kenopanishad

[suniti]

mahadbhyo namah

As a sadhana i want to write and look at some texts. I warn you right away that it may be very boring, if anybody chooses to read it but like i said its sadhana i want to take up. Im inspired by P Srinivas Raoji's post on Adi Shankara and his taking time to write that so beautifully.

I am in a period of time where i have let go of a lot of what i have learned, so the question comes to me why do i want to write this?
i am actually aiming at something which is a look, verse by verse at Durga Saptashati, it has been in my mind to write down Devi Mahatmyam seeking the blessings of the Divine Mother. But that' going to take a lot of time.

i would first like to look at a smaller, text. An upanishad. By smaller i don't mean in knowledge but smaller in verses. As all upanishads are pointers to the SELF but again, why do i want to write this? Its because i want to see it one more time in a new light and i know that a lot of people here have their own experiences to share from the path. Also i find other people's insights make me re-evaluate the things already packed up in that mind of mine, mixed with song lyrics and recipes are some shlokas and some interpretations and a LOT of conditionings. I believe that there is something required in the quest for the Self and i think its mental purity. This is a belief and may be false but it's what i have prayed my entire life for. I'm not talking about final stage and mental purity nor am i talking about the appearance of being pious. I am maybe speaking about a mind that is without conflict.
so if i have to take a sankalpa here it's for chitta shuddhi and may i go so far as to say the dissipation of "i"

I encourage all to contribute if you feel like it

I know a lot of you out there are really knowledgeable so if you have any input or interpretations of the stanzas please contribute.
I am not an authority on upanishad and nowhere near to knowing sanskrit. Although i had an amazing Aacharya i still learned very little, and with this i salute the Great ones who Know.

The Upanishad i would like to look at is Kenopanishad, from the Saama Veda. Kena means "by what" it is the instrumental case of the word kim (what).
If we take a masculine word, like Raama, and put it in the instrumental case it becomes Raamena, which would mean "by Raama"

I went into that briefly though many of you already know this because the fact that the title and first word of the Kenopanishad denote something that is "by" or "through" and is important as it pertains in my opinion, to a medium,

In the study of postmodernism, there was a famous phrase "Medium is the Message." This was coined by Marshall Mcluhan where he explores ideas of media. In the case of televised news we see the content but if we for look at a minute at the medium through which we are getting this information we see how much that causes opinions and changes. However when he talks about the light bulb,although it has a social effect by its mere presence, it does not have content. In any case medium is the message.

So lets start the upanishad now.

Every upanishad starts with a prayer for peace, although i have been on this forum for a very short time i have used the phrase many times from a shanti mantra and said "tejasvinaavadhitamastu maa vidvishaavahai" which when simply translated means
"may we become effulgent in our studies together and may we never argue"

I will not go into any analysis of the peace prayer from Kena, i will give the translation ( i am not translating i will be drawing from several translations).

Om Aapyayantu Mamaangaani
Vaak Praanas Chakshuh Shrotram
Atho Balam Indriyaani Cha Sarvaani
Sarvam Brahmaa Upanishadam
Maaham Brahma Niraakuryaam
Maa Maa Brahma Niraakarot
Aniraakaranam Astu
Aniraakaranam Me Astu
Tadaatmani Nirate
Ya Upanishatsu Dharmaah
Te Mayi Santu, Te Mayi Santu
Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih

May my limbs, speech praana, eyes ears, strength and ALL my organs become well developed. Everything is the Brahman in the Upanishads. May i not deny Brahman. May Brahman not deny me. May there be no rejection of me by Brahman, and may i not reject Brahman. May all of the virtues in the upashads be in me, as im engaged in the pursuit of the self, may they repose in me.
om peace peace peace.


Part 1

Keneshitam patati preshitam manah.
Kena Praanah prathama praiti yuktah
keneshitam vachamimaam vadanti
chakshuh shrotram ka u devo yunakti

By What does the directed mind go towards its objects? Being directed by whom does the praana proceed towards its duty? By what does the speech (the words that we say) are willed? Who is that Divininty that directs the eyes and ears?

This is the question of the student. I'm sure after much contemplation he came upon such a question. What is that thing? I mean how do we stand and breathe, talk and even "think"?
In one of my film classes we used to view films. Normally the professor used to put the film on and sit with us and afterwards we used to discuss it if there was time. One day there was a film called Wavelength by directer Michael Snow. The professor put in the movie and quickly left the room. The movie started with a chair in a room with a window open. AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED FOR 45 minutes. I think at one point through the window we heard a car door slam and a little bit of the song "strawberry fields forever"

One girl slammed her books shut 15 minutes through and left. The next day during the discussion our professor said the film is about watching, and watching stillness brings you to introspection. He assured us that many of us would have had existential thoughts, which we actually did. Those thoughts, why are we here? Why do breathe? Who am i? are all products of introspection.

So the student here has asked the question.

hope i can continue

suniti

"he's a real nowhere man sitting in his nowhere land making all his nowhere plans for nobody
doesn't have a point of view, knows not where he's going to, nowhere man can you see me at all?"
the beatles

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Madam Suniti...
very interesting....please continue....we are all ears....
what did the teacher answer...?

[suniti]

you're all ears eh?


well the teacher says

Shrotasya shrotam manaso mano yad
vacho ha vacham sa u praanasya praanah
chakshushashchakshuh ati muchya dhirah
pretyaasmallokaadamritaa bhavanti

It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind , the speech of the speech, the praana of the praana,
the eye of the eye, therefore the intelligent, (after giving up identification of the senses) renouce the world
and become immortal.

here comes renunciation again.
more tomorrow

[suniti]

Many arguments have been made against the answer saying "ear of the ear....." is not a justifiable answer because the answer should denote something.
It is denoting something however. Something very subtle that cannot be defined. I will refer back to Mcluhan's example of the light bulb, though it gives light and has a social effect it has no content. In this case that light does not have the filament or whatever is used these days or even the casing if a lightbulb. I feel the ear or the ear.... is referring to something self effulgent. If it could've been defined in an objective way then there would've have been something else behind the ear- of the ear- of the ear.
It would be maybe like those little dolls that fit one inside the other until you get to the one that has only space inside of it.
i'm still thinking and processing
i'm trying not to parrot here though i am taking support to understand.
Now i'm thinking about the part where its said, "the intelligent upon knowing this renounce the world and become immortal.
I'm thinking and i don't know what to say here except maybe that those who can see just see it. It maybe like its said in Bhagavad Gita "tyaagaat shantih anantaram" from renunciation comes eternal peace


the teacher clarifies a bit more of the answer in the next verse

na tatra chakshur gacchati na vaggacchati no manah
na vidmo na vijaanimo yathaitat anushishyat

The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind.
We do not know It (the Self to be such and such)
so we are not aware of any process of instructing about IT.

this is so beautiful and direct. beautiful enough to make me feel like not writing anymore but i want to finish this because i still have not seen THAT. although it cannot be instructed i would like the pointers and like a said earlier a bit of chitta shudhi


more later
suniti





"I'm like a bird, I'll only fly away
I don't know where my soul is
I don't know where my home is"
nelly furtado

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Some loud thinking here....

The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind.
We do not know It (the Self to be such and such)
so we are not aware of any process of instructing about IT.

Sinse it is beyond the senses and the mind....and incomprehensible with mere intellect...
That is why the approach of "Neti Neti" is adopted...you dont know what IT is.....
you can only say what IT is not....

because i still have not seen THAT

madam you yourself have quoted "the eyes cannot go there...
so you can never see that....
(That perception will destroy the perceiver.... )

although it cannot be instructed i would like the pointers and like a said earlier a bit of chitta shudhi

Perfectly Valid
please keep it flowing....we all want to know the unknowable....

Regards,

[lovacrs]

Abhijit ji,

That perception will destroy the perceiver....

or is it that perception will happen after the perceiver is destroyed..?

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Dear CRS

Once the perciever is destroyed....to whom does the perception happen to ...?
I am just playing with words here.... without having any idea about that perception....

Regards,

PS...kindly skip the ji..

[suniti]

please keep it flowing....we all want to know the unknowable....

Dear Abhijitji in the course of this thread (which at the rate im going won't be over for another 25 years or so),
if you lose your "knower" let me know, i'll totally take credit for it


Who Says Words with my Mouth?All day I think about it, then at night I say it.
Where did I come from,and what am I supposed to be doing? My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that,
and I intend to end up there.

This drunkenness began in some other tavern.
When I get back around to that place,
I'll be completely sober. Meanwhile,
I'm like a bird from another continent, sitting in this aviary.
The day is coming when I fly off,
but who is it now in my ear who hears my voice?
Who says words with my mouth?

Who looks out with my eyes? What is the soul? If I could taste one sip of an answer, Whoever brought me here will have to take me home.

This poetry. I never know what I'm going to say. When I'm outside the saying of it,
We have a huge barrel of wine, but no cups.
That's fine with us. Every morning
we glow and in the evening we glow again.

They say there's no future for us. They're right.
Which is fine with us.

rumi

[suniti]

sri ganeshaaya namah

continuation

The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind.
We do not know It (the Self to be such and such)
so we are not aware of any process of instructing about I

the teacher is so clear here that it cannot be taught. How can it be taught as it cannot be known, im not totally sure that he's not sending out the kid who asked the first question .
or the Guru's way of saying "see it yourself"

the eyes don't go there, nor speech nor mind, as they all perceive and IT is beyond perception, very simply as we all know because it cannot be objectified.

An example is given for this by Adi Shankara, "just as fire which burns and illumines does not burn or illumine itself"

It is the perceiver of the fire that is given the illumination.

Maharshi Ramana and others allowed the death of the mind. I think all words fail here itself. When the mind is dead and if we use the analogy of the fire not illuminating itself as it is light, then i have the eternal question, though they say theres no process, what happens to the one who loses his "mind"? Can we say something happens?

We don't know, we have logic and maybe some sense of something but it cannot be taught like the verse here says. The great who know cannot explain as its beyond all of that! They sit, go into some states and function but they cannot tell us, only point, if we see, we see. (I use the word "see" here not in the sense of eyes)

verse 4

anyadeva tadviditadatho aviditadadhi
iti shushruma purveshaam ye nastadvyacacakshire

That (Self) is surely different from the known and again it is above the known, this is what we heard of the ancient ones who explained IT to us

So does that mean we should not attempt to know? I think maybe this verse is a kind of affirmation, in the sense yes it cannot be known, but we have heard of it from the ancient teachers so there HAS to be something! Call it what you want.

IT is different from the known but heres what we have for certain, IT, the Self "is"

Not to unleash a fire on this thread becasue i really want to finish it, but even J K has said " the door is there and the key is in your hand. Nobody on earth can give you either the key or the door to open, except yourself"


verse 5

yadvaca'nabhyuditam yena vagabhyudyate
tadeva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate

That which is not uttered by speech that by which speech is revealed know that alone to be Brahman and not what is worshipped as an object

Sri Dakshinamurti came down, and taught the highest knowledge. All the students were waiting as he sat, and were eager to hear about the Self. He sat with his hands in chinmudra and spoke nothing. In that silence we glorify and say he gave all the bhashyas right there (mauna vyaakhyaana).

The Self was never made into an object.

I personally, though i technically understand that it cannot be worshipped as an object continue to do so many rituals, even writing this thread can join that group. I need some grace on me, if you say words can't go there and i know its not effort
then it seems random. Who gets IT and who doesn't? Even chitta shudhi i doubt has anything to do with it.

to be continued



And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence
simon and garfunkel

[suniti]

om

the next shloka is simlar to the last in that theres a string of verses from the Kena here with the same ending

yanmanasa na manute yenahurmano matam
tadeva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate

That by which mind doesn't comprehend with mind, but that by which they say mind is encompassed in, know that to be Brahman, not that which is worshipped as an object.


I notice again the pointer to a medium, it is THAT BY WHICH that itself is again the message, though we do not know what IT is, and cannot know.
In Maharshi Ramana's Upadesha Saara he explains mind. He says its a flow of thought, and in that you can see that the thought "i" is the subject. Upon questioning that "i" it falls. And realization is that simple!
Its interesting the verse he writes on questioning the "i" because usually if i say "i am" the conjugation of the verb indicates the subject.
In that particular verse he says "patati aham", instead of aham pataami, because i is no longer the subject. That "i" seems to be something not identified with.

Something that seems so simple, why do i find it difficult?

There are many versions of the story of Janaka Maharaj's realization of the Self with the Sage Ashtavakra. Janaka asks about the liberation and Ashtavakra tells him, the line i like most in this answer is "If one thinks of oneself as free, one is free, and if one thinks of oneself as bound, one is bound." There is more to this answer but the point is when Janaka is leaving and puts his foot in one stirrup, upon mounting the horse he sees That.

Janaka Maharaj attained liberation while mounting a horse! He just saw and was free. It was not mind, it was not effort, it just "is"

to be continued


"Let's do some living, after we'll die
Wild horses couldn't drag me away
Wild, wild horses, we'll ride them some day"
Rolling Stones

but here's my favorite version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS9i9LxqdeI

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Dear Suniti... again some loud thinking from me...

Upon questioning that "i" it falls.

See these things....are quite tricky...now i want to know who is questioning that "i" ?
It is the i that is questioning itself...and playing a trick...?
the mind or thoughts cannot take one beyond mind.

the fact that one is using thoughts to reach a thoughtless state is like trying to catch a shadow...or the dog trying to catch its tail....isn't it..?

It was not mind, it was not effort, it just "is"

This makes perfect sense...its the total absence of a subject...or the still mind.

what the hell...i guess we are having more fun analizing these abstracts endleslly...which by the way is giving continuity to the non existing "i"

[suniti]

Abhijitji

the fact that one is using thoughts to reach a thoughtless state is like trying to catch a shadow...or the dog trying to catch its tail....isn't it..?

i agree completely, that sattvik ego that is removing the "i" thought is the thief dressed as a policeman!!!

however the idea behind self enquiry is that because the "i" is just a thought, acting like the owner, it should not be able to hold up to questioning.

See this is not my experience so i can't say although i find self enquiry helps in "seeing" i don't know about the "i" falling as i havent experienced that.

And like Ashtakavakra says, "if you think you are free you are free, if you think you are bound, then you are bound"

It is tricky, i often wonder, if i was in Ramana Maharshi's place at the time of his death experience, and i know that my ego would have come in the middle and said "HEY!!! is this the falling of the"I"??? and messed everything up.

Its beyond effort, its beyond known, so do we stop trying then?

i don't know.

suniti


"Oh the devil in me said go down to the shed
I know where I belong
But the only thing I ever really wanted to say
Was wrong, was wrong, was wrong"
the sundays

[suniti]

Shri Gurubhyo Namah


yaccakshushaa na pashyati
yena cakshumgamshi pashyati
tad eva brahma tvam viddhi
nedam yad idam upaasate

That which is not seen with the eye, but that by which vision is perceived, know that alone to be Brahman, not what is worshipped as an object.

i think this is self explananatory as the second line is the same as the previous two verses. Again and again its pointing out the Self is not an object and connot be objectified.

like the saying "to define it is to defile it" we cannot put restrictions on that which is unlimited. It cant be seen yet it pervades vision. I'm not even sure if we can call it as a source.

So you can't see It, you can't think about It, can't hear It,It can't be expressed i guess this is why the peace prayer says "may Brahman not spurn me, and may i not "spurn Brahman, because you can come pretty close to spurning right about here (j/k) and seriously may i not be spurned by Brahman.

My only comfort at this point is existence. I know there is the Existence because although i cannot perceive it, i am. In all the three states of existence i am present.

I don't know how much effort has a role to play the dropping of the perceiver. However, the beauty of Upanishad is that it points to something that cannot be objectified so beautifully. The highest adhikari hears one line and Sees. There must be a reason an emphasis is placed on hearing and thinking about the Self which cannot be perceived by any of the five senses. That's what im trying to explore by writing this.

Once you get on this path, as much as you want to turn back i don't think its possible. What seems like progress can sometimes be an entanglement. I'm not going to equate it a goal or a fight, however,once you're in and have heard of this thing called Moksha, once you want it theres no way out, i think. Even when you get to the idea of dropping knowledge its still in pursuit of That.

to be continued...


The rules of Fight Club

#1 - The first rule of Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club.
#2 - The second rule of Fight Club is, you DO NOT talk about Fight Club.
#3 - If someone says stop, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over.
#4 - Two guys to a fight.
#5 - One fight at a time.
#6 - No shirts, no shoes.
#7 - Fights will go on as long as they have to.
#8 - If this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight.

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Dear Suniti,
i equate the falling of this i to that of tree....a large tree standing tall lush with green leaves in its umpteen branches....with thick roots running deep under the ground clutching solidly to the earth...signifies a typical man in all his glories.His materialism signifying the branches and leaves. the roots signifies his mind and the vasanas which are entrenched in his subconsciousness.
as you see a renunciate....you can see the tree with its dwindling branches and the green leaves are turning dry...as he does more progress in the spiritual path the leaves ( his material wants and desires ) start shedding till the tree stands bare....but the tree still stands ...for it to fall...the roots have to give way....the roots have to unclutch its hold on the ground....ie the mind has to start giving up....the vasanas have to exhaust itself... or else there is every chance for the green leaves to sprout back.... only then with one strong wind....the tree comes down....
This is a typical normal process....
There are times when the tree looks green from the outside....but the roots would start unclutching. Then to the surprise of the on lookers...the tree comes down all of a sudden...
So basicaly there are no set patterns or prcedents here....my take is that the tree itself doesnot have any say in the whole matter.. nature takes its course....
this is purely a thought and i could be way offcourse...
regards,

[Dev]

Dear Suniti:

Can u post the slokas by copy paste in sanskrit if possible? The worst thing is reading sanskrit written in english.

Dev

[suniti]

Dear Devji
i agree completely
unforutnately i couldnt find a cut and pastable one on the internet
i hope you don't mind but im pasting a link here of the entire Upanishad in sanksrit

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... b6arQP2vtw

thanking you
suniti

[Dev]

Thanks Suniti. I thought for the benefit of sanskrit readers, pronunciation is important and so that is great, Many would be benefited.

Dev

[suniti]

The example that was given of the tree really made me introspect
it feels then that no effort is required and that everything is natural.
and even writing this thread is just the same activity in what looks like a sattvik way
but that sattvik ego, i always say, is the worst. Instead of a steel cage its a pretty golden cage.
It looks so nice but still is a trap, it still is the mind, and still is limiting.
i feel very often like im going in circles. Many point out the way to that Truth is effortless. It must be
since it is not an object.
nothing to do
nowhere to go
so for a while i stop thinking and stop trying to understand and i remember a quote from TS Eliot
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

i am again and again at the beginning, i am here once more.I do recognize this place. From the thought of nature, no effort, to once again a search without an object. sigh.

I thought i wouldnt continue this kena upanishad but i would like to. It is something i enjoy. Reflecting on these things are just the beauty of the self.
i don't know if i'll ever finish but would like to if not for any other reason that to get the part where a student says "upanishadam bho bruhi."

will continue Kena tomorrow, on the auspicious day of Guru.

suniti

Drive until you lose the road
Or break with the ones you've followed

from "how to save a life"
by the fray

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

"upanishadam bho bruhi."

Translation please.....

[suniti]

"upanishadam bho bruhi" is a a statement by a student near the end of the Upanishad where he asks the teacher
"please teach me upanishad"

(my next thread -if there is one- is going to be humor from the Vedas though i may be the only one laughing (i have a weird sense of what's funny).

(shantam paapam)

now to continue, .

Shri Gurubhyo Namah

there are two verses left of chapter one of the Kenopanishad
they have the same ending as the previous three verses "tadeva brahma tvam viddhi na idam yadidam upasate"

yacchrotrena na shrunoti
yena shrotramidam shrutam
tad eva brahma tvam viddhi
nedam yadidam upaasate

That by which man does not hear with the ear, but that by which the ear is made to hear, know that to be known as Brahman, not that which is worshiped as an object.

Many consider mantras the sound form of divinity. In fact the etymology of the word mantra is "mananaat trayate iti mantrah", meaning that by which through its repetition one gets protection (physical, mental &spiritual) is mantra.
In Shri Vidya upasana the panchadashi or shodashi mantras are considered the sound body of the Goddess Herself. Even in these very difficult upasanas Shakti is given a form with the goal of transcending this world of names and forms, to Shiva, awareness.
Here is an excerpt of a translation of Sant Jnaneshwar's Amritaanubhav:

"I offer obeisance to the God and Goddess,
The limitless primal parents of the universe.
They are not entirely the same,
Nor are they not the same.
We cannot say exactly what they are.
How sweet is their union!
The whole world is too small to contain them,
Yet they live happily in the smallest particle.
These two are the only ones
Who dwell in this home called the universe.
When the Master of the house sleeps,
The Mistress stays awake,
And performs the functions of both.
When He awakes, the whole house disappears,
And nothing at all is left.
Two lutes: one note.
Two flowers: one fragrance.
Two lamps: one light.
Two lips: one word.
Two eyes: one sight.
These two: one universe.
In unity there is little to behold;
So She, the mother of abundance,
Brought forth the world as play.
He takes the role of Witness
Out of love of watching Her.
But when Her appearance is withdrawn,
The role of Witness is abandoned as well.

This path of Shri Vidya though similar to Kashmir Shaivism has a few differences. However,whatever differences within the srividya upasana schools of thought and outside of it don't matter to the practitioner as the Parashuram Kalpasutras say clearly, while on this path "sarva darshanaaninda" Never insult any other path.
This is beautiful where one can see all paths as Her. The world of names and forms is all Her, however as the upanishad says "tat eva brahma tvam viddhi, nedam, ya idam, upasate." So transcending that which is worshipped as an object, as the world of names and forms to Paramaatma, whatever name you give it, the Self, or the self (small "s"), Brahman, Awareness or Consciousness or the frequently used "That" becomes interesting in terms of Shakti Upasana because in other schools of thought, that world of names as forms is just dismissed but in certain paths like ones of the Shaaktas, this whole entire world is worshipped and seen as "THAT BY WHICH."

I have an affinity towards the Kena for the reason that is in the Yaksha Prashna Portion of this Upanishad, which i feel makes it somewhat a bit more Shaakta. That is just my opinion, and maybe that of a few others.

to be continued

"Sarvam Brahmamayam re re
Sarvam Brahmamayam"
Sadasiva Brahmendra

[suniti]

the more i think on the Amritanubhav selection above
the less i want to use the word "transcend"

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

"I offer obeisance to the God and Goddess,
The limitless primal parents of the universe.
They are not entirely the same,
Nor are they not the same.
We cannot say exactly what they are.
How sweet is their union!
The whole world is too small to contain them,
Yet they live happily in the smallest particle.
These two are the only ones
Who dwell in this home called the universe.
When the Master of the house sleeps,
The Mistress stays awake,
And performs the functions of both.
When He awakes, the whole house disappears,
And nothing at all is left.
Two lutes: one note.
Two flowers: one fragrance.
Two lamps: one light.
Two lips: one word.
Two eyes: one sight.
These two: one universe.
In unity there is little to behold;
So She, the mother of abundance,
Brought forth the world as play.
He takes the role of Witness
Out of love of watching Her.
But when Her appearance is withdrawn,
The role of Witness is abandoned as well.

So beautiful .....justice done with words.... to the Cosmic Play.....Literally...Mind Blowing.. !!!

[Dev]

Suniti:

Very nice meaning. U must have written it during Abhijit Muhurt .

Dev

[suniti]

LOL Devji
i don't know when Sant Jnaaneshwar composed Amritanubhav, but i'm sure the translation of it i got off the net was done during that most auspicious time.

[Dev]

Thanks Suniti, that is why there are more replies.
Satvik ego is more dangerous than rajasik or tamasic since it is hidden inside and we may not be aware of it. Other two, we would know and can try to correct, is it not?

Dev