इति शुश्रुम पूर्वेषां ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे ॥ ४॥
iti śuśruma pūrveṣāṃ ye nastadvyācacakṣire .. 4..
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
।।1.1.5।। 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 – Verse 4 – Kena-1-4-anyadeva – In Sanskrit with English Transliteration, Meaning and Commentary by Adi Shankaracharya (Sankara Bhashya) and Swami Sivananda – Kena-1-4