directs the eye towards colours and
forms. Brahman cannot be seen by the eye, as He is not an object of perception.
Eye is a finite instruments that carries the impressions of objects viz.,
colour, shape, form, size, etc., to the mind. Eye derives its power of seeing
from Brahman only, its source. The eye is made to move towards its object by
the enlightening intelligence of Brahman. Brahman is the real unseen Seer or
sight. He is the silent Witness of the activities of the eye. By the light of
the Brahman, connected with the activities of the mind, man beholds the
activity of the mind. Brahman is the Lord or Proprietor of this mental factory.
The eyes, ears, etc., are the ordinary clerks. Mind is the Head Clerk.
Intellect (Buddhi) is the Managing Director.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 1 – Verse 8 « »
यच्छ्रोत्रेण
न शृणोति येन श्रोत्रमिदं श्रुतम् ।
तदेव
ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ८॥
yacchrotreṇa
na śṛṇoti yena śrotramidaṃ śrutam .
tadeva
brahma tvaṃ viddhi nedaṃ yadidamupāsate .. 8..
8
That which cannot he heard by the ear, but by which the hearing is
perceived-That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
‘What
cannot be heard with the ear’ means which the world does not perceive as an
object with the organ of hearing, presided over by Digdevata, produced in Akas
and connected with the activity of the mind.
By
which the ears are able to hear,’ it is well known that it is perceived as an
object by the intelligence of the Atman. The rest has been already explained.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
Brahman
directs the ear towards sound. Ear is a finite instrument. It carries the
impressions of sound to the mind. The activity of the ear is connected with the
activity of the mind. It derives its power of hearing from Brahman only, its
source. The ear is made to move towards sound, music, etc., by the enlightening
intelligence of Brahman.
Brahman
is the real unheard Hearer. He is the silent Witness of the activity of the
ear.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 2 – Verse 9 « »
यत्प्राणेन
न प्राणिति येन प्राणः प्रणीयते ।
तदेव
ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ९॥
॥
इति केनोपनिषदि प्रथमः खण्डः ॥
yatprāṇena
na prāṇiti yena prāṇaḥ praṇīyate .
tadeva
brahma tvaṃ viddhi nedaṃ yadidamupāsate .. 9..
..
iti kenopaniṣadi prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
9
That which cannot be smelt by the breath, but by which the breath smells an
object-That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
‘What
none breathes with the breath’ means ‘what none perceives, like odour, with the
earthly breath filling the nostrils and connected with the activity of the mind
and life.’ ‘But by which, etc.,’ means ‘by the enlightening intelligence of the
Atman, breath is made to move towards its objects.’ All the rest ‘tadeva, etc,’
has already been explained.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
Prana
may also mean smell. Then the translation will be: “What smell does not
perceive, but directs smell to its object, know That alone as Brahman and not
this which people here worship.”
He
who is not enlivened by Prana but who gives Prana the power of enlivening all
being-know That alone as Brahman, and not this which people here worship.
The
breath is made to move towards its objects by the enlightening intelligence of
the Brahman.
‘That
which one breaths not with the breath’ means, ‘That which one does not perceive
like odour, with the air filling the nostrils, and connected with the activity
of the mind and the life.’
Here
ends the First Section.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 2 – Verse 1 « »
यदि
मन्यसे सुवेदेति दहरमेवापि var दभ्रमेवापि
नूनं
त्वं वेत्थ ब्रह्मणो रूपम् ।
यदस्य
त्वं यदस्य देवेष्वथ नु
मीमाँस्यमेव
ते मन्ये विदितम् ॥ १॥
yadi
manyase suvedeti daharamevāpi var dabhramevāpi
nūnaṃ
tvaṃ vettha brahmaṇo rūpam .
yadasya
tvaṃ yadasya deveṣvatha nu
mīmām̐syameva
te manye viditam .. 1..
1
The teacher said: If you think: “I know Brahman well,” then surely you know but
little of Its form; you know only Its form as conditioned by man or by the
gods. Therefore Brahman, even now, is worthy of your inquiry.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By S. Sitrama Sastry (This and
next verse)
The
preceptor, fearing that, the disciple persuaded to believe that lie is the
Atman, i.e., the Brahman not fit to be abandoned or acquired, might think ‘I
certainly am the Brahman, I know myself well,’ says for the purpose of
dispelling that notion of the disciple Yadi, etc. Then, is not an accurate
conviction ‘I know (Brahman) well’ desirable? Certainly it is desirable. But an
accurate conviction is not of the form ‘I know (Brahman) well.’ If what should
be known becomes an object of sense-perception then it is possible to know it
well, just as an inflammable substance can be consumed by the consuming fire.
But the essence of fire cannot itself be so consumed. The well-ascertained
drift of all Vedanta is that the Self (Atman) of every knower is the Brahman.
The same has been here explained in the form of question and answer by the text
‘It is the ear of the ear, etc.’ The same has been still more clearly
determined by the text: “What is not enlightened by speech, etc.” The
traditional theory of those who know the Brahman has also been declared by tbe
text: “It is something different from both the known and the unknown.” This
Upanishad will also conclude by saying “It is unknown to those who know, and
known to those who do not know.” It is, therefore, certainly proper that the
notion of the disciple, ‘I know Brahman well’ should be dispelled. It is
evident that the knower cannot be known by tbe knower, just as fire cannot be
consumed by fire. There is no knower other than th e Brahman, to whom the
Brahman can be a knowable, distinct from himself. By the Sruti: “There is no
knower other than that,” the existence of another knower is denied. The belief,
therefore, ‘I know Brahman well’ is an illusion. Therefore well did the
preceptor say ‘Yadi, etc.’
‘Vadi’
means ‘if perchance.’ ‘Suveda’ means ‘I know Brahman well.’ Because some one
whose sins have been purged and who is really intelligent may properly
understand what is taught and others not, the preceptor begins with a doubt
‘Yadi, etc.’ Such cases have also been found to occur. When he was informed
‘This purusha who is seen in the eye, this is the Atman; this is the immortal, fearless
self,’ Virochana, the son of Prajapati and the lord of the Asuras, though
intelligent, misinterpreted this instruction, on account of his natural defects
and understood that the body was the Atman. Similarly, Indra, the lord of the
Devas, not being able to comprehend the Brahman, at the first, second and third
instructions, did, at the fourth, his natural faults having been removed,
comprehend the very Brahman that he was first taught. It has been found in the
world also, that, of disciples receiving instruction from the same preceptor,
some understand him properly, some misinterpret his teaching, some interpret it
into the exact contrary of the teacher’s view and some do not understand it at
all. What more need we say of the knowledge of the Atman which is beyond the
reach of the senses. On this point, all logicians, with their theories of Sat
and Asat, are in conflict. The doubt, therefore, expressed in ‘Yadi manyase,’
etc., with which the preceptor begins his discourse is certainly appropriate, considering
that the disciples, in spite of the instruction that the Brahman is unknowable,
might have misunderstood him.
‘Dahara’
means ‘little’; ‘Vettha’ Means ‘knowest’; i.e., thou knowest surely little of
Brahman’s form. Has Brahman then many forms, great and little, that it is said
‘daharam, etc.’? Quite so; many, indeed, are the forms of Brahman produced by
conditions of name and form, but none in reality. By nature, as the Sruti says,
it is without sound, touch, form, destruction; likewise, tasteless,odourless,
and eternal. Thus with sound, etc., form is denied. But it may be said that, as
that by which a thing is defined, is its rupa or form, the peculiar attribute
of Brahman by which it is defined, may be said to be its form. We thus answer:
Intelligence cannot be the quality of the earth, etc., either of one or all of
them together, or under any modifications. Similarly, it cannot he the quality
of the sensory organs, like the ear, etc., or of the mind. ‘Brahmano rûpam,’
Brahman is defined by its intelligence. Hence it is said: “Brahman is knowledge
and bliss;’ ‘Brahman is dense with knowledge’; ‘Brahman is existence, knowledge
and infinity’; thus the form of Brahman has been defined. Truly so; but even
there, the Brahman is defined by the words ‘knowledge, etc.,’ only with
reference to the limitations of mind, body and senses, because of its apparent
adaptations to the exapansion, contraction, extinction, etc., of the body,
etc., and not on account of its own essence. According to its essence it will be
concluded in the subsequent portion of this Upanishad that it is unknown to
those who know, and known to those who do not know. The expression ‘Yadasya
brahmano rupam’ should be read along with what precedes it. Not only dost thou
know little of the form of Brahman. when thou knowest it, as conditioned in
man, but also when thou knowest it as conditioned in the Devas; so I think.
Even the form of Brahman as it exists in the Devas is little, because it is
limited by condition. The gist is that the Brahman limited by no conditions or
attributes, passive, infinite, one without a second, known as Bhûma, eternal,
cannot be known well. This being so, I think that you have yet to know Brahman
by enquiry.’
‘Atha
nu,’ ‘therefore.’ ‘Mimamsyam,’ ‘worthy of enquiry.’ Thus addressed by the
preceptor, the disciple sat in solitude all composed, discussed within himself
the meaning of the Agama as pointed out by his Guru (preceptor), arrived at a
conclusion by his reasoning, realised it in himself, approached the preceptor
and exclaimed “I think I now know Brahman.”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 2 – Verse 2 « »
नाहं
मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च ।
यो
नस्तद्वेद तद्वेद नो न वेदेति वेद च ॥ २॥
nāhaṃ
manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca .
yo
nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda ca .. 2..
2
The disciple said: I think I know Brahman. I do not think I know It well, nor
do I think I do not know It. He among us who knows the meaning of “Neither do I
not know, nor do I know”-knows Brahman.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By S. Sitrama Sastry
On
being asked how, the disciple says: “Listen. I do not think I know Brahman
well.” “Then is the Brahman not known by thee?” Thus questioned, the disciple
says “Not that I do not know, I know too;” the word too in ‘I know too’ means
‘I do not know too.’ Is it not contradictory: ‘I think I know not Brahman well
etc.?’ If thou dost not think thou knowest well, how then dost thou think thou
knowest also? If again thou thinkest thou certainly knowest, then how dost thou
think thou knowest not well? To say that a thing is not known well by the man
who knows it is a contradiction, the cases of doubt and false knowledge being
left out of consideration. Nor is it possible to lay down a restrictive rule
that the knowledge of Brahman should be doubtful or false. It is well known
that under any circumstances, doubtful or false knowledge works great evil.
Though thus attempted to be shaken in his conviction by the preceptor the
disciple was not shaken. From the tradition which his master had explained to
him, i.e., that the Self is something other than both the known and the
unknown, from the reasonableness of the doctrine and from the strength of his
own experience, the disciple loudly exclaimed, showing the firmness of bis
knowledge of the Brahman. How lie exclaimed is thus stated. ‘He of us,’ i.e.,
my co-disciple, who correctly understands what I have said, knows That
(Brahman). The words he referred to are ‘not that I do not know. I know too.’
What was defined by the expression ‘that is something other than both the known
and the unknown’, the disciple discussed and decided from inference and from
experience; and in order to see whether the preceptor’s views agreed with his
own and to counteract any false conclusion, which dull persons may have arrived
at, he expressed the same in different words: ‘not that I do not know; I know
too.’ The confident exclamation of the disciple ‘He of us. etc.,’ is
accordingly appropriate.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 2 – Verse 3 « »
यस्यामतं
तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः ।
अविज्ञातं
विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ॥ ३॥
yasyāmataṃ
tasya mataṃ mataṃ yasya na veda saḥ .
avijñātaṃ
vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām .. 3..
3
He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It; he by whom It is known, knows It
not. It is not known by those who know It; It is known by those who do not know
It.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By S. Sitrama Sastry
Turning
from the concurring views of the preceptor and the disciple, the Sruti speaking
for itself conveys in this text the view about which there is no disagreement.
The purport is that to the knower of the Brahman whose firm conviction is that
the Brahman is unknowable, the Brahman is well known. But he, whose conviction
is that the Brahman is known by him, certainly knows not the Brahman. The
latter half of the text only states those two distinct conclusions of the wise
and ignorant man more emphatically. To those who know well, the Brahman is
certainly (a thing) unknown; but to those w ho do not see well, i.e., who
confound the Atman with the sensory organs, the mind and the conditioned
intelligence [ Buddhi ], Brahman is certainly not known, but not to those who
are extremely ignorant; for, in the case of these, the thought ‘Brahman is
known by us’ never arises. In the case of those who find the Atman in the
conditioned organs of sense, mind and intelligence, the false notion ‘I know
Brahman’ is quite possible, because they cannot discriminate between Brahman
and these conditions and because the conditions of intelligence, etc., are
known to them. It is to show that such knowledge of the Brahman is fallacious
that the latter half of the text is introduced. Or, the latter half ‘Avijnatam,
etc..’ may be construed as furnishing a reason for the view propounded in the
former.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 2 – Verse 4 « »
प्रतिबोधविदितं
मतममृतत्वं हि विन्दते ।
आत्मना
विन्दते वीर्यं विद्यया विन्दतेऽमृतम् ॥ ४॥
pratibodhaviditaṃ
matamamṛtatvaṃ hi vindate .
ātmanā
vindate vīryaṃ vidyayā vindate’mṛtam .. 4..
4
Brahman is known when It is realised in every state of mind; for by such
Knowledge one attains Immortality. By Atman one obtains strength; by Knowledge,
Immortality
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By S. Sitrama Sastry
It
has been settled that it is unknown to those who know. If Brahman he not known
at all, it will then come to this, that there is no difference between the
worldly-minded and those who know the Brahman. To say that It is unknown to
those who know is also a contradiction, flow then could that Brahman he
well-known? This is explained in this text, ‘Pratibôdhaviditam’ means ‘known in
respect of every state of consciousness.’ By the word ‘bôdha’ is meant ‘mental
perception.’ That by which all states of consciousness are perceived like
objects is the Atman. He knows and sees all states of consciousness, being by
nature nothing hut intelligence and is indicated by these states of
consciousness, as blended with every one of them. There is no other way by
which the inner Atman could be known. Therefore when the Brahman is known as
the witness of all states of consciousness, then it is known well. Being the
witness of all states of consciousness, it will he clear that it is
intelligence in its essence, subject to neither birth nor death, eternal, pure,
unconditioned, and one in all things, because there is no difference in its
essence, just as in the essence of the Akas, in a vessel or mountain cave, etc.
The drift of the passage from the Agamas [traditions] is that the Brahman is
other than both the known and the unknown. It is this pure Atman that will be
described at the close of the Upanishad. Another Sruti says “He is the seer of
the eye, the hearer of the ear, the thinker of thought, and the knower of
knowledge.” But some explain the expression ‘Pratibôdhaviditam’ in the text as
meaning ‘known by its defining attribute of knowledge,’ on the view that
Brahman is the author of the act of knowing and that Brahman as such author is
known by its activity in knowing,’ just as the wind is known as that which
shakes the branches of the trees. In this view the Atman is an unintelligent
substance having the power to know and not intelligence itself. Consciousness
is produced and is destroyed. When consciousness is produced, then the Atman is
associated with it; but when it is destroyed, the Atman, dissociated from
consciousness, becomes a mere unintelligent substance. Such being the case, it
is not possible to get over the objection that the Atman is rendered changeable
in its nature, composed of parts, transient, impure, etc. Again according to
the followers of Kanada consciousness is said to be produced by the combination
of the Atman and the mind and to adhere to the Atman. Therefore, the Atman
possesses the attribute of knowledge but is not subject to modifications. It
simply becomes a substance just like a pot made red. Even on this theory the
Brahman is reduced to an unintelligent substance and therefore, the Srutis
‘Brahman is knowledge and bliss, etc.,’ would be set at naught. Moreover the
Atman having no parts and being omnipresent and, therefore, ever connected
(with the mind), the impossibility of laying down a law regulating the origin
of recollection is an insurmountable objection.
Again
that the Atman can be connected with any thing is itself repugnant to the
Srutis, Smritis and logic. ‘The Atman is not connected with anything else; ‘The
Atman unconnected with anything supports everything; so say both the Sruti and
the Smriti. According to logic, too, a thing having attributes may be connected
with another having attributes and not with one dissimilar in class. To say,
therefore, that a thing having no attribute, undifferentiated and having
nothing in common with anything else, combines with another unequal in class is
illogical. Therefore, the meaning that the Atman is, by nature, knowledge and
light, eternal and undecaying, can be arrived at, only if the Atman be the
witness of all states of consciousness, and not otherwise. Hence the meaning of
the expression ‘Pratibôdhaviditam matam’ is just what we explained it to be.
Some, however, explain that the drift of this portion of the text is that the
Atman is knowable by itself. There the Atman is thought of as conditioned and
people talk of knowing the Atman by the Atman, distinguishing as it were, the
unconditioned Atman from the Atman conditioned by intelligence, etc. Thus it
has been said “He sees the Atman by the Atman” and “O Best of men! know the
Atman by the Atman, thyself.” It is clear that the unconditioned Atman, being
one, is not capable of being known either by itself or by others. Being itself
the knowing principle, it cannot stand in need of another knowing principle;
just as one light cannot possibly require another light. So here. On the theory
of the followers of Buddha that the Atman is known by itself, knowledge becomes
momentary and no Atman as its knower is possible. It is well known that the
knowledge of the knower knows no destruction, being-indestructible. Again the
Srutis: ‘Him who is eternal, omnipresent and all-pervading,’ ‘This is He,
great, unborn, Atman, undecaying, deathless, immortal and fearless,’ etc.,
would be set at naught. Some, however, construe the word ‘Pratibodha’ to mean
‘causeless perception’ as that of one who sleeps. Others yet say that the word
‘Pratibôdha’ means ‘knowledge of the moment.’ (We answer) whether it has or has
not a cause, whether it occurs once or is often repeated, it is still
Pratibôdha itself or knowledge itself. The drift is that the Brahman known as
the witness of all states of consciousness is well-known, because by such
knowledge, one attains immortality, i.e., being centred in one’s self, i.e.,
emancipation. The knowledge that the Atman is the witness of all states of
consciousness is the reason for immortality. Immortality cannot possibly be the
fact of the Atman becoming something other than itself. The immortality of the
Atman, consisting in being Atman, is causeless; thus the mortality of the Atman
consists in the mistaken belief of no ‘Atman’ induced by ignorance. How again,
it may be asked, does one attain immortality by the knowledge of the Atman as
already explained? It is therefore, said as follows: ‘Atmana’ means ‘by one’s
own nature;’ ‘Vindate’ means ‘attains;’ ‘Viryam’ means ‘strength or capacity.’
The strength gained by wealth, retinue, mantras, medicinal herbs, devotion and
yoga cannot overcome mortality, because that is produced by things themselves
mortal. The strength gained by the knowledge of the Atman can be acquired by
the Atman alone and not by any other means. Because the strength produced by
the knowledge of the Atman does not require any other aid, that strength alone
can overcome death. And because one acquires by bis Atman alone the strength
produced by the knowledge of the Atman, therefore he attains immortality by the
knowledge of the Atman. The Atharvana Upanishad says “This Atman cannot be
attained by one devoid of strength.”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 5 « »
इह
चेदवेदीदथ सत्यमस्ति
न
चेदिहावेदीन्महती विनष्टिः ।
भूतेषु
भूतेषु विचित्य धीराः
प्रेत्यास्माल्लोकादमृता
भवन्ति ॥ ५॥
॥
इति केनोपनिषदि द्वितीयः खण्डः ॥
iha
cedavedīdatha satyamasti
na
cedihāvedīnmahatī vinaṣṭiḥ .
bhūteṣu
bhūteṣu vicitya dhīrāḥ
pretyāsmāllokādamṛtā
bhavanti .. 5..
..
iti kenopaniṣadi dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
5
If a man knows Atman here, he then attains the true goal of life. If he does
not know It here, a great destruction awaits him. Having realised the Self in
every being, the wise relinquish the world and become immortal.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
It
is, indeed, hard to suffer birth, old age, death, sickness, etc., owing to
ignorance, being one of the crowd of living beings, such as Devas, men, beasts.
(pretas), etc., full of the miseries of Samsara. Therefore if a man, even in
this world being authorised and competent, knows the Atman as defined, in the
manner already explained, then there is truth; i.e., there is in this birth as
a mortal, immortality, usefulness, real existence. But if one living here and
authorised does not know the Brahman, then there is long and great misery for
him, i.e., rotation in Samsara—one continuous stream of births and deaths.
Therefore the Brahmins who know the advantages and the disadvantages as above
pointed out, perceive in all things in the universe, immoveable and moveable,
the one essence of the Atman, i.e., the Brahman, turn away with disgust from
this world, the creature of ignorance consisting in the false notion of ‘I’ and
‘mine’ and having realised the principle of unity, the oneness of the Atman in
all, become immortal, i.e., become Brahman itself; for, the Sruti says “He who
knows that highest Brahman becomes Brahman itself.”
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
The
Devas entertained the false notion that the victory in the battle was their,
though the Lord defeated the Asuras. They became proud and self-conceited.
This
Section is generally represented as a later addition. Its prose style has more
of a Brahmana character than the verses in the preceding Upanishad section.
From
the verse ‘It is not known to those who know’ (Section II, 3), some may argue
that whatever exists can be known by proofs, and whatever does not exist cannot
be so known and is, therefore, non-existent, like the horns of a hare, a barren
woman’s son, or the lotus in the sky. As Brahman is unknown, It does not exist.
This parable is introduced in this Section in order that they may not entertain
this erronious notion. Or, it is related in order to praise the knowledge of
Brahman. Agni and Indra attained pre-eminence among the Devas on account of
their knowledge. Or, it shows that it is very difficult to know Brahman,
because even Agni and Indra knew Brahman with great difficulty. Or, it is
introduced to remove the false notion ‘I am the doer’ in all beings.
The
superiority of Brahman is brought out in this story. Brahman is the very life
of all gods. The gods derive their power from Brahman only. The story teaches
that Brahman should be worshipped.
There
is real war inside between good tendencies (Subha Vasanas) and he evil
tendencies (Asubha Vasanas), between Sattva and Rajas-Tamas, between virtuous
Samskaras and evil Samskaras, between the lower impure mind and the higher pure
mind. This is the real war between the Devas and the Asuras.
The
senses, the mind and the Prana begin to fight saying ‘We hold together and
support this body.’ Prana gains the victory. But Prana also is inert. The
source for this prana also is Brahman. The senses, the mind and the prana
derive their light and power from Brahman only. They cannot have the knowledge
of Brahman. There are presiding deities for the organs, the mind and Prana,
viz., Agni, Vayu, Surya, etc. They (the Devas) tried to attain the knowledge of
Brahman but failed.
But
the jivatman, the individual soul, the Indra, abandons pride, egoism and other
faults and attains the knowledge of Brahman through the grace of Mother, Uma,
the daughter of Himavan (the purified intellect). All dualities, distinctions,
differences vanish for him now.
This
is the esoteric significance of the parable of Devas and Asuras.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 1 « »
ब्रह्म
ह देवेभ्यो विजिग्ये तस्य ह ब्रह्मणो
विजये
देवा अमहीयन्त ॥ १॥
brahma
ha devebhyo vijigye tasya ha brahmaṇo
vijaye
devā amahīyanta .. 1..
1
Brahman, according to the story, obtained a victory for the gods; and by that
victory of Brahman the gods became elated. They said to themselves: “Verily,
this victory is ours; verily, this glory is ours only.”
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
This
and next verse
From
the passage that ‘It is not known to those who know,’ some fools may argue that
whatever is, can be known by proofs, and whatever is not cannot be so known and
is, therefore, non-existent, as the horns of a hare, and Brahman, being
unknown, does not exist. In order that they may not fall into that error this
parable is introduced; for, the subsequent passages clearly show the folly of
thinking that that Brahman who is controller of all in every way, Deva, even
superior to all Devas, Lord over lords, not easily known, the cause of the
victory of the Devas and of the defeat of the Asuras does not exist. Or (it is
related) for eulogising the knowledge of Brahman. How? By showing that it was,
indeed, by the knowledge of the Brahman that Fire, etc., attained pre-eminence
among the Devas; and Indra specially more than the rest. Or. it shows how
difficult it is to know Brahman, because even Fire, etc, with all their great
powers, and even Indra. lord of the Devas knew the Brahman only with
considerable difficulty. It may be that the whole Upanishad to follow is
intended to lay down an injunction (to know the Brahman) or the story may have
been intended to show the fallacious nature of the notion of doer, etc., found
in all living beings, by contrasting it with the knowledge of the
Brahman—fallacious like the notion of the Devas that the victory was theirs.
The Brahman already defined won a victory for the benefit of the Devas; the
Brahman in a battle between the Devas and the Asuras defeated the Asuras, the
enemies of the world and the violators of the limitations imposed by the Lord
and gave the benefit of the victory to the Devas for the preservation of the
world. In this victory of Brahman the Devas, Fire, etc., attained glory, and
not knowing that the victory and glory belonged to the Paramatman, seated in
then own Atman, the witness of all perceptions, Lord of the universe,
omniscient, the dispenser of the fruits of all Karma, omnipotent, and desirous
of securing the safety of the world, looked upon the victory and the glory, as
achieved by themselves—the Atman enclosed within the limitations of their own
forms, Fire. etc.; that the glory—their being Fire, Air, Indra and the like,
resulting from the victory—was theirs and that neither the victory nor the
glory belonged to the Lord, over all the Atman within them. So they cherished
this false notion.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
Brahman
obviously knew this false notion of the Devas as He is omniscient, and as He is
the inner ruler and director of all beings, as He is the silent witness of all
minds. In order to remove their false notion and bless the Devas, Brahman
appeared before them in the form of a Yaksha or Great Spirit.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 2 « »
त
ऐक्षन्तास्माकमेवायं विजयोऽस्माकमेवायं महिमेति ।
तद्धैषां
विजज्ञौ तेभ्यो ह प्रादुर्बभूव तन्न व्यजानत
किमिदं
यक्षमिति ॥ २॥
ta
aikṣantāsmākamevāyaṃ vijayo’smākamevāyaṃ mahimeti .
taddhaiṣāṃ
vijajñau tebhyo ha prādurbabhūva tanna vyajānata
kimidaṃ
yakṣamiti .. 2..
2
Brahman, to be sure, understood it all and appeared before them. But they did
not know who that adorable Spirit was.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Commentary By Swami Gambirananda
The
Brahman evidently knew this false notion of theirs. Brahman being omniscient
and director of the senses of all living beings knew of the false idea of the
Devas and in order that the Devas might not be disgraced like the Asuras by
this false notion, out of pity for them and intending to bless them hy
dispelling their false notion, appeared before them for their benefit in a form
assumed at will, in virtue of its power—a form unprecedentedly glorious and
astonishing and capable of being perceived by the senses. The Devas did not at
all know the Brahman that appeared before them. Who is this Yaksham, i.e., this
venerable Great Spirit.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 3 « »
तेऽग्निमब्रुवञ्जातवेद
एतद्विजानीहि
किमिदं
यक्षमिति तथेति ॥ ३॥
te’gnimabruvañjātaveda
etadvijānīhi
kimidaṃ
yakṣamiti tatheti .. 3..
3
They addressed Agni; “O Jātaveda, please find out who this yaksha is”; “Yes”
said Agni.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-3 to 3-6
The
Devas not knowing what that Spirit was, being afraid of it, and desirous to
know what it was, thus addressed Agni who went before them and who was little
less than omniscient. “O Jataveda, learn well what this Great Spirit now in our
view is. You are the brightest of us all.” “Be it so” said Agni and ran towards
the Spirit. Seeing him approach near, with a desire to ask questions of it, but
overawed into silence in its presence, the Spirit asked him: “who art thou?”
Thus questioned by Brahman, Agni replied: “I am Agni well known also as
Jataveda”; as if in self-complaisance at being so well known by two names,
Brahman said to Agni who had thus replied: “what power is in thee who ownest
such well-known and significant names.?” He replied: “I could reduce to ashes
all this universe and all immoveables, etc., on this earth.” The word ‘earth’
is illustratively used; for, even what is in the air is burnt by Agni [Fire].
The Brahman placed a straw before Agni who was so vain-glorious, and said:
“Burn but this straw in my presence. If thou art not able to burn this, give up
thy vanity as the consumer of all.” Thus addressed, Agni approached the straw
with all the speed of overweening confidence but was not able to burn it. So he
Jataveda, being unable to burn it, covered with shame and bathed in bis
resolution, returned in silence from the presence of the Spirit and told the
Devas: “I was not able to learn more, concerning this Spirit.”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 4 « »
तदभ्यद्रवत्तमभ्यवदत्कोऽसीत्यग्निर्वा
अहमस्मीत्यब्रवीज्जातवेदा
वा अहमस्मीति ॥ ४॥
tadabhyadravattamabhyavadatko’sītyagnirvā
ahamasmītyabravījjātavedā
vā ahamasmīti .. 4..
4
He (Agni) hastened (to the yaksha). (The yaksha) asked him who he was; (Agni)
replied: “I am verily, Agni; I am also known as Jātaveda (near omniscient)”.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-3 to 3-6
The
Devas not knowing what that Spirit was, being afraid of it, and desirous to know
what it was, thus addressed Agni who went before them and who was little less
than omniscient. “O Jataveda, learn well what this Great Spirit now in our view
is. You are the brightest of us all.” “Be it so” said Agni and ran towards the
Spirit. Seeing him approach near, with a desire to ask questions of it, but
overawed into silence in its presence, the Spirit asked him: “who art thou?”
Thus questioned by Brahman, Agni replied: “I am Agni well known also as
Jataveda”; as if in self-complaisance at being so well known by two names,
Brahman said to Agni who had thus replied: “what power is in thee who ownest
such well-known and significant names.?” He replied: “I could reduce to ashes
all this universe and all immoveables, etc., on this earth.” The word ‘earth’
is illustratively used; for, even what is in the air is burnt by Agni [Fire].
The Brahman placed a straw before Agni who was so vain-glorious, and said:
“Burn but this straw in my presence. If thou art not able to burn this, give up
thy vanity as the consumer of all.” Thus addressed, Agni approached the straw
with all the speed of overweening confidence but was not able to burn it. So he
Jataveda, being unable to burn it, covered with shame and bathed in bis
resolution, returned in silence from the presence of the Spirit and told the
Devas: “I was not able to learn more, concerning this Spirit.”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 5 « »
तस्मिꣳस्त्वयि
किं वीर्यमित्यपीदꣳ सर्वं
दहेयं
यदिदं पृथिव्यामिति ॥ ५॥
tasmigͫstvayi
kiṃ vīryamityapīdagͫ sarvaṃ
daheyaṃ
yadidaṃ pṛthivyāmiti .. 5..
5
What energy do you possess—you of such fame?” (asked the yaksha). I can burn
everything, whatever there on this earth,” (replied Agni).
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-3 to 3-6
The
Devas not knowing what that Spirit was, being afraid of it, and desirous to
know what it was, thus addressed Agni who went before them and who was little
less than omniscient. “O Jataveda, learn well what this Great Spirit now in our
view is. You are the brightest of us all.” “Be it so” said Agni and ran towards
the Spirit. Seeing him approach near, with a desire to ask questions of it, but
overawed into silence in its presence, the Spirit asked him: “who art thou?”
Thus questioned by Brahman, Agni replied: “I am Agni well known also as
Jataveda”; as if in self-complaisance at being so well known by two names,
Brahman said to Agni who had thus replied: “what power is in thee who ownest
such well-known and significant names.?” He replied: “I could reduce to ashes
all this universe and all immoveables, etc., on this earth.” The word ‘earth’
is illustratively used; for, even what is in the air is burnt by Agni [Fire].
The Brahman placed a straw before Agni who was so vain-glorious, and said:
“Burn but this straw in my presence. If thou art not able to burn this, give up
thy vanity as the consumer of all.” Thus addressed, Agni approached the straw
with all the speed of overweening confidence but was not able to burn it. So he
Jataveda, being unable to burn it, covered with shame and bathed in bis
resolution, returned in silence from the presence of the Spirit and told the
Devas: “I was not able to learn more, concerning this Spirit.”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 6 « »
तस्मै
तृणं निदधावेतद्दहेति ।
तदुपप्रेयाय
सर्वजवेन तन्न शशाक दग्धुं स तत एव
निववृते
नैतदशकं विज्ञातुं यदेतद्यक्षमिति ॥ ६॥
tasmai
tṛṇaṃ nidadhāvetaddaheti .
tadupapreyāya
sarvajavena tanna śaśāka dagdhuṃ sa tata eva
nivavṛte
naitadaśakaṃ vijñātuṃ yadetadyakṣamiti .. 6..
6
The yaksha placed a straw before him (and said): “Burn this!” (Agni) approached
it with all speed; he was however, unable to burn it. So he withdrew from there
(and returned to the gods), saying, “I could not ascertain who the yaksha was.”
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-3 to 3-6
The
Devas not knowing what that Spirit was, being afraid of it, and desirous to
know what it was, thus addressed Agni who went before them and who was little
less than omniscient. “O Jataveda, learn well what this Great Spirit now in our
view is. You are the brightest of us all.” “Be it so” said Agni and ran towards
the Spirit. Seeing him approach near, with a desire to ask questions of it, but
overawed into silence in its presence, the Spirit asked him: “who art thou?”
Thus questioned by Brahman, Agni replied: “I am Agni well known also as
Jataveda”; as if in self-complaisance at being so well known by two names,
Brahman said to Agni who had thus replied: “what power is in thee who ownest
such well-known and significant names.?” He replied: “I could reduce to ashes
all this universe and all immoveables, etc., on this earth.” The word ‘earth’
is illustratively used; for, even what is in the air is burnt by Agni [Fire].
The Brahman placed a straw before Agni who was so vain-glorious, and said:
“Burn but this straw in my presence. If thou art not able to burn this, give up
thy vanity as the consumer of all.” Thus addressed, Agni approached the straw
with all the speed of overweening confidence but was not able to burn it. So he
Jataveda, being unable to burn it, covered with shame and bathed in bis
resolution, returned in silence from the presence of the Spirit and told the
Devas: “I was not able to learn more, concerning this Spirit.”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 7 « »
अथ
वायुमब्रुवन्वायवेतद्विजानीहि
किमेतद्यक्षमिति
तथेति ॥ ७॥
atha
vāyumabruvanvāyavetadvijānīhi
kimetadyakṣamiti
tatheti .. 7..
7
Then they addressed Vāyu: “O Vāyu, please ascertain this, who this yaksha is.”
“Yes”, said Vāyu.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-7 to 3-10
They
next addressed Vayu thus: ‘know this, etc.’ The vest bears the same meaning as
in the last passage. Vayu [ Air ] is so named from the root which means ‘to
go’or ‘to smell.’ Vayu is also called ‘Matarisva’ because it travels [ svayati
] in space [ matari ], ‘Adadiyam’ means ‘can take.’ The rest is explained as in
the previous passage.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 8 « »
तदभ्यद्रवत्तमभ्यवदत्कोऽसीति
वायुर्वा
अहमस्मीत्यब्रवीन्मातरिश्वा
वा अहमस्मीति ॥ ८॥
tadabhyadravattamabhyavadatko’sīti
vāyurvā
ahamasmītyabravīnmātariśvā
vā ahamasmīti .. 8..
8
(Vāyu) hastened (to the yaksha). (The yaksha) asked him who he was; Vāyu
replied: “I am verily, Vāyu; I am also known as Mātarishvā (courser of the
atmosphere)”.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-7 to 3-10
They
next addressed Vayu thus: ‘know this, etc.’ The vest bears the same meaning as
in the last passage. Vayu [ Air ] is so named from the root which means ‘to
go’or ‘to smell.’ Vayu is also called ‘Matarisva’ because it travels [ svayati
] in space [ matari ], ‘Adadiyam’ means ‘can take.’ The rest is explained as in
the previous passage.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 9 « »
तस्मिँस्त्वयि
किं वीर्यमित्यपीदँ
सर्वमाददीय
यदिदं पृथिव्यामिति ॥ ९॥
tasmim̐stvayi
kiṃ vīryamityapīdam̐
sarvamādadīya
yadidaṃ pṛthivyāmiti .. 9..
9
“What energy do you possess—you of such fame?” (asked the yaksha). I can verily
blow away everything, whatever there on this earth,” replied Vāyu.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-7 to 3-10
They
next addressed Vayu thus: ‘know this, etc.’ The vest bears the same meaning as
in the last passage. Vayu [ Air ] is so named from the root which means ‘to
go’or ‘to smell.’ Vayu is also called ‘Matarisva’ because it travels [ svayati
] in space [ matari ], ‘Adadiyam’ means ‘can take.’ The rest is explained as in
the previous passage.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 10 « »
तस्मै
तृणं निदधावेतदादत्स्वेति
तदुपप्रेयाय
सर्वजवेन तन्न शशाकादातुं स तत एव
निववृते
नैतदशकं विज्ञातुं यदेतद्यक्षमिति ॥ १०॥
tasmai
tṛṇaṃ nidadhāvetadādatsveti
tadupapreyāya
sarvajavena tanna śaśākādātuṃ sa tata eva
nivavṛte
naitadaśakaṃ vijñātuṃ yadetadyakṣamiti .. 10..
10
The yaksha placed a straw before him and said; “blow this away!” Vāyu
approached it with all speed; he was however, unable to blow it away. So he
withdrew from there (and returned to the gods) saying, “I could not ascertain
who the yaksha was.”
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-7 to 3-10
They
next addressed Vayu thus: ‘know this, etc.’ The vest bears the same meaning as
in the last passage. Vayu [ Air ] is so named from the root which means ‘to
go’or ‘to smell.’ Vayu is also called ‘Matarisva’ because it travels [ svayati
] in space [ matari ], ‘Adadiyam’ means ‘can take.’ The rest is explained as in
the previous passage.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 11 « »
अथेन्द्रमब्रुवन्मघवन्नेतद्विजानीहि
किमेतद्यक्षमिति तथेति
तदभ्यद्रवत्तस्मात्तिरोदधे
॥ ११॥
athendramabruvanmaghavannetadvijānīhi
kimetadyakṣamiti tatheti
tadabhyadravattasmāttirodadhe
.. 11..
11
Then the gods addressed Indra: “O Maghavan, please ascertain who this yaksha
is.” “Yes,” said Indra, and hastened to the yaksha. But the yaksha disappeared
from his view.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-11, 3-12
Atha,
etc., has already been explained. Indra, lord of the Devas, Maghavan, (being
the most powerful of them) said yes, and ran to That. Hut That vanished from
his sight, when he was near the Brahman and did not even talk to him, because
it wished to crush altogether his pride at being Indra. In the very spot where
the Spirit showed itself and from which it vanished and near the place where
Indra was at the moment the Brahman vanished, Indra stood discussing within
himself what that Spirit was, and did not return like Agni and Vayu. Seeing his
attachment to that Spirit, knowledge in the form of a woman and of Umu appeared
before him. Indra beheld knowledge. fairest of the fair,—this epithet is very
appropriate in the particular context—as if adorned in gold. ‘Himavatim’ may mean
‘the daughter of Himalaya’ and being ever associated with the Lord (Siva) the
omniscient, and having approached her, asked: “Who is this Spirit that showed
itself and vanished?”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 3 – Verse 12 « »
स
तस्मिन्नेवाकाशे स्त्रियमाजगाम बहुशोभमानामुमाँ
हैमवतीं
ताँहोवाच किमेतद्यक्षमिति ॥ १२॥
॥
इति केनोपनिषदि तृतीयः खण्डः ॥
sa
tasminnevākāśe striyamājagāma bahuśobhamānāmumām̐
haimavatīṃ
tām̐hovāca kimetadyakṣamiti .. 12..
..
iti kenopaniṣadi tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
12
And in that very spot he (Indra) beheld a woman, the wondrously effulgent Umā,
the daughter of the snow clad mountain, Himavat. And of her he asked, “Who could
this yaksha be?”
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry.
Verses
3-11, 3-12
Atha,
etc., has already been explained. Indra, lord of the Devas, Maghavan, (being
the most powerful of them) said yes, and ran to That. Hut That vanished from
his sight, when he was near the Brahman and did not even talk to him, because
it wished to crush altogether his pride at being Indra. In the very spot where
the Spirit showed itself and from which it vanished and near the place where
Indra was at the moment the Brahman vanished, Indra stood discussing within
himself what that Spirit was, and did not return like Agni and Vayu. Seeing his
attachment to that Spirit, knowledge in the form of a woman and of Umu appeared
before him. Indra beheld knowledge. fairest of the fair,—this epithet is very
appropriate in the particular context—as if adorned in gold. ‘Himavatim’ may
mean ‘the daughter of Himalaya’ and being ever associated with the Lord (Siva)
the omniscient, and having approached her, asked: “Who is this Spirit that
showed itself and vanished?”
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 1 « »
सा
ब्रह्मेति होवाच ब्रह्मणो वा एतद्विजये महीयध्वमिति
ततो
हैव विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति ॥ १॥
sā
brahmeti hovāca brahmaṇo vā etadvijaye mahīyadhvamiti
tato
haiva vidāñcakāra brahmeti .. 1..
1
“That yaksha was Brahman,” said She. “It was through the victory of Brahman,
indeed, that you achieved this glory.” It was from that (from the words of Umā)
that he (Indra) understood that the yaksha was Brahman.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
The
particle ‘Ha’ means ‘verily.’ Glory in the victory of the omnipotent Lord (for
the Asuras were defeated only by Brahman). Etat modifies the predicate. Your
notion that the victory and the glory are yours is false. From her words alone
Indra learned that it was Brahman. The force of ‘only’ is that Indra did not
know of himself.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.1।। Ha-verily; Eva-only.
‘Your
notion that the victory and glory are yours is false’ – said Uma. Indra learnt
that it was Brahman from the words of Uma only. The force of ‘only’ denotes
that Indra did not know of himself.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 2 « »
तस्माद्वा
एते देवा अतितरामिवान्यान्देवान्यदग्निर्वायुरिन्द्रस्ते
ह्येनन्नेदिष्ठं
पस्पर्शुस्ते ह्येनत्प्रथमो विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति ॥ २॥
tasmādvā
ete devā atitarāmivānyāndevānyadagnirvāyurindraste
hyenannediṣṭhaṃ
pasparśuste hyenatprathamo vidāñcakāra brahmeti .. 2..
2
Therefore verily, these gods—Agni, Vāyu and Indra—excel the other gods; for
they approached the yaksha nearest; they were the first to know Him as Brahman.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
Because
these Devas, Agni, Vayu and Indra approached the Brahman nearest by conversing
with and seeing That, they surpass the others considerably in the matter of
power, quality and affluence. The particle ‘Iva’ either has no meaning or has
the force of ‘certainly.’ Because these Devas, Agni, Vayu and Indra approached
nearest the most desirable Brahman, by such means as the conversation
aforesaid, and because they were the first who knew the Brahman, they are
foremost.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.2।। The Devas, Agni, Vayu and Indra approached the Brahman
nearest by conversing with Brahman and seeing Him also and so they excel the
other gods in the matter of power, qaulify and prosperity. They were the first
who knew Brahman and so they are pre-eminent.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 3 « »
तस्माद्वा
इन्द्रोऽतितरामिवान्यान्देवान्स
ह्येनन्नेदिष्ठं
पस्पर्श स ह्येनत्प्रथमो विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति ॥ ३॥
tasmādvā
indro’titarāmivānyāndevānsa
hyenannediṣṭhaṃ
pasparśa sa hyenatprathamo vidāñcakāra brahmeti .. 3..
3
And therefore indeed, Indra excels the other gods; for he approached the yaksha
nearest; He was the first to know Him as Brahman.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
Because
even Agni and Vayu knew Brahman from the words of Indra and because Indra first
heard of the Brahman from the words of Uma, therefore does Indra so excel the
other Devas. He approached Brahman nearest because he was first who knew the
Brahman.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.3।। Agni and Vayu knew Brahman from the words of Indra. Indra
first heard of Brahman from the words of Uma. Therefore he excels the other
gods. He approached Brahman nearest, because he was the first who knew Brahman.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 4 « »
तस्यैष
आदेशो यदेतद्विद्युतो व्यद्युतदा३
इतीन्
न्यमीमिषदा३ इत्यधिदैवतम् ॥ ४॥
tasyaiṣa
ādeśo yadetadvidyuto vyadyutadā
itīn
nyamīmiṣadā3 ityadhidaivatam .. 4..
4
This is the teaching regarding That (Brahman): It is like a flash of lightning;
it is like a wink of the eye; this is with reference to the ādihidaivatam (Its
aspect as cosmic manifestation).
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
Of
the Brahman the subject discussed, this is the Adesa. Adesa is instruction by
means of illustrations. The illustration by which the Brahman, the like of
which does not exist, is explained is said to-be its Adesa. What is It? That
which is well-known in the world as the flash of lightning. To add ‘kritavat’
is inconsistent. Therefore we understand it to mean ‘the flash of lightning’.
The particle ‘A’ means ‘like.’ The meaning is ‘like the flash of lightning.’ We
find another Sruti saying ‘As if a lightning flashed.’ It just showed itself to
the Devas like lightning and vanished from their view—or the word ‘Tejas’
[bright] should be supplied after ‘Vidyutah’ [of lightning]. The meaning then
is that It shone for a moment like a dazzling flash of lightning. The word
‘iti’ shows that it is an illustration. The word ‘ith’ is used in the sense of
‘and’ or ‘else’. This is another illustration of it. What is it? It winked as
the eye winks. The nich suffix has no distinct meaning from the meaning of the
root. The particle ‘a’ means ‘like’. The meaning is that it was like the eye
opening and closing to see and to turn from its objects. This illustration of
the Brahman is taken from the activity of the deities.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.4।। Sri Sankara says: ‘Of the Brahman the subject discussed, this
is the Adesa.’ Adesa is instruction by means of illustrations. The
illustrations by which Brahman is explained is said to be its Adesa. Brahman showed
Himself to the Devas and disappeared from their sight like the flash of
lighting. He shone for a moment like a dazzling flash of lighting. He appeared
and disappeared as the eye winks. His appearance was like the eye opening and
closing to see and turn away from its objects. Brahman suddenly appeared and
vanished like lighting and winking. Thus is the teaching concerning the gods.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 5 « »
अथाध्यात्मं
यद्देतद्गच्छतीव च मनोऽनेन
चैतदुपस्मरत्यभीक्ष्णँ
सङ्कल्पः ॥ ५॥
athādhyātmaṃ
yaddetadgacchatīva ca mano’nena
caitadupasmaratyabhīkṣṇam̐
saṅkalpaḥ .. 5..
5
Now Its description with reference to the adhyātma (Its aspect as manifested in
man); mind proceeds to Brahman in all speed, as it were; by his mind also, this
Brahman is remembered and imagined as always near.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
Atha
means‘next’. We offer illustrations from the Atman within the body. ‘Goes to’
means ‘perceives as an object’. As speedily as one (worshipper) thinks of the
Brahman as near. ‘Abhikshnam’ means ‘very much’. ‘Wills’, i. e., about the
Brahman. By the volition, recollection of the mind, the Brahman as hounded by
the mind is perceived as an object. Therefore this is an illustration of the
Brahman taken from within the body, as lightning and winking from the activity
of the powers. And as those illustrations show that Brahman flashes
instantaneously, so these illustrations show that Brahman’s appearance and
disappearance are as quick as the perceptions of the mind. These illustrations of
the Brahman are given because it can be understood by dull persons only if so
illustrated. It is well-known that the unconditioned Brahman can be known by
persons of inferior intellect.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.5।। Next there is the illustration of Brahman from the Self
within the body.
Atha-next,
after describing the Adhidaivic aspect; Adhyatmam-psychological, the teaching
through illustration of Brahman from within the Self; Gacchati-goes to,
perceives in an object; Abhikshnam-very much, constantly, again and again.
Brahman
as bounded by the mind is perceived as an object by the volition and
recollection of the mind. Therefore, this is an illustration of Brahman taken
from within the body, as lighting and winking are taken from the activity of
the external powers. In the illustration in the previous verse, it was shown
that Brahman flashes instantaneously and disappears suddenly like the lightning
and winking. In this verse, the illustrations show that Brahman’s appearance
and disappearance are as ick as the perceptions of the mind. Brahman cannot be
comprehended by dull persons of inferior intellect. So, these illustrations are
given in order to help them to comprehend Brahman.
When
these enigmatic sayings were first delivered by the seers, they were
accompained by oral explanations. It is very difficult to explain these sayings
with certainly.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 6 « »
तद्ध
तद्वनं नाम तद्वनमित्युपासितव्यं स य एतदेवं वेदाभि
हैनꣳ
सर्वाणि भूतानि संवाञ्छन्ति ॥ ६॥
taddha
tadvanaṃ nāma tadvanamityupāsitavyaṃ sa ya etadevaṃ vedābhi
hainagͫ
sarvāṇi bhūtāni saṃvāñchanti .. 6..
6
That Brahman is called Tadvana, the Adorable of all; It should be worshipped by
the name of Tadvana. All beings love Him who knows Brahman as such.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
Tat
means ‘Brahman’. ‘Ha’ means ‘as is well-known’. ‘Tadvanam’ is a compound of tat
and vanam. It means ‘which deserves to be worshipped as the one Atman of all
living things’. The Brahman is well-known as Tadvanam and should, therefore, be
worshipped as Tadvana, a word denoting its virtue. ‘Worshipped’ means
‘contemplated.’ The Sruti next declares the fruit attained by one who
contemplates the Brahman by this name. He who contemplates the Brahman already
defined as possessed of this virtue, him (this worshipper) all living things
love, i.e., pray to him as they would to Brahman.
Thus
instructed, the disciple addressed the preceptor in the following manner.
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.6।। Tat-Brahman; Ha-as is well-known, verily.
Tadvanam-which
deserves to be worshipped i.e., maditated as the one Atman of all living
beings; ‘desire of it,’ dirived from Van, to desire.
Then
the fruit obtained by one who contemplates Brahman by this name. Tadvana is
described. All beings love him who knows Him thus. He also loves all beings.
They pray to him as they would to Brahman.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 7 « »
उपनिषदं
भो ब्रूहीत्युक्ता त उपनिषद्ब्राह्मीं वाव त
उपनिषदमब्रूमेति
॥ ७॥
upaniṣadaṃ
bho brūhītyuktā ta upaniṣadbrāhmīṃ vāva ta
upaniṣadamabrūmeti
.. 7..
7
“Sir teach me Upanishad.” “The Upanishad has been imparted to you; we have,
verily, imparted to you the Upanishad relating to Brahman.”
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
When
the disciple said “O holy one! Teach me the secret that should he thought of,”
the preceptor replied “the Upanishad has been taught thee.” “What is that
Upanishad?” The preceptor replied “The Upanishad treating of Brahman, the
supreme Self, has been taught thee who excel in knowledge”. The latter half is
introduced for decisively asserting that the knowledge of the supreme
Pramatman, the Brahman already explained, is the Upanishad. Now what is the
real significance of the disciple, who has already heard, explained to him, the
knowledge of the Brahman, asking the preceptor to tell him the Upanishad? If
the question was about what was already explained, then the question itself
becomes redundant and meaningless like Pishtapeshana. If, however, the
Upanishad had been only partially explained, then the concluding it by reciting
its fruits: “Having turned away from this world they become immortal,” is not
reasonable. Therefore, the question, if asked about the unexplained portion of
the Upanishad is also unsound, because there was no portion yet to be
explained. What then is the meaning of the questioner.
We
answer thus: The disciple meant to say:
“Does
the Upanishad already explained stand in need of anything else which should
combine with it to secure the desired end, or does it not stand in need of any
such thing? If it does, teach me the Upanishad about what is so required. If it
does not, assert emphatically like Pippalada in the words—There is nothing
beyond this—.”
The
preceptor’s emphatical assertion, “The Upanishad has been told thee” is but
proper. It may be said that this cannot be construed as an emphatic assertion,
as already explained, for something yet had to be said by the preceptor. It is
true that the preceptor adds ‘Tasyi’, etc., but that is not added as a portion
combining with the Upanishad, already explained, in accomplishing the desired
end, nor as a distinct aid for achieving the end with the Upanishad, but as
something intended as a means to the acquisition of the knowledge of the
Brahman; for, tapas, etc., are apparently of the same importance with the Vedas
and their supplements, being mentioned along with them. It is well known that
neither the Vedas nor the supplements are the direct complements of the
knowledge of the Brahman or concomitant helps to it. It is urged that it is
only reasonable to assign different offices according to merit, even to many
mentioned in the same breath. Just as the mantras for invoking the gods, where
more than one is named, are used to perform the function of different deities
according as the god to be invoked is this or that; it is urged it is to be
inferred that tapas, peace, karma, truth, etc., are either complements or
concomitant helps to the knowledge of Brahman, and that the Vedas and their
supplements, elucidating meanings, are only helps to the knowledge of Karma and
Atma. They urge that this distribution is only reasonable from the
reasonableness of the applicability of their purport to this distribution. This
cannot be, for it is illogical. This distinction is impossible to bring about.
It is unreasonable to think that the knowledge of the Brahman, before which all
notions of distinctions of deed, doer, fruit, etc., vanish, can possibly
require any extraneous tiling as its complement or concomitant aid in
accomplishing it. Nor can its fruit, emancipation, require any such. It is
said: “One desirous of emancipation should always renounce karma and all its
aids. It is only by one that so renounces that the highest place (can he
reached).
Therefore,
knowledge cannot consistently with itself require karma as its concomitant help
or its complement. Therefore, the distribution on the analogy of the invocation
in Suktavaka is certainly unsound. Therefore, it is sound to say that the
question and answer were intended only to make sure. The meaning is “what was
explained is all the Upanishad, which does not require anything else for
ensuring emancipation.”
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.7।। The disciple wants to know whether the whole of the Upanishad
has been imparted to him . He meant to say: “Does the Upanishad already
explained stand in need of anything else which should combine with it in order
to attain the desired end, or does it not stand in need of any such thing? If
it does, teach me about what is so reired. If it does not, assert emphatically
like Pippalada in the words, ‘There is nothing beyond this’.”
The
preceptor’s answer means that it does not. The disciplines mentioned in the
next verse are only means to that end. They are already included in the
Upanishad.
The
estion and answer were intended only to make sure. The meaning is: ‘What was
explained is all the Upanishad. This is not in need of anything else for
ensuring the final salvation.’
Upanishad
means knowledge of Brahman, or secret doctrine. Disciples sit devotedly round
the preceptor for instruction; Upa-nearby, ni-devotedly and shad-sitting.
Upanishad means also the book that treats of Brahman.
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 8 « »
तसै
तपो दमः कर्मेति प्रतिष्ठा वेदाः सर्वाङ्गानि
सत्यमायतनम्
॥ ८॥
tasai
tapo damaḥ karmeti pratiṣṭhā vedāḥ sarvāṅgāni
satyamāyatanam
.. 8..
8
Of the Upanishad, tapas (Concentration of the energies of the mind and the
senses), damah (self-restraint), and karma (dedicated work) form the support;
the Vedas (Knowledge) are its limbs; and Truth its abode.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
Of
the Upanishad about Brahman which has been already taught, devotion, etc., are
helps to the acquisition. ‘Tapas’ means, ‘control of the body, the sensory
organs and the mind.’ ‘Dama’ means ‘freedom from passions.’ ‘Karma’ is
Agnihotra, etc. It has been seen that knowledge of the Brahman arises
indirectly through the purification of the mind in the person, who has been
refined by these. Even when Brahman is explained, those who have not been
purged of their faults, either disbelieve or misbelieve in it, as in the cases
of Indra, Virochana, etc. Therefore, knowledge as inculcated arises only in him
who has, by tapas, etc., performed either in this birth or in many previous
ones, purified his mind. The Sruti says: “To that high-souled man whose
devotion to the Lord is great and whose devotion to his preceptor is as great
as that to the Lord, these secrets explained become illuminated.” The Smriti
says: “Knowledge arises in men by annihilation of sinful deeds.” The word ‘iti’
is used to show that the mention of tapas, etc., is only by way of
illustration; for it will show that there are other aids than those mentioned
to the acquisition of knowledge, as freedom from pride, hatred of pomp, etc.
‘Pratishta’ means ‘legs.’ For, when they exist, knowledge is firmly seated just
as a person goes about with his legs, the four Vedas, all the six supplements,
i.e., Siksha, etc. The Vedas being the enlighteners of the knowledge of karma
and the supplementary scriptures being intended for their protection are called
‘legs’ of the knowledge of Brahman. Or the word ‘Pratishta’ having been
construed as legs, the Vedas must be understood as all other parts of the body
than the legs, such as the head, etc. In this case it should be understood that
in the mention of Vedas, the Angas, siksha, etc., are in effect mentioned. When
the trunk [ angi ] is mentioned, the limbs [ angas ] are included; because the
limbs live in the trunk. The place where the Upanishad rests is Truth. ‘Satyam’
(Truth) means ‘freedom from deceit and fraud in speech, mind or deed’; for
knowledge seeks those who are good-natured and free from deceit and not men of
the nature of the A suras and the deceitful; for, the Sruti says: ‘Not in whom
there is fraud, falsehood or deceit.’ Therefore, it is said that Truth is the
resting place of knowledge. The mention again of Truth as the resting place of
knowledge, notwithstanding its implied mention as ‘the leg on which knowledge
stands’ along with devotion, etc., is to indicate that Truth excels others as a
help to knowledge; for, the Smriti says: “If a thousand Asvamedha sacrifices
and Truth were weighed in the balance, one Truth spoken will outweigh the
thousand sacrifices.”
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.8।। Austerity, self-control and Karma are auxiliaries or aids to
the acisition of the knowledge of Brahman.
Tapas-control
of the body, the senses and the mind; Dama-self-restraint, freedom from
passions; Karma-Agnihotra, etc.
Knowledge
of Brahman arises in those persons who have purified their minds by austerity,
self-restraint and works either in this birth or in many previous births. Those
who have not removed the impurities of the mind either disbelieve or misbelieve
Brahman when it is explained as in the cases of Indra and Virochana. The Sruti
says: ‘These secrets explained become illumined to that great soul whose
devotion to the Lord is great and whose devotion to his preceptor is as great
as that of the Lord.’ The Smriti says: ‘Knowledge dawns in men by destruction
of the evil actions.’
The
word Iti is used indicate that the mention of Tapas, etc., is only by way of
illustration, because there are other auxiliaries then these, such as freedom
from pride, egoisam, jealousy, hatred etc., for the attainment of the knowledge
of Brahman.
‘Austerity
etc., are its support, the Vedas are all its limbs, Truth is its abode’-This is
another rendering.
Pratishtha-legs,
basis or foundation, feet on which Brahma-vidya or knowledge of Brahman rests
or stands. This knowledge has firm basis in those persons only who possess
Tapas, etc.
When
austerity, self-restraint, etc., exist, knowledge is firmly seated, just as a
man goes about steadily with his legs.
As
the Vedas throw light on the knowledge of Karma, as the Supplementary
scriptures (Vedangas) protect the Vedas, they are called the legs of the
knowledge of Brahman. The study of the Vedas helps one to attain the knowledge
of Brahman. The understanding and application of the Vedas are effected through
the Vedangas or the six limbs of Vedas.
Ayatanam-abode;
Satyam-truth or the true which remains unchanged through all times, i.e.,
Brahman.
Truth
is freedom from deceit and fraud in speech, mind or deed. Knowledge of Brahman
will arise only in a person who is free from conceit and fraud in speech, mind
and deed, who is good-natured, and not in deceitful men who are of Asuric or
diabolical nature. The Sruti also says: ‘Knowledge of Brahman does not arise in
a man who is deceitful, and utters falsehood. ‘Therefore, it is said that Truth
is the abode or resting place of Knowledge.
Truth
is already implied in austerity, sefl-restraint, etc., as the ‘leg on which
Knowledge stands.’ Why is it separately mentioned again as the abode or resting
place of Knowledge? This is to show that Truth excels others as an aid to Knowledge;
for the Smriti says: ‘If a thousand Asvamedha sacrifices and Truth are weighed
in a balance, one Truth spoked will outweigh the thousand sacrifices.’
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 9 « »
यो
वा एतामेवं वेदापहत्य पाप्मानमनन्ते स्वर्गे
लोके
ज्येये प्रतितिष्ठति प्रतितिष्ठति ॥ ९॥
॥
इति केनोपनिषदि चतुर्थः खण्डः ॥
yo
vā etāmevaṃ vedāpahatya pāpmānamanante svarge
loke
jyeye pratitiṣṭhati pratitiṣṭhati .. 9..
..
iti kenopaniṣadi caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
9
One who realizes It (knowledge of Brahman) thus, destroys sin and is well
established in Brahman, the infinite, the blissful and the highest.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
deity_Kena
English
Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary By S. Sitarama Sastry
‘This’
means ‘the knowledge of Brahman as explained in ‘keneshitam’, etc., and highly
eulogised in the text ‘Brahmaha Devebhyo,’ etc., and the source of all
knowledge. Although it has been already said that by such knowledge one attains
immortality, the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman is again stated at the end.
‘Sin’ means ‘the seed of Samsara whose nature is ignorance, desire and karma’
‘Anante’ means ‘boundless.’ ‘Svarye loke’ means ‘in the Brahman who is all
bliss’ and not ‘in heaven because of the adjunct ‘boundless.’ It may be said
that the word ‘boundless’ is used in its secondary sense. Therefore the Sruti adds:
‘Jyeye,’ ‘highest of all.’ The purport is that he is firmly seated in the
unconditioned Brahman, i.e., does not again revert to Samsara [worldly
existence].
English
Commentary By Swami Sivananda
।।4.1.9।। Etam-this, the knowledge of Brahman as explained in
Keneshitam etc. Although it has already been said in the verse 5, Section II,
that one attains immortality by knowledge of Brahman, the fruit of Knowledge of
Brahman is again started at the end.
Papmanam-sins,
evil, the seed of Samsara whose nature is ignorance, desire and Karma;
Anante-endless, boundless, that which is never destroyed at the end of Kalpas,
even above time, space, causaatio; Svarga loke-in Brahman who is all bliss, and
not heaven, because of the adjunct ‘boundless.’
It
may be stated that the word ‘Boundless’ is used in its secondary sense.
Therefore, the Sruti adds Jyeye-the greatest or the highest of all. The meaning
is that he is firmly established in lthe unconditioned Brahman and he does not
again revert to Samsara (worldly existence).
Pratitishthati-stays
for good, does not return to their world of death.
Here
ends the fourth section.
OM
PEACE! OM PEACE! OM PEACE!
Kena
Upanishad – Chapter 4 – Verse 10 « »
ॐ
आप्यायन्तु ममाङ्गानि वाक्प्राणश्चक्षुः
श्रोत्रमथो
बलमिन्द्रियाणि च सर्वाणि ।
सर्वं
ब्रह्मौपनिषदं
माऽहं
ब्रह्म निराकुर्यां मा मा ब्रह्म
निराकरोदनिराकरणमस्त्वनिराकरणं
मेऽस्तु ।
तदात्मनि
निरते य
उपनिषत्सु
धर्मास्ते मयि सन्तु ते मयि सन्तु ।
ॐ
शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
oṃ
āpyāyantu mamāṅgāni vākprāṇaścakṣuḥ
śrotramatho
balamindriyāṇi ca sarvāṇi .
sarvaṃ
brahmaupaniṣadaṃ
mā’haṃ
brahma nirākuryāṃ mā mā brahma
nirākarodanirākaraṇamastvanirākaraṇaṃ
me’stu .
tadātmani
nirate ya
upaniṣatsu
dharmāste mayi santu te mayi santu .
oṃ
śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ..
Om.
May Brahman protect us both (the preceptor and the disciple)! May Brahman
bestow upon us both the fruit of Knowledge! May we both obtain the energy to
acquire Knowledge! May what we both study reveal the Truth! May we cherish no
ill feeling toward each other!
Om.
Peace! Peace! Peace!
0 Comments
If you have any Misunderstanding Please let me know