kaTha Upanishad
अतिमुच्य धीराः प्रेत्यास्माल्लोकादमृता भवन्ति ॥ — 1.2, kena Upanishad.
[Meaning: The wise, having relinquished all false identifications, become immortal upon departing from this world.]
The kena Upanishad tells us that “A dead man becomes immortal after death.”
At first glance, what the kena says appears to be a paradox: it suggests that one must “depart” to become immortal. If we take this literally, it sounds as though a dead man becomes immortal — yet a dead man is no longer there to experience immortality. This apparent contradiction is the gateway to a deeper Vedantic truth.
kena Upanishad is actually pointing to a “solution” for the one thing we all struggle with: Freedom from the constant, grinding cycle of birth, death, and the misery in between — what the shAstra-s (texts) call samsAra.
Most of us spend our lives chasing the first three goals of life — wealth (artha), progeny (kAma), and doing the right thing (dharma). But the Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta = Upanishads) suggests there’s a fourth goal, liberation (mokSha), and the Upanishads exhort us to achieve it now, right in this life.
To be “free from the bondage of samsAra” does not mean surviving death in a new body; that would simply be a continuation of the birth-death cycle. Instead, it means “dying” to our false self-identifications before the body itself expires.
What it is to die and still be alive is counter-intuitive and cannot be grasped by us. We do not have any knowledge of such a situation.
The kaTha Upanishad provides the answer to this intangible situation. It tells us that “dying” is of two kinds. One is death as per one’s destiny; the other is intentionally dying. What we know and experience is the first type. Everyone is subjected to it. The Upanishad asks us to die intentionally.
One should detach oneself from all perishable things in order to be able to die even when one is alive. Attachment to perishable things is to feel a sense of identity with them. When one feels “attached” to a thing, s/he feels “to be one with that thing,” thus transforming a fleeting, external belonging into an “internal component of self-identity.” In other words, the perishable objects of the world should not be taken to be “me,” but have to be considered to be “mine.”
A thing that is ‘mine’ can be owned or disowned by ‘me.’ ‘I’ will not end with the ending of a thing in ‘my’ possession. In contrast, the end of a thing that is ‘me,’ will end the very ‘me.’ For example, if a book is ‘mine,’ I can take it into my hands when needed or keep it away from me when I don’t need it. It is a ‘separable relationship.’ The relationship is not inseparable. On the other hand, if I identify myself as the book, I cannot separate the book from ‘me.’ I will be miserable to put it away.
The example of a book may sound trivial. But strangely, we commit such a mistake with respect to the body. Instead of feeling that the body is ‘mine,’ we think that the body is ‘me’! As a result, we consider that the death of the body is ‘my death.’ If I can understand that the body is ‘mine’ and not ‘me,’ I can see that I continue to live even if the body is separated from me or when the body perishes. We are unable to face death courageously because we are not able to detach ourselves from the body. We feel that our existence ends when the body dies.
The ‘kaTha upanishad’ exhorts us to court death fearlessly. It does not mince the words. Hence it came to be known as the ‘hard-hitting’ (in Sanskrit ‘kaTha’ means hard-hitting) Upanishad. It belongs to the branch of ‘kaTha of the Krishna Yajurveda.’ Truth is, after all, hard to hear and uncompromising whether one likes it or not.
kaTha makes it clear that dying at the end of a destined life-period cannot lead to immortality. It holds that death while the body is still alive leads to immortality. It is amplified by saying that if one is ‘ciketas,’ s/he is dead though alive; on the other hand, if one is ‘naciketas,’ s/he will be immortal after death. ciketas is one who keeps “hoarding objects.” naciketas is one who drops all objects. The word ‘objects’ here refers to all the worldly things – name, form and action.
Living like a ciketas is to have a life in an imaginary illusory world. In contrast, living like a naciketas is to live in the Knowledge that “my essential nature is the unvarying Conscious substratum that pervades all things.” The prefix ‘na’ in naciketas stands for “not” and indicates that he does not, unlike ciketas, run after or take interest in worldly objects. Such a man’s mind is ever filled with brahman. It can, therefore, be said that naciketas is truly alive and immortal.
To be as brahman is to experientially sense that “I am the all-pervasive Self.” brahman is immortal and one that has an experiential understanding of being the all-pervading Self will also not have death. Such a man can visit the World of the God of Death without dying and return to the earth without being reborn. Expressed in a different way, such a man would transcend samsAra or the cycle of births and deaths. ‘naciketas’ can, therefore, be defined as the one who does not experience the endpoints of birth and death and ciketas is the one who experiences the endpoints (birth and death).
IshAvAsya Upanishad calls the God of death ‘the Controller.’
पूषन्नेकर्षे यम सूर्य प्राजापत्य …. ॥ — mantra 16, IshAvAsya upa.
[Meaning: O Nourisher! Pilgrim of the solitude, Controller, Absorber (of all rasa-s), Offspring of Prajapati, …. (Trans: V. Panoli).]
In other words, The Lord of Death is also the Lord of Time, and is beyond birth and death. ‘naciketas’ being able to visit him and return implies that he conquered birth and death. Both the ends (birth and death) get absorbed in Self-Knowledge. That Knowledge is immortality and only that is Life. ‘naciketas’ is an individual liberated right in this life (jIvanmukta).
The kaTha Upanishad tells us further:
श्रेयश्च प्रेयश्च मनुष्यमेतस्तौ सम्परीत्य विविनक्ति धीरः ।
श्रेयो हि धीरोऽभि प्रेयसो वृणीते प्रेयो मन्दो योगक्षेमाद्वृणीते ॥ — mantra 1.2.2, kaTha upa.
[Meaning: Both the good and the pleasant approach the mortal; the intelligent man examines and distinguishes them; for, the intelligent man prefers the good to the pleasant; the ignorant man chooses the pleasant for the sake of his body. (Trans: S. Sitarama Sastri, 1923).]
The world contains two types of things — the Preferables and the Pleasurables. Adopting the Path of the Pleasurables implies that one is filled with thoughts on worldly allurements. Following the Path of the Preferable means that one’s mind is fully focused on brahman — in thought, word and deed. The Path of the Preferables leads to Self-knowledge, immortality.
One should decide upfront whether s/he opts for the Path of the Pleasurables or the Preferable. The courageous seeker does not get confused between the two paths and in fact, can see them distinctly. One who can distinguish them and chooses the right one, will be naciketas.
(To Continue … Part 11 (kaTha 2))