Ad Code

Kenopaniṣat Complete English Explanation by- Sri Adi Sankaracharya

 



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!

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Ad Code