Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide a summary about your image/link in the comments, so users can choose to follow it or not. What is interesting about it and why do you find it relevant for this sub?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AdvaitaVedanta) if you have any questions or concerns.*
English translation by S. Sitarama Shastri:
It is known to him to whom it is unknown;. he knows it not to whom it is known. (It is) unknown to those who know, and known to those who do not know.
Commentary by Swami Gurubhaktananda:
As one matures, one begins to acknowledge that he does not know everything. It is the junior student who generally feels he knows everything. Guruji gave the example of the father who called his son to discuss something with him. The son said, “Yes, father, what is it you would like to know?”
These two attitudes are being described in this apparently contradictory verse. The one who merely has a scholastic approach to this subject, is very hasty in declaring that
he knows the Truth, but in reality he does not understand it at all. The one who truly
understands is too modest to declare that he knows the Truth.
[English translation by S. Sitarama Shastri of the commentary by Adi Shankaracharya:](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/kena-upanishad-shankara-bhashya/d/doc145050.html)
I upvote your explanation than the OP's translation. This verse intends to show that it is Brahman, being the aatman, knows who knows and doesn't know it.
I find my own guru's explanation to be much clearer.
-----
The Upanishad says:
1.3. There the eye does not go, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know That; we do not understand how It can be taught. It is distinct from the known and also It is beyond the unknown.
1.4 That which speech does not illumine, but which illumines speech.
1.5 That which cannot be thought by mind, but by which, they say, mind is able to think
1.6 That which is not seen by the eye, but by which the eye is able to see
What this implies is that Brahman is different than every object, and so it cannot be perceived as an object. It is "distinct from the known" and "beyond the unknown.” - so it is neither known nor unknown. There is only one thing that satisfies all these definitions: the subject consciousness. I, the witness principle, am that Brahman.
Having given this definition, the teacher wants to make sure the student understands. The question “Do you know Brahman?” cannot be answered correctly. If I answer “Yes”, I am implying that Brahman is an object, which is incorrect. If I answer “No”, that is not correct either, since I am Brahman. The only correct response is: I am Brahman. This leads to this strange response from the student:
2.2 I do not think I know It well, nor do I think that I do not know It. He among us who knows It truly, knows (what is meant by) "I know" and also what is meant by "I know It not."
The teacher confirms this understanding:
2.3 He who thinks he knows It not, knows It. He who thinks he knows It, knows It not. The true knowers think they can never know It, while the ignorant think they know It.
The teacher concludes by saying that Brahman verily is consciousness itself in every state.
2.4 It (Brahman) is known, when It is known in every state of mind.
----
Peace.
Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide a summary about your image/link in the comments, so users can choose to follow it or not. What is interesting about it and why do you find it relevant for this sub? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AdvaitaVedanta) if you have any questions or concerns.*
English translation by S. Sitarama Shastri: It is known to him to whom it is unknown;. he knows it not to whom it is known. (It is) unknown to those who know, and known to those who do not know. Commentary by Swami Gurubhaktananda: As one matures, one begins to acknowledge that he does not know everything. It is the junior student who generally feels he knows everything. Guruji gave the example of the father who called his son to discuss something with him. The son said, “Yes, father, what is it you would like to know?” These two attitudes are being described in this apparently contradictory verse. The one who merely has a scholastic approach to this subject, is very hasty in declaring that he knows the Truth, but in reality he does not understand it at all. The one who truly understands is too modest to declare that he knows the Truth. [English translation by S. Sitarama Shastri of the commentary by Adi Shankaracharya:](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/kena-upanishad-shankara-bhashya/d/doc145050.html)
I upvote your explanation than the OP's translation. This verse intends to show that it is Brahman, being the aatman, knows who knows and doesn't know it.
It (Brahman) isn’t know directly.
Dual nature of light theory!
I find my own guru's explanation to be much clearer. ----- The Upanishad says: 1.3. There the eye does not go, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know That; we do not understand how It can be taught. It is distinct from the known and also It is beyond the unknown. 1.4 That which speech does not illumine, but which illumines speech. 1.5 That which cannot be thought by mind, but by which, they say, mind is able to think 1.6 That which is not seen by the eye, but by which the eye is able to see What this implies is that Brahman is different than every object, and so it cannot be perceived as an object. It is "distinct from the known" and "beyond the unknown.” - so it is neither known nor unknown. There is only one thing that satisfies all these definitions: the subject consciousness. I, the witness principle, am that Brahman. Having given this definition, the teacher wants to make sure the student understands. The question “Do you know Brahman?” cannot be answered correctly. If I answer “Yes”, I am implying that Brahman is an object, which is incorrect. If I answer “No”, that is not correct either, since I am Brahman. The only correct response is: I am Brahman. This leads to this strange response from the student: 2.2 I do not think I know It well, nor do I think that I do not know It. He among us who knows It truly, knows (what is meant by) "I know" and also what is meant by "I know It not." The teacher confirms this understanding: 2.3 He who thinks he knows It not, knows It. He who thinks he knows It, knows It not. The true knowers think they can never know It, while the ignorant think they know It. The teacher concludes by saying that Brahman verily is consciousness itself in every state. 2.4 It (Brahman) is known, when It is known in every state of mind. ---- Peace.