Summary:

In this session, we delve into the Kena Upanishad, focusing on Chapter 1, Verses 3-8, exploring the nature of Awareness (Brahman) and its transcendence beyond sensory perception and mental cognition. The discussion covers key points such as Awareness not being an object of eyes, speech, or mind, and the Vedantic methodology of using implied meanings of words. We examine the role of the mind in understanding reality through vrtti-jnanam, including the concepts of vrtti-vyapti and phala-vyapti, and the idea of akhanda-akara-vrtti (thought without image) in knowing Atma. The session explains Brahman as the source of speech, thought, and sensory functions, while distinguishing between Consciousness, subtle-body (prana), and physical body. It offers insights into how Consciousness differs from sentiency, using examples like brain surgery and nirvikalpa-samadhi to illustrate the distinctions. The unchanging nature of Awareness amidst changing mental states is emphasized, along with its universality and attribute-less nature. The teaching also addresses common misconceptions, such as confusing Consciousness with love or limiting it to sentient beings.

Kena Upanishad, Chapter 1, Verse 3

न तत्र चक्षुः गच्छति न वाक् गच्छति न उ मनः न विद्मः न
विजानीमः यथा एतत् अनुशिष्यात् अन्यत् एव तत् विदितात् अथो अविदितात्
अधि इति शुश्रुम पूर्वेषाम् ये नः तत् व्याचचक्षिरे

na tatra cakṣuḥ gacchati na vāk gacchati na u manaḥ
([There,] the eye does not go, speech does not go, nor [does] the mind)
na vidmaḥ na vijānīmaḥ yathā etat anuśiṣyāt
(We do not know, we do not understand how [one] could teach this)
anyat eva tat viditāt atho aviditāt adhi
([It is] indeed other than [the] known and also above [the] unknown)
iti śuśruma pūrveṣām ye naḥ tat vyācacakṣire
(Thus we have heard from [the] ancients who explained it to us)

Eyes have no access there. The organ of speech (also) does not reach there, nor does the mind. We do not recognise it as an object. We do not (therefore) know how to impart this knowledge (in any other way). It is indeed different from the known and also from the unknown. Thus, we have heard from (our) predecessors who expounded it to us.

Awareness is to be understood as:

• na tatra cakṣuḥ gacchati : Not an object of the eyes.
  • If Awareness is object known to eye, then Awareness is an object, which raises question, “To whom is Awareness seen to?”. So awareness is without any form.
• na vāk gacchati : Words cannot reach Awareness. “Then why are you teaching, making us reach Awareness?”. Any word used is limited. How can a limited word, reveal that which is free from limitation? Implied meaning (remove that which I don’t mean).
  • Every word has 2 meanings:
    • Vacyartha (direct meaning) and Lakshyartha (implied meaning).
      • EG: “Bring me water”. When direct meaning doesn’t make sense, have to look for implied meaning. Have to bring in “glass” for sentence to make sense.
    • What about Sat-Cit?
      • Cit (Awareness):
        • Literal meaning: Aliveness.
        • Implied meaning: Methodology takes you away from literal meaning, and shows implied meaning of “Awareness”. It’s universal (without attributes), and it is the truth of time-space-objects (all things reduce to concepts, and concept can’t be without a Conscious being).
      • Sat (Existence):
        • Direct meaning: An existence within time-space. Or existent thing.
        • Implied meaning: Existence from which comes time-space-objects. Truth of time-space. Free of time-space. Took away limitation of “within time-space”.
      • Ananta (Limitless): This word makes you see Atma is without limitation.
        • Direct meaning: It is something other them me.
        • Implied meaning: It is my nature, but it’s mixed up with limited body-mind.
  • SUMMARY: Vedantic methodology uses limited words, but shows their implied meanings.

• Na manaḥ:
  • Ignorance: Manifests in the Mind. Thus knowledge also has to occur in same Mind with ignorance.
    • Meaning: Mind is needed to reach Brahman. If don’t have competent teacher, they’ll tell you “You can’t use logic/rational mind to reach Brahman”, thus people automatically dismiss any intellectual discussions.
    • Problem: Orientation of mind to objectify everything via perception/inference so deeply rooted, that it keeps one intellectualizing Brahman endlessly; turning it into object.
  • How does mind understand the reality?
    • MODEL 1: (Shared in class)
      • Example:
        • Physical object: Physical table doesn’t enter your mind, but knowledge of table takes place, called vrtti-jnanam (mental images / thoughts). Mind creates thought corresponding to physical table, thus ignorance of table is removed. Thus any knowledge is gained in mind.
        • Information: In lecture, who understands what depends on quality of mind. That’s why we have tests. To check how much mind has captured.
      • Definition of “Knowledge”: When mind has captured as intended, that’s called knowledge. Extent to which you know reality, vrtti-jnanam has to correspond to intention of Upanishad.
      • 2 Sub-operations: In any vrtti-jnanam, there’s 2 sub-operations going on:
        • Vrtti-vyapti: Image of table in mind is created or vyapti (attained).
        • Phala-vyapti: Ignorance of table is removed, because of corresponding image in mind.
      • Knowledge of Atma is called akhanda-akara-vrtti (thought without image):
        • Means, only phala-vyapti occurs, as result of understanding implied meaning of words.
        • Vrtti-vyapti doesn’t happen as atma (consciousness or the subject) isn’t an image/imagination. Everything prior (like values, conduct, 3 bodies model, etc) was an image to ready the mind.
          • EG: Śākhā-candra-nyāya: To show you moon, first point to what you can see, like tree, branch, fruit, bird, above the bird (moon). Moon has no connection to tree/branch/fruit. They’re means to an end.
        • What about “love” — sounds like akhanda-akara-vrtti?
          • Love is an abstract object (vrtti-vyapti). It has an opposite or gradations (EG: God-love, food-love, hate). Thus love to is mithya or expression of concept/intelligence.
          • Further more, Awareness has no opposites. If Awareness was “love”, you couldn’t experience “hate”.
          • Secondly, “love” is a term only used in reference to sentient beings. If consciousness was love, that would limit consciousness is isolated to sentient beings (again putting Brahman into time-space). We never associate word “love” to insentient matter like rocks or avalanche or volcano or leaf. 
      • Reconciling: Mind (vrtti-vyapti) can’t reach Brahman, but mind (phala-vyapti) is needed to know Brahman.
    • MODEL 2: (Not shared in class)
      • This model of vrtti-vyapti and phala-vyapti will seem opposite to MODEL 1. This is because MODEL 2 explains the two words differently. So it helps you see it from two different standpoints.
      • How knowledge of Object takes place:
        • Vrtti-vyapti (Thought Pervasion): A thought of an objects manifests in the mind, thereby destroys ignorance of that object. EG: Pot thought (ghaṭākāra vṛtti) comes in the mind, and subsequently removes ignorance of pot's nature and existence.
        • Phala-vyapti (Result Pervasion): Awareness (brahman) illumines the pot-through, turning it into an object known to Me (Awareness).
      • How Self-Knowledge takes place (Moksha):
        • Vrtti-vyapti: Thought of “You are that” removes ignorance of opposing thought that “I am not that”.
        • Phala-vyapti: Refers to the illumination of an object by Awareness, but in the case of self-knowledge, the self is always known to me as “I am,” and thus does not require to be illumined by a second awareness.
      • Akhanada-Akara-Vrtti:
        • akhaṇḍa-ākāra-vṛtti can be understood as the vṛtti-vyāpti created by a mahāvākya (great sentence) such as “tat tvam asi” (You are that). It is a unique thought that removes the ignorance about the self's true nature without leaving a mental image. Akhnada-akara-vrtti allows the self-revealing consciousness to be recognized as non-dual Brahman.
      • Conclusion:
        • For ordinary objects, both vṛtti-vyāpti and phala-vyāpti are necessary. Vṛtti-vyāpti removes ignorance, and phala-vyāpti illumines the object.
        • For self-knowledge, only vṛtti-vyāpti is necessary. The self is self-luminous, so phala-vyāpti is not required to illumine the self. The self being self-luminous (svayam prakāśa) does not negate the need for vṛtti-jnāna (knowledge through thought).
        • Vṛtti is needed to remove ignorance, even if it is not needed to illumine the self.
        • Mokṣa involves the removal of ignorance (phala-vyāpti) through the mental modification (vṛtti-vyāpti) created by the teaching “Aham Brahma Asmi.”
        • “Phala-vyāpti” in both object knowledge and self-knowledge cases, refers to the presence of consciousness, which is always known to oneself as the self-revealing “I.”
• viditāt aviditāt adhi: Atma is neither known as particular object, nor can you say “Atma can’t be known”. Even when you say “Atma can’t be known”, your speech is blessed by Atma. You don’t need to use senses to know “I am”. Teaching doesn’t produce Atman, but…
  1. Reveals Atma is always available as “I am”,
  2. Is not conditioned by attributes of your body-mind (vyavaharika-adhyasa is corrected). Initially atman is not known as it is, because mixed up with body-mind.
  3. There’s only one Atma.
• NEXT VERSE UNTIL END: Reinforces everything we said so far…

Kena Upanishad, Chapter 1, Verse 4/5

यत् वाचा अनभ्युदितम् येन वाक् अभ्युद्यते तत् एव ब्रह्म त्वम्
विद्धि न इदम् यत् इदम् उपासते  (1.4)
yat vācā anabhyuditam yena vāk abhyudyate tat eva brahma tvam
viddhi na idam yat idam upāsate (1.4)

yat vācā anabhyuditam yena vāk abhyudyate
(That which is not uttered by speech, [but] by which speech is uttered)
tat eva brahma tvam viddhi
(Know that alone [to be] Brahman)
na idam yat idam upāsate
([It is] not this which [people] worship here)

May you know that alone to be Brahman, which is not revealed by speech (but) by which speech is revealed, and not this that people worship (as an object).

यत् मनसा न मनुते येन आहुः मनः मतम् तत् एव ब्रह्म त्वम्
विद्धि न इदम् यत् इदम् उपासते (१.५)
yat manasā na manute yena āhuḥ manaḥ matam tat eva brahma tvam
viddhi na idam yat idam upāsate (1.5)

yat manasā na manute yena āhuḥ manaḥ matam
(That which [one] does not think with the mind, [but] by which, [they] say, the mind is thought)
tat eva brahma tvam viddhi
(Know that alone [to be] Brahman)
na idam yat idam upāsate
([It is] not this which [people] worship here)

May you know that alone to be Brahman, which a person does not objectify through the mind, (but) by which the mind is known, and not this that people worship as an object.

• Brahman is that which cannot be explained by words, but because of which your speech/doubts are revealed.
• It’s the presence that’s always available, as “I” (effortless consciousness). Purpose of verses is to make you see that which is most immediate and nearest to you.

Kena Upanishad, Chapter 1, Verse 6

यत् चक्षुषा न पश्यति येन चक्षूंषि पश्यति तत् एव ब्रह्म त्वम्
विद्धि न इदम् यत् इदम् उपासते
yat cakṣuṣā na paśyati yena cakṣūṁṣi paśyati tat eva brahma tvam
viddhi na idam yat idam upāsate
You know that alone to be Brahman which (one) does not see with the eyes, (but) by which one sees the (functions of the) eyes, and not this that people worship as an object.

• Knowledge isn’t about seeing something with eyes, but because of which eyes see. Thus any image you create about Atma, will not be atma.

Kena Upanishad, Chapter 1, Verse 7

यत् श्रोत्रेण न शृणोति येन श्रोत्रम् इदम् श्रुतम् तत् एव ब्रह्म
त्वम् विद्धि न इदम् यत् इदम् उपासते
yat śrotreṇa na śṛṇoti yena śrotram idam śrutam tat eva brahma
tvam viddhi na idam yat idam upāsate
May you know that alone to be Brahman which (one) does not hear with the ear, (but) by which this ear hears, and not this that people worship as an object.

• Brahman is not something you can hear by sound, but that which reveals sounds. This means, fact that sounds are revealed, means Brahman is not “out there”, else hearing would not be possible. Whoever reveals sounds, is Brahman.
• Na idam yat upāsate:
  • Consciousness is NOT what which people worship (ideas, notions, experience).
  • Moment you’re shown Brahman is not one object, person finds another to hold onto.

Kena Upanishad, Chapter 1, Verse 8

यत् प्राणेन न प्राणिति येन प्राणः प्रणीयते तत् एव ब्रह्म त्वम्
विद्धि न इदम् यत् इदम् उपासते
yat prāṇena na prāṇiti yena prāṇaḥ praṇīyate tat eva brahma tvam
viddhi na idam yat idam upāsate
May you know that alone to be Brahman which is not sustained by the prāṇa, (but) by which the prāṇa is sustained, and not this that people worship as an object.

• Consciousness can easily be mixed up with sentiency (same as prana as used in this verse, or transmigratory jiva).
  • Produces subsequent error, “Consciousness is only available in sentient things, and not in insentient like rocks”.  In which case, consciousness becomes another object within time-space.
  • How to show consciousness is also available in rocks (insentients)? Everything reduces to concepts. And concept (blueprint of creation) can never be outside a Conscious being.
• WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT SENTIENT? Prana (subtle-body or jiva).
  1. How to show Subtle-Body is different from Physical-Body?
     1. CAN’T SEE THOUGHTS: I can see your brain activity, but don’t see your subjective imagination / thoughts (opinion about yourself) / memory (image of childhood home) / experience.
     2. SURGERY: When brain tumor is removed, doctor will apply electrode and limb will move. However movement wasn’t person’s free-will, nor does the person start to justify how it was “Me who chose to move it”.
     3. BODY HERE, MIND ELSEWHERE: Your brain/eyes are here, but mind is elsewhere daydreaming.
  2. How to show Subtle-Body is different from Awareness?
     1. SUBTLE-BODY CHANGES: Subtle-body (emotions, memory, thoughts, I-sense) undergoes change. Changes can only be known in reference to non-changing Conscious entity.
     2. NIRVIKALPA-SAMADHI, LIFE GONE, I REMAINS: In nirvikalpa-samadhi, subtle-body resolves, Conscious being “I” remain.
     3. SUBTLE-BODY = OBJECT OF CONSCIOUSNESS: When you speak, your subtle-body is revealed to Me as word-objects. When I speak, my subtle-body is revealed to you as word-objects. So subtle-body is an object of Consciousness.
     4. AWARENESS WITH ATTRIBUTES = NOT YOUR EXPERIENCE: Since minds are many, that would mean there are many Awarenesses. Which means everyone's Awareness has attributes.
        • If Awareness had attribute, then you would experience yourself as a brand new “I” each moment. Contradicts experience as one continuous stream of “I am, I am, I am”, amidst changing mind.

—

Recorded 10 July, 2024