न नरेणावरेण प्रोक्त एष
सुविज्ञेयो बहुधा चिन्त्यमानः ।
अनन्यप्रोक्ते गतिरत्र नास्ति
अणीयान् ह्यतर्क्यमणुप्रमाणात् ॥
na nareṇāvareṇa prokta eṣa
suvijñeyo bahudhā cintyamānaḥ |
ananya-prokte gatir atra nāsti
aṇīyān hy atarkyam aṇupramāṇāt ||
(Kaṭhopaniṣad: 1.2.8)
“This,
[When] Taught by an inferior person
And [thus] being to be deliberated on in many ways,
Is not able to be aptly understood.
The realization [that occurs] when [this is] taught by one who is one-pointed
Does not occur in that case,
Since that which is more minute than that of minute measure
Is incomprehensible.”
Commentary
According to the seventeenth-century Śrī Vaiṣṇava commentator Śrī Raṅga Rāmānuja, the subject of discussion in this verse, “this” (eṣa), is the Self (Ātmā). “An inferior person” (avara-nara) refers to an immature person who identifies with the body and thinks Vedānta and the Self can be understood by means of erudition (pāṇḍitya) alone (avareṇa aśreṣṭhena prākṛtena pāṇḍitya-mātra-prayojana-Vedānta-śravaṇena nareṇa dehātmābhimāninā). The Self is not able to be aptly understood when taught by such a person because one will be forced to think of the Self in numerous ways in accord with the reasoning of the proponents of various theories (kuto hetoḥ bahudhā cintyamāṇaḥ vādibhir iti śeṣaḥ). The realization [of the Self] (gatiḥ—Ātmāvagatiḥ) that occurs when the Self is taught by someone who is one-pointed (ananya), that is, by someone by whom Brahman and the Self have been directly perceived (ananyena tad-ekāntinā brahmātma-sākṣākāriṇā), does not occur “there” (atra), that is, when the Self is taught by an inferior person. The reason for this is that the essential nature of the Self is “incomprehensible” (atarkyam), that is, beyond the scope of rational argumentation (tat-svarūpaṁ tarkāgocaram), because the Self is “that which is more minute than that of minute measure” (aṇīyān aṇupramāṇāt), meaning, the Subtlemost Entity.