The utilities that reach our homes offer a useful way to think about Consciousness (AtmA). Water and electricity come through their supply lines, and we access them using specific outlets — a tap for water, a socket for electricity. But these utilities are not produced by our house, nor can we keep them exclusively to ourselves. They are shared resources, available to all houses.
AtmA — Beingness-Consciousness — can be understood in much the same way. It is not generated by the body or the mind. It is already present: unmanifest, universal, and available everywhere. The body is like a house, while the mind and senses — the eyes, ears, nose, and so on — function like outlet points.
When Consciousness breathes, it appears as the life-principle (prANa). When it sees, it appears as the eye; when it hears, as the ear. In short, the same single power of Consciousness manifests as seeing in the eye, hearing in the ear, breathing in the life-principle, and thinking in the mind.
Death can be viewed as a kind of change — a transition that brings a way of being to an end. If we take ourselves to be the body, death is unavoidable, because the body is in constant change. Likewise, if we identify with the life-principle, we “die” the moment that life-principle departs.
AtmA, however, is not confined to what lies within our body. It is present both within and beyond the body. Therefore, when one identifies oneself with AtmA, death loses its grip.
Seen this way, immortality is not about preserving the body indefinitely. It lies in letting go of identification with the body, the senses, the life-force, and even the mind. Thus, when the body and its functions come to an end, one does not.
Shankara tells us in his commentary on the kena Upanishad:
अतः श्रोत्रादेः श्रोत्रादिलक्षणं ब्रह्मात्मेति विदित्वा, अतिमुच्य श्रोत्राद्यात्मभावं परित्यज्य — ये श्रोत्राद्यात्मभावं परित्यजन्ति, ते धीराः धीमन्तः । — Shankara in his bhAShya at mantra 1.2, kena.
[Meaning: Therefore, having realized, as one’s Self, the Brahman that is defined as the “Ear of the ear” etc., and atimucya, giving up self-identification with the ear etc. (he becomes immortal). Those who give up self-identification with the ear etc. are the dhIrAh, intelligent, because the self-identification with the ear etc. cannot be given up unless one is endowed with uncommon intellect. (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda).]
Shankara emphasizes that the notions “I am the eye,” “I am the ear,” “I am the life-principle,” or “I am the mind” must be relinquished. This relinquishment should be done gently — like carefully freeing one’s scarf caught in a thorny bush.
The relinquishment implies clearly seeing: I am the user of the senses, the organs of action, the life-principle, and the mind. I am not confined to any of these instruments. I am present in them, and I am also beyond them. Such clarity, Shankara says, requires courage.
The word pretya in the mantra means “having departed.” This departure is not the death of the Self; it is the departure from mistaken identification with the body and its parts. This is what it means to grasp the truth that “I am both inside and outside,” as the IshAvAsya Upanishad declares:
तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्यास्य बाह्यतः ॥ — mantra 5, IshAvAsya.
[Meaning: It is within all; It is without all.]
Shankara says that this understanding — of oneself as all-pervading Consciousness — must become firm in what he calls the Consciousness-space. One should take that unbounded Consciousness-space Itself as one’s body. Then one becomes victorious.
But how does one come to grasp AtmA in this way?
The kena Upanishad answers:
अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि ।
इति शुश्रुम पूर्वेषां ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे ॥ — mantra 1.4, kena.
[Meaning: Different It is from all that is known, and beyond the unknown as well. Thus we have heard from the ancient Seers who explained It to us.]
Anything grasped by the mind is something known. But AtmA cannot be known by the mind. If the mind could conceive It, It would be limited by that conception. All knowledge of objects is constrained by perception and measurement. Whatever is measurable is limited — and therefore cannot be all-pervasive.
AtmA, therefore, cannot be known as an object. It cannot be objectified.
At the same time, AtmA is not unknown. One already knows It — because It is the very Knowing itself.
We easily recognize the “I” when something is added to it: I am a boy; I live in the USA; I am a doctor. If nothing is added, what remains is simply I am. Stop there, as the knowing element alone. If one tries to know this “I” as an object, name and form creep in, and with them limitations.
If you want to see the ocean, you go to the beach. But what you actually see are waves there. The ocean itself appears as waves. In the same way, AtmA appears as the life-partner, the family, the children, and the world.
This Knowing has to be lived and assimilated, not merely read in books or heard in talks. The mind must be sharp and pure to receive what is being pointed out.
Yet many believe that AtmA can be grasped through ritual and worship. The kena Upanishad is unequivocal:
यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम् ।
तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ — mantra 1.6, kena.
[Meaning: What none can comprehend with the mind, but by which, the sages say, the mind is comprehended, know that alone as brahman and not this that they worship here.]
What people worship are forms — idols of Krishna, Venkateshvara, Rama or any of the favorite Gods. These are visible, finite objects, conceived and known by the mind. Temples and idols are objects of perception.
The Upanishad reminds us that AtmA is not perceived or known in this way. The idol is known to Consciousness; therefore, Consciousness, the Knower, is superior to the idol. AtmA may be imagined with a form for the sake of worship, but in truth It is formless as “I.” And only what is formless can be all-pervading, since form necessarily limits extension.
A finite instrument can grasp only finite things. Unless the intellect can spread itself and pervade everything, it cannot grasp what AtmA truly is. To grasp the whole, one has to be the whole. If a river wishes to capture the entire ocean, it must become the ocean. As long as it insists on remaining a river, it can extend only so far. To be the ocean, it must give up its separate name and form. Once that identity is dissolved, it will no longer be a river.
The human mind is no different. It cannot remain a finite mind and yet know brahman. It must cease to function as a mind. This is what is meant by being amanaska.
In ritualistic worship (upAsanA), one attempts to grasp brahman while retaining one’s limited mind and preferred forms. This effort is bound to fail. The kena Upanishad makes this explicit: “यन्मनसा न मनुते” — brahman cannot be known by the mind.
brahman is known only when the mind dissolves, because brahman is the very Knower of the mind. Any chosen form — God, guru, or even the mind itself — is merely an adjunct. brahman shines through them, but is not confined to them.
Hence ritualistic worship, as a possible means to comprehending brahman, gets ruled out.
(To Continue … Part 9 (kena 4))