केनोपनिषत्
of तलवकार branch of the सामवेद
॥ 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 ॥
| ॐ, आप्यायन्तु – may grow vigorous, मम – my, अङ्गानि – limbs, वाक् – speech, प्राण – life-force, चक्षुः – vision, श्रोत्रम् – hearing, अथो – then, बलम् – strength, इन्द्रियाणि – senses, च – and, सर्वाणि – all, सर्वं – all (are), ब्रह्म, औपनिषदं – of the उपनिषद्s, मा – never, अहं – I, ब्रह्म, निराकुर्यां – may reject, मा मा – never never, ब्रह्म, निराकरोत् – may reject, अनिराकरणम् – non-denial (of ब्रह्म), अस्तु – may there be, अनिराकरणं – non-denial, मे – in me (by me), अस्तु – may there be, तत् आत्मनि – in the आत्मा, निरते य – delighting which, उपनिषत्सु – in the उपनिषद्s, धर्मा: – virtues, ते – they all, मयि – in me, सन्तु – are present, ते – they all, मयि – in me, सन्तु – are present | May my वाक्, प्राण, चक्षुः, श्रोत्रम् and इंद्रिय बल grow vigorous, All (everything) is ब्रह्म of the उपनिषद्s. May I never deny ब्रह्म. May ब्रह्म never reject me, May there be no denial of ब्रह्म, May there be no rejection by ब्रह्म. Let all the धर्म recited by the उपनिषद्s be present in me delighting in the आत्मा! May they be present in me! |
ॐ केनेषितं पतति प्रेषितं मनः केन प्राणः प्रथमः प्रैति युक्तः । केनेषितां वाचमिमां वदन्ति चक्षुः श्रोत्रं क उ देवो युनक्ति ॥ १॥
| ॐ, केन – by whom, इषितं – willed, पतति – falls, प्रेषितं – directed (sent), मनः – mind, केन – by whom, प्राणः, प्रथमः – at first, प्रैति – does proceed (to function), युक्तः- well-equipped, केन – by whom, इषितां – commanded, वाचम् – word (speech), इमां – this, वदन्ति – do (they, men) utter, चक्षुः, श्रोत्रं, क: – who, उ – indeed, देव: युनक्ति – directs (towards their respective objects) | Disciple – Willed by whom does the directed mind light upon (or go towards) its objects? Commanded by whom does प्राण proceeds to function? By whose will do one utter speech? What intelligence directs the eyes and the ears (towards their respective objects)? |
व्याख्या: The उपनिषद् begins with the word, केन, and उपनिषद् is therefore called as केन उपनिषद् or केनोपनिषत्. The उपनिषद् begins with a fascinating question – does the mind act independently or is there a separate entity that directs to the mind to go towards the objects? Similarly, is प्राण or speech, eyes and ears fully independent (or self-governing). Purely from a functional lens, they work on their own – we do not consciously need to will to see images or hear sounds – whatever objects are within the range of vision, a person can see them. So, why does the question envisage the presence of another entity which in turn directs the mind (to think about objects), ears (to see), etc?
Generally, such a question does not arise in ordinary life. We never put a question to our own self, ‘Who is it that makes me work?’ etc., because it is taken for granted that we have the capacity of agency in action.
वेद therefore clearly states that one may impute the presence of a greater intelligence that may be directing all इंद्रिय including the mind to do their work. At death, though the person continues to have eyes and ears, since the intelligence may be said to have departed from the body, all these इंद्रिय cease to function.
Says आदि शंकर: “If the mind were independent in engaging and dis-engaging itself, then nobody would have contemplated any negative thoughts. And yet the mind, though conscious of consequences, wills negative thoughts, and though dissuaded, it does engage in deeds of intensely sorrowful results. Hence, the question raised here is appropriate”.
Our feelings, thoughts and emotions connected with the body go by the name of जीव’sfunctions. We become so engrossed in the activities of the body that the one is not differentiated from the other. The उपनिषद् questions: Is there really something which is distinct from these parts called the इंद्रिय and their operations or can we say that the इंद्रिय themselves are the आत्मा? Can we regard the eye as the इंद्रिय, the ear as the इंद्रिय, the speech as the इंद्रिय? Not possible, is the answer, because their functions are heterogeneous and there is no harmony among their activities. But we experience a single-ness and are aware of the presence of a single experience while all these parts are functioning independently. Now, who is this singleness which seems to be there in spite of the part-ness of the sensory and bodily functions? The उपनिषद् will answer this question as we progress.
श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं मनसो मनो यद् वाचो ह वाचं स उ प्राणस्य प्राणः । चक्षुषश्चक्षुरतिमुच्य धीराः प्रेत्यास्माल्लोकादमृता भवन्ति ॥ २॥
| श्रोत्रस्य – of the ear, श्रोत्रं – the ear, मनसो – of the mind, मनो – the mind, यद् वाच: – of that speech, ह वाचं – this is the speech, स उ – the very same, प्राणस्य – of the प्राण, प्राणः – the प्राण, चक्षुष: – of the eyes, चक्षु: – the very eyes, अतिमुच्य – having abandoned (having transcended), धीराः – the bravely wise, प्रेत्य – having gone away, अस्मान् लोकात् – from this world (of इंद्रिय), अमृता – eternal, immortal, भवन्ति – become | Says गुरु – it is the “ear” of the ear, the “mind” of the mind, the “speech” (or tongue) of the speech (or tongue), and also “प्राण” of the प्राण. After giving up the self-identification with the इंद्रिय or “I”-ness in these and rising above the sense life, the wise become eternal/ immortal. |
व्याख्या: When the उपनिषद् says that the reality (or ब्रह्म) is the eye of the eye, etc., it means that there is something which sees through the eye. Now, for example, we put on glasses, and we see through the glasses, but we never say that the glasses see. Who is the seer? The seer is the eye. The glasses are only the medium. The spectacles do not see; the eyes see through the spectacles. But suppose we mix up the spectacles with our own bodily consciousness and regard the spectacles as a part of our own body, we may say the spectacles see, the glasses are seeing. Some such mistake we are committing daily when we say that the eyes are seeing. The eyes see in the same way as the spectacles see. That is all. In one sense, it is true the spectacles see, but we know in what sense it is so. That the glasses are not the real seer becomes clear when we distinguish between the glasses and the eyes.
Taking this further, the whole body is nothing but flesh, bone, muscle, marrow, tendon, etc. Now, we regard this as our self. The mass of matter, which is the body, which is subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, which has spatial dimensions, and which is subject to temporal succession, which is changeable every moment, which never remains in one condition for two successive moments, such self-transforming complex of the body we regard as our own self. There is so much of change and transformation, the biologists tell us that every seven years the cells of the body are completely changed, there is a new birth altogether after every seven years. We become a new person; yet the continuity of ‘I’-ness is there. It never ceases. We never say there was somebody when we were a child, someone else when we were an adult, someone else now when we are old. No such thing is felt. The feeling is: ‘I am existing. Whatever I was, whatever I shall be, I am, indivisibly, continuously and invariably. What is this phenomenon due to?
There is a technical word called अध्यास which means super-imposition or a transference of properties. On account of this transference of psychological qualities, we entertain love and hatred. Characteristics which are desirable, personally speaking, are transferred to certain objects. The desirable characteristics of our psychological constitution, when they are transferred to any particular object, look attractive, and the object becomes lovable, dear and affectionate. Any psychological complex in us which we regard as undesirable, when it is transferred to any particular object is disliked, and that becomes an object of hatred. And while अध्यास with external objects is one type of अध्यास, there is an internal अध्यास too also at play called as अन्योन्य अध्यास which is mutual superimposition of attributes between आत्मा, on one side, and the प्रकृति constituting the body. The body has certain characteristics. The आत्मा has certain other characteristics. And what are the characteristics of आत्मा?
- आत्मा does not change.
- आत्मा can never become an object, and it cannot be ‘related’ to anything.
- आत्मा never becomes external. It is not in space and time.
- आत्मा is indivisible. It is Self-sufficient, Self-luminous, Self-complete.
And what are the characteristics of the body?
- It is made up of parts, as against आत्मा which is indivisible.
- The body is external, as against the आत्मा which is pure subject.
- The body is subject to transformation, as against आत्मा which is unchangeable.
- The body is always in space and time, as against आत्मा which is never in space and time.
The wonder is that despite the differences between आत्मा and body, there is a mutual transference of properties taking place here. That particular borderline where this mysterious transference of properties takes place is called the जीव or the individual. You do not know what this जीव is. It is a very interesting thing, and you cannot define it. It is a peculiar indescribable point of experience where this अध्यास takes place. The body and the आत्मा meet together, shake hands with each other, transfer each other’s properties and the one becomes the other, as it were, body saying ‘I am आत्मा’, आत्मा saying ‘I am body! If आत्मा begins to feel ‘I am body, what will happen? It would shake as body shakes. It would feel that it is undergoing transformation as body really does. All the vicissitudes which are attributable only to changeable complexes of body get attributed to आत्मा. Then it is that we say, ‘I am unhappy’, ‘I am hungry’, ‘I am thirsty’, ‘I am dying’, ‘I am old’ and this and that, the properties of body getting attributed to आत्मा. On the other hand, contrary-wise, when the properties of आत्मा are transferred to body, The body begins to feel, ‘I exist’, ‘I am intelligent’, ‘I am happy’, ‘I am powerful’, ‘I can do this’, ‘I have this’, ‘I have that’, and so on. So, this is what body borrows from आत्मा, while आत्मा has in turn taken loan of the changeable attributes of body, and we have a peculiar admixture of confusion which is called theexperience of the जीव. Even when asleep, this जीव experiences taste, touch, emotions, etc even when the entire body is asleep, and senses are not functioning. So who exactly is the seer, the mind, etc when the body is asleep?
The मंत्र therefore states it is not the eyes who see, the mind which thinks, the प्राण which acts as the life-force within or the tongue which speaks – there is something else, the आत्मा, which is the actual seer, thinker, etc. And when the अध्यास is removed by subduing the इंद्रिय (via realization that they are not really seeing anything but are mere instruments of the आत्मा), the I-ness experienced as a जीव gets set aside. A साधक will need With the removal of the confusion between आत्मा and the body, the आत्मा then revels in its own self – it then re-establishes connect with its eternal reality – and it then attains to eternality (which is its own intrinsic nature anyway) – that is the idea being conveyed by the मंत्र here.
न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनः । न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यात् ॥ ३॥
अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि । इति शुश्रुम पूर्वेषां ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे ॥ ४॥
| न – never, तत्र – there, चक्षु: – eyes, गच्छति – goes, न: – nor, वाक्: – speech, गच्छति – goes, न – nor, मनः – mind, न – nor, विद्म: – do we know, न – never, विजानीम: – do we know perfectly, यथा एतद् – how it, अनुशिष्यात् – can be instructed, अन्यत् एव – very distinct, तद् – that is, विदितात् – from the known, अथ – then, अविदितात् – from the unknown, अधि – extremely (distinct), इति – thus, शुश्रुम – we have heard, पूर्वेषां – from the ancestors, ये – who, न: – to us, तद् – that, व्यचचक्षिरे – perfectly stated (taught us) | The eye does not go there, nor speech nor mind. We do not know That. We do not know how to instruct one about it. It is distinct from the known and above the unknown. We have heard it, so stated the गुरुs who taught us That. |
व्याख्या: Says आदि शंकर – “When a word, as expressed by the organ of speech reveals its own idea, speech is said to go to the object. But ब्रह्म (or आत्मा) is the self of both the word, as also the organ that utters it; therefore speech does not go. Just as fire, which burns and illumines, does not burn or illumine itself, similarly, is this so. Though the mind thinks and determines other things, it does not determine or think itself, for of it too, ब्रह्म (or आत्मा) is the Self”.
All इंद्रिय including मनस् are programmed to see the objects of perception – they are outward oriented. The इंद्रिय ever find themselves busy in the perception and sensation of things. But due to the very constitution and the nature of the मनस् and the इंद्रिय —the very make up of these—itis impossible for them to know the background of their own being. There is no आत्मा-consciousness, there is only object-consciousness in all forms of perception by the इंद्रिय. When we are conscious of objects, we are never conscious of the आत्मा. आत्मा-consciousness and object-consciousness cannot go together. In the zone of आत्मा, no इंद्रिय operate there – आत्मा is “pure” meaning that आत्मा is not unlike other objects which the mind can think about or tongue can speak about – in fact, it is the आत्मा that thinks through the mind or gives speech to the tongue. This is why the उपनिषद् says that it is difficult to instruct about the आत्मा – therefore, while one can teach about objects of the word or laws of mathematics, etc (since all of these are describable or conceivable to the mind, speech, etc), आत्मा cannot be taught about in the same manner as objects of the world.
The उपनिषद् adds another line – “आत्मा is distinct from the known and above the unknown”. By “known”, we means all aspects of name and form that are contained within the universe. Therefore, all ideas (that can be conceived of by मनस्), all sounds (that one can hear), all physical objects (that can be seen by the eyes) come under “known” – and आत्मा is distinct from the “known”. But when one is saying that आत्मा is not the known, one may be inclined to say “it does not exist” since it cannot be known. उपनिषद् therefore immediately adds – “आत्मा is beyond the “unknown” – आदि शंकर elaborates here – “It is not a thing to be obtained. It is for the sake of getting an effect, indeed, that someone different from it acquires some other thing to serve as a cause. For this reason too, nothing different (from the आत्मा) need to be acquired to serve a purpose distinct from the knower (आत्मा)”. The desire to “know” आत्मा also has to end since आत्मा is non-different from our own self (or put another way, आत्मा is the knower itself). Traditionally, it was always understood that आत्मा can only be known from a गुरु and not through argumentation, nor by study (or exposition), intelligence, great learning, तप, यज्ञ, etc. What effort can we do in respect of that which is not an object of the इंद्रिय? All “effort” is mental, intellectual, psychological, and the उपनिषद् confirms that these instruments are unfit for recognising the आत्मा, because their objects are outside the आत्मा. The बुद्धि (intellect) ratiocinates, the मनस् (mind) cognises, etc., externally. There is no such thing as ratiocinating the आत्मा, thinking the आत्मा or sensing the आत्मा. Such a thing cannot be, and, inasmuch as we are not endowed with any other faculty than these, what would be our effort as to the realisation of the आत्मा? How can we speak about it? How can we instruct another about it? How can we understand it? How can we realise it? Is it possible at all? On account of this enigmatic difficulty, it is that in the उपनिषद्, as well as in the श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता, the आत्मा is spoken of as a wonder, आश्चर्य, it is a marvel! When we say it is a marvel, we cannot say anything more about it. It simply means we cannot understand it.
यद्वाचाऽनभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते ।तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ५॥
यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम् । तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ६॥
यच्चक्षुषा न पश्यति येन चक्षूँषि पश्यति । तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ७॥
यच्छ्रोत्रेण न शृणोति येन श्रोत्रमिदं श्रुतम् । तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ८॥
यत्प्राणेन न प्राणिति येन प्राणः प्रणीयते । तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ९॥
| यद् – that which (was), वाचा – by the speech, अनभ्युदितं – not revealed, येन – by which, वाक् – speech, अभ्युद्यते – is revealed, तदेव – That alone, ब्रह्म, त्वं – You, विद्धि – know, न इदं – not this, यत् – that, इदम् – this (there), उपासते – (does) उपासना | What speech cannot reveal, but what reveals speech, know that alone as ब्रह्म and not this, that people do उपासना of here. |
| यद् – that which, मनसा – by the mind, न – never, मनुते – (one) can never feel, येन् – because of which, आहु: – (they) say, मनो मतम् – mind is called by its name, तदेव – That alone, ब्रह्म, त्वं – You, विद्धि – know, न इदं – not this, यत् – that, इदम् – this (there), उपासते – (does) उपासना | What one cannot feel with the mind, but because of which they say that the mind feels, know that alone as ब्रह्म and not this, that people do उपासना of here. |
| यद् – that which, चक्षुषा – through the eye, न – never, पश्यति – (one) sees, येन – by which, चक्षूँषि – the eyes, पश्यति – (one) sees, तदेव – That alone, ब्रह्म, त्वं – You, विद्धि – know, न इदं – not this, यत् – that, इदम् – this (there), उपासते – (does) उपासना | What cannot be seen by the eye, but by which the eyes are able to see, know that alone as ब्रह्म and not this, that people do उपासना of here. |
| यद् – that which, श्रोत्रेण – through the ear, न – never, शृणोति – (one) hears, येन – that because of which, श्रोत्रम् – ear, इदं – this, श्रुतम् – is being heard, तदेव – That alone, ब्रह्म, त्वं – You, विद्धि – know, न इदं – not this, यत् – that, इदम् – this (there), उपासते – (does) उपासना | What cannot be heard by the ear, but by which the ears are able to hear, know That alone as ब्रह्म and not this, that people do उपासना of here. |
| यद् – that which, प्राणेन – by the प्राण, न – never, प्राणिति – breathes, येन – that because of which, प्राणः, प्रणीयते – is breathed, तदेव – That alone, ब्रह्म, त्वं – You, विद्धि – know, न इदं – not this, यत् – that, इदम् – this (there), उपासते – (does) उपासना | That which one breathes not with one’s breath, but by which breath is breathed, know That alone as ब्रह्म and not this, that people do उपासना of here. |
व्याख्या: उपासना will not enable one to know ब्रह्म (or आत्मा). Why so? शस्त्र prescribes many types of उपासना, e.g., उपासना of सूर्य, हिरण्यगर्भ, प्राण, अव्यक्त, etc. In an उपासना, the उपासक attempts to become one with the object of उपासना by attempting to imbibe the qualities of the object of उपासना within oneself. उपासना therefore represents an act of intense ध्यान and certainly enables expansion of one’s persona – but उपनिषद् states that one cannot know ब्रह्म via उपासना. But does this mean उपासना must be abandoned? Absolutely not!!! उपासना can certainly bring one to attain ज्ञान योग्यता (capability to attain ज्ञान). In the journey towards ब्रह्म, an initial साधक will have to live the lifestyle of कर्म योग to attain चित्त शुद्धि – this must then be followed by conduct of उपासना which enables one to attain ज्ञान योग्यता. However, for becoming one with ब्रह्म, something else is required – that is what the उपनिषद् is suggesting here.
The energy necessary for इंद्रिय to operate come from the आत्मा. The आत्मा is like a supreme master which does not Itself physically act but only directs and make all the subordinates run. The whole universe becomes restless merely because of the existence of the आत्मा. The आत्मा speaks not and does not do anything, but its very existence is more than all expression of speech and doing of action. In the श्रीमद्भागवतम्, when ध्रुव does ध्यान of श्री नारायण as instructed by नारद, when he gets दर्शन of श्री नारायण, he is stunned into silence – he was unable to express anything at all from his mouth – then श्री नारायण touched ध्रुव was able to sing स्तुति of the परमात्मा – this simple episode from the पुराण also reconfirms the core idea being conveyed by the उपनिषद् – when we confront Truth, our eyes, our speech, our mind, etc are incapable of any form of expression – they are stunned into silence since आत्मा is indescribable. इंद्रिय are constructed to perceive “objects” but not their source which gives them energy in the first place – just as a child is quiet in the womb of the mother, इंद्रिय become expressionless in the womb of the आत्मा, as it were.
॥ इति केनोपनिषदि प्रथमः खण्डः ॥
यदि मन्यसे सुवेदेति दहरमेवापि नूनं त्वं वेत्थ ब्रह्मणो रूपम् । यदस्य त्वं यदस्य देवेष्वथ नु मीमाँस्यमेव ते मन्ये विदितम् ॥ १॥
| यदि – if, मन्यसे – you think, सुवेद – very well, इति – thus, दहरमेवापि – even a little too, नूनं – certainly, त्वं – You, वेत्थ – understand, ब्रह्मण: of ब्रह्म, रूपम् – form, यत् – that which is, अस्य – of that, त्वं – You, यत् – that which is, अस्य – of that, देवेषु – in the देव, अथ नु – now then, मीमाँस्यम् एव – is to be ascertained, ते – to you, मन्ये – I think, विदितम् – that which is known (to you) | गुरु: `If you think, “I have known ब्रह्म well enough”, then you have known only the very little expression that It has in the human body and the little expression that It has among the देवताs. Therefore, ब्रह्म is still to be deliberated on by you.’ (Disciple): `I think (ब्रह्म) is known.’ |
व्याख्या: Having listened to a गुरु, a शिष्य may have lived a life of कर्म योग, sat in solitude with his mind concentrated and performed उपासना, deliberated on the teachings of the गुरु, ascertained the meaning of ब्रह्म by applying reasoning, made it a personal experience and then approached the गुरु to state “I know ब्रह्म” – and the गुरु replies – No!!! ब्रह्म is not possible to be “known”.
“Knowing” is a function of अष्टधा – five इन्द्रिय, मनस्, चित्त and बुद्धि. Therefore, anyone who “knows” effectively knows using the अष्टधा as their instruments. However, ब्रह्म is not something that can be known via these instruments. So whenever a human being or even a देवता states “I know ब्रह्म”, they do not know since ब्रह्म is not conceivable via “knowing”. It is called ब्रह्म because it is infinite and omnipresent. The word ‘ब्रह्म’ comes from the Sanskrit root ‘brihm’, which means ‘to fill all space’, ‘to be complete in itself’, ‘to exclude nothing from itself’, ‘to be a plenum internally and externally’. ब्रह्म is Fullness inwardly as well as externally. That is the आत्मा at the same time. It is ब्रह्म because it is the universal completeness. It is the आत्मा because it is the presupposition of even the thinking of the mind and the workings of the इंद्रिय. It is the ‘Selfhood’ of all things. It is difficult to explain, again, what the Selfhood of all objects could be. No one can explain what the Self of an object is; it can only be felt. We cannot express adequately through language what we mean by our own Self, but we know what it is. On the one side it is the cosmic miracle of beauty and perfection which no one can gainsay, and on the other side it is our Self. The cosmic mystery, the universal enrapturing beauty of the perfection of the Absolute is identified with us, what we are ‘really’ in our own Self. If the whole universal perfection is to be centred in what we are, what would we feel at that time? That is the आत्मा, not that which we do उपासना of here through (or using) the इंद्रिय, for that is not ब्रह्म.
If we want to recognise this pure आत्मा in us, we have to isolate all sorts of objectivity, not the objects necessarily. There is a difference between isolation of ‘objects’ and isolation of ‘objectivity’. This is a subtle distinction – we generally reject objects while what we are called upon to do is to eliminate objectivity, and the inability to make this distinction oftentimes is tantamount to a failure in the वैराग्य (renunciation), in any seeker. People have a wrong notion of things and then they think they are in a state of वैराग्य. The wrong notion is the need felt for a rejection of objects rather than the objectivity in objects. What is wrong with us is not the thought of an object so much as the thought of the objectivity of the object, the externality of a thing, the outsided-ness of value. This is the mistake that we are committing, and it is this that the उपनिषद्, in the present context, regards as derogatory to true spirituality.
The form of the object is known as नाम-रूप, the name-form complex. The content is the essence out of which it is formed. The ब्रह्म (pure Being) in the object and the subject is universally the same, but the forms which are in space and in time have been so isolated from one another in sensory perception that the essence is externalised. The externalisation of the essence is the form or the object. As a matter of fact, what is called a sensory object is nothing but a spatial configuration of the very same चैतन्य that is in the cognising आत्मा. What plays havoc is space-time. If space and time were not to be there, there would not be perception of multiplicity or variety in the world. The differentiating medium is space and time in one mode. The universal Subject-ness has been divided into the apparent subjectivity and objectivity on account of the operation of space and time. So, as long as चैतन्य works through space and time, the perception of an external world cannot be avoided. It is seen by the इंद्रिय, but that is not the आत्मा.
The objects are not the आत्मा in the sense that they are ‘seen’ ‘outside’, but they are the आत्मा as they really are, in themselves. That they are outside the आत्मा is a myth, though the इंद्रिय would demonstrate that they are always outside. It is on account of the recourse of the इंद्रिय to projected-ness externally that the objects appear as outside the आत्मा, that we run after the objects. We love and hate objects on account of wrongly imagining that the essences are outside us. So as long as we regard the universal essence of the आत्मा as the variety of objects situated outside in space and time, we are under a misapprehension, and if we transfer our values, transfer ourselves as the आत्मा to them and love them or hate them, then we are committing a blunder. The आत्मा is not anything that we see, anything that we love or hate, anything that we can think of or understand, because it is the background of all these psychological activities, the being behind all functions.
नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च । यो नस्तद्वेद तद्वेद नो न वेदेति वेद च ॥ २॥
यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः । अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ॥ ३॥
| न – never, अहम् – I, मन्ये – think, सुवेद – (that) I know very well, इति – thus, नो न वेद – not that I do not know, इति – thus, वेद च – I know too, य: – (he) who, न: amongst us, तत् – that, वेद – know, तद्वेद – knows that, नो न वेद – not that I do not know, इति – thus, वेद च – I know too | I do not think that “I know it well”. But not that I do not know; I know too. Who amongst us comprehends It both as the not known and as the known – such a one comprehends It. |
| यस्य – one to whom, अमतं – there is no comprehension (about ब्रह्म), तस्य मतं – his comprehension is real, मतं – the (real) comprehension, यस्य – to whom, न – is not, वेद – knows, सः – he (or such a one), अविज्ञातं – (it is) unknown, विजानतां – to the real masters of true knowledge (to those who know perfectly well); विज्ञातम् – perfectly known, अविजानताम् – to those who know not | He understands It who comprehends It not; one understands It not, who feels one has comprehended It. It is the unknown to the Master of True Knowledge but to the ignorant, It is the known. |
व्याख्या: The above मंत्रs express a confusing word-play – but it is confusing since we are using our limited minds to comprehend the words given here. And given what we said earlier that ब्रह्म cannot be known, this मंत्र extends the same expression to add that it is both the “known” and “unknown” too simultaneously. Is this a contradiction? The two views of one who has ज्ञान and the others who has अज्ञान are being presented here.
Says आदि शंकर – ब्रह्म is in fact unknown to the people who know – that is to say, to those who have fully realized. ब्रह्म is known to those who do not know, to those who have not got full realization – that is to say, to those who identify the ब्रह्म merely with the इंद्रिय, the मनस् and the बुद्धि. Those who exclaim with the expression, `Brahman is known to us’, is possible only for those, who, by reason of non-discrimination between ब्रह्म and the limiting adjuncts, and because of their familiarity with the limiting adjuncts such as the बुद्धि, consider the इंद्रिय, the मनस् and the बुद्धि as the आत्मा.
But the above creates a problem – if the highly realized people know ब्रह्म as the “unknown”, how does one distinguish them for the category of people whose intelligence is primitive who do not have the consciousness that `ब्रह्म is known by us’. How is then a highest realized is different from a लौकिक if ब्रह्म remains “unknown” to both? This is answered in subsequent मंत्र.
प्रतिबोधविदितं मतममृतत्वं हि विन्दते । आत्मना विन्दते वीर्यं विद्यया विन्दतेऽमृतम् ॥ ४॥
| प्रतिबोधविदितं – that knows It by intuition and through every modification (of the mind), मतं – the conviction, अमृतत्वं हि – indeed eternality, विन्दते – attains, आत्मना – through the आत्मा, विन्दते – attains, वीर्यं – real strength (vigour), विद्यया – through विद्या, विन्दते – attains, अमृतम् – eternality | Indeed, one convincingly attains (one’s own) eternal state, who knows It by intuition and through every modification of the mind. Through the आत्मा, one obtains real strength, and through विद्या, eternal state of being. |
व्याख्या: ब्रह्म should be realised as the fundamental basis of all mental experiences. It should be realised in every state of our life in waking, dreaming and deep sleep. All thoughts are heterogeneous in their nature. They are not connected with one another. But they are experienced as belonging to one person because of the unity of the आत्मा within. Our शरीर, इंद्रिय and मनस् are all made up of scattered parts that appear to be a unified whole because of the underlying indivisible essence. If only the आत्मा were not there, our personality would be thrown away into the condition of atoms, disconnected and varied.
Says आदिशंकर – The word प्रतिबोधविदितं used in this मंत्र refers to that which is known with reference to each state of intelligence. By the word बोध are meant the cognitions acquired through the बुद्धि. The आत्मा, that encompasses all ideas as Its objects, is known in relation to all these ideas. Being the witness of all cognitions, and by nature nothing but the power of आत्मा, the आत्मा is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as pervading (all on them). There is no other door to Its awareness. Therefore, when ब्रह्म is known as the innermost आत्मा (i.e. witness) of cognitions, then is It known, that is to say, then there is Its complete realization. Only by accepting ब्रह्म as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the आत्मा, unconditioned, and one in all beings.
To take this further, there is no difference at all between the building bricks of one body and of another body. All are made up of the same earth, water, fire, air and space. But bodies appear to be different, they act in different ways, because the actor is not the body but the desires housed within all the bodies. The same force acts as the substantial essence of all minds. But this substance of minds whirls in different directions at different centres of existence, thus creating differences. This whirling is called the mind, and this way of whirling is called a desire. Bodies look different since these desires differ from person to person which therefore creates distractions. सम्यग्दर्शन is correct perception of things as they really are. It is a आध्यात्मिक condition and not an act. It has no concern with the changes that take place in the body and even in the surface-consciousness of the mind. It is, in other words, simple knowing. All objective knowledge breeds birth and death, because knowledge of objects means an underlying desire for objects. Perception of diversity means moving from death to death, because we are courting thereby self-transformation, due to our desire for identifying ourselves with the diverse forms of objects. Self-knowledge, therefore, consists in self-identical, immediate, non-relational knowledge. Knowledge, however, cannot be an attribute of the Self. Once we realize that it is a single essence permeating all, and are able to have that दृष्टि, then all कर्म योग, उपासना and ज्ञान योग have reached their ultimate goal of realizing one’s own eternal, unchanging ज्ञान स्थिति.
The idea is that the आत्मा is truly known when It is known along with each state of consciousness. Besides, consciousness, as having the indwelling आत्मा as its content, is alone held to be the cause of immortality. Immortality does not surely consist in the आत्मा becoming a अनात्मा. Immortality being the very nature of the आत्मा, it is certainly without any cause. And thus, mortality consists in the आत्मा being perceived as the अनात्मा through अज्ञान. Immortality is attained through the aforesaid knowledge of the आत्मा through one’s own आत्मा – one attains वीर्यम (strength, capacity) through one’s own आत्मा. The strength got from wealth, friend, incantation, medicine, तप or योग cannot conquer death, for it is produced by impermanent things. But the strength, consequent on the knowledge of the आत्मा, is acquired through the आत्मा alone and not through anything else. Thus, since the strength resulting from the knowledge of the आत्मा is independent of any means of acquisition, that strength alone is able to conquer death. Since the strength produced by the knowledge of the आत्मा is thus attained through the आत्मा, therefore, through knowledge about the आत्मा, one attains; अमृतम् (immortality).
इह चेदवेदीदथ सत्यमस्ति न चेदिहावेदीन्महती विनष्टिः । भूतेषु भूतेषु विचित्य धीराः प्रेत्यास्माल्लोकादमृता भवन्ति ॥ ५॥
| इह – here, चेद् अवेदीत् – if (one) knows (that ब्रह्म), अथ – then, सत्यम् – the true fulfilment (the very essence of human aspiration), अस्ति – is (acquired), न चेत् – if not, इह – here, अवेदीत् – knows, महती – very great (is the), विनष्टिः – destruction, भूतेषु भूतेषु – in all beings, विचित्य – seeking clearly (that आत्मा), धीराः – the subtle intellects, प्रेत्य – having gone (risen), अस्मात् – from this, लोकात् – world (of senses), अमृता – eternals, भवन्ति – become | If one knows (that ब्रह्म) here, in this world, then the true end of all human aspirations is gained. If one knows not (ब्रह्म) here, great is the destruction. The wise, seeing the one आत्मा in all beings, rise from the लोक (where life is governed by इंद्रिय) and become eternal. |
व्याख्या: Says आदि शंकर – “Pitiable, indeed, it is to suffer through ignorance, birth, old age, death, disease, etc., among multitudes of beings such as देवता, मनुष्य, पशु, प्रेत, etc., in whom there is an abundance of misery natural to transmigratory existence”. उपनिषद् says that transmigratory existence is akin to great destruction. He therefore adds – “Therefore the wise, ब्राह्मण (meaning those who are the knowers of ब्रह्म), who are thus familiar with merits and demerits; having known, realized, the one reality on the ब्रह्म, in all beings, moving and unmoving; turning away, from this world of अज्ञान – the world consisting of `I and mine’ (अहम् and मम) i.e. having attained the non-dual state consisting in becoming identified with the आत्मा of all; become immortal, become ब्रह्म indeed – this is the idea”.
॥ इति केनोपनिषदि द्वितीयः खण्डः ॥
ब्रह्म ह देवेभ्यो विजिग्ये तस्य ह ब्रह्मणो विजये देवा अमहीयन्त ॥ १॥
त ऐक्षन्तास्माकमेवायं विजयोऽस्माकमेवायं महिमेति । तद्धैषां विजज्ञौ तेभ्यो ह प्रादुर्बभूव तन्न व्यजानत किमिदं यक्षमिति ॥ २॥
तेऽग्निमब्रुवञ्जातवेद एतद्विजानीहि किमिदं यक्षमिति तथेति ॥ ३॥
तदभ्यद्रवत्तमभ्यवदत्कोऽसीत्यग्निर्वा अहमस्मीत्यब्रवीज्जातवेदा वा अहमस्मीति ॥ ४॥
तस्मिꣳस्त्वयि किं वीर्यमित्यपीदꣳ सर्वं दहेयं यदिदं पृथिव्यामिति ॥ ५॥
तस्मै तृणं निदधावेतद्दहेति । तदुपप्रेयाय सर्वजवेन तन्न शशाक दग्धुं स तत एव निववृते नैतदशकं विज्ञातुं यदेतद्यक्षमिति ॥ ६॥
अथ वायुमब्रुवन्वायवेतद्विजानीहि किमेतद्यक्षमिति तथेति ॥ ७॥
तदभ्यद्रवत्तमभ्यवदत्कोऽसीति वायुर्वा अहमस्मीत्यब्रवीन्मातरिश्वा वा अहमस्मीति ॥ ८॥
तस्मिँस्त्वयि किं वीर्यमित्यपीदँ सर्वमाददीय यदिदं पृथिव्यामिति ॥ ९॥
तस्मै तृणं निदधावेतदादत्स्वेति तदुपप्रेयाय सर्वजवेन तन्न शशाकादातुं स तत एव निववृते नैतदशकं विज्ञातुं यदेतद्यक्षमिति ॥ १०॥
| ब्रह्म ह – ब्रह्म, देवेभ्यो – for the देवताs, विजिग्ये – won a victory, तस्य ह ब्रह्मण: – (though) due to the ब्रह्म, विजये – in the victory, देवा – देवताs, अमहीयन्त- became elated | गुरु – it is said that ब्रह्म once won a victory for the देवताs. Though the victory was due to ब्रह्म, the देवताs became elated by it. |
| त ऐक्षन्त – they thought, अस्माकम् एव – only to us, अयं – this, विजय: – victory, अस्माकम् एव – only to us, अयं – this, महिमा – glory, इति – thus, तत् – that, एषां – their (vanity), विजज्ञौ – knowing well, तेभ्य: ह – (before) them, प्रादुर्बभूव – appeared, तत् – that, न: व्यजानत – never understood, किम् – which, is, इदं – this, यक्षम् – adorable spirit, इति – thus | They thought – To us belongs the victory, to us belongs the glory. ब्रह्म, knowing their vanity, appeared before them; but they did not understand who that adorable यक्ष was. |
| ते – they, अग्निम्, अब्रुवन् – said, जातवेद – all-knower, एतद् – this, विजानीहि – know well, किम् – what, इदं – this, यक्षम् – adorable spirit, इति – thus तथा इति – thus | They said to अग्नि thus – “O जातवेद! Find out what this great यक्ष is”. (अग्नि) agreed |
| तत् – That, अभ्यद्रवत् – hastened, तम् – him, अभ्यवदत् – asked, क: – who, असि – are you, इति – thus अग्नि: वा – either अग्नि, अहं – I, अस्मि – am, इति – thus, अब्रवीत् – replied, जातवेदा – all-knower, वा – or, अहम् – I, अस्मि – am, इति – thus | अग्नि hastened to the यक्ष. The यक्ष asked him who he was and अग्नि replied ; “I am अग्नि, the all-knower”. |
| तस्मिन् – of such a nature, त्वयि – in you, किं – what, वीर्यम् – power (is there), इति – thus, अपि – even, इदम् – this, सर्वं – all, दहेयं – I can burn, यत् इदं – whichever is, पृथिव्याम् – on the earth, इति – thus | ब्रह्म, in the form of यक्ष, asked, “What power do you have, who are of such a nature?” अग्नि replied “I can even burn whatsoever there is on earth”. |
| तस्मै – before him, तृणं – blade of grass, निदधौ – placing, एतद् – this, दह – burn, इति – thus, तत् – that, उपप्रेयाय – (अग्नि) dashed, सर्वजवेन – with all power, तत् – that, न शशाक – could not, दग्धुं – to burn, स – He, तत् एव – at once, निववृते – returned, न – not, एतद् – this, अशकं – could, विज्ञातुं – to know, यत् एतद् – that which is, यक्षम्, इति – thus | He, ब्रह्म, placing a blade of grass before him said “Burn it!”. अग्नि dashed it with all its power. He could not burn it. So he returned to the देवता saying, “I could not find out who that adorable यक्ष is”. |
| अथ – then, वायुम् – (to the) वायु, अब्रुवन् – (the देवs) said, वायो – O वायु!, एतद् – this, विजानीहि – know, किम् – what, एतद् – this, यक्षम्, इति – thus तथा – as you say, इति – thus | The देवs then said to वायु, “O वायु! Find out what this great यक्ष is”. (वायु) agreed |
| तत् – that, अभ्यद्रवत् – hastened, तत् – that, अभ्यवदत् – replied, क: – who, असि – are you,इति – thus, वायु: वा – either वायु, अहम् – I,. अस्मि – am, इति – thus, अब्रवीत् – said, मातरिश्वा वा – or the mover of the skies, अहम् – I,. अस्मि – am, इति – thus | वायु hastened to the यक्ष. The यक्ष asked him who he was, and वायु replied, “I am वायु, I am really मातरिश्वा.” |
| तस्मिँन् – that, त्वयि – in you. किं – what, वीर्यम् – power, इति – this, अपि – even, इदम् – this, सर्वम् – all, आददीय – I can blow away, यत् इदम् – in this, पृथिव्याम् – earth, इति – thus | “What power resides in you?” asked the यक्ष. “Why, I can blow away everything whatever there is on earth,:”, said वायु |
| तस्मै – for him, तृणं – grass, निदधौ – placing, एतद् – this, आदत्स्व – blow away, इति – thus, तत् – that,उपप्रेयाय – having approached, सर्वजवेन – with all its might, तत् – that, न शशाक – could not, आदातुं – to move, स – He, तत् एव – then only, निववृते – returned, न – not, एतत् – this, अशकं – could, विज्ञातुं – to find, यत् एतत् – that which is, यक्षम्, इति thus | यक्ष placing a blade of grass before him said, “Blow this away”. It approached it with all its power but was not able to move it. So, it returned to the देवताs and said, “I could not find out who that great यक्ष was”. |
व्याख्या: Till now, the medium of instruction was to convey the truth using explanations. In the above verses, the supremacy of ब्रह्म is being conveyed via a story. Story states that after a युद्ध had concluded between देवता and असुर win which the देवताs won, following the victory, the देवताs erroneously attributed the victory to their own efforts thus taking them to a false self-conceit. Noticing this false idea of the देवता, and thinking, `In order that the देवताs may not be thus defeated like the असुरs, as a consequence of their vainglory, I shall, out of grace for them, favour the देवताs by removing their presumptuousness’ with this idea, It, indeed; for their sake, appeared as an object of perception; to the देवताs through an unprecedentedly wonderful and astonishing form created by ब्रह्म’s own power of माया,’ It appeared as an object of perception to the देवताs. The देवताs did not comprehend that, the ब्रह्म which had become manifest as to what this venerable, great यक्ष might be.
As is evident from the story conveyed above, when approached by यक्ष and asked by Him, neither अग्नि was able to burn a blade of glass or वायु able to below a blade of grass. And, both of them returned to इंद्र not knowing who the यक्ष was in whose presence they were unable to perform a seemingly ordinary task.
Within our शरीर too, वायु is the देवता of प्राण or मनस् while अग्नि is the देवता of वाक् – in the normal course, it does appear that these powers within the body are self-regulating and functioning and they do not need any support from outside. However, as the साधना of a साधक deepens, one realizes that these powers within the body are not independent but are under the control of something else, viz the आत्मा. This will become clearer in the later मंत्रs.
अथेन्द्रमब्रुवन्मघवन्नेतद्विजानीहि किमेतद्यक्षमिति तथेति तदभ्यद्रवत्तस्मात्तिरोदधे ॥ ११॥
स तस्मिन्नेवाकाशे स्त्रियमाजगाम बहुशोभमानामुमाँ हैमवतीं ताँहोवाच किमेतद्यक्षमिति ॥ १२॥
| अथ – then, इन्द्रम् – to इंद्र, अब्रुवन् – said, मघवन् – the chief of देवताs, एतद् – this, विजानीहि – know well, किम् – which, एतद् – this, यक्षम्, इति – thus, तथा – as you say, इति – this, तद् – thus, अभ्यद्रवत् – hastened, तस्मात् – towards it, तिरोदधे – disappeared | Then the देवताs said to इंद्र, the king of देवताs, “O मघवन्! Find out who that adorable यक्ष is.” इंद्र agreed and hastened towards the यक्ष but the यक्ष disappeared from the view. |
| स – He, तस्मिन् एव – in the very same, आकाशे – spot (place), स्त्रियम् – woman, आजगाम – came to know, बहुशोभमानाम् – extremely charming, उमाम् – उमा, हैमवतीं – daughter of the हिमवान् ताम् – (to) her, ह उवाच – said (he), किम् – which, एतद् – this, यक्षम्, इति – thus | And in that very spot, इंद्र beheld a woman, उमा, extremely charming, the daughter of the हिमवान्. इंद्र asked Her who this adorable यक्ष could be? |
व्याख्या: इंद्र is the highest of the देवताs; however, when इंद्र approaches the यक्ष, the यक्ष does not even give an audience to इंद्र – the pride of इंद्र being the highest (being the king of the देवता), the consequent dent to this pride will be the highest owing to this very reason. Says आदि शंकर – “The space, or the part of the space where that यक्ष vanished after revealing Itself, and the space where इंद्र also was at the time of the disappearance of ब्रह्म, in that very space; इंद्र, stayed on, deliberating in the mind, `What is this यक्ष who did not return like अग्नि, वायु, etc. Understanding his devotion to यक्ष, Knowledge (of ब्रह्म) made Her appearance as a woman, in the form of उमा.
This is an interesting lesson – उमा is expressed as the knowledge of ब्रह्म – and knowledge is expressed as बहुशोभमानाम् (extremely charming, beautiful), knowledge being the most fascinating of all fascinating things. And because इंद्र stayed on in that space without returning, knowledge dawned on इंद्र. She is the ज्ञानरूपिणी and one who engages with Her and perseveres with such an engagement will eventually gain the ज्ञान one has always been asking – connect with ब्रह्म.
॥ इति केनोपनिषदि तृतीयः खण्डः ॥
सा ब्रह्मेति होवाच ब्रह्मणो वा एतद्विजये महीयध्वमिति ततो हैव विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति ॥ १॥
तस्माद्वा एते देवा अतितरामिवान्यान्देवान्यदग्निर्वायुरिन्द्रस्ते ह्येनन्नेदिष्ठं पस्पर्शुस्ते ह्येनत्प्रथमो विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति ॥ २॥
तस्माद्वा इन्द्रोऽतितरामिवान्यान्देवान्स ह्येनन्नेदिष्ठं पस्पर्श स ह्येनत्प्रथमो विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति ॥ ३॥
तस्यैष आदेशो यदेतद्विद्युतो व्यद्युतदा३ इतीन् न्यमीमिषदा३ इत्यधिदैवतम् ॥ ४॥
| सा – She, ब्रह्म, इति – thus, उवाच ह – answered, ब्रह्मण: वा – ब्रह्म’s एतद् – this, विजये – in the victory, महीयध्वम् – you gained greatness, इति – thus, तत: – then, एव ह – only, विदाञ्चकार – knew (he), ब्रह्म, इति – as | गुरु – ‘ब्रह्म!’ She exclaimed, “Indeed, through victory of ब्रह्म have you gained greatness!” Then alone, he understood that the adorable यक्ष was ब्रह्म |
| तस्माद् वा – therefore, एते – these, देवा – देवताs, अतितराम् – excel, इव – as it were, अन्यान् – the other, देवान् – देवताs, यत् – which, अग्नि, वायु, इंद्र, वे हि – they alone, ए नत् – this, नेदिष्ठं – nearing (it), पस्पृशुस्त: perceived, ते हि – they were, एनत् – this, प्रथम: – the first (who), विदाञ्चकार – knew, ब्रह्म, इति – thus | Therefore, verily these देवताs viz अग्नि, वायु and इंद्र excel the other देवताs; for they approached the यक्ष the nearest and they were the first to know It as ब्रह्म |
| तस्माद् वा – therefore, इन्द्र, अतितराम् – excel, इव – as it were, अन्यान् – the other, देवान् – देवताs, स: हि – – he alone, एनत् – that, नेदिष्ठं – nearing (it), पास्पर्श – touched (perceived), स: हि – he alone, एनत् – this, प्रथम: – the first (who), विदाञ्चकार – knew, ब्रह्म, इति – thus | And therefore indeed, इंद्र excels other देवताs, for he approached the यक्ष nearest and he was the first to know the यक्ष as ब्रह्म. |
| तस्य – its, एष: – this, आदेश: – illustration (description), यदेतद् – this is, विद्युत – lighting, व्यद्युतदा – shining like lighting, इति – thus, अन्यमीमिषदा – it appeared within the twinkling of the eyes, इति – thus (is the), अधिदैवतम् – inner governing principle | This is the description of ब्रह्म (description by means of an illustration): It is shone forth like the splendour of the lightning. It disappeared within the twinkling of the eye. This is the comparison of ब्रह्म with reference to the देवs (its manifestation as the अधिदैवतम् meaning the inner governing principle of the देवs) |
व्याख्या: देव and असुर may be seen पाप and पुण्य and there is a constant battle between both of these within our शरीर as well as in the objective universe. देव may be seen as movement of अहंकार towards truth while असुर may be seen as movement away from truth (and thereby representing deepening of अहंकार). In every thought, speech and action, one may therefore express either an act aligned to the देव (and thereby lessening the अहंकार) or aligned to असुर (and thereby deepening the अहंकार). And while one may say the acts aligned to देव are beneficial and powerful, the powers aligned to the देव are in fact the power of the आत्मा within. The power, the greatness and the glory of an individual do not belong to the individual at all. They are borrowed from the आत्मा, and because of this, the individual passes for a great being, though in fact, it is not great. It is pride and conceit that make an individual feel that it is possessed of greatness, knowledge and power. This self-assertion has to be dispelled totally before the आत्मा can be realised.
And when can आत्मा be realized? The total cessation of individuality through a dissolution of the ego in knowledge is required before the achievement of Self-realisation. In this story, अग्नि stands for speech, वायु for प्राण or मनस् while इंद्र for ego or the जीव. उमा stands for ज्ञान. Neither वाक् (speech) nor प्राण or ego can understand ब्रह्म since all of them are object-oriented. But when इंद्र, the ego, approaches the ब्रह्म, it vanishes, i.e., it withdraws the form of its manifestation. It is not possible for the ego to come face to face with the form of the ब्रह्म. It would be like a salt doll entering the ocean. It would not be able to behold any form. Form shall vanish from its sight. Moreover, because the ego is the centre of vanity and pride, ब्रह्म shall not manifest itself before it. On the other hand, when the ego persists in its attempt to know this Truth, and does not get baffled, and is very persevering, ज्ञान shall dawn before it. ज्ञान is represented as उमा, because it is the शक्ति of ब्रह्म that appears first, and not the ब्रह्म itself. The first experience is not of ब्रह्म but of सत्व गुण and once a जीव becomes infested by or immersed into सत्व गुण and ego is cleansed of all its pride and conceit, ज्ञान dawns.
इंद्र speaks of the knowledge of ब्रह्म to अग्नि and वायु. It is experience within through ज्ञान that transmits itself to वाक्, मनस्, etc. The external functions are possible because of inner experience अग्नि, वायु and इंद्र are the greatest of the देवताs, because it is not possible for any other of our functions to express ब्रह्म even a little; only the वाक्, the प्राणand मनस् or the ego have some relations with ब्रह्म, though these, too, cannot express it completely.
Question may arise here – why did ब्रह्म manifest in the form of यक्ष to अग्नि and वायु but not to इंद्र? It is not necessary that ब्रह्म should manifest itself in some tremendous form to subdue the ego of a person. It shall manifest itself then and there, without fail, in such a form as is required by a particular kind of egoism. Higher egos require higher powers and lower ones lower powers for the sake of their subjugation. ब्रह्म appears to take a form, not because it has a desire to take a form, but because that form of ब्रह्म is the one called upon for manifestation by the necessities of the desires which manifest such a form as the counterpart of their egos in order to integrate themselves by getting negated through the agency of that form of manifestation. In other words, every form of experience is the expression of a need felt within. ब्रह्म appears to be comprehended in the realm of speech, thought and action. There is the feeling of knowledge of reality as long as these functions of the individual are carried on happily. But the comprehension of ब्रह्म through these individual functions is only superficial, even as अग्नि and वायु can behold the यक्ष but cannot understand it. When these individual functions are defeated and when they return ashamed, accepting their defeat, i.e., when they do not feel that they are great, and, therefore, cease from further functioning, इंद्र or the ego starts the investigation of ब्रह्म. But the ego cannot have such superficial knowledge of ब्रह्म, as the other external functions had. When the ego approaches ब्रह्म, there appears to be a loss of all knowledge, the यक्ष disappears from sight. इंद्र should thoroughly humiliate himself, the ego should perish, if the true nature of the यक्ष is to be revealed. The ego, therefore, merely appears to be less than the other functions. It appears to be not even as fortunate as the other functions who at least had the vision of the यक्ष. But in fact this vanishing of objective knowledge is a precursor to Absolute Knowledge. The process of the dissolution of personality appears like the death of all awareness, though it is the gateway to eternal awareness. The greatest bliss is preceded by the greatest pain. Absolute Unity always follows the destruction of multiplicity and duality. The object of perception should melt away, the यक्ष should vanish, if ब्रह्म is to be realised. The appearance of omniscience is a state midway between individual experience and Absolute Experience, which middle state is represented by the appearance of उमा. It is also to be noted that the यक्ष appears only after that victory of the देवताs over the असुरs, which means that knowledge is possible only after the victory of पाप over पुण्य, i.e., when the animal propensities are completely subjugated.
All the above is an explanation of ब्रह्म using the working of देवता – this approach is referred to as अधिदैवतम्. The next मंत्र explains ब्रह्म through an approach called as अध्यात्मं. Let us read on
अथाध्यात्मं यद्देतद्गच्छतीव च मनोऽनेन चैतदुपस्मरत्यभीक्ष्णँ सङ्कल्पः ॥ ५॥
तद्ध तद्वनं नाम तद्वनमित्युपासितव्यं स य एतदेवं वेदाभि हैनꣳ सर्वाणि भूतानि संवाञ्छन्ति ॥ ६॥
| अथ – now then, अध्यात्मं – (an illustration) from the microcosm, यदेतद् – this which, गच्छति इव – goes as it were, च – and, मन: – the mind, अनेन च – by this, एतद् – this, उपस्मरति – one thinks, अभीक्ष्णँ – off and on, सङ्कल्पः – (speedy) willing of the mind | Now, as regards this description from the point of view of Its manifestation as आत्मा within the body – ‘as one thinks of ब्रह्म by the mind and as speedily as the mind wills’ |
| तद् ह – this is (well known as), तद्वनं – the one who is to be meditated upon, नाम – in the name of, तद्वनम्, इति – thus as, उपासितव्यं – is to be the object of उपासना, स: – He, य: – who, एतद् – this, एव – in this way, वेदाभि – knows, ह एनम् – him, सर्वाणि – all, भूतानि – living beings, संवाञ्छन्ति – love him extremely | ब्रह्म is well-known as तद्वन (adorable to all creatures):, the one whose उपासना must be done as the आत्मा of all living beings. So, Its उपासना must be done as तद्वन:. All love him who know It thus. |
व्याख्या: अध्यात्मं looks at the relationship of जीव with ब्रह्म via the मनस्/ बुद्धि complex. ब्रह्म is the embodiment of all qualities, powers and existence. It is possible for anyone to obtain anything in any form at any time and at any place, because the substance of everything is everywhere and in every form. With whatever conception of ब्रह्म one may do उपासना on It via the mind, one experiences the form of that conception alone, to the exclusion of everything else. When mind approaches ब्रह्म via ध्यान, it approaches ब्रह्म as an object. And the fact that by that mind; a साधक repeatedly remembers intimately this ब्रह्म. Since ब्रह्म has got the mind as Its limiting adjunct, It seems to be revealed by such states of the mind as thought, memory, etc., by which It seems to be objectified. Whatever attitude we develop towards ब्रह्म, that is repaid to us in manifold forms. The fact is that it is not possible to do उपासना of ब्रह्म except by identifying oneself with it. Hence when attitudes are developed towards ब्रह्म in the process of ध्यान, they are, in fact, developed towards oneself. This is why the उपासक experiences whatever such a one superimposes upon ब्रह्म. The best kind of उपासना, however, is not to conceive of ब्रह्म as having any quality at all, i.e., to negate all qualities that the mind thinks of. Qualities limit ब्रह्म, and we get only what we think. The negation of qualities, however, discloses Truth as it is in itself, and the उपासक becomes ब्रह्म Itself.
उपासना of ब्रह्म is an attempt to become the आत्मा of all beings. This is the reason why a lover of and a उपासक of ब्रह्म becomes the centre of adoration and worship. Every being loves itself the most and adores itself as the best and the dearest. And since this dearest आत्मा is reflected through a lover of ब्रह्म, he becomes the dearest and the most adorable of all. One can relate oneself to anything and can know anything in the best possible way only when one becomes that thing. Therefore, उपासना of ब्रह्म is the effort towards obtaining and becoming everything, i. e., achieving the highest perfection in ब्रह्म.
उपनिषदं भो ब्रूहीत्युक्ता त उपनिषद्ब्राह्मीं वाव त उपनिषदमब्रूमेति ॥ ७॥
तस्यै तपो दमः कर्मेति प्रतिष्ठा वेदाः सर्वाङ्गानि सत्यमायतनम् ॥ ८॥
| उपनिषदं – (the knowledge of) उपनिषद्, भो: Sir, ब्रूहि – tell (me) teach me), इति – thus, उक्ता – has been said, ते – to you, उपनिषद् ब्राह्मीं – the secret knowledge of ब्रह्म, वाव ते – to you, उपनिषदम् – that knowledge, अब्रूम – we have imparted, इति – thus | Disciple – Sir, teach me the secret knowledge. गुरु – The secret knowledge has been imparted to you. Verily, we have imparted the secret knowledge of ब्रह्म to you. |
| तस्यै – of it, तप: – austerity, दमः – self-control, कर्म – (dedicated) work/ action, इति – thus, प्रतिष्ठा – (are the) foundation, वेदाः – the वेदs, सर्वाङ्गानि – are the limbs (of It), सत्यम् – Truth is, आयतनम् – its abode | तप (concentration, discipline, austerity), दम (restraint, self-control) and कर्म (dedicated work), these are the foundations of It (meaning ब्रह्म), the secret knowledge of the उपनिषद्s. The वेद are its limbs and Truth is its foundation (or abode). |
व्याख्या: The question raised by the disciple seems odd – after a detailed instruction on ब्रह्म has already been given, why is the disciple again asking for knowledge of ब्रह्म? Says आदि शंकर that the question raised by the disciple needs to be understood in this way – “Does the secret teaching already imparted need anything as an accessory, or does it not need any? If it does, tell me of the secret teaching with regard to that needed accessory.”
Knowledge, as imparted by the वेद, dawns on one whose mind has been purified by तप, etc., either in this life or in many past ones. It is found that the knowledge of ब्रह्म arises in a man who has attained the requisite holiness by means of purification of the heart through these. For it is a matter of experience that, even though
ब्रह्म is spoken of, there is either non-comprehension or miscomprehension in the case of one who has not been purged of his पाप कर्म. Thus, it is necessary for a साधक to undertake acts like तप, practice दम and perform निष्काम कर्म (or धर्म) as conveyed in the शस्त्र – these bring about the necessary चित्त शुद्धि which is essential to pursue उपासना and live a life of ज्ञान योग in higher stages of साधना – that is the message here.
The four वेद; and all the six अंग (शिक्षा, व्याकरण, ज्योतिष, etc) are indicated here as limbs of ब्रह्म. The वेद are the legs because they reveal both कर्म & ज्ञान; and all the अंगare so because they are meant for the protection of the वेद. सत्य is the आयतनम्, the abode, where the secret teaching resides. सत्य means freedom from deceit and crookedness in speech, mind, and body; for knowledge abides in those who are free from deceit and who are holy, and not in those who are आसुरी by nature and are deceitful, Therefore सत्य is imagined as the abode.
यो वा एतामेवं वेदापहत्य पाप्मानमनन्ते स्वर्गे लोके ज्येये प्रतितिष्ठति प्रतितिष्ठति ॥ ९॥
| य: वा – verily he who, एताम – this, एवं – thus, वेद – knows, अपहत्य – destroying, पाप्मानम् – पाप, अनन्ते – limitless (boundless), स्वर्गे – heavenly, लोके – realm (bliss), ज्येये – in the Highest, प्रतितिष्ठति – (he) is established, प्रतितिष्ठति – is established (certainly) | Verily he who knows It thus, destroys पाप and is established in ब्रह्म, the boundless, the Highest and the Blissful – yes, he is established in it |
व्याख्या: Says आदि शंकर – “It is mentioned at the end by way of a formal conclusion:-(Such a knower), dispelling पाप, shaking off the seed of mundane existence constituted by अज्ञान , काम and कर्म remains firmly seated in the boundless स्वर्ग लोक. स्वर्ग लोक means in ब्रह्म who is all Bliss. Being qualified by the word अनन्त (boundless), the word स्वर्ग does not mean heaven. The text says, “in the highest, that which is greater than all”, in one’s own आत्मा which is boundless in the primary sense. The अर्थ here is that such a one does not again return to this लोक.
॥ इति केनोपनिषदि चतुर्थः खण्डः ॥
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 ॥
॥ इति केनोपनिषत् ॥
Adhyatma Writings 