Kathopanishad- Verse 8 - kathopanishad-1-2-8-na nareṇāvareṇa

Kathopanishad – Part 1 – Canto 2 – Verse 8 « »

न नरेणावरेण प्रोक्त एष
सुविज्ञेयो बहुधा चिन्त्यमानः ।
अनन्यप्रोक्ते गतिरत्र नास्ति
अणीयान् ह्यतर्क्यमणुप्रमाणात् ॥ ८॥

na nareṇāvareṇa prokta eṣa
suvijñeyo bahudhā cintyamānaḥ .
ananyaprokte gatiratra nāsti
aṇīyān hyatarkyamaṇupramāṇāt .. 8..

8 Atman, when taught by an inferior person, is not easily comprehended, because It is diversely regarded by disputants. But when It is taught by him who has become one with Atman, there can remain no more doubt about It. Atman is subtler than the subtlest and not to be known through argument.

Table of Contents

Sri Shankara’s Commentary (Bhashya) translated by S. Sitarama Sastri

Why so? Because, taught by a man of worldly understanding, the âtman which you ask me about, is not easily knowable, because he is variously discussed by disputants, whether he exists or not, whether he is a doer or not, whether he is pure or not and so forth. How then can he be well-known is explained. If the âtman is taught by a preceptor who is free from the notion of duality and who has become one with the Brahman, none of the various doubts exists, such as whether he is or not, etc., because the nature of the âtman absorbs all such doubtful alternatives; or, the text may be thus construed: when the âtman, which is none other than his own Self, is taught, there is no knowing any other thing; for, there is no other knowable; for, the knowledge of the oneness of the âtman is the highest state of knowledge. Therefore, there being nothing else to be known, knowledge stops there; or, Gatiratra nâsti, may mean there is no travelling into Samsâra when the âtman, not distinct from the Self has been taught; because, emancipation, the fruit of such knowledge, is its necessary concomitant. Or, it may mean that when the âtman is explained by a preceptor who is become one with the Brahman to be taught, there is no failing to understand it. The meaning is that as in the case of the preceptor, the hearer’s knowledge of the Brahman will take the form, ‘I am not other than that.’ Thus the âtman can easily be known when explained by the preceptor versed in the âgamâs, to be no other than one’s self; otherwise, the âtman will be subtler than even the subtle and cannot be known by dint of one’s mere intelligent reasoning When the âtman is established by argument to be something subtle by one man, another argues it to be subtler than that and another infers it to be something yet subtler; for, there is no finality reached by mere argumentation.

Commentary by Swami Krishnananda of the great Divine Life Society

The conversation between Nachiketas and Yama continues. This great knowledge, this vidya, this wisdom, this truth is difficult even to hear of. Many in the world have not the opportunity of even listening to what this truth can be, and there are many who listen but are not able to comprehend the meaning of what they are hearing. A competent teacher is a miracle, and a competent student is also a miracle. One who knows this is a wonder, being taught by a teacher who is also a wonder.

Na nareṇāvareṇa proktā eṣa suvijñeyo bahudhā cintyamānaḥ: ananya-prokte gatir atra nāsty aṇīyān hy atarkyam aṇupramāṇāt (1.2.8): This cannot be known unless it is taught by a person who is here designated as ananya. The word ananya also occurs in the Bhagavad Gita. Ananyāś cintayanto māṁ ye janāḥ paryupāsate, teṣāṁ nityābhiyuktāṇāṁ yogakṣemaṁ vahāmyaham (B.G. 9.22): “He who undividedly contemplates on Me.” Here ananya means ‘a person who is non-separate’. Anya means ‘different’ or ‘separate’; ananya means ‘not separate’, ‘not distant’, ‘not isolated from’. Ananya-prokte gatir atra: There is no hope for the student unless he is initiated or taught by one who is ananya, who is non-different from that which he teaches. A professorial knowledge is not what is meant here, because learning of an academic type is not necessarily a part of the very life and existence of the academician. Knowledge has to be non-different from the person who wields this knowledge. It is not enough if we know; we have to be that very thing which we know. Knowledge has to be non-separate from us, and we have to be non-separate from what we know. The knowledge of Truth should be the very essence of our existence. We are an embodiment of that great wisdom which we are imparting to the student. Otherwise, if we stand apart from the knowledge, the knowledge will be there in the study or in the books, and it will not be there in us. If the knowledge that emanates from us in the form of instruction is not an emanation of our own being but it is a modulation of language, an arrangement of words in a linguistic style, that knowledge will not be of any utility, because what counts finally is the being of the person, rather than the words of the person.

The knowledge of the Guru, the teacher, is a ray, a light that emanates from the very existence of the Guru, or the teacher. The knowledge is nothing but an illumination of the teacher. Thus is a possibility of knowing what Truth is. There is no way of knowing it: gatir atra nāsty. The Purusha Sukta says nānyaḥ panthā vidyate’yanāya: Unless we know this Purusha as non-separate from us, there is no way, no hope for us. In a similar way it is said gatir atra nāsty: There is no possibility of achievement of any kind unless one is instructed by a person who is ananya, non-different from Truth itself, virtually a brahmanishta. One who is established in the knowledge of Brahman is a brahmanishta. Otherwise, if it is taught by an ordinary man, it is difficult to understand.

Na nareṇāvareṇa proktā eṣa suvijñeya means ‘the lower category of people’. If a lesser person than the one who is identical with knowledge is our teacher, that knowledge will not help us because the lesser person, who may be helpful to us in gaining a job-oriented education, will not have the knowledge for enlightenment. Na nareṇāvareṇa proktā eṣa suvijñeyo bahudhā cintyamānaḥ: We may go on scratching our head and thinking of it any number of times; if we have been initiated or instructed by a lesser person than the one mentioned here, there is no likelihood of our actually entering into the substance of this knowledge. Why is it so?

Aṇīyān hy atarkyam aṇupramānāt: Subtler than the atom is the subtlety of this knowledge. Gross words, words that we use in language for outer expression, cannot become adequate vehicles to convey this knowledge which is subtler than even the subtlest sound. Of all principles in the world, sound can be regarded as the subtlest. Light is also very subtle. But here is something subtler than light and heat, subtler than sound, subtler than anything that we can think of in terms of the five elements—sabda, sparsha, rupa, rasa, gandha—on account of the intense secrecy and atomic character. Here ‘atomic character’ does not mean a physical characteristic that is attributed to the Atman, but the impossibility of perceiving it as an object of the senses. Only that which is physically characterised can be seen by the sense organs. It is superphysical. Its subtlety lies in the fact that it is not an object of knowledge; it is knowledge itself. Because of this reason, ordinary secular instruction of any kind will not be of any utility here. We have to be instructed by one who is veritably a brahmanishta. Only a Godman can teach us.

Links
Various resources on the Kathopanishad
Upanishad Series – Katopanishad Commentary by Swami Chinmayananda

Kathopanishad – Verse 8 – kathopanishad-1-2-8-na nareṇāvareṇa – In Sanskrit with English Transliteration, Meaning and Commentary by Adi Shankaracharya (Sankara Bhashya) – Katha-1-2-8