Kena Upanishad Bhashya Explained: The Mystery of Consciousness

Short Answer
The Kena Upanishad Bhashya is Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Kena Upanishad, a text that takes its name from its opening word Kena—”by whom.” The Upanishad asks the most fundamental question: “By whom is the mind directed to fall on its objects? By whom does the life force proceed?” The answer is not a deity or a force within the world, but consciousness itself—the Self (Atman). Shankara’s bhashya unpacks the Upanishad’s famous declarations that Brahman is “the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind,” revealing that consciousness is not an object to be perceived but the very power that makes perception possible. The commentary also includes the celebrated parable of the Gods (Agni, Vayu, and Indra) discovering that Brahman is the source of all their power, teaching that the ego’s claim “I am the doer” is the great delusion. For Shankara, the Kena Upanishad is not a philosophical theory but a direct pointing—consciousness cannot be known as an object because it is the knower itself.

In one line:
You cannot see the seer, hear the hearer, or think the thinker—but you are the seer, hearer, and thinker; that is the mystery of consciousness.

Key points

• The Kena Upanishad opens with the question “By whom?” (Kena), seeking the source of mind, life, and perception.
• The answer is not a god or force but Brahman/Atman—pure consciousness.
• Shankara’s bhashya explains the famous paradox: “It is different from the known and above the unknown.”
• The Upanishad declares that Brahman is “the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind”—consciousness is not an object but the subject.
• The parable of the Gods (Agni, Vayu, Indra) illustrates that all power comes from Brahman, and the ego’s claim of doership is delusion.
• Shankara emphasizes that Brahman cannot be known as an object; it can only be recognized as the knower itself.

---

Part 1: The Mystery of “Kena” – The Question Behind All Questions

The Kena Upanishad takes its name from its first word: Kena (केन), meaning “by whom.” This opening word sets the entire inquiry in motion.

The opening question (Kena Upanishad 1.1) – The student asks: “Kena ishitam patati preshitam manah?” – “By whom is the mind directed to fall on its objects? By whom does the foremost vital air (prana) proceed? By whom is this speech uttered? What divine being directs the eye and the ear?”

The range of the question – The question covers the entire field of human experience: the mind (manas), the life force (prana), speech (vak), and the senses (eye and ear). The student is not asking about the mechanical causes of these functions (which could be answered by biology or psychology). He is asking for the ultimate source—the consciousness that makes all these functions possible.

The significance of “by whom” – The question is framed in terms of agency, not mechanism. The student is not asking “how” the mind works but “who” directs it. This presupposes that there is an intelligent, conscious source behind all perception and action.

Shankara’s commentary on the opening – Shankara explains that the question is not asking about a deity within the world (like Indra or Agni). The student has already studied the Vedas and knows about the gods. He is now asking for the ultimate reality that even the gods depend upon. This is the inquiry into Brahman.

The teacher’s initial response (1.2) – The teacher replies: “Shrotrasya shrotram, manaso mano yat” – “It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, the eye of the eye.”

“The ear of the ear” – Shankara explains this striking phrase. The ear can hear sounds, but it cannot hear itself. The “ear of the ear” is the consciousness that makes hearing possible. It is not a second ear; it is the Self that illuminates the ear’s functioning. Similarly, the “mind of the mind” is the consciousness that makes thinking possible.

The wise become immortal – The verse concludes: “When freed (from identification with the senses), the wise, on departing from this world, become immortal.” Shankara explains that “freed” means liberated from the false identification of the Self with the senses, mind, and body. This is the definition of jivanmukti—liberation while still alive.

Scholar’s Note: Dr. Surabhi Solanki’s Power Beyond Perception: Modern Insights into the Kena Upanishad explains: “The Kena Upanishad asks the question that science cannot answer. Science can tell you how the brain works, but it cannot tell you ‘by whom’ the brain is directed. The ‘by whom’ is consciousness—not an object of study, but the subject that studies. That is the mystery.”

The Question	The Answer
By whom is the mind directed?	By the Self (Atman), the “mind of the mind”
By whom does the life force proceed?	By the Self, the “breath of breath”
By whom is speech uttered?	By the Self, the “speech of speech”
Who directs the eye and ear?	By the Self, the “eye of the eye, ear of the ear”

---

Part 2: The Paradox of Knowing Brahman (Verses 1.3-1.4)

One of the most famous passages of the Kena Upanishad is the paradoxical declaration that Brahman is “different from the known and above the unknown.” Shankara’s commentary on these verses is essential for understanding the Advaita epistemology.

Verse 1.3 – The eye cannot reach there – “Na tatra cakṣur gacchati na vāg gacchati no manaḥ” – “The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor the mind. We do not know, we do not understand how anyone can teach it.”

Shankara’s explanation – Shankara explains that the senses and mind cannot reach Brahman because they are designed to grasp objects. Brahman is not an object; it is the subject. The eye can see colors and forms, but it cannot see the seer. The mind can think thoughts, but it cannot think the thinker.

The limits of perception and inference – All knowledge is normally gained through perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumana), or scriptural testimony (shabda). The first two operate within the realm of objects. Scripture can point to Brahman, but it cannot make Brahman an object of knowledge. The ultimate knowing is not “knowledge about” but direct recognition (aparoksha anubhuti).

Verse 1.4 – The famous paradox – “Anyad eva tat viditād atho aviditād adhi” – “It is different from the known and above the unknown.”

Interpretation of the paradox – Shankara explains that Brahman is not known as an object (it is “different from the known”), but it is also not an unknowable void (it is “above the unknown”). The “known” refers to all objects of empirical knowledge—tables, chairs, bodies, thoughts, even the gods. Brahman is not one of these. The “unknown” would be a blank, a nothingness. Brahman is not that either because it is self-luminous consciousness.

The danger of two errors – Shankara warns against two errors. The first error is thinking that Brahman can be known as an object (this leads to idolatry). The second error is thinking that Brahman is completely unknowable (this leads to agnosticism or nihilism). The correct understanding is that Brahman is the knower itself, which cannot be objectified yet is immediately self-evident.

The path of negation (neti neti) – Shankara’s commentary points out that the Upanishad is using the method of negation. Brahman is “not this, not this.” Every object is negated. What remains is not a thing but the witness.

Thus we have heard from the ancients – The verse concludes: “Thus we have heard from the ancients who taught us this.” This is a reminder that this knowledge is not invented; it is received through the guru-shishya parampara (teacher-disciple lineage).

Scholar’s Note: Dr. Surabhi Solanki’s Power Beyond Perception explains: “The Kena Upanishad’s paradox is the key to the hard problem of consciousness. Science can study the ‘known’—brain activity, behavior, information processing. It cannot study the ‘knower.’ The knower is not an object. But it is not an unknown either. It is what knows the unknown. That is the mystery.”

Category	Meaning	Brahman’s Relation
Known (Vidita)	All objects of empirical knowledge	Different from (anyad eva)—cannot be objectified
Unknown (Avidita)	Absence of knowledge, blank, void	Above (adhi)—not a mere absence
The Knower	Consciousness itself	Neither known nor unknown; self-luminous

---

Part 3: Brahman as “The Ear of the Ear” – The Condition of All Perception

Verses 1.5-1.9 of the Kena Upanishad systematically declare that Brahman is the condition for all perception and action. Shankara’s commentary unpacks this profound teaching.

Verse 1.5 – That which is not uttered by speech – “Yad vācā nābhyuditaṁ yena vāk abhyudyate” – “That which is not expressed by speech, but by which speech is expressed—know that alone as Brahman.”

Shankara on speech – Speech can express many things: objects, ideas, feelings. But speech cannot express Brahman because Brahman is not an object. Any attempt to describe Brahman makes it into an object. Yet, speech itself would have no power to express anything without the consciousness that illuminates it.

Verse 1.6 – That which is not thought by the mind – “Yan manasā na manute yena āhur mano matam” – “That which is not thought by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is thought—know that alone as Brahman.”

Shankara on the mind – The mind can think thoughts, but it cannot think the thinker. The “thinker” is not a thought; it is consciousness itself. Shankara emphasizes that even the most abstract thought—even the thought “I am consciousness”—is still a thought, an object. The Self is prior to all thoughts.

Verse 1.7 – That which is not seen by the eye – “Yac cakṣuṣā na paśyati yena cakṣūṁṣi paśyati” – “That which is not seen by the eye, but by which the eyes see—know that alone as Brahman.”

Shankara on sight – The eye can see colors, shapes, and movements. It cannot see the seer. The seer is not located in space, has no color or shape. Yet, without the seer, the eye would be blind. The Self is the “eye of the eye.”

Verse 1.8 – That which is not heard by the ear – “Yac chrotreṇa na śṛṇoti yena śrotram idaṁ śrutam” – “That which is not heard by the ear, but by which the ear hears—know that alone as Brahman.”

Shankara on hearing – The ear can hear sounds. It cannot hear the hearer. The hearer is not a sound. Yet, without the hearer, the ear would be deaf. The Self is the “ear of the ear.”

Verse 1.9 – That which is not breathed by breath – “Yat prāṇena na prāṇiti yena prāṇaḥ praṇīyate” – “That which is not breathed by the breath, but by which the breath is drawn—know that alone as Brahman.”

Shankara on breath – The breath (prana) is the vital force that animates the body. But the breath itself is insentient. It is animated by consciousness. The Self is the “breath of the breath.”

The unity of the message – All these verses have the same structure: “X cannot know Brahman, but Brahman is what makes X function.” The point is not to reject the senses and mind but to recognize their source.

Scholar’s Note: Dr. Surabhi Solanki’s Power Beyond Perception explains: “The Kena Upanishad is the ‘how’ behind the ‘what.’ You see a tree. The question is not ‘What is the tree?’ but ‘Who sees?’ The eye does not see. The brain does not see. Consciousness sees. Consciousness is the ear behind the ear, the mind behind the mind. That is the teaching.”

Faculty	What It Does	What It Cannot Know	What Makes It Function
Speech (Vak)	Expresses objects	Cannot express Brahman	Consciousness (Brahman)
Mind (Manas)	Thinks thoughts	Cannot think the thinker	Consciousness (Brahman)
Eye (Cakshus)	Sees forms	Cannot see the seer	Consciousness (Brahman)
Ear (Shrotra)	Hears sounds	Cannot hear the hearer	Consciousness (Brahman)
Breath (Prana)	Animate body	Cannot breathe consciousness	Consciousness (Brahman)

---

Part 4: The Parable of the Gods (Verses 3.1-4.6) – The Ego’s Delusion

The Kena Upanishad includes a famous parable about the gods Agni (Fire), Vayu (Wind), and Indra (their king) discovering that Brahman is the source of all power. Shankara’s commentary on this parable is a masterful critique of the ego’s claim to doership.

The victory of Brahman (3.1) – “Brahma ha devebhyo vijigye” – “Brahman won a victory for the gods.” The Devas (gods) defeated the Asuras (demons) in a battle. They attributed their victory to their own power and became proud.

Shankara’s interpretation – Shankara explains that the “victory” is the manifestation of Brahman’s power through the gods. The gods are instruments, not the source. Their pride is the ego’s primordial mistake—taking credit for what is ultimately done by consciousness.

The gods’ pride – The gods thought: “The victory is ours. This glory is ours alone.” Shankara sees this as a parable for the human condition. You accomplish something, and the ego says, “I did it.” You succeed, and the ego says, “I am great.” This is the delusion of doership.

Brahman appears to test them (3.2) – Brahman appeared before the gods as a yaksha (a mysterious, luminous being). The gods did not recognize it.

Agni’s attempt (3.3-3.4) – The gods sent Agni (Fire) to find out who the being was. Agni approached, and the being asked, “Who are you?” Agni replied, “I am Agni, the all-burner.” The being placed a blade of grass before Agni and said, “Burn this.” Agni could not burn it. He returned, unable to know the being.

Shankara on Agni – Shankara explains that Agni represents the power of the senses. No matter how powerful the senses are, they cannot penetrate to the Self. The Self is not an object of perception.

Vayu’s attempt (3.5-3.6) – The gods then sent Vayu (Wind). Vayu approached, and the being asked, “Who are you?” Vayu replied, “I am Vayu, the all-blower.” The being said, “Blow this blade of grass.” Vayu could not move it. He returned, unable to know the being.

Shankara on Vayu – Vayu represents the power of prana (life force). The life force, no matter how vital and powerful, cannot reach the Self. The Self is not an object of vital force.

Indra’s approach (4.1-4.2) – Finally, Indra (their king) approached. The being vanished. In its place was a beautiful woman (Uma, representing divine wisdom). She revealed that the being was Brahman, and that Indra came closest to knowing it because he was humble enough to approach.

Shankara on Indra – Indra represents the intellect (buddhi). The intellect is the highest faculty. Unlike the senses and prana, the intellect can turn inward. But even the intellect cannot directly know Brahman as an object. What is needed is not more power but humility—the recognition that you are not the doer.

The teaching of the parable – The parable teaches that the ego’s claim “I am the doer” is the great delusion. The senses, the life force, and even the intellect are instruments. The doer is consciousness itself. When you realize this, you cease to take credit and cease to blame. You act without ego.

The verse on the state of liberation (4.6) – The Upanishad concludes: “Tad vanam iti upasita” – “One should meditate on that as ‘vanam’ (wonder).” The state of Self-realization is one of wonder—not the excitement of novelty, but the awe of recognizing what has always been.

Scholar’s Note: Dr. Surabhi Solanki’s Awakening Through Vedanta explains: “The parable of the gods is a warning against spiritual pride. The gods thought they had won the victory. They were the instruments. The power was Brahman’s. You think you have achieved something. You have not. The power is consciousness. Relax. Let go. Let consciousness act through you.”

God	Represents	Power	Limitation
Agni (Fire)	Senses	Can burn, perceive objects	Cannot know the Self
Vayu (Wind)	Prana (life force)	Can move, animate	Cannot know the Self
Indra	Intellect (Buddhi)	Can reason, discriminate	Cannot objectify the Self
Uma (Wisdom)	Divine knowledge	Reveals that Brahman is the source	Reveals, does not create

---

Part 5: The Knower Cannot Be Known – Shankara’s Epistemology

One of the most important philosophical points in Shankara’s Kena Upanishad Bhashya is that the knower cannot be known as an object. This is not a limitation of knowledge; it is the nature of the subject.

The argument from the Vaisheshika school – In his commentary on Verse 2 of the second section, Shankara addresses an objection from the Vaisheshika school (a realist school of Indian philosophy). The Vaisheshikas argue that the Self is known when we understand that it is the agent in the act of knowing—just as one knows the wind when one understands that which moves the branches of a tree.

Shankara’s response – Shankara responds that this interpretation treats consciousness as an “adventitious quality” that arises from contact between the Self and the internal organ (mind). On this view, “knowledge comes and goes, modifying the self when present. It follows that the self you are talking of is changeable, composed of parts, noneternal, impure, etc.”

The Vaisheshika counter – The Vaisheshika might counter that the Self does not change when knowledge arises; the pot does not change when it is painted a different color. Shankara replies: “Then Brahman, the Self, is mere substance without consciousness and this contradicts scripture.”

The internal organ problem – Shankara further argues that if the Self is without parts, the internal organ must always (or never) be in contact with it, which is contrary to the Vaisheshika theory. Finally, “only things that have properties can be said to ‘come into contact’ with something else, and then only with something else of the same kind—but on the Vaisesika view the Self—without properties, undifferentiated, etc.—is supposed to come into contact with something else—the internal organ—which is of a different kind altogether.”

Brahman as actionless – The Upanishads and Shankara’s commentary consistently affirm that Brahman is actionless (nishkriya). As one passage from the Svetasvatara Upanishad (6.19) declares: “Nishkalam nishkriyam shantam niravadyam niranjanam” – “Without parts, without actions, tranquil, blameless, unattached.” The same teaching is found in Shankara’s prakarana granthas: “Nirguno nishkriyo nityo nirvikalpo niranjanah” – “Without qualities, without actions, eternal, without modification, pure.”

The actionlessness of the Self – Shankara’s commentary on the Bhagavad Gita (4.18) clarifies: “In the context of the analogy, one is well aware of the absolute standpoint (that the tree or the post does not move, though it appears so). In reality the absolute standpoint is not known. Hence, it is hard to accept the action is an illusion.” The Self appears to act (through the body-mind), but in reality, it is actionless.

The knower is not known – The conclusion is that the knower cannot be known as an object. This is not a failure of knowledge; it is the recognition that the subject can never be objectified. As Shankara states: “The knower cannot be known by the knower, any more than fire can burn itself.”

The practical implication – You cannot find the Self by looking for it. You can only be it. The search for the Self as an object is futile because the Self is the seeker. This is the highest teaching of the Kena Upanishad.

Scholar’s Note: Dr. Surabhi Solanki’s Power Beyond Perception explains: “Science tries to find consciousness in the brain. It cannot. Not because consciousness is hidden, but because consciousness is what is looking. You cannot find the eye with the eye. You cannot find the seer with the seen. You can only be the seer.”

School	View of Self	Shankara’s Response
Vaisheshika	Self is substance with adventitious consciousness	Makes Self changeable, contradicts scripture
Self as agent	Self is the doer, knower as property	Confuses subject with object
Advaita	Self is consciousness itself, not a property	Knower cannot be known as object

---

Part 6: Practical Guidance – Meditating on the Mystery

The Kena Upanishad is not a theoretical text; it is a manual for meditation. Shankara’s commentary points the way to direct recognition.

Step 1 – Turn the question inward – The Upanishad begins with the question “By whom?” Do not ask this question about external objects. Ask it about your own experience. “By whom am I reading these words? By whom am I aware?”

Step 2 – Recognize that you are not the instrument – You are not the eye. You are not the ear. You are not the mind. You are the consciousness that uses these instruments. Practice disidentifying: “The eye sees; I am not the eye. The ear hears; I am not the ear. The mind thinks; I am not the mind.”

Step 3 – Stop trying to objectify the Self – The Self cannot be seen, heard, or thought. Do not look for it as an object. Instead, rest as the subject. When you stop looking outward, the Self is already present.

Step 4 – Contemplate the paradox – Meditate on the words: “It is different from the known and above the unknown.” Not known as an object. Not unknown as a void. Consciousness is self-evident, self-luminous.

Step 5 – Let go of spiritual pride – The parable of the gods teaches that all power comes from consciousness. Do not take credit for your achievements. Do not be proud of your spiritual accomplishments. They are not yours.

Step 6 – Rest as the witness – The final teaching is to rest in the witness. Do not try to witness anything. Simply be awareness. That is the state of wonder (vanam) that the Upanishad describes.

Step 7 – Live the mystery – The recognition of the Self is not an escape from the world. It is a transformation of your relationship to the world. Act without ego. See without claiming. Love without possessing. This is the life of the jnani.

Scholar’s Note: Dr. Surabhi Solanki’s Find Inner Peace Now offers a simple practice: “Sit quietly. Ask: ‘Who is reading this?’ Do not answer. Feel. The one who feels is not the body. Not the mind. Not the ego. That one is the mystery. Rest there. That is the teaching of the Kena Upanishad.”

Step	Practice	Recognition
1	Ask “By whom?”	Turn attention inward
2	Disidentify from instruments	You are not the senses, not the mind
3	Stop objectifying	The Self is not an object
4	Contemplate the paradox	Consciousness is beyond known/unknown
5	Let go of pride	All power comes from consciousness
6	Rest as witness	Be awareness
7	Live the mystery	Act without ego

---

Common Questions

1. Why is the Upanishad called “Kena”?

The Upanishad takes its name from its first word, Kena, meaning “by whom.” This word sets the entire inquiry in motion—seeking the ultimate source behind all perception and action.

2. How does Shankara interpret “the ear of the ear”?

Shankara explains that the “ear of the ear” is the Self (Atman)—the consciousness that makes hearing possible. It is not a second ear; it is the subject that illuminates the ear’s functioning. Similarly, the “mind of the mind” is the consciousness that makes thinking possible.

3. Does the Kena Upanishad say that Brahman is unknowable?

No. It says that Brahman cannot be known as an object. But it is not unknowable in the sense of being a void or an absence. The “knowing” of Brahman is not objective knowledge; it is direct recognition (aparoksha anubhuti). As the Upanishad says, “He who thinks he knows It, knows It not; he who thinks he knows not, truly knows.”

4. What is the purpose of the parable of the gods?

The parable teaches that the ego’s claim to doership is delusion. The gods thought they had won the victory; they were only instruments. Similarly, you think you are the doer; you are only an instrument. Consciousness is the real doer.

5. Is Shankara’s commentary available in English?

Yes. Several translations exist, including by S. Sitarama Sastri (1905) and Swami Gambhirananda. The text is also available online through the Chinmaya International Foundation and other sources.

6. How does Dr. Surabhi Solanki relate to the Kena Upanishad?

Dr. Solanki’s Power Beyond Perception: Modern Insights into the Kena Upanishad is a contemporary retelling of this text. She engages with neuroscience and philosophy of mind, showing how the Kena Upanishad anticipates the “hard problem” of consciousness and offers a coherent solution. Her work makes the ancient text accessible to modern readers while preserving fidelity to Shankara’s Advaita vision.

Summary

The Kena Upanishad Bhashya is Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary on one of the most profound and paradoxical of the principal Upanishads. The text takes its name from its opening word Kena—”by whom”—asking the ultimate question about the source of mind, life, and perception. The answer is not a deity within the world but Brahman/Atman, pure consciousness. Shankara’s commentary unpacks the Upanishad’s famous declarations that Brahman is “the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind”—revealing that consciousness is not an object to be perceived but the very power that makes perception possible. The paradoxical declaration that Brahman is “different from the known and above the unknown” teaches that consciousness cannot be known as an object, but it is also not an unknowable void; it is self-luminous, self-evident. The parable of the gods (Agni, Vayu, and Indra) illustrates that all power comes from Brahman and that the ego’s claim “I am the doer” is the great delusion. Shankara’s commentary also includes a sophisticated critique of the Vaisheshika school’s attempt to treat consciousness as an adventitious quality of the Self. The final teaching of the Kena Upanishad is that the knower cannot be known as an object. You cannot find the Self by looking for it. You can only be it. That recognition is the mystery of consciousness. That mystery is liberation. That liberation is what you have always been.

The eye sees the world. The ear hears the sounds. The mind thinks the thoughts. You are not the eye, the ear, or the mind. You are the one who sees the seeing, hears the hearing, thinks the thinking. That one cannot be seen, heard, or thought. But it is not unknown. It is what is reading these words. It is what you are. That is the teaching of the Kena Upanishad. That is the mystery of consciousness. That is freedom.

Om Shanti Shanti Shanti