Kena Upanishad 3.p1

3.p1

tṛtīya khaṇḍa

Cet, if—a man having scriptural sanction and ability; avedit, has known—the Self as defined and in the manner already explained; iha, here, indeed; atha then; asti satyam, there is truth, there subsist in this human birth the values consisting in long life, wealth, and holiness,footnote{"This is said by way of eulogy. (The idea is that) even worldly reality (or value), comprising long life (avināśa), wealth (arthavattā), holiness (sadbhāva), and fame, comes to the knower of Brahman (as a by-product). In reality, the result consisting in being established in Brahman follows as a necessary consequence."—A.G.} or supreme reality. Iha, here, even while living, cet, if; a competent man na avedit, has not realised; then there is mahatī, great, interminable; vinaṣṭiḥ destruction, transmigratory existence consisting in non-cessation of a continuous succession of birth, old age, death, etc. Therefore the dhīrāḥ, wise, Brāhmaṇas (the knowers of Brahman), who are thus familiar with merits and demerits; vicitya, having known, realised, the one reality of the Self; bhūteṣu bhūteṣu, in all beings moving and unmoving; pretya, turning away from, desisting from this world of ignorance—the world consisting of "I and mine"—i.e. having attained the non-dual state consisting in becoming identified with the Self of all; amṛtāḥ bhavanti, become immortal, become Brahman indeed—this is the idea; as it has been said in the Vedic text: "He who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed" (Mu. III. ii. 9).

After hearing the text, "unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know" etc. (Ke. II. 3), some people of dull intellect may have this kind of delusion: "It is seen that whatever exists is known through the valid means of cognition; and whatever does not exist remains unknown, is like the horns of a hare, and is absolutely non-existent. Similarly, this Brahman, being unknown, is certainly non-existent"; lest there be this delusion, this story is begun. For the subsequent passages are seen to be leading to this conclusion: "Since that very Brahman is the ruler in every way, the supreme Deity of even the deities, the supreme Lord over the lordly beings, inscrutable, the cause of victory of the gods, and the cause of the defeat of the devils, therefore, how can It be non-existent?" Or the story is meant to eulogise the knowledge of Brahman. How? By saying that it was surely by virtue of the knowledge of Brahman, that Fire and other gods attained supremacy over the gods, and Indra got greater pre-eminence still. Or (through the story) it is shown that Brahman is inscrutable, inasmuch as Fire and others, powerful though they are, knew Brahman with sheer difficulty, and so also did Indra, even though he is the ruler of the gods. Or the whole thing is meant to enjoin an injunction regarding the secret teachings (about meditations) that will followfootnote{"The realisation of the Self as Brahman, which is meant for the most advanced ones and which is not an object of knowledge, has been spoken of earlier. Later will be stated the meditation on the qualified Brahman which is for the less advanced people. The following passages present that meditation, for the injunction for it is clearly to be seen (in IV. 6-7). So the real significance lies in this. As for the other interpretations (advanced by Śaṅkara), they are merely by way of showing possibilities."—A.G.} (Ke. IV. 4-7). Or the story is meant to show that apart from the knowledge of Brahman all notions of agentship etc. that creatures possess, as for instance the conceit of the gods with regard to victory etc., are false.