Commentary on the Kathopanishad

by Swami Krishnananda

Discourse 6: Ishvara and the Jiva

Yasya brahma ca kṣatraṁ ca ubhe bhavata odanaḥ, mṛtyur yasyopasecanaṁ ka itthā veda yatra saḥ (1.2.25). This is the last verse of the Second Section. The Supreme Being is the repository of knowledge and power, which is here indicated by the statement that the Supreme Being consumes Brahmanas and Kshatriyas, indicating thereby that it is the final ocean of knowledge and power—Brahmana representing knowledge, and Kshatriya representing power. Omniscience and omnipotence are blended in the Supreme Being.

Generally, in this world we exercise knowledge in the form of a power. Some effort is necessary in implementing one's ability of knowledge in the form of a performance that is called power. Power proceeds from knowledge. In the case of God, something does not proceed from something else. It is one and the same thing that is knowledge as well as power. The very thought of God is also the power of God. The very being of God is also the action of God. In our case, being is not the same as action. We may be sitting, but that does not mean that we are doing something at the time. In the case of God, the very existence is cosmic activity. Existence is action; knowledge is power. They are self-identical in the case of the Almighty, and the statement that it consumes death itself as a pickle shows that it is immortal.

Na mṛtyur āsīd amṛtaṁ says the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda: Immortality and death are like shadows of the Almighty. Well, death may be a shadow, but is immortality also a shadow? We can imagine the transcendence of God when it is held that even the deathlessness that we are thinking of in our mind is transcended in the Almighty essence, because our concept of immortality is the counterpart of mortality. That which is not mortal is immortal. Why do we use such a word? Why should we designate the state of being forever and ever as an absence of death? Has it not got any positive definition? It is like saying “I am free from disease”. Why do we use such words? Why do we not say “I am healthy”? If we say “I am not sick, I have no disease”, it is not a proper definition of a positive condition. We should say, “I am healthy, strong, vigorous. Everything is fine.” But we are using the word 'immortal', or 'deathlessness'. Deathlessness is the absence of death. Now, absence itself is not a positive thing. There must be something positive which can be designated as not just a negation of death or a negation of mortality. That something is, therefore, superior to the concept of the absence of death and the absence of mortality. This is the reason why the great mantra of the Rigveda says it is that of which both immortality and death are shadows. So it consumes death itself. It consumes even the counterpart of death.

Immortality is generally believed to be a long-duration existence. In our childlike way of thinking we imagine that when we become immortal, we will be living a long, long life. Just as we are now living fifty, sixty, seventy years, a hundred years, then we will be living for millions and millions of years. This is what we think the state of immortality is. It is not the case. In the state of immortality we will not be living for a long, long time, because there is no time there. Immortality is also timelessness. Hence, it is deathlessness. So a long, long continuance in an endless duration of time is not God-experience. Therefore, God-experience should be considered as totally transcending, different from just a long, continuous existence in space and time in the world. It is also not negation; it is positive, a positive something. We cannot define God positively. We can only say what He is not, but it is not possible to say what He is. Therefore, in a metaphorical way the Veda mantra says death and deathlessness are shadows cast by That which is the only One. So here is the meaning of this mantra: yasya brahma ca kṣatraṁ ca ubhe bhavata odanaḥ, mṛtyur yasyopasecanaṁ ka itthā veda yatra saḥ. Who can know That?

The Third Section commences now. Ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke guhām praviṣṭau parame parārdhe, chāyā-tapau brahma-vido vadanti, pañcāgnayo ye ca tri-ṇāciketāḥ (1.3.1): In this world, in this body, there are two beings who are connected with the deeds performed while living in this world, or while living in this body. They are occupying the deepest recesses of the hearts of people. Their relationship is something like the relationship between light and darkness or light and shade. This is what the knowers of Brahman, and those people who know the Panchagni Vidya, tell us.

The Panchagni Vidya is wonderfully described in the Fifth Chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad. The Vaishvanara Vidya and the Panchagni Vidya are interconnected. Knowers of this Panchagni Vidya, as well as those who have performed the Nachiketas sacrifice three times, tell us that there are two beings living in this world, in this body, enjoying the fruits of actions in the deepest recess of the heart, having a relationship between them as light and shade. The two beings are God and man—Ishvara and jiva, we may say. Ishvara and jiva operate in a twofold fashion: externally in the universe, and internally in this body. The world and God are the two beings envisaged cosmically, and the Atman and the jiva are the two beings envisioned internally within our own selves. This jiva, this individual soul, eats the fruits of its own actions. It enjoys the fruits of its actions.

Two beings are said to be enjoying the fruits of actions, which was mentioned when reference was made to the two birds perching on a single tree. One bird is enjoying the delicious fruits of the tree. The other bird does not enjoy; it just looks on. It is unconcerned with what is happening to its comrade seated nearby, plunging himself in the joy of eating delicious fruit. Here, in this mantra, it is said that there are two beings enjoying the fruits of action. Earlier, one was not enjoying the fruits of action, and now here both are enjoying the fruits of action. This is a highly philosophical connotation which we have to understand with some concentration of mind.

Ishvara and the jiva are not identical with each other in the sense that Ishvara is cosmic, and therefore He has no karma. As a sutra of Patanjali tells us very picturesquely, the concept of Ishvara is also the concept of freedom from karma of every kind. Kleśa karma vipāka āśayaiḥ aparāmṛṣṭaḥ puruṣaviśeṣaḥ Īśvaraḥ (Y.S. 1.24) is the sutra of Patanjali: Nothing that affects the jiva can contaminate Ishvara. In this way we may say Ishvara, as the bird, does not have to get involved in the tangles in which the jiva is involved. We have to go to the other verse where it is said that one of the birds is not entangled. Now Ishvara is said to be connected with the jiva in another way. Ishvara knows what is happening to the jiva. He is not unconcerned. There is a direct give-and-take policy, as it were, between ourselves and God as Ishvara. Also, the existence of Ishvara as the controlling power of the universe is determined in a very important sense by the requirements of the jivas, or the individuals, inhabiting the universe, just as the head of a government is having those characteristics which are the conditioning factors in relation to the citizens in the country. The requirements of the nation determine the character of the ruling head. So the ruling head, though he is not directly connected with the sorrows of any particular citizen in the country, is in a way directly connected in the sense that he is responsible for the fate of the people in the country. As we know very well, though in one sense the direct connection between the ruling head and the public is not there, there is a very intimate connection between the two because the head is totally determined by the requirements of the country. Otherwise, he cannot manage the country.

There is an interrelationship between the universe and Ishvara, who rules the universe. The fate of the universe is the duty of Ishvara, just as the fate of the country is the duty of the ruling head. Whatever be the condition in which the nation finds itself will be the condition that affects the ruler, because he exists there only to see that the prevailing conditions are harmonious. So Ishvara controls the world by bringing about a state of harmony and, in that sense, He is related internally; thus, we may say Ishvara is connected with the jivas, and only in that sense can we say that the two beings enjoy the fruits of action. The ruler, the king, or the final administrating principle of a country enjoys the fruits of the actions of the subjects of the nation. He is directly affected by it, so they are correlated existences. Ishvara and the jivas are correlated, and the existence of Ishvara is demanded by the necessity of the jivas to have a ruling power. If Ishvara does not exist as something related to the jivas, there will be no dispensing of justice in terms of the actions of the jivas. The merits and the demerits of the jivas are to be rewarded or punished accordingly. The jivas who perform actions cannot reward themselves, nor can they punish themselves, so there must be a principal above the jivas. The necessity for the existence of Ishvara arises on account of there being a necessity for a dispensing power, and that dispensing of justice will have validity only as long as jivas exist. This is the reason why the mantra seems to say that two beings enjoy the fruits of action.

It also draws a marked distinction between the two beings, though it was already said that they are interconnected. The marked difference is that one is like light, and the other is like shade. Such is the difference between man and God that man looks like a shadow, and God is eternal light. So both these aspects of the God and jiva relationship are mentioned here in this single verse: enjoying the fruits of action simultaneously in a cooperative manner on the one hand, and Ishvara remaining totally independent on the other hand.

Ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke guhām praviṣṭau parame parārdhe, chāyā-tapau brahma-vido vadanti, pañcāgnayo ye ca tri-ṇāciketāḥ. Knowers of Brahman, knowers of the great Vaishvanara Vidya and the Panchagni Vidya, knowers of the performance of the Nachiketas sacrifice tell us that this is the position of the relation between God and man, Ishvara and the jiva.

Yas setur ījānānām akṣaram brahma yat param, abhayam titīrṣatām pāram nāciketaṁ śakemahi (1.3.2): We are now in a position to understand the nature of the Nachiketas sacrifice. By the performance of such a sacrifice, or yajna, one reaches the akṣara, the imperishable Brahman, the Absolute, yat param, the Supreme Being. It is a fearlessness granted to all those who are to cross the ocean of mortal existence, samsara as it is called. This Brahman, this Supreme Being, is like a bridge, by walking over which, by traversing which, we can cross over samsara, this mundane existence. This knowledge comes to us through the Nachiketas sacrifice—nāciketaṁ śakemahi.

Now we have some verses which are of practical importance. Actual sadhana, spiritual practice, is described here in the coming verses, which are very, very important for every seeker, worth committing to memory every day as a holy mantra.

Ātmānaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi, śarīraṁ ratham eva tu: buddhiṁ tu sāradhiṁ viddhi, manaḥ pragraham eva ca (1.3.3). Ātmānaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi: This body is compared to a chariot. The rider of the chariot is the Self, the jivatman. Śarīraṁ ratham eva tu: This body is the chariot; the rider, the Lord seated in the chariot, is the jivatman, our own Self. Buddhiṁ tu sāradhiṁ viddhi: The charioteer here is the intellect, the reason, the buddhi in us. Manaḥ pragraham eva ca: The horses pull this chariot, and the reins that control the movement of the horses are the functions of the mind.

Indriyāṇi hayān āhur viṣayāṁs teṣu gocarān, ātmendriya-mano-yuktam bhoktety āhur manīṣiṇaḥ (1.3.4). Indriyāṇi hayān āhuḥ: The sense organs are the horses of this body chariot; the jiva is the rider; the buddhi or intelligence, the reason, is the charioteer; the mind is the reins controlling the horses, which are the sense organs; the objects of the senses are the roads along which the chariot is driven. Ātmendriya-mano-yuktam bhoktety āhur manīṣiṇaḥ: The experiencer or the enjoyer of anything is not the Atman by itself, not the sense organs by themselves, not the mind by itself. The mind has no consciousness; it is like a mirror which by itself has no light in it. A mirror does not shine by itself. Only when light falls on the mirror does the mirror appear to shine. In a similar manner, the light of the Atman has to fall on the mind in order that it may work as an intelligent principle. Therefore, the enjoyer cannot be the mind.

How can one enjoy a thing unless there is intelligence, consciousness? Unconscious enjoyment is unthought of. As the mind has no consciousness of itself, it borrows consciousness from the Atman inside. The enjoyer cannot be regarded as the Atman. The senses are also not the enjoyers of anything, because they are insentient in their nature. The sense organs are there even when we are fast asleep, but none of the sense organs can operate—neither the eyes see, nor the ears hear. Even if we touch a person, he will not feel that we are touching him. The senses do not enjoy anything, the mind does not enjoy anything, and the Atman is also not the enjoyer, because it is all-pervading. Who enjoys? Not the Atman, not the sense organs, not the mind. But when we say “I enjoy”, who is speaking this? The Atman does not say it, because the Universal Being does not enjoy anything. The sense organs do not say it, because they have no consciousness, not even the mind. Who is speaking? A peculiar mixture, a blend or an alignment, we may say—a coming together in a peculiar manner of the Atman, the sense organs and the mind—this blend is called the experiencer. The experiencer is an illusion finally, inasmuch as it does not exist by itself. It is only a product by way of a combination of the characteristics of the Atman, the mind and the sense organs. The enjoyer does not exist by itself. Therefore, all enjoyment in the world is false, it is illusory, it is a metaphysical corollary that follows from this fact of there being no such person as an enjoyer except as a peculiar illusory product created by an apparent coming together of the Atman, the mind and the sense organs: ātmendriya-mano-yuktam bhoktety āhur manīṣiṇaḥ. So the wise man says.

The fact that the body is the chariot is to some extent intelligible, and we understand what it means. We also understand that the intellect is the charioteer because the body moves in the direction as prompted by the reason. We also understand, to some extent, that the mind controls the sense organs, the horses. But what is meant by saying that the road is the sense objects?

Usually the objects of the senses are connected very, very mysteriously with the sense organs. In spite of the fact that the objects are not directly connected with the sense organs, we know very well that the sense organs move along the direction of the objects. The objects here become a kind of help to us rather than a hindrance, because the path along which the chariot moves cannot be regarded as a hindrance. The objects become obstacles only when they are considered as things in which the senses have to indulge, but they become aspects of support and they become guiding factors when they are regarded as a manifestation of a hierarchy of guiding forces through whose assistance alone is it possible for us to ascend higher and higher. That the objects are the lowest support, from which lowest rung of the ladder we have to rise gradually higher and higher, is mentioned in the coming verse. The objects are not obstacles, spiritually viewed; but unspiritually viewed as things for indulgence, they are obstacles. Spiritually viewed as the lowest manifestation in the form of matter of the very same substance that constitutes the final universe, in that sense the objects are roads that take us higher and higher and enable us to drive our chariot along them.

The world is a bondage as well as a liberating principle. Wrongly viewed, it is a bondage. Rightly viewed, it is a help. The human being is an enemy when wrongly approached, but the human being is a friend when rightly approached. If we rub our shoulders against a person wrongly, that person is not a friend anymore. But if we humanely approach and compassionately encounter the person, that person becomes a friend. The world is a friend and a foe at the same time; so are the objects of the senses. Here the objects of the senses are not considered as hindrances. They are the manifestations of the lowest level of the descent of the Absolute in creation. This is the meaning that we have to draw from the significance of objects being the road along which the chariot of the body has to be driven by the charioteer, the buddhi.

Yas tv avijñānavān bhavaty ayuktena manasā sadā, tasyendriyāṇy avaśyāni duṣṭāśvā iva sāratheḥ (1.3.5). Yas tv avijñānavān bhavaty: The horses of the senses become non-cooperative if a person is unintelligent. Ayuktena manasā sadā: by not having a controlled mind; tasyendriyāṇy avaśyāni: for such a person the indriyas, or the senses, become restive and uncontrolled as uncontrolled horses. Duṣṭāśvā iva sāratheḥ: Sometimes we see horse carriages moving from Rishikesh to Lakshmanjhula. We can observe that the driver drives the cart up to the water tank, and then the horse stops; and if he pushes the horse, it will go backward. The carriage goes backwards into a ditch, and all the occupants have to get down. That is duṣṭāśvā, which means 'not cooperative', 'a non-cooperative thing'.

Yas tu vijñānavān bhavati, yuktena manasā sadā, tasyendriyāṇi vaśyāni sadaśvā iva sāratheḥ (1.3.6): But the reverse is the case for that person whose horses are good and well trained, and the charioteer is capable of understanding. In this case the reins are never let off, and the movement of the chariot is proper in its course.

Yas tv avijñānavān bhavaty amanaskas sadā'śuciḥ, na sa tat padam āpnoti saṁsāraṁ cādhigacchati (1.3.7): If the driver of the chariot is bereft of understanding, the goal is never reached and the chariot is hurled down. This is samsara.

When the senses move among objects as their road, they do not know which course to pursue. If a charioteer without intelligence comes to a crossroad, he does not know which way to choose. Or if the horses go amuck, we can imagine the fate of the chariot and its rider. The objects are many, though the elements which constitute them are only five. There is a tremendous excitement of the senses when they behold the colourful world of objects, because our intellect fails. We begin to see through the senses rather than through the intellect, and since the senses are diversified, we are presented a diversified world from which we do not know what to choose. Thus, without intelligence, there is restless activity. A person without self-control enters the womb of samsara.

Yas tu vijñānavān bhavati samanaskas sadā śuciḥ, sa tu tat padam āpnoti yasmāt bhūyo na jāyate (1.3.8): “Are the roads really many, or is it one?” is the question. The roads to the senses are many, but to the purified intellect it is one. The one road is Hiranyagarbha, or Vaishvanara, in whom everything gets combined and all roads meet. The diversified activities of the senses can stop only when the unity behind them is beheld, which is not possible without self-withdrawal through intelligence. The five roads merge into a single road. If five horses tied to the same chariot run in different directions, what will happen to the chariot? That is our case. On the other hand, if they all move in one direction, what will be their power! So he whose senses are controlled and whose intellect is purified, he does not come back.

Vijñānasārathir yastu manaḥ pragrahavān naraḥ, so'dhvanaḥ param āpnoti tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam (1.3.9): A person who has intelligence as the charioteer, whose mind acts as reins, he reaches the final destination of the path, which is the supreme state of God.

The last quarter of this mantra is borrowed from the Rigveda. It says that the state of Vishnu is beheld by the wise ones as the state of all-pervading ether. The place of Vishnu is not a location or a place. It is spread out like ether or space, like the ocean. A river goes everywhere when it reaches the ocean, and it does not remain localised in one place. Likewise is the soul which enters Vishnupada. The Universal Being is Vishnu. The moment a jiva reaches his destination, he enters Vishnupada. Therefore, the body is to be utilised as a vehicle of action in the movement of the soul to God.

There is nothing wrong with our senses, mind, etc., but they should be directed properly. Evil is that which is misdirected. A thing is not evil in itself, but when it performs another's function it is evil, just as anything out of place is dirt. So everything should be in its proper place, and yoked properly. The world is a training ground in which the objects and the senses are occasions for mastering our energies so that they get unified through the senses, the mind and the intellect. We look weak because all our energies leak out through the senses. If we conserve our health and concentrate our effort in a single channel, it is called dharana. This will make us powerful; this is yoga. By the control of the senses, the mind and the intellect, the soul becomes fit for God-realisation.

After this description, another aspect is being discussed. How are we to subdue the senses? How is the charioteer to control the horses? What steps are we to take? This difficult effort on the part of the soul is called indriya-samyama or manonigraha. It is summed up in the two following slokas.