Kena-1-3-na tatra

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.

Links
Various resources on the Kenopanishad
Upanishad Series – Kena Upanishad Commentary by Swami Chinmayananda