“I know Brahman well enough” —Keṇopaniṣad Ch. 2
Channel: Consciousness Research Centre
Date: 02/05/2022

(Disciple): “I think (Brahman) is known.”
(Teacher): “If you think, ‘I have known Brahman well enough,’ then you have known only the very little expression that It has in the human body and the little expression that It has
among the gods. Therefore Brahman is still to be deliberated on by you.”

Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary:  
Fearing that the disciple, to whom has been brought home the conviction, “You are the Self, which is opposed to the acceptable and the unacceptable, and which is Brahman”, may jump to the conclusion, “I know myself well enough that I, indeed, am Brahman", the teacher, with a view to dispelling that notion of the disciple, says, “If you think” etc.

Objection: Is not such a firm conviction as, “I know well enough", desirable?

Answer: True, a firm conviction is desirable but not such a one as, “I know It well enough.” That knowable thing alone that falls within the range of cognition can be known thoroughly, just as an inflammable substance becomes consumable to a fire that burns it, but not so the essence itself of the fire. The well-ascertained purport of all the Upanisads is that the personal Self of each knower is Brahman. Here, too, the same fact has been established in the form of an answer to questions, in the text beginning with, “That which is the Ear of the ear” etc. (1. 2); and the same has been specifically affirmed in the text, “That which is not uttered by speech” (I. 5). Besides, the positive conclusion of the (traditional) line of knowers of Brahman has been adduced in the text : “That is surely different from the known; and again. It is above the unknown” (I. 4). And the topic will be concluded thus: “It is unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know” (II.3). Hence it is proper to dispel the disciple's notion: “I know well enough.” For the knower cannot be known by the knower, just as fire cannot be consumed by the consuming fire; and there is no other knower different from Brahman to whom Brahman can become a separate knowable. A separate knower is denied by the Vedic text: '‘There is no other knower but this” (Br. III. viii. 1 1). Therefore the conviction, “I know Brahman well enough”, is certainly false. Hence the teacher has justifiably said, “If you think” etc.

Although the entity may be inscrutable, yet someone who is possessed of real wisdom and who is free from defects, may at some time comprehend It, whereas some one else may not; hence the teacher says with hesitation, “If you think” etc. And it has been noticed that when it was declared, “ ‘The person that is perceived in the eye—this is the Self', so said he (Prajapati), ‘This is immortal, fearless—this is Brahman’ ” (Ch. VIII. vii. 4). Virocana, though he was a son of Prajapati, and a scholar, and a king of the demons, still, owing to his naturaldefects, understood, contrary to what was taught, an opposite object, viz the body, to be the Self. Similarly, Indra, the king of the gods, who could not comprehend when instructed once, twice, and thrice, did, at the fourth stage, when his natural defects had been removed, realise the same Brahman that was spoken of at the very initial stage (Ch. VIII. vii-xii). In ordinary life also it is seen that, of the disciples hearing from the same teacher, some one understands accurately, some one inaccurately, some one contrarily, and some one nothing at all. What more need one speak with regard to (the knowledge of) the real nature of
the Self which is beyond the senses? In this matter, indeed, all dialecticians, whether they believe in (the) existence or non-existence (of the Self), have got their misconceptions. Therefore though the statement, ‘"Brahman has been reaised’', has been made with firm conviction, still the teacher’s apprehensive remark, “If you think" etc., is quite appropriate in view of the unwarranted comprehensions.

Download Keṇopaniṣad: https://www.indicamoksha.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Kenaupanishad-KAR.pdf