Kena Upanishad 2: dvitīya khaṇḍaḥ

2.p1

dvitīya khaṇḍa

2.p2

evaṃ heyopādeyaviparītastvamātmā brahmeti pratyāyitaḥ śiṣyaḥ ahameva brahmeti suṣṭhu vedāhamiti mā gṛhṇīyādityāśayādāhācāryaḥ śiṣyabuddhivicālanārtham--yadītyādi|

Shankara’s Commentary:
Com.—The preceptor, fearing that, the disciple persuaded to believe that lie is the Atman, i.e., the Brahman not fit to be abandoned or acquired, might think ‘I certainly am the Brahman, I know myself well,’ says for the purpose of dispelling that notion of the disciple Yadi, etc. Then, is not an accurate conviction ‘I know (Brahman) well’ desirable? Certainly it is desirable. But an accurate conviction is not of the form ‘I know (Brahman) well.’ If what should be known becomes an object of sense-perception then it is possible to know it well, just as an inflammable substance can be consumed by the consuming fire. But the essence of fire cannot itself be so consumed. The well-ascertained drift of all Vedanta is that the Self (Atman) of every knower is the Brahman. The same has been here explained in the form of question and answer by the text ‘It is the ear of the ear, etc.’ The same has been still more clearly determined by the text: “What is not enlightened by speech, etc.” The traditional theory of those who know the Brahman has also been declared by tbe text: “It is something different from both the known and the unknown.” This Upanishad will also conclude by saying “It is unknown to those who know, and known to those who do not know.” It is, therefore, certainly proper that the notion of the disciple, ‘I know Brahman well’ should be dispelled. It is evident that the knower cannot be known by tbe knower, just as fire cannot be consumed by fire. There is no knower other than th e Brahman, to whom the Brahman can be a knowable, distinct from himself. By the Sruti: “There is no knower other than that,” the existence of another knower is denied. The belief, therefore, ‘I know Brahman well’ is an illusion. Therefore well did the preceptor say ‘Yadi, etc.’

2.p3

nanviṣṭaiva suvedāham iti niścitā pratipattiḥ|

2.p4

satyam, iṣṭā niścitā pratipattiḥ; na hi suvedāhamiti| yaddhi vedyaṃ vastu miṣayībhavati, tatsuṣṭhu

2.1

vedituṃ śakyam dāhyamiva dagdhum agnerdagdhuḥ na tvagneḥ svarūpameva| sarvasya hi vedituḥ svātmā brahneti sarvavedāntānāṃ suniścito'rthaḥ| iha ca tadeva pratipāditaṃ praśnaprativacanoktyā ’śrotrasya śrotram’ ityādyāyā| ’yadvācānabhyuditam’ iti ca viśeṣato'vadhāritam| brahmavitsampradāyaniśvayaśroktaḥ ’anyadeva tadviditādatho aviditādadhi’ iti| upanyastamupasaṃhariṣyati ca ’avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām’ iti| tasmādyuktameva śiṣyasya suvedeti buddhiṃ nirākartum|
na hi veditā vediturvedituṃ śakyaḥ agnirdagdhuriva dagdhumagneḥ| na cānyo veditā brahmaṇo'sti yasya vedyamanyatsyāhrahma| "nānyadato'sti viśātṛ" (bṛ.u.3/8/11) ityanyo vijñātā pratiṣighyate|
tasmāt suṣṭhu vedāhaṃ brahmeti pratipattirmithyaiva tasmād yuktamevāhācāryo yadītyādi|
yadi manyase suvedeti daharamevāpi nūnam| tvaṃ vettha brahmaṇo rūpaṃ yadasya tvaṃ yadasya ca deveṣevatha nu mīmam̐syameva te manye viditam ||

2.1.p1

yadi kadācid manyase muvedeti suṣṭhu vedāhaṃ brahmeti| kadācidyathāśrutaṃ durvijñeyamapi kṣīṇadoṣaḥ sumedhāḥ kaścit pratipadyate kaścinneti sāśaṅkamāha yadityādi| ddaṣṭaṃ ca "ya eṣo'kṣiṇi puruṣo ddaśyata eṣa ātmeti hovācaitadamṛtamabhayametahrahma" (chā.u.8/7/4) ityukte prājāpatyaḥ paṇḍito'pyasurarāḍ virocanaḥ svabhāvadoṣavaśādanupadyamānamapi viparītamarthaṃ śarīramātmeti pratipannaḥ| tathendro devarāṭ sakṛddvistriruktaṃ cāpratipadyamānaḥ svabhāvadoṣakṣayamapekṣya caturthe paryāye prathamoktameva brahma pratipannavān| loke'pi ekasmād guroḥ śṛṇvatāṃ kaścidyathāvatpratipadyate kaścidayathābat kaścidviparītaṃ kaścinna pratipadyate| kimu vaktavyamatīndriyamātmatacvam? atra hi vipratipannāḥ sadasadvādinastārkikāḥ sarve| tasmādviditaṃ brahmeti suniścitoktamapi viṣamapratipattitvād yadi manyase ityādi sāśaṅkaṃ vacanaṃ yuktameva ācāryasya| daharam alpamevāpi nūnaṃ tvaṃ vettha jāniṣe brahmaṇo rūpam|

‘Vadi’ means ‘if perchance.’ ‘Suveda’ means ‘I know Brahman well.’ Because some one whose sins have been purged and who is really intelligent may properly understand what is taught and others not, the preceptor begins with a doubt ‘Yadi, etc.’ Such cases have also been found to occur. When he was informed ‘This purusha who is seen in the eye, this is the Atman; this is the immortal, fearless self,’ Virochana, the son of Prajapati and the lord of the Asuras, though intelligent, misinterpreted this instruction, on account of his natural defects and understood that the body was the Atman. Similarly, Indra, the lord of the Devas, not being able to comprehend the Brahman, at the first, second and third instructions, did, at the fourth, his natural faults having been removed, comprehend the very Brahman that he was first taught. It has been found in the world also, that, of disciples receiving instruction from the same preceptor, some understand him properly, some misinterpret his teaching, some interpret it into the exact contrary of the teacher’s view and some do not understand it at all. What more need we say of the knowledge of the Atman which is beyond the reach of the senses. On this point, all logicians, with their theories of Sat and Asat, are in conflict. The doubt, therefore, expressed in ‘Yadi manyase,’ etc., with which the preceptor begins his discourse is certainly appropriate, considering that the disciples, in spite of the instruction that the Brahman is unknowable, might have misunderstood him.

‘Dahara’ means ‘little’; ‘Vettha’ Means ‘knowest’; i.e., thou knowest surely little of Brahman’s form. Has Brahman then many forms, great and little, that it is said ‘daharam, etc.’? Quite so; many, indeed, are the forms of Brahman produced by conditions of name and form, but none in reality. By nature, as the Sruti says, it is without sound, touch, form, destruction; likewise, tasteless,odourless, and eternal. Thus with sound, etc., form is denied. But it may be said that, as that by which a thing is defined, is its rupa or form, the peculiar attribute of Brahman by which it is defined, may be said to be its form. We thus answer: Intelligence cannot be the quality of the earth, etc., either of one or all of them together, or under any modifications. Similarly, it cannot he the quality of the sensory organs, like the ear, etc., or of the mind. ‘Brahmano rupam,’ Brahman is defined by its intelligence. Hence it is said: “Brahman is knowledge and bliss;’ ‘Brahman is dense with knowledge’; ‘Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinity’; thus the form of Brahman has been defined. Truly so; but even there, the Brahman is defined by the words ‘knowledge, etc.,’ only with reference to the limitations of mind, body and senses, because of its apparent adaptations to the exapansion, contraction, extinction, etc., of the body, etc., and not on account of its own essence. According to its essence it will be concluded in the subsequent portion of this Upanishad that it is unknown to those who know, and known to those who do not know. The expression ‘Yadasya brahmano rupam’ should be read along with what precedes it. Not only dost thou know little of the form of Brahman. when thou knowest it, as conditioned in man, but also when thou knowest it as conditioned in the Devas; so I think. Even the form of Brahman as it exists in the Devas is little, because it is limited by condition. The gist is that the Brahman limited by no conditions or attributes, passive, infinite, one without a second, known as Bhuma, eternal, cannot be known well. This being so, I think that you have yet to know Brahman by enquiry.’

2.1.p2

kimanekāni brahmaṇo rūpāṇi mahāntyarbhakāṇi ca, yenāha daharamevetyādi?

2.1.p3

bāḍham;anekāni hi nāmarūpopādhikṛtāni brahmaṇo rūpāṇi, na svataḥ| svatastu "aśabdamasparśamarūpamavyayaṃ tathārasaṃ nityamagandhavacca yat" (ka.u.1/3/15, nṛsiṃhottara, 1, muktika.2/72) iti śabdādibhiḥ saha rūpāṇi pratiṣidhyante|

2.1.p4

nanu yenaiva dharmeṇa yadrūpyate tadeva tasya svarūpamiti brahmaṇo'pi yena viśeṣeṇa nirūpaṇaṃ tadeva tasya svarūpaṃ syāt| ata ucyate--caitanyaṃ pṛthivyādīnāmanyatamasya sarveṣāṃ vipariṇatānāṃ vā dharmo na bhavatīti brahmaṇo rūpamiti brahma rūpyate caitanyena| tathā coktam "vijñānamānandaṃ brahma" (bṛ.u.3/9/28) "vijñānadhana eva" (bṛ.u.2/4/12) "satyaṃ jñānamanantaṃ brahma" (tai.u.2/1/1) "prajñānaṃ

2.1-2

brahma"(ai.u.5/3) iti ca brahmaṇo rūpaṃ nirdiṣṭaṃ śrutiṣu|
satyamevam; tathāpi tadantaḥ karaṇadehendriyopādhidvāreṇaiva vijñānādiśabdairnirdiśyate, tadanukāritvād dehādivṛddhisaṅkocacchedādiṣu nāśeṣu ca, na svataḥ| svatastu "avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām" (ke.u.2/3) iti sthitaṃ bhaviṣyati|
yadasya brahmaṇo rūpamiti pūrveṇa sambandhaḥ| na kevalamadhyātmopādhiparicchinnasyāsya brahmaṇo rūpaṃ tvamalpaṃ vettha; yadapyadhidaivatopādhiparicchinnasyāsya brahmaṇo rūpaṃ deveṣu vettha tvam tadapi nūnaṃ daharameva vettha iti manye'ham| yadadhyātmaṃ yadyapi deveṣu tadapi copādhiparicchinnatvādaharatvānna nivartate| yattu vidhvastasarvopādhiviśeṣaṃ śāntam anantamekamadvaitaṃ bhūmākhyaṃ nityaṃ brahma, na tatsuvedhamityabhiprāyaḥ|
yata evam atha nu tasmāt manye adyāpi mīmāṃsyaṃ vicāryameva te tava brahma| evamācāryoktaḥ śiṣya ekānte upaviṣṭaḥ samāhitaḥ san, yathoktamācāryeṇa āgamamarthato vicārya, tarkataśva nirdhārya, svānubhavaṃ kṛtvā, ācāryasakāśamupagamya uvāca--manye'hamathedānīṃ viditaṃ brahmeti ||

2.2

kathamiti, śruṇu--
1.2.2
nāhaṃ manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca| yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda ca ||

2.2-2

na ahaṃ manye suvedeti, naivāhaṃ manye suveda brahmeti| naiva tarhi viditaṃ tvayā brahmetyukte āha--no na vedeti veda ca| veda ceti ca śabdānna veda ca|
nanu vipratiṣiddhaṃ nāhaṃ manye suvedeti, no na vedeti, veda ca iti| yadi na manyase suvedeti, kathaṃ manyase veda ceti| atha manyase vedaiveti, kathaṃ na manyase suvedeti| ekaṃ vastu yena jñāyate, tenaiva tadeva vastu na suvijñāyata iti vipratiṣiddhaṃ saṃśayaviparyayau varjayitvā| na ca brahma saṃśayitatvena jñeyaṃ viparītatvena veti niyantuṃ śakyam| saṃśayaviparyayau hi sarvatrānarthakaratvenaiva prasiddhau|
evamācāryeṇa vicālyamāno'pi śiṣyo na vicacāla, ’anyadeva tadviditādatho aviditādadhi’ityācāryoktāgamasampradāyabalāt upapattyanubhavabalācca; jagarja ca brahmavidyāyāṃ dhḍhaniścayatāṃ darśayannātmanaḥ| kathamityucyate--yo yaḥ kaścid naḥ asmākaṃ sabrahmacāriṇāṃ madhye tanmaduktaṃ vacanaṃ tacvato veda, sa tahrahma veda|
kiṃ punastadvacanamityata āha no na vedeti veda ca iti| yadeva ’anyadeva tadviditādatho aviditādadhi’ ityuktam, tadeva vastu anumānānubhavābhyāṃ saṃyojya niścitaṃ vākyāntareṇa no na vedeti veda ca ityavocat ācāryabuddhisaṃvādārthaṃ mandabuddhigrahaṇavyapohārthaṃ ca| tathā ca garjitamupapannaṃ bhavati ’yo nastadveda tadveta’ iti ||

2.2-2.p1

śiṣyācāryasaṃvādātpratinivṛcya svena rūpeṇa śrutiḥ samastasaṃvādanirvṛttamarthameva bodhayati--yasyāmatamityādinā--

11. It is Known to him to whom it is Unknown;. he knows it not to whom it is known. (It is) Unknown to those who know, and Known to those who do not know. (11)

2.3

1.2.3
yasyāmataṃ tasya mataṃ sataṃ yasya na veda saḥ| avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām ||

2.3.p1

yasya brahmavidaḥ amatam avijñātam aviditaṃ brahmeti matam abhiprāyaḥ niścayaḥ, tasya mataṃ

Shankara’s Commentary:
Com.—Turning from the concurring views of the preceptor and the disciple, the Sruti speaking for itself conveys in this text the view about which there is no disagreement. The purport is that to the knower of the Brahman whose firm conviction is that the Brahman is unknowable, the Brahman is well known. But he, whose conviction is that the Brahman is known by him, certainly knows not the Brahman. The latter half of the text only states those two distinct conclusions of the wise and ignorant man more emphatically. To those who know well, the Brahman is certainly (a thing) unknown; but to those w ho do not see well, i.e., who confound the Atman with the sensory organs, the mind and the conditioned intelligence [ Buddhi ], Brahman is certainly not known, but not to those who are extremely ignorant; for, in the case of these, the thought ‘Brahman is known by us’ never arises. In the case of those who find the Atman in the conditioned organs of sense, mind and intelligence, the false notion ‘I know Brahman’ is quite possible, because they cannot discriminate between Brahman and these conditions and because the conditions of intelligence, etc., are known to them. It is to show that such knowledge of the Brahman is fallacious that the latter half of the text is introduced. Or, the latter half ‘Avijnatam, etc..’ may be construed as furnishing a reason for the view propounded in the former.

2.3-2

jñātaṃ samyag brahmetyabhiprāyaḥ| yasya punaḥ mataṃ jñātaṃ viditaṃ mayā brahmeti niścayaḥ, na vedaiva saḥ na brahma vijānāti saḥ|
vidvadaviduṣoryathoktau pakṣau avadhārayati--avijñātaṃ vijānatāmiti, avijñātam avatam aviditameva brahma vijānatāṃ samyagviditavatāmityetat| vijñātaṃ viditaṃ brahma avijānatām, asamyagdarśinām, indriyamanobuddhiṣvevātmadarśināmityarthaḥ; na tvatyantamevāvyutpannabuddhīnām| na hi teṣāṃ vijñātam asmābhirbrahmeti matirbhavati| indriyamanobuddhayupādhiṣvātmadarśināṃ tu brahmopādhivivekānupalambhāt, buddhayādyupādheśva vijñātatvād viditaṃ brahmetyupapadyate bhrāntirityato'samyagdarśanaṃ pūrvapakṣatvenopanyasyate--vijñātamavijānatāmiti| athavā hetvartha uttarārdho'vijñātamityādiḥ ||

2.3-2.p1

’avijñātaṃ vijānatām’ ityavadhṛtam| yadi brahmātyantam evāvijñātam, laukikānāṃ brahmavidāṃ cāviśeṣaḥ prāptaḥ| ’avijñātaṃ vijānatām’iti ca parasparaviruddham| kathaṃ tu tadbrahma samyagviditaṃ bhavatītyevamarthamāha--

2.4

1.2.4
pratibodhaviditaṃ matamamṛtatvaṃ hi vindate| ātmanā vindate vīryaṃ vidyayā vindate'mṛtam ||

12. (The Brahman) is known well, when it is known as the witness of every state of consciousness; for (by such knowledge) one attains immortality. By his Self he attains strength and by knowledge, immortality.

2.4.p1

pratibodhaviditaṃ bodhaṃ bodhaṃ pratividitam| bodhaśabdena bauddhāḥ pratyayā ucyante| sarve pratyayā viṣayībhavanti yasya sa ātmā sarvabodhānprati budhyate| sarvapratyayadarśī cicchaktisvarūpamātraḥ pratyayaireva pratyayeṣvaviśiṣṭatayā lakṣyate; nānyaddvāramantarātmano vijñānāya|

Shankara’s Commentary:
Com.—It has been settled that it is unknown to those who know. If Brahman he not known at all, it will then come to this, that there is no difference between the worldly-minded and those who know the Brahman. To say that It is unknown to those who know is also a contradiction, flow then could that Brahman he well-known? This is explained in this text, ‘Pratibodhaviditam’ means ‘known in respect of every state of consciousness.’ By the word ‘bodha’ is meant ‘mental perception.’ That by which all states of consciousness are perceived like objects is the Atman. He knows and sees all states of consciousness, being by nature nothing hut intelligence and is indicated by these states of consciousness, as blended with every one of them. There is no other way by which the inner Atman could be known. Therefore when the Brahman is known as the witness of all states of consciousness, then it is known well. Being the witness of all states of consciousness, it will he clear that it is intelligence in its essence, subject to neither birth nor death, eternal, pure, unconditioned, and one in all things, because there is no difference in its essence, just as in the essence of the Akas, in a vessel or mountain cave, etc. The drift of the passage from the Agamas [traditions] is that the Brahman is other than both the known and the unknown. It is this pure Atman that will be described at the close of the Upanishad. Another Sruti says “He is the seer of the eye, the hearer of the ear, the thinker of thought, and the knower of knowledge.” But some explain the expression ‘Pratibodhaviditam’ in the text as meaning ‘known by its defining attribute of knowledge,’ on the view that Brahman is the author of the act of knowing and that Brahman as such author is known by its activity in knowing,’ just as the wind is known as that which shakes the branches of the trees. In this view the Atman is an unintelligent substance having the power to know and not intelligence itself. Consciousness is produced and is destroyed. When consciousness is produced, then the Atman is associated with it; but when it is destroyed, the Atman, dissociated from consciousness, becomes a mere unintelligent substance. Such being the case, it is not possible to get over the objection that the Atman is rendered changeable in its nature, composed of parts, transient, impure, etc. Again according to the followers of Kanada consciousness is said to be produced by the combination of the Atman and the mind and to adhere to the Atman. Therefore, the Atman possesses the attribute of knowledge but is not subject to modifications. It simply becomes a substance just like a pot made red. Even on this theory the Brahman is reduced to an unintelligent substance and therefore, the Srutis ‘Brahman is knowledge and bliss, etc.,’ would be set at naught. Moreover the Atman having no parts and being omnipresent and, therefore, ever connected (with the mind), the impossibility of laying down a law regulating the origin of recollection is an insurmountable objection.

2.4.p2

ataḥ pratyayapratyagātmatayā viditaṃ brahma yadā, tadā tanmataṃ tat samyagdarśanamityarthaḥ sarvapratyayadarśitve copajananāpāyavarjitaddaksvarūpatā nityatvaṃ viśuddhasvarūpatvamātmatvaṃ nirviśeṣataikatvaṃ ca sarvabhūteṣu siddhaṃ bhavet; lakṣaṇabhedābhāvādvayomna iva ghaṭagiriguhādiṣu| viditāviditābhyāmanyadbrahmetyāgamavākyārtha evaṃ pariśuddha evopasaṃhṛto bhavati| "ddaṣṭerdraṣṭā śruteḥ śrotā matermantā vijñātervijñātā" iti hi śrutyantaram|

2.4.p3

yadā punarbodhakriyākarteti bodhakriyālakṣaṇena tatkartāraṃ vijānātīti bodhalakṣaṇena viditaṃ pratibodhaviditamiti vyākhyāyate, yathā yo vṛkṣaśākhāścālayati sa vāyuriti tadvat; tadā bodhakriyāśaktimānātmā dravyam, na bodhasvarūpa eva| bodhastu jāyate vinaśyati ca| yadā bodho jāyate, tadā bodhakriyayā saviśeṣaḥ| yadā bodho naśyati, tadā naṣṭabodho dravyamātraṃ nirviśeṣaḥ| tatraivaṃ sati vikriyātmakaḥ sāvayavo'nityo'śuddha ityādayo doṣā na parihartuṃ śakyante|

2.4.p4

yadapi kāṇādānām ātmamanaḥsaṃyogajo bodha ātmani samavaiti; ata ātmani boddhṛtvam, na tu vikriyātmaka ātmā; dravyamātrastu bhavati ghaṭa iva rāgasamavāyī; asmin pakṣe'pyacetanaṃ dravyamātraṃ brahmeti "vijñānamānandaṃ brahma" (bṛ.u.3/9/28) "prajñānaṃ brahma" (ai.u.5/3) ityādyāḥ śrutayo bādhitāḥ syuḥ| ātmano niravayavatvena pradeśābhāvāt nityasaṃyuktatvācca manasaḥ smṛtyutpattiniyamānupapattiraparihāryā syāt| sesargadharmitvaṃ cātmanaḥ śrutismṛtinyāyaviruddhaṃ kalpitaṃ syāt| "asaṅgo na hi sajjate" (bṛ.u.3/6/26) "asaktaṃ sarvabhṛt" (gītā 13/14) iti hi śrutismṛti| nyāyaśca--guṇavadguṇavatā saṃsṛjyate, nātulyajātīyam| ataḥ nirguṇaṃ nirviśeṣaṃ sarvavilakṣaṇaṃ kenacidapyatulyajātīyena sesṛjyata ityetad nyāyaviruddhaṃ bhavet| tsmāt nityāluptajñānasvarūpajyotirātmā brahmetyayamarthaḥ sarvabodhaboddhṛtve ātmanaḥ sidhyati, nānyathā| tasmāt ’pratibodhaviditaṃ matam’iti yathāvyākhyāta evarthe'smābhiḥ|

Again that the Atman can be connected with any thing is itself repugnant to the Srutis, Smritis and logic. ‘The Atman is not connected with anything else; ‘The Atman unconnected with anything supports everything; so say both the Sruti and the Smriti. According to logic, too, a thing having attributes may be connected with another having attributes and not with one dissimilar in class. To say, therefore, that a thing having no attribute, undifferentiated and having nothing in common with anything else, combines with another unequal in class is illogical. Therefore, the meaning that the Atman is, by nature, knowledge and light, eternal and undecaying, can be arrived at, only if the Atman be the witness of all states of consciousness, and not otherwise. Hence the meaning of the expression ‘Pratibodhaviditam matam’ is just what we explained it to be. Some, however, explain that the drift of this portion of the text is that the Atman is knowable by itself. There the Atman is thought of as conditioned and people talk of knowing the Atman by the Atman, distinguishing as it were, the unconditioned Atman from the Atman conditioned by intelligence, etc. Thus it has been said “He sees the Atman by the Atman” and “O Best of men! know the Atman by the Atman, thyself.” It is clear that the unconditioned Atman, being one, is not capable of being known either by itself or by others. Being itself the knowing principle, it cannot stand in need of another knowing principle; just as one light cannot possibly require another light. So here. On the theory of the followers of Buddha that the Atman is known by itself, knowledge becomes momentary and no Atman as its knower is possible. It is well known that the knowledge of the knower knows no destruction, being-indestructible. Again the Srutis: ‘Him who is eternal, omnipresent and all-pervading,’ ‘This is He, great, unborn, Atman, undecaying, deathless, immortal and fearless,’ etc., would be set at naught. Some, however, construe the word ‘Pratibodha’ to mean ‘causeless perception’ as that of one who sleeps. Others yet say that the word ‘Pratibodha’ means ‘knowledge of the moment.’ (We answer) whether it has or has not a cause, whether it occurs once or is often repeated, it is still Pratibodha itself or knowledge itself. The drift is that the Brahman known as the witness of all states of consciousness is well-known, because by such knowledge, one attains immortality, i.e., being centred in one’s self, i.e., emancipation. The knowledge that the Atman is the witness of all states of consciousness is the reason for immortality. Immortality cannot possibly be the fact of the Atman becoming something other than itself. The immortality of the Atman, consisting in being Atman, is causeless; thus the mortality of the Atman consists in the mistaken belief of no ‘Atman’ induced by ignorance. How again, it may be asked, does one attain immortality by the knowledge of the Atman as already explained? It is therefore, said as follows: ‘Atmana’ means ‘by one’s own nature;’ ‘Vindate’ means ‘attains;’ ‘Viryam’ means ‘strength or capacity.’ The strength gained by wealth, retinue, mantras, medicinal herbs, devotion and yoga cannot overcome mortality, because that is produced by things themselves mortal. The strength gained by the knowledge of the Atman can be acquired by the Atman alone and not by any other means. Because the strength produced by the knowledge of the Atman does not require any other aid, that strength alone can overcome death. And because one acquires by bis Atman alone the strength produced by the knowledge of the Atman, therefore he attains immortality by the knowledge of the Atman. The Atharvana Upanishad says “This Atman cannot be attained by one devoid of strength.”

2.4.p5

yatpunaḥ svasaṃvedyatā pratibodhaviditamityasya vākyasyārtho varṇyate, tatra bhavati sopādhikatve ātmano buddhayupādhisvarūpatvena bhedaṃ parikalpyātmanātmānaṃ vettīti saṃvyavahāraḥ- "ātmanyevātmānaṃ paśyati" (bṛ.u.4/4/23) "svayamevātmanātmānaṃ vettha tvaṃ puruṣottama" (gītā 10/15) iti na tu nirupādhikasyātmana ekatve svasaṃvedyatā parasaṃvedyatā vā sambhavati| saṃvedanasvarūpatvātsaṃvedanāntarāpekṣā ca na sambhavati, yathā prakāśasya prakāśāntarāpekṣayā na sambhavaḥ tadvat|

2.4.p6

bauddhapakṣe svasaṃvedyatāyāṃ tu kṣaṇabhaṅguratvaṃ nirātmakatvaṃ ca vijñānasya syāt "na hi vijñāturvijñāterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvāt" (bṛ.u.4/3/30) "nityaṃ vibhuṃ sarvagatam" (mu.u.1/1/6) "sa vā eṣa mahānaja ātmājaro'maro'mṛto'bhayaḥ" (bṛ.u.4/4/25) ityādyāḥ śrutayo bādhyeran|

2.4.p7

yatpunaḥ pratibodhaśabdena nirnimitto bodhaḥ pratibodhaḥ yathā suptasya ityartha parikalpayanti, sakṛddhijñānaṃ pratibodha ityapare; nirnimittaḥ sanimittaḥ sakṛdvāsakṛdvā pratibodha eva hi saḥ| asṛtatvam amaraṇabhāvaṃ svātmanyavasthānaṃ mokṣaṃ hi yasmād vindate labhate yathoktāt pratibodhātpratibodhaviditātmakāt, tasmātpratibodhaviditameva matamityabhiprāyaḥ| bodhasya hi pratyagātmaviṣayatvaṃ ca matamamṛtatve hetuḥ| na hyātmano'nātmatvamamṛtatvaṃ bhavati| ātmatvādātmano'mṛtatvaṃ nirnimittameva, evaṃ martyatvamātmano yadavidyayā anātmatvapratipattiḥ|

2.4.p8

kathaṃ punaryathoktayātmavidyayāmṛtatvaṃ vindata ityata āhaātmanā svena rūpaṇa vindate labhate vīryaṃ balaṃ sāmarthayam| dhanasahāyamantrauṣadhitapoyogakṛtaṃ vīryaṃ sṛtyuṃ na śaknotyabhibhavitum anityavastukṛtatvāt; ātmavidyākṛtaṃ

2.4-2

tu vīryamātmanaiva vindate, nānyena ityato'nanyasādhanatvādātmavidyāvīryasya tadeva vīryaṃ mṛtyuṃ śaknotyabhibhavitum| yata evamātmavidyākṛtaṃ vīryamātmanaiva vindate, ataḥ vidyayā ātmaviṣayayā vindate'mṛtam amṛtatvam| "nāyamātmā balahīnena labhyaḥ" (mu.u.3/2/4) ityātharvaṇe| ataḥ samartho hetuḥ amṛtatvaṃ hi vindata iti ||

2.4-2.p1

kaṣṭā khalu suranaratiryakpretādiṣu saṃsāraduḥkhabahuleṣu prāṇinikāyeṣu janmajarāmaraṇarogādisaṃprāptirajñānāt| ataḥ--

2.5

1.2.5
iha cedavedīdatha satyamasti na cedihāvedīnmahatī vinaṣṭiḥ| bhūteṣu bhūteṣu vicitya dhīrāḥ pretyāsmāllokādamṛtā bhavanti ||

13. If one knows (That) here, then there is truth. If one knows not (That) here, there will be great loss. The wise, seeing the on e Atman in all created things, having turned away from this world, become immortal. (13)

2.5.p1

iha eva ced manuṣyo'dhikṛtaḥ samarthaḥ san yadi avedīd ātmānaṃ yathoktalakṣaṇaṃ viditavān yathoktena prakāreṇa, atha tadā asti satyaṃ manuṣyajanmanyasminnavināśo'rthavattā vā sadbhāvo vā paramārthatā vā

Shankara’s Commentary:
Com:—It is, indeed, hard to suffer birth, old age, death, sickness, etc., owing to ignorance, being one of the crowd of living beings, such as Devas, men, beasts. (pretas), etc., full of the miseries of Samsara. Therefore if a man, even in this world being authorised and competent, knows the Atman as defined, in the manner already explained, then there is truth; i.e., there is in this birth as a mortal, immortality, usefulness, real existence. But if one living here and authorised does not know the Brahman, then there is long and great misery for him, i.e., rotation in Samsara—one continuous stream of births and deaths. Therefore the Brahmins who know the advantages and the disadvantages as above pointed out, perceive in all things in the universe, immoveable and moveable, the one essence of the Atman, i.e., the Brahman, turn away with disgust from this world, the creature of ignorance consisting in the false notion of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ and having realised the principle of unity, the oneness of the Atman in all, become immortal, i.e., become Brahman itself; for, the Sruti says “He who knows that highest Brahman becomes Brahman itself.”

2.5-2

satyaṃ vidyate| na cedihāvedīditi, na ced iha jīvaśced adhikṛtaḥ avedīt na viditavān; tadā mahati dīrghā anantā vinaṣṭiḥ vināśanaṃ janmajarāmaraṇādiprabandhavicchedalakṣaṇā saṃsāragatiḥ|
tasmādevaṃ guṇadoṣau vijānanto brāhmaṇāḥ bhūteṣu bhūteṣu sarvabhūteṣu sthāvareṣu careṣu ca ekamātmatacvaṃ brahma vicitya vijñāya sākṣātkṛtya dhīrāḥ dhīmantaḥ pretya vyāvṛtya mamāhaṃbhāvalakṣaṇādavidyārūpādasmāllokād uparamya sarvātmaikabhāvamadvaitamāpannāḥ santaḥ amṛtā bhavanti brahmaiva bhavantītyarthaḥ| "sa yo ha vai tatparaṃ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" (mu.u.3/2/9) iti śruteḥ ||