Kena Upanishad 2:3 & Carefully Chosen Words

For whom not conceived, to whom conceived.

Conceived to whom, does not know himself.

Not understood by understanding.

Understood by not understanding.

yasyaamatam tasya matam

matam yasya na veda sah

avijnaatam vijaanataam

vijnaatam avijaanataam

Note: There are three words here used for the concept of understanding: matam, veda, and vijanatam. Most translators appear to use them all as a single meaning. Sri M chooses ‘know.’ As does Nikhilananda, Manchester/ Prabhavananda, and of course, Gambhirananda via Shankara. On the other hand, Paramananda and Easwaran use a combination of think and know. Only Aurobindo differentiates each meaning: think, know, discern. I lean towards his understanding, but have chosen different translations in ‘conceive’ and ‘understand for 'think' and discern.’ Basically, I didn't agree with the translation: “For whom not thought, to whom thought.” I feel ‘conceived’ offers more depth. As for ‘discern’ rather than ‘understand,’ it’s just a pure sense of appropriate language there. But I could certainly be persuaded by Aurobindo's choice in time.

Also, In this translation, I am continuing to stay with the placement of the words as much as Englishly possible. This is especially noticeable in the translation of the second line. Aurobindo translates this as such: “…he by whom It is thought out, knows It not.” But I find it important that ‘sah’ or ‘him’ come at the end of the line. First, in the first line, that word is not used. Yasya or ‘whom’ is used twice. For me, this indicates that the knowing is not done by the person. Whereas in the second line, the one that wrongly conceives is that 'person.' Moreover, because of that incorrect conception, that person “does not know himself.”

These are the intricacies I feel the Rishi Kena is teasing out in a few carefully chosen words, and exactly what is missing in the other translations.

Kena Upanishad 2:2 and the Invisible Teacher

Not thinking I fully know

Nor not know, it’s thus known.

Anyone among us that knows, that knows.

Not unknown, it’s thus known.

naham manye su-vedeti

no na vedeti veda ca

yo nas tad veda tad veda

no na vedeti veda ca


Note: Although the words 'student' and 'teacher' do not appear in this text of the Kena, it was translated as such by Shankara, who had his own scholastic motivation for doing so. In turn, the following translators keep to Shankara's additive translation and interpretation: Easwaran, Paramananda, Nikhilananda, and even Yeats (Purohit). Aurobindo and Manchester (Prabhavananda) do not. Just saying.

My Kena Upanishad 2:1 and some Others

If thought to be fully understood, then little is it really so.

Certainly you may understand the Absolute appearances

Which are shared between you and the gods indeed.

Meditating only yourself is considered truly understood.

yadi manyase su-vedeti dabhram evapi

 nunam tvam vettha brahmano rupam

yad asya tvam yad asya ca deveshv atha nu

 mimamsyam eva te manye viditam

Note: What appears to be missing in most translations of the Kena is a respect for the play of the Kena. Here, in the first sloka of the second section, there is the first interplay of thinking one fully understands with the fact that little is its actuality. Most translations get this. But the second interplay appears to be glossed over at best. Understanding the appearance of Brahman shared between humans and god is usually given, but playing it against the meditation of only yourself is not.

Some translations of that last line in comparison:

Therefore Brahman, even now, is worthy of your inquiry. ~ Swami Nikhilananda

What is indeed the truth of Brahman you must therefore learn. ~ Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester

… this thou hast to think out. I think It known. ~ Sri Aurobindo

Therefore I think that what thou thinkest to be known is still to be sought after. ~ Swami Paramananda

Continue, therefore, your meditation. ~ Easwaran

These translations are more like interpretations rather than renditions, although Easwaran, I feel, comes closest. But what’s missing is the comparison of those appearances and forms which are shared between people and the gods with that which is only within yourself, and which must be meditated or inquired. This comparison is key. And although it is only one example of the genius of this Upanishad, it is another example of the lack of intelligent translations. I do not claim that title for my version. It is far from that. But for me, it points to that vedantic method pertaining to all these other translations: not this, not this, not this…

Kena Upanishad 1:6-7-8 (fifth time is the charm)

Which by the eye is not seen but by which the seeing is seen,

That alone, the Absolute, You, know, and not this which they worship.

yac cakshusha na pashyate yena cakshumshi pashyati

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upaasate

Which by the ear is not heard but by which the hearing is heard,

That alone, the Absolute, You, know, and not this which they worship.

yac chrotrena na shrinoti yena shrotram idam shrutam

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upaasate

Which by the breath is not inhaled but by which the breathing is exhaled,

That alone, the Absolute, You, know, and not this which they worship.

yat pranena na praniti yena pranah praniyate

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upaasate

Note: There's not much to say about these, except they continue the Absolute mantra from the previous two slokas (I've decided, for the time being, that 'you' should be capitalized), as well as the concept that the senses cannot detect it but it detects the senses: awareness. I feel the last sloka involving the breath is particularly wonderful in denoting the breath of life not inhaling (smelling) That, but the breath of life being exhaled by That. Nice ending there.

Kena Upanishad 1:4-5 (That, Absolute, You)

Which by speech is not expressed but by which the voice is expressed,

That alone, the Absolute, you, know, and not this which they worship.

yad vaachaa nabhyuditam yena vaag abhyudyate

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upaasate.

Which by the mind is not understood but by which, they say, the mind is understood,

That alone, the Absolute, you, know, and not this which they worship.

yan manasaa na manute yenaahur mano matam

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upaasate

notes:

-         Some indicate these slokas are 4 & 5; some, 5 & 6 (with sloka 3 being 3 & 4)

-         Most translate the second lines of both of these slokas, which will be repeated again in the next three slokas, a most important mantra of sorts, along the lines of “know that alone to be Brahman,” but translated literally, the line would be: “That alone Brahman you know.” After much meditation on this, a flash of insight realized the three nouns of That, Brahman, and ‘you’ were being equated as one subject to the verb, know! thus: “That alone, the Absolute, you, know”

The Kena for Fools 1:3

Not there the eye goes, nor speech goes, nor mind.

Not known nor understood, how can it be taught?

Different undoubtedly is that from the known,

likewise from the unknown, beyond.

Thus we’ve heard from our preceptors who that have declared.

na tatra chakshur gacchati na vaag gacchati no manah

na vidmo na vijaaniimo yathaitad anushishyaat

anyad eva tad viditaad atho aviditaad adhi

iti shushruma purveshaam ye nas tad vyaacha chakshirey.

The Kena for Fools 1:2 complete

The ear of the ear, the mind of the mind,

That voice indeed of the voice is surely the breath of the breath,

The eye of the eye released is wise,

Leaving this world, immortal immediately

shrotrasya shrotram manaso mano

yad vaacho ha vaacham sa u praanasya praanah

chakshushas chakshur atimuchya dheeraahh

prety asmaal lokaat amritaa bhavanti

The Kena for Fools 1:1 complete

By whom and toward what rebounds the mind?

By whom is first breath of life enjoined?

By whom is willed these words someone recites?

These eyes and ears of what divinity unites?

keneshitam patati preshitam manah

kena pranah prathamah praiti yuktah

keneshita vacam imam vadanti

cakshuh shrotram ka u devo yunakti

The Kena for Fools 1:1-1

Here’s my attempt at translating the Kena Upanishad by utilizing three translations: an unattributed one from nitaaiveda.com, another by Sri M in his book entitled ‘Wisdom of the Rishis, and that classic work of Swami Gambhirananda in ‘Eight Upanishads, with the Commentary of Sankaracarya, Vol. I.’

Each utilizes a similar diacritic-free transliteration of Sanskrit which works simply well for this fool. My intent is to borrow freely from them while trying to keep some of the wordplay and rhythm apparent in the original or as I feel fit.

I once attempted a transliteration of the Tao Te Ching with each chapter reduced to 140 characters for twitter, which I ultimately published as the Tao Te Tweet. I’m not keeping myself to such constraints here, but the intent is the same: having fun with words of wisdom. It’s what this mind does.

Here’s the first line of Kena 1:1. First comes the Sanskrit transliteration. Second is a section in blue consisting of all three translations described above, word by word if possible, and their ultimate translation in bold. Lastly comes my translation, for what it’s worth.

keneshitam patati preshitam manah

1.

kena--by what, or whom;

ishitam--toward what is desired;

patati--flies; 

preshitam--impelled; 

manah--the mind;

Impelled by what or whom does the mind pursue its desires?
http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Upanishads/Kena_Upanisad.htm

2.

‘By whom is the mind activated?

M, Sri. Wisdom of the Rishis

3.

Kena, by what agent; being

isitam, willed, directed;

manah, the mind;

patati, goes, goes towards its own object

Presitam is a form of the same root, with pra prefixed to it, in the sense of directing. If the word presitam alone were used (without isitam) there would arise such an inquiry about the particular kind of director and the direction as: `By what particular director? And how is the direction?' But the attribute isitam being there, both the questions are set at rest, because thereby is ascertained a special meaning, viz `directed (presitam) through whose mere will?'

Willed by whom does the directed mind go towards its object?

Swami Gambhirananda. Eight Upanishads, with the Commentary of Sankaracarya, Vol. I

By whom and toward what rebounds the mind?