kena Upanishad:
The word AtmA points to something that is all-pervasive — present everywhere, without gaps. There can be no “inside” or “outside” to It. Nor can there be anything “other” than Itself. For, if there is a second thing different existing alongside It, AtmA would cease to be all-pervasive. The Sanskrit word AtmA comes from the root ‘at,’ meaning “to move” or “to pervade,” and It naturally carries this sense of omnipresence.
When something exists as itself, in its own true form, we call that its intrinsic nature (svarUpa). When the very same thing appears in some other form, that appearance is called a manifestation (vibhUti). Words like manifestation (vibhUti), special appearance (visheSa), imagination (vikalpa), or fallacious appearance (AbhAsa) all point to the same basic idea. They describe not what a thing really is, but how it seems — like the different roles played by an actor putting on different costumes.
This analysis leads us to ask: Is there a single “substance” at the root of this richly varied world? Using the familiar metaphors, we can easily grasp that waves and oceans are nothing but water, or that ornaments are nothing but gold. But we cannot conceive of one single substance underlying everything — moving and unmoving in the entire world.
Advaita Vedanta says that the one intrinsic substance standing behind all objects and beings is AtmA.
Where, then, is AtmA? It is everywhere. It is universal. It pervades all percepts — everything that is perceived. It is present within oneself, within one’s partner, children, family, home, possessions, and indeed every object. What pervades one’s own body from head to toe is AtmA as Beingness (sat). Whatever part of the body we point to — hand, leg, head, we are able to notice these parts only because they ‘are’ there.
But AtmA does more than merely “be.” It also shines (bhAti). It makes Itself known. The presence of the hand is known. The presence of the leg, the head, any object, is known. Thus, the two inseparable aspects of AtmA, namely, ‘beingness and coruscation’ (i.e.,existence and shine), envelop everything in the world.
Because AtmA pervades and envelops all things, one might think of everything as being under Its sway. This immediately raises a question: if AtmA is everywhere, why don’t we see it? The answer is simple but subtle. What we see everywhere is not AtmA in its intrinsic nature, but AtmA in its form. Form is manifestation.
Put differently, AtmA cannot be perceived as It truly is, but It is visible through Its manifestations — through special forms, imagined forms, and appearances. One’s partner, children, family, and indeed the entire world are expressions of that combination of ‘beingness and shine.’ The whole universe of name and form is nothing but the beingness and luminosity of AtmA. That is why the world itself is said to be a manifestation of the Supreme Self (paramAtmA).
However, merely hearing this or understanding it intellectually is not enough. The meaning has to sink in and transform the mind. It has to become an organismic change.
As long as we read these ideas in books or hear them from a teacher, our knowing of the oneness of the all-pervading substance remains indirect. When the mind becomes fully imbued with this vision, that ‘knowing’ turns immediate and direct experiential realization.
The IshAvAsya Upanishad tells us that this one reality permeates the entire world as ‘sat and cit’ — beingness and consciousness. Our mistake lies in overlooking this “intrinsic nature” and getting lost in the manifested forms. Manifested forms, thus, seem to veil the intrinsic nature (‘beingness and shine’) of AtmA.
When this reality abides in its own intrinsic nature, we call it AtmA. When the same reality is viewed as governing, ordering, or directing the universe, we call it Ishwara. These are not two different substances. They are two names for the same reality, arising from two different standpoints. From its own standpoint, there is no distinction whatsoever between AtmA and Ishwara.
Learning to see everything as a manifestation of AtmA is, in essence, the teaching of the IshAvAsya Upanishad.
AtmA is also the intuitive sense of “I Am.” Wherever there is an “I,” there is AtmA. If AtmA truly pervades everything, and if it is the very sense of “I Am,” then we should feel, “I am the entire world.” But do we actually feel that way? Does our sense of “I” extend beyond the limits of our body?
Most of us instinctively feel that “I am” is confined to (or exists within) the body. We find it difficult to accept that AtmA — or this sense of “I Am” — extends everywhere.
Let us look more closely. We have a body. Within the body, there is the life-principle (prāṇa). We have sense organs — the eyes, ears, and so on. And we also have a mind. It seems easy to accept that “I Am” exists within any of these four. Our daily experience appears to support this. We say, “I am walking,” “I am sitting,” “I am eating.”
But what does that “I” really refer to? When I say, “I walk” or “I sit,” does that “I” truly belong to the body? I use the eyes to see and the ears to hear, yet they are not the body itself. Does that mean the “I” refers to the sense organs instead?
When we speak as though AtmA is centered on the body — using expressions like “I move” or “I rest” — we are implicitly saying, “I am the body” (deha-AtmA). When we shift that center to the sense organs and say, “I see” or “I hear,” we are saying, “I am the senses” (indriya-AtmA).
Similarly, when we center the “I” on the life-principle and say, “I live” or “I breathe,” we identify AtmA with prANa (prANa-AtmA). A dead body cannot say, “I live,” which seems to suggest that AtmA resides in the life-principle.
Then there is the mind. It thinks, it experiences, and it is also the instrument through which brahman is known. This makes it seem as though the sense of “I Am” resides in the mind.
From this analysis, it appears that AtmA could be located in any one of these four — the body, the senses, the life-principle, or the mind. But this conclusion directly contradicts what the ishAvAsya Upanishad teaches. Clearly, something is amiss, and we need to examine our understanding more carefully.
The moment we locate AtmA in any of these four, we confine our inquiry to the realm of the individual (jIva). In doing so, we limit AtmA to the size and scope of the individual — a limitation that contradicts the very definition of AtmA as all-pervasive.
Yet, we struggle to intuitively feel that “I Am” extends beyond our body even to our room, leave alone our city, our country, or the earth. When this all-pervasive sense of “I Am” is missing, the higher aims of life lose their grounding. The pursuit of dharma becomes hollow. Wealth (artha) and pleasure (kAma) reveal themselves as limited goals, offering only fleeting satisfaction.
At this crucial juncture, the Kena Upanishad steps in. It directly addresses the question of how to locate AtmA in a manner consistent with the vision of the IshAvAsya Upanishad.
The Upanishad begins with the Sanskrit word kena — “by whom?” or “by what?” — and hence gets the name kena Upanishad. The first question it raises is: “By what is everything known?”
(To Continue … … Part 7 (kena 2))
Thank you, Ramesam, for continuing this lucidly explained series!
Just one query, regarding the concept of bhAti. You say that any object is known because of the presence of AtmA ‘shining’. But this seems to imply that, if we went into a dark room, we would not bump into tables and chairs. In fact, of course, we need functioning eyes and a source of light.
And we would tend to say that, providing these conditions are met, the knowledge of the existence of the tables and chairs would arise in the mind by virtue of the Consciousness reflected there, somehow managing the process in the eye to brain system.
Where does ‘AtmA in the table and chairs’ come into this?
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thank you for the question, “Where does ‘AtmA in the table and chairs’ come into this?”
It gives an opportunity to make the implicit concept clearer.
As a matter of fact, you have yourself answered the question in your comment.
You write, “… the knowledge of the existence of the tables and chairs would arise in the mind by virtue of the Consciousness reflected there, …”
AtmA is that very thing you referred to as “Consciousness”!
For now, however, we will not get into the issue of whether It is “reflected” in the object, or “delimited” by the contours of the object, or has Its “semblance” in the object etc., because these are all just “theoretical models” trying to explain the underlying “mechanics.”
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
You explicitly say that AtmA ‘shines’ – ‘makes itself known’; ‘any object is known’ through this ‘self-revealing awaraeness’.
This seems to contradict the teaching of VAchArambhaNa shruti which tells us that it is the mind imposing name and form that differentiates objects from the all-pervading non-dual Consciousness that they really are.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
I am getting confused by what you say! 😀
No, I do not think that what I wrote contradicts the vAcArambhaNa sUtra.
Shankara comments at 2.4, kena as follows: “The Self, that encompasses all ideas as Its objects, is known in relation to all these ideas. Being the witness of all cognitions, and by nature nothing but the power of Consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as non-different from them.”
What is the “nature” of that “Self” (aka Consciousness / brahman / AtmA)?
Both 2.5.15, kaTha and 2.2.11, muNDaka tell us:
“tameva bhAntam anubhAti sarvam; tasya bhAsA sarvamidaM vibhAti”
Meaning: “He shining, all these shine; through his luster all these are variously illumined.”
Shankara adds in way of explanation at 2.2.11, muNdaka: “It is that very Brahman that illuminates and shines through the different manifested lights, therefore it is inferred that Brahman has light by Its own right; for anything that is not possessed of natural luminosity cannot enkindle others, …” and adds further, “It has been established elaborately with the help of reasoning that Brahman, which is the Light of lights, is alone true, and that everything else is Its modification — a modification that exists only in name, having speech alone as its support.”
[All translations are from Sw-G ‘s works.]
Summing up in simple words, there is brahman (AtmA) behind every cognition, as 2.4, kena says. It is because of that self-luminous AtmA and Its shining (illuminating) all other objects, the objects are perceived. The various names and forms and also claims of ownership etc. are then assigned by the mind to those cognized objects, as per 6.1.4, chAn U.
Thus I see no contradiction.
Perhaps, your point is something different?
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
I was just trying to keep it simple and reasonable. To my mind, it is the Consciousness (reflected) in the jIva that is as if ‘doing’ everything. The objects, although name and form of Brahman, are inert and unable to ‘do’ anything (including ‘shine’). The way that you described it in the original post implied that the inert object was effectively ‘alerting’ us to its existence by ‘shining’. Apart from not being reasonable, this also seemed to be contradicting the Chandogya which says that it is us who impose name and form on objects and thereby effectively bring them into existence. If there was something out there ‘shining’, we would not have to do anything; it would effectively be announcing its form to us and we would just need to name it.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Okay, I get it now.
You may have noticed that both ‘beingness’ and ‘shine’ are clearly described in the original Post as the intrinsic nature of AtmA in paragraphs 5 and 6 respectively. However, in order to offset any danger of misconstruing the intended meaning by the reader, I made some amendments to the text at a few places. Hope with these changes in place. things will be clear.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
I cannot see exactly what changes you have made but it looks OK now.
The ‘world’, which is AtmA, is ‘shining’ and the mind of the jIva separates out forms, giving them names, and thus effectively creating duality.
I would like to ask one follow-up question though, if I may, and I apologise in advance for this! It seems to follow from what you say that the ‘shining’ will be withdrawn in pralaya. Then, the world-appearance will become unmanifest and thus effectively disappear. But what happens, according to this model, when a jIva is enlightened?
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Glad to know that the bumps are smoothed out in the revised version. Thank you.
This series on the ten Upanishads, as you know, is based on the discourses of the late Advaita Vedanta teacher, Shri Yellamraju Srinivasa Rao (YSR).
YSR’s teaching method was to read the Shankara bhASya sentence by sentence in the original Sanskrit and provide an elaborate explanation of the underlying essence. He avoided intellectual, theoretical or academic diversions / extensions, unless Shankara himself happened to address a topic within his commentary.
To illustrate the realization of the Self, Shri YSR often used to give the analogy of a lamp being lit. When light appears, darkness (ignorance) does not “travel” elsewhere; it simply dissolves into the light where it was, self-effacing itself.
Similarly, the three components that appear as though divided under ignorance — Name, Form, and Action (nAma-rUpa-kriya) — dissolve back into the One.
Regarding your specific question, I am sorry I am unable to recall a precise answer from YSR’s talks at this moment. However, I will keep it in mind and share any relevant material I may come across at a later time.
regards,