Kaṭha Upaniṣad 89

89

kasmāt ? na hi nareṇa manuṣyeṇāvareṇa prokto 'vareṇa hīnena prakṛtabuddhinety etad ukta eṣa ātmā yaṃ tvaṃ māṃ pṛcchasi / na hi suṣṭhu samyag vijñeyo vijñātuṃ śakyo yasmād bahudhāsti nāsti kartākartā śuddho 'śuddha ity ādyanekadhā cintyamāno vādibhiḥ / kathaṃ punaḥ suvijñeya ity ucyate -- ananyaprokte 'nanyenāpṛthag darśinācāryeṇa pratipādyabrahmātmabhūtena prokta ukta ātmani gatir anekadhāstināstīty ādilakṣaṇā cintā gatir atrāsminn ātmani nāsti na vidyate sarvavikalpagatipratyastamitatvād ātmanaḥ / athavā svātmabhūte 'nanyasminn ātmani prokte 'nanyaprokte gatir atrānyāvagatir nāsti jñeyasyānyasyābhāvāt / jñānasya hy eṣā parā niṣṭhā yad ātmaikatvavijñānam / ato 'vagantavyābhāvān na gatir atrāvaśiṣyate, saṃsāragatir vātra nāsty ananya ātmani prokte nāntarīyakatvāt tadvijñānaphalasya mokṣasya / athavā procyamānabrahmātmabhūtenācāryeṇānanyatayā prokta ātmany agatir anavabodho 'parijñānam atra nāsti / bhavaty evāvagatis tadviṣayā śrotus tadananyo 'ham ity ācāryasyevety arthaḥ / evaṃ suvijñeya ātmāgamavatācāryeṇānanyatayā proktaḥ / itarathā hy aṇīyān aṇutaro 'ṇupramāṇād api sampadyata ātmā / atarkyam atarkyaḥ svabuddhyabhyūhena kevalena tarkeṇa / tarkyamāṇe 'ṇuparimāṇe kenacit sthāpita ātmani tato 'ṇutaram anyo 'bhyūhati, tato 'py anyo 'ṇutaram, iti na hi tarkasya niṣṭhā kvacid vidyate ///1,2.8 //

Shankara’s Commentary:
Com.—Why so? Because, taught by a man of worldly understanding, the atman 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 atman 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 atman absorbs all such doubtful alternatives; or, the text may be thus construed: when the atman, 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 atman is the highest state of knowledge. Therefore, there being nothing else to be known, knowledge stops there; or, Gatiratra nasti, may mean there is no travelling into Samsara when the atman, 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 atman 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 atman can easily be known when explained by the preceptor versed in the agamas, to be no other than one’s self; otherwise, the atman will be subtler than even the subtle and cannot be known by dint of one’s mere intelligent reasoning When the atman 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.