केन प्राणः प्रथमः प्रैति युक्तः ।
केनेषितां वाचमिमां वदन्ति
चक्षुः श्रोत्रं क उ देवो युनक्ति ॥ १॥
kena prāṇaḥ prathamaḥ praiti yuktaḥ .
keneṣitāṃ vācamimāṃ vadanti
cakṣuḥ śrotraṃ ka u devo yunakti .. 1..
Kenopanishad Introduction
Kenopanishad Invocation
Chapter 1 – Verse 1
Chapter 1 – Verse 2
Chapter 1 – Verse 3
Chapter 1 – Verse 4
Chapter 1 – Verse 5
Chapter 1 – Verse 6
Chapter 1 – Verse 7
Chapter 1 – Verse 8
Chapter 1 – Verse 9
Chapter 2 – Verse 1
Chapter 2 – Verse 2
Chapter 2 – Verse 3
Chapter 2 – Verse 4
Chapter 2 – Verse 5
Chapter 3 – Verse 1
Chapter 3 – Verse 2
Chapter 3 – Verse 3
Chapter 3 – Verse 4
Chapter 3 – Verse 5
Chapter 3 – Verse 6
Chapter 3 – Verse 7
Chapter 3 – Verse 8
Chapter 3 – Verse 9
Chapter 3 – Verse 10
Chapter 3 – Verse 11
Chapter 3 – Verse 12
Chapter 4 – Verse 1
Chapter 4 – Verse 2
Chapter 4 – Verse 3
Chapter 4 – Verse 4
Chapter 4 – Verse 5
Chapter 4 – Verse 6
Chapter 4 – Verse 7
Chapter 4 – Verse 8
Chapter 4 – Verse 9
Kenopanishad Closing Prayer
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 – Verse 1 – Kena-1-1-oṃ keneṣitaṃ – In Sanskrit with English Transliteration, Meaning and Commentary by Adi Shankaracharya (Sankara Bhashya) and Swami Sivananda – Kena-1-1