tannauDantyena na asti, tat na veditavyaṃ veditavyate. yena vidyāt tena vidyo videnavidyo 'pi īśvaraḥ.
“The Ultimate Reality does not exist for one who does not know the end (of all things), nor can It be known through the Veda; yet It is to be known by the knower through the Veda, by knowing which one knows That which is to be known, the Lord.”
Structure
tat - nauDantyena - na - asti - tat - na - veditavyaṃ - veditavyate - yena - vidyāt - tena - vidyo - videnavidyo - api - īśvaraḥ
tat(that) nauDantyena(by ignorance) na(not) asti(exists) tat(that) na(not) veditavyaṃ(can be known) veditavyate(is to be known) yena(by whom) vidyāt(it is known) tena(by him) vidyo(the knower) videnavidyo(or the non-knower) api(also) īśvaraḥ(is the Lord)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tat | tat | pronoun | nominative · neuter singular · neuter | that |
| nauDantyena | na-uDantyena | indeclinable | — | according to the maxim or the last part |
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| asti | asti | verb | √as · laṭ-present · third | is |
| tat | tat | pronoun | nominative · neuter singular · neuter | that |
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| veditavyaṃ | veditavyaṃ | verb | √vid · future passive | should be known |
| veditavyate | veditavyate | verb | √vid · passive | it should be known |
| yena | yena | indeclinable | — | by whom |
| vidyāt | vidyāt | verb | √vid · liṅ-optative · third | he may know |
| tena | tena | pronoun | instrumental · singular · masculine | by him |
| vidyo | vidyo | verb | √vid · optative · first | I may know |
| videnavidyo | videnavidyo | compound | dvandva | or not knowing |
| api | api | indeclinable | — | also |
| īśvaraḥ | īśvaraḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | the lord |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): This verse underscores the non-dual nature of reality, pointing to the identity of Brahman and Ātman. Śaṅkara, in his commentary on the Kaṭhopaniṣad, emphasizes that the Ultimate Reality (Īśvara) cannot be known through mere scriptural knowledge (Veda) without the direct experience of the end of all things (nauDantyena). The phrase 'yena vidyāt tena vidyo' suggests that it is through the knowledge of the Self (vidyāt) that one comes to know the Lord (vidyo), indicating the intrinsic unity of the individual self (jīva) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). This verse supports Śaṅkara's notion of 'aparokṣānubhūti,' or direct experience, as the means to realize this unity. By realizing the Ātman, one realizes Brahman, illustrating the Advaitic concept of non-duality.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): The Vaiṣṇava tradition interprets this verse with an emphasis on the relationship between the jīva (individual self) and Īśvara (the Lord). Rāmānujācārya, in his commentary on the Upaniṣads, highlights the devotional aspect, suggesting that knowledge of the Ultimate Reality is not merely intellectual but involves a deep, personal relationship with Īśvara. The verse 'yena vidyāt tena vidyo videnavidyo 'pi īśvaraḥ' indicates that through devotion and knowledge, the Lord, who is both the knower and the known, reveals Himself. This interpretation underscores the importance of bhakti (devotion) in understanding and realizing the Ultimate Reality. Madhvācārya would further emphasize the distinction between the jīva and Īśvara, highlighting the dependency of the jīva on Īśvara for knowledge and salvation.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): This verse holds universal and practical significance, as highlighted by Swami Vivekānanda and S. Rādhākrishnan. Vivekānanda, in his lectures on the Upaniṣads, emphasized the importance of direct experience and realization, beyond mere scriptural knowledge. He connected this concept to the practical application of Vedāntic principles in everyday life, stressing the unity of all existence and the potential for every individual to realize this unity. Rādhākrishnan, focusing on the philosophical aspects, saw this verse as pointing to the ultimate reality that transcends the limitations of the human mind and the Vedic scriptures. He argued that true knowledge and understanding can only be achieved through a synthesis of intellectual comprehension and spiritual experience, applicable to all aspects of human life and society, promoting harmony and understanding among different traditions and cultures.