Kena Upanishad | by Shankara | I 4-9

Anyat eva, different indeed; is tat, that, which is the topic discussed and which has been spoken of as the Ear etc., of the ear etc., and as beyond their reach.

It is, indeed, different from the known:

The known is that which is very much within the grasp of the act of knowing, that which is the object of the verb, “to know”.

Inasmuch as everything is known somewhere by somebody, all that is manifested is certainly known. The idea is that, It (Brahman) is different from that.

Lest, in that case, It should be unknown, the text says, atho, again; aviditāt, from the unknown, from what is opposed to the known, from that which consists of the unmanifested ignorance, which is the seed of the manifested.

The word adhi, used in the sense of “above”, means “different” by a figure of speech; for it is well known, that anything that exists above another is different from that other.

Whatever is known is limited, mortal, and full of misery; and hence it is to be rejected.

So when it is said that Brahman is different from the known - it amounts to asserting that It is not to be rejected.

Similarly, when it is affirmed that It is different from the unknown, it amounts to saving that It is not a thing to be obtained, it is for the sake of getting an effect that somebody acquires something different from himself to serve as a cause.

For this reason, too, nothing different from the Self need be acquired to serve any purpose distinct from the knower (Self).

Thus the statement that Brahman is different from the known and the unknown, having amounted to Brahman being denied as an object to be acquired or rejected, the desire of the disciple to know Brahman (objectively) comes to an end, for Brahman is non-different from the Self.

(Or, according to a different reading -the desire of the disciple to know a Brahman, different from the Self, comes to an end). For nothing other than one's own Self can possibly be different from the known and the unknown.

Thus it follows that the meaning of the sentence is that the Self is Brahman.
And this also follows from such Vedic texts as;

“This Self is Brahman” (Mā, 2; Brih. II. v. 19, IV. iv. 5),
“that Self which is untouched by sin” (Ch. VIII. vii. 1),
“the Brahman that is immediate and direct—the Self that is within all” (Br. III. iv. 1), etc.

In this way, the text, “Thus we heard” etc., states how through a succession of preceptors and disciples was derived the purport of the sentence

which establishes as Brahman that Self of all which is devoid of distinguishing features, and is the light of pure consciousness.

Moreover, Brahman can be known only through such a traditional instruction of preceptors and not through argumentation, nor by study (or exposition), intelligence, great learning, austerity, sacrifices, etc.

- iti, such (was what); śuśruma, we heard; pūrveṣāṁ, of the ancient teachers, i.e. the utterance of those ancient teachers; ye, who; naḥ, to us; tat, that Brahman; vyācacakṣire, explained, spoke clearly.

The idea that the Self is Brahman having been established through the sentence,
“That is surely different from the known, and, again, that is above the unknown”,
the hearer has this doubt:

“How can the Self be Brahman?

For the Self is familiarly known to be that which is entitled to undertake rites and meditation and which, being Subject to birth and death, seeks to attain either the gods headed by Brahmā (Creator) or heaven through the performance of rites or meditation.

Therefore some adorable being other than that (Self), e.g. Viṣṇu, Īśvara (Śiva), Indra, or Prāṇa (vital force or Hiraṇyagarbha) may well be Brahman,  but not so the Self; for this is opposed to common sense.

Just as other logicians say that the Self is different from the Lord,
so also the ritualists worship other gods saying, ‘Sacrifice to that one’, ‘Sacrifice to that one’.

Therefore it is reasonable that, that should be Brahman which is known and adorable; and the worshipper should be one who is different from this.“

Having noticed this doubt either from the looks or the words of the disciple, the teacher said, “Don't be in doubt”-

Yat, that which, whose essence consists of Consciousness alone. Vāk (speech) is the organ which, clinging to the 8 localities and being presided over by (the god of) Fire, expresses the letters.

The letters, too, as limited in their number and as subject to a certain sequence, in conformity with the meaning intended to he conveyed, are also called vāk.

Thus also the sound expressible by them, which is the pada (sphoṭa), is called vāk.
This is in accordance with the Vedic text:

“The letter a, indeed, is all speech:

And that speech, being manifested as the sparśa letters, the antaḥstha letters (semi-vowels), and uṣma letters (aspirates), becomes many and multifarious” (Ai. Ā. II. iii. 7.13).

Vācā, by vāk, by speech, which has these modifications, viz. regulated (metrical, Rik) non-regulated (prose, Yajuḥ), musical (Sāma), true, and false—by that vāk which becomes defined as words and to which the organ of speech is subordinate.

(Yat, that which) is anabhyuditaṁ, not expressed, not uttered; yena, that by which, by Brahman, by the light of Consciousness; vāk, speech, together with its organs; abhyudyate, is uttered, is expressed, that is to say, is engaged.

That which has been spoken of here as

“the Speech of speech” (Ke. 1. 2), and as
“When It speaks, It is called the organ of speech” (Brih. I. iv. 7) and
“He who controls the organ of speech from within" (Br. III. vii. 17), etc.,

in the Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, and about whom the question has been raised thus,

“The (power of) speech, that is found in men, is established in sounds.
Does any Brāhmaṇa know it?”

and the answer has been given by saying,
“That by which one speaks in dream is speech”

—that eternal power of speech that a speaker has is vāk which is in essence the light of Consciousness.

And this follows from the Vedic text,

“For, the speaker's power of speech can never be lost” (Br. IV. iii. 26).

Tat eva, that indeed, that Self in its true nature; tvam, you; viddhi, know; as brahma, Brahman—(so called) because of its extensity (or unsurpassability)—that which is all-surpassing and is called Bhūmā, great (Ch. VII. xxiii. 1).

The significance of the word eva is this:

Know the Self alone to be the unconditioned Brahman after eradicating all such things as speech because of which adjuncts there occur such empirical expressions, with regard to the transcendental, unconditioned, unsurpassing, and equipoised Brahman, as

“It is the Speech of speech”, “the Eye of the eye”, “the Ear of the ear”,
“the Mind of mind”, the agent, the enjoyer, the controller, the knower, governor.

“Consciousness, Bliss, Brahman” (Brih. III. ix. 28.7), etc.

Na idam, this is not; brahma, Brahman; yat, which; people upāsate, meditate on; as idam, this, (as a limited object) possessed of distinctions created by limiting adjuncts--as a non-Self e.g. God etc.

Although in the sentence, “know that alone to be Brahman”
it has already been stated that the non-Self is not Brahman,

still with a view to enunciating an explicit rule (that leaves no scope for option) the idea is repeated in the sentence, “This is not Brahman”; or this may be with a view to excluding the identification of Brahman with what is not Brahman.

Manas means the internal organ, mind and intellect being taken as one entity:

The word manas, derived from the root man in the sense of that by which one thinks, is common to all organs, since it embraces all objects.

In accordance with the Vedic text,

“Desire, deliberation, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence, and fear—all these are but the mind” (Brih. I, v. 3),

- mind is that which has desire etc. as its functions.

Yat, that which—the light of Consciousness which illumines the mind; one na manute, does not think or determine, by that mind, because It rules the mind by virtue of being the enlightener of the mind.

Since the Self, indeed, constitutes the essence of everything, therefore the mind cannot act with regard to its own Self. The mind can think only when it is illumined by the light of Consciousness within.

That Brahman, yena, by which—they, the knowers of Brahman, āhuḥ, say—manas, the mind, together with its modes; matam, is thought of, encompassed.

Therefore viddhi, know, tat eva, that very one, the Self of the mind, the internal illuminator; as Brahman. Na idam, etc. is to be understood as before.

Yat, that which; cakṣuṣā, with the eye, as associated with the functions of the internal organ; na paśyati, (man) does not see, does not make an object of perception;

yena, that by which; man paśyati, sees, perceives, encompasses, through the light of Consciousness; cakṣūmṣi, the activities of the eye—diversified in accordance with the modes of the internal organ.

Tat eva, etc., as before.

Yat śrotreṇa na śṛṇoti, that which man does not hear with the ear, that is presided over by the deity of the quarters, that is produced from ākāśa, and that is connected with the activity of the mind;

yena, that by which, by the light of Consciousness; idam śrotraṁ śrutam, this well-known ear is encompassed;

Tat eva, etc., as before.

Prāṇena, by the organ of smell, produced from earth, existing in the nostrils, and associated with the activities of the internal organ and the vital force;

yat, that which; man na prāṇiti does not smell, does not comprehend like smell;

yena, that by which light of the Self: prāṇaḥ, the organ of smell—being illumined as an object; praṇīyate, is impelled - towards its own object.

All the rest, tat eva etc., is just like what has gone before.

It was the first part of Kena Upanishad