KENOPANISHAD -12: Swami Krishnananda.

Chinmaya Mission: 

Chinmaya Mission Guyana hosted its first International Chinmaya Yuva Kendra (CHYK) Camp, welcoming over a dozen students from Guyana, Chinmaya Mission Trinidad and Tobago, Toronto, and the USA. 

Each morning, the CHYKs studied the Medha Suktam and eagerly participated in Satsang with Swami Prakashananda, who expounded on the teachings of the Vibhishana Gita. 

In the evenings, they visited nearby Mandirs, where Swamiji discussed various topics from the Sri Ramcharitamanas for the general public.

During the day, the youth engaged in Seva at the ashram, which included preparing and cooking meals, assisting with the Bhagavad Gita Children’s Camp, and taking part in various fun activities. 

Additionally, many CHYKs and Sevaks explored the beauty of Guyana through tours, including a memorable plane ride to the magnificent Kaieteur Falls. 

The camp offered a unique blend of spiritual learning, community service, and adventure, creating an enriching experience that deepened participants' understanding of their cultural and spiritual heritage while fostering lasting friendships and cherished memories.

===================================================================================

Friday  13,  September  2024, 06:20.
Article
Scriptures
Kenopanishad
Commentary on Section 1
Mantram - 5 (Continued) + 6,7,8, and 9.
Post-12.

==================================================================================

Mantram - 5 (Continued)

The form of the object is known as nama-rupa, the name-form complex. The content is the essence out of which it is formed. The pure Being in the object and the subject is universally the same, but the forms which are in space and in time have been so isolated from one another in sensory perception that the essence is externalised. The externalisation of the essence is the form or the object. As a matter of fact, what is called a sensory object is nothing but a spatial configuration of the very same consciousness that is in the cognising Atman. What plays havoc is space-time. If space and time were not to be there, there would not be perception of multiplicity or variety in the world. The differentiating medium is space and time in one mode. The universal Subjectness has been divided into the apparent subjectivity and objectivity on account of the operation of space and time. So as long as consciousness works through space and time, the perception of an external world cannot be avoided. It is seen by the senses, but that is not the Atman.

The objects are not the Atman in the sense that they are 'seen' 'outside', but they are the Atman as they really are, in themselves. That they are outside the Atman is a myth, though the senses would demonstrate that they are always outside. It is on account of the recourse of the senses to projectedness externally that the objects appear as outside the Atman, that we run after the objects. We love and hate objects on account of wrongly imagining that the essences are outside us. So as long as we regard the universal essence of the Atman as the variety of objects situated outside in space and time, we are under a misapprehension, and if we transfer our values, transfer ourselves as the Atman to them and love them or hate them, then we are committing a blunder—nedam yad idam upāsate. The Atman is not anything that we see, anything that we love or hate, anything that we can think of or understand, because it is the background of all these psychological activities, the being behind all functions.

Mantras 6, 7, 8,and 9:

6.

yan manasa na manute yenahur mano matam,

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upasate.

7.

yac caksusa na pasyati yena caksumsi pasyati,

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upasate.

8.

yac cchrotrena na srunoti yena srotram idam srutam,

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upasate.

9.

yat pranena na praniti yena pranah pranīyate,

tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upasate.

These four mantras present a description of the same idea with reference to the different senses and the prana, the purport of which is that the Atman is incapable of cognition by any means whatsoever. By taking instances, independently and individually, of the various faculties, it is observed that none of these faculties is capable of cognition of the Atman. Nobody else can see the Atman. This is the peculiarity of what is considered as the Atman of all things. Nothing other than the Atman can know the Atman, and so it goes without saying that even the highest of faculties is inadequate, incapable and imperfect in comparison with the Atman, which is the all. It is not thought by the mind, but the capacity of the mind to think is derived from it. It is not seen by the eyes, but it sees through the eyes. The ears cannot hear it, but it is behind the hearing of the ears. The pranas do not enliven it, but it enlivens even the pranas. This is the Brahman, this is the Atman—not that other thing which people regard as their fulfilment due to the movement of their affections to things.

In the Katha Upanishad also we learn a similar thesis, where it is said that it is not because of the prana and the apana that we are alive, but because of something else, upon which even the prana and the apana depend. We live by something else, a third element upon which are dependent even the prana and the apana, and all their subsidiaries. What are these forces on which we seem to be depending for our existence? Seeing, hearing, breathing, digesting and so on—what are these functions? Does life as pure existence depend on these operations? Naturally, existence cannot depend upon any kind of operation, function or activity, because activity of any type proceeds from an impulse which is to be explained first before we speak of functions or activities. All function is of something, and therefore there is no point in emphasising too much the function itself without first knowing this 'something'. The functions of seeing, hearing, and the like, are an expression of something else. This something is the explanation of these functions. The functions themselves cannot explain that something which is precedent to them. Hence the Upanishad in this section concludes by saying that what the senses regard as their support is really not their support. They are mistaken in their opinion that what is seen, heard or sensed otherwise is in any manner a support for their existence.

=================================================================================

Continued

===================================================================================