1. Isavasya, Sankara & Madhva on Isavasya Upanisad Archak K.B..djvu

SANKARA AND MADHVA

ON

THE ĪSĀVĀSYA UPANISAD

K. B. ARCHAK

DHARWAD] [1981

ŚAṄKARA and MADHVA

ON

THE ĪŚĀVĀSYA UPANIṢAD

K. B. ARCHAK M.A.

श्री:

This book is published with the Financial

Assistance of Tirumala Tirupati Devastha-

nams, Under Their Scheme Aid to Publish

Religious Books

DHARWAD]

[1981

SANKARA AND MADHVA ON

THE ISĀVĀSYA UPANIṢAD

Shri K. B. Archak, M A.

Vanavasi Rama Mandir, DHARWAD - 580 007

Copy rights reserved

Publisher :

Shri K. B. Archak M. A,

Vanavasi Rama Mandir.

Station Road. DHARWAD-580 007

Durmati Samvatsara

Akṣaya Tṛtīyā

6th May 1981

Price : Ordinary Copy Rs. 20/-

Sadanand Printers

DHARWAD-580 001

॥ श्रीः ॥

श्री पलिमारह तथा भण्डारकैर उभयमठाधीशोः

श्रीमद्वपूज्यविद्यामान्यतोर्यश्रीपादैः

अनुगृहीतं शुभाशासनम्

ईशावास्योपनिषत् पठचनिमेषैरैव समग्रापि पठितुमर्हा, अथापि सर्ववेदार्थंगर्भिता ब्रह्मविद्गर्भितश्रीकृष्णवदनमिवाश्रीयतेन बहुगुणाभ्भरा च । अनकेराचार्यैः स्वस्वबुध्यानुसारेण व्याख्यातस्वात् सा अन्यथा-ज्ञानमेवाजनयत् । सकलजीवोत्तममुख्यप्राणावातारभूतश्रीमध्वाचार्यैः ईशावास्यादिमन्त्रव्याख्यानरूपेण विद्यमानवराहकौर्मादिपुराणवचनानुदाहृत्य यथार्थतया व्याख्यातवतः । यथा "अविद्यां मृत्युम् तीत्‍व्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते" इति मन्त्रे अविद्याशब्दस्य अयथार्थज्ञाननिन्दार्थकत्वं कौर्मपुराणवचनमुद्धृत्य समर्थितं श्रीमध्वभाष्ये । एवं स्थिते कश्चित्

iv

आधुनिके ऽविद्याशाब्दस्य तादृशार्थं दृष्ट्वा अपहसितं, यत् तत् अस्माक-माश्चर्यमुत्पादयति यतः ते "गड़ङ्गायां घोष:" इत्यादौ गड़ङ्गाशाब्दस्य लक्षणया गड़ङ्गातीरङ्कत्वं न जानन्ति इति । अविद्याशाब्दस्य लक्षणाया अयथार्थज्ञानिनिन्दार्थेत्वं विना मुख्यार्थस्वीकारे ऽविद्याया मृत्यं तोत्पत्तिरीयस्यतान्वयोपपत्तः आविद्याशब्दस्य गड़ङ्गाशब्दसमनित्वात्तु । पुराणवचनैस्तथा व्याख्यातत्वाच्च । एवमेव बहुस्थलेषु प्रमाणवचनोक्तमर्थमपहायैव स्वबुद्धया यद्वा तद्वा व्याख्यानकर्त्तार एव अन्ये । एतसदृशं तुलनात्मकदृष्ट्या कृष्णमूर्ति अचंक्, एम्. ए. इत्येते विमृश्य समयकं व्यलिखन् । वयं तल्लेखनमवलोक्य महानन्दिन्दः स्मः । एतादृशाः संशोधनग्रन्थाः बहवः एतन्मुखात् निर्मिता भवन्तु इति आशास्य विरमामः ।

२६-७-१९८१

श्रीविद्यामन्यतीर्थश्रीपादाः

उडुपि श्री पलिमारुमठाधिपतयः

PREFACE

Multitude of articles, innumerable books and elaborate commentaries have been written on the

Īśāvāsyopanisad, one of the most aphoristic and popular upanisads. This is because of its brevity in

delineating the ethical and metaphysical truths in a unique form. Major commentators on this Upanisad,

are Śaṅkara, Vedānta Deśika and Madhva, who are respectively the champions of the Advaita, Viśisṭā-

dvaita and the Dvaita schools of Vedānta. As the title of the present work Śaṅkara and Madhva on the

Īśāvāsya Upanisad suggests. I have tried to compare the interpretations of Śaṅkara and Madhva, of the

mantras of the Upanisad. Besides, analytical light of Vedānta Deśika's interpretation is also indicated. My

study of the commentaries of these two stalwarts in the field of Indian philosophy, made me side with

Madhva rather than with Śaṅkara. My approach has been purely academical and critical without any pre-

judice with one or the other.

I have deep sense of respect and sincere obligati-

ons to Pandit Arakeri Jayateerthacharya, who helped me to read the elaborate and scholarly commentaries

of Śaṅkara and Madhva, and of their followers, in a traditional method, which inspired me to write out

my findings for the use of the readers.

vi

The credit of such scholarly edited work should go to my revered teacher Dr. D. N. Shanbhag. M. A., Ph. D, Reader in Sanskrit, Karnatak University .Dharwad. I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to him, for he took special interest to make valuable suggestions and corrections in my manuscript. I undertook this work due to his sympathetic and inspiring guidance. Not only this, he encouraged me to bring out this work, and took pains of even going through the proofs.

I extend my gratitude to Prof. K. T. Pandurangi of Bangalore., Dr. R. A. Malgi., M. A., Ph. D., Prof. & Head. Dept. of English, Gujarat University and Dr. C. Venugopal, M. A., Ph. D., Dept. of English, Karnatak University, Dharwad. who went through the manuscript and made very valuable suggestions.

The value of this work has been increased by the sacred blessings showered by H. H. Sri Vidyamyateertha Swamiji of Sri Palimar & Bhandarkeri Mutts, Udipi, which has been printed elsewhere in toto. I pray God that such blessings be over me through out my career. I offer my humble salutations to the revered His Holiness.

It is my pleasant duty to record here my heartfelt thanks to revered Shri P. V. R. K. Prasad. I. A. S., Executive Officer, T. T. D., Tirupati, for being extremely kind in sanctioning substantial financial aid to cover the printing charges of this work.

vii

It is pleasure for me to express my sense of

gratitude to Shri. S. K. Purohit, B. A. ( Hons ).,

B. Com., Branch Manager. State Bank of India.

Mudhol, and Shri G. K. Nippani. M. A. Lecturer in

Sanskrit. Veerashaiva College, Bellary, who helped

me financially to get this work published.

But for the efficient and prompt printing work

carried out by the Sadanand Printers, Dharwad, this

work would not have seen the light so early. I am

grateful to the proprietor as well as his staff of the

Sadanand Printers.

DHARWAD

6th May 1981

K. B ARCHAK

INTRODUCTION

The Īśāvāsyopanisad is at once exoteric as it attempts a synthesis of the practical values of life,

and esoteric as it reveals the highest goal of life in the best possible way. To quote Dr. K. B. Ramakri-

shnao "The Īśāvāsyopanisad holds an invitation to Infinite living by unravelling the nature of Infinite

Being and by prescribing a way by which each little being, however small it may be and 'finite' we may

call, can pass beyond the limits of his/its moral life to the bliss of infinite immortal life."

This is the only Upanisad which is a part of the Samhitā; other upanisads are distinct, and are

generally attached to various branches of the Vedas. This Upanisad is also called 'Samhitopanisad' for it

constitutes the fortieth chapter of the Vājasaneya Samhitā, or the white Yajurveda. In respect of the

Vājasaneya Samhitā there is an interesting legend, which we find in treatises like the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata

( skanda 12, chapter 6 ), and the Visnu-purāna (Book III, Chapters iv and v).

Lord Vedavyāsa, the incarnation of the Supreme Nārāyana, divided the original Veda consisting of

one hundred thousand stanzas, into four parts, in the twenty-eighth Dvāpara age. Summoning his four

pupils, the omniscient teacher imparted the Rgveda,

2

Śaṅkara and Madhva

which is also known as Bahvrca (comprising many ṛks) to Paila; Yajus called Nigada (so called because the Yajus mantras are mostly in prose) to Vaiśampā-yana, to Jaimini the collection of the Sāmans; and to Sumantu the collection called the Atharva.

Of the Yajurveda there are twenty-seven branches, which Vaiśampāyana compiled and taught to as many students. Amongst these, Yājñavalkya, the son of Devarāta was distinguished for piety and obedience to his preceptor.

Once Vaiśampāyana incurred sin of killing his sister's child by accidentally treading on it. Then Vaiśampāyana's disciples performed observances on behalf of their preceptor. But Yājñavalkya, one of his disciples, bluntly mocked his classmates and said: "Ah! Sir, how much can these puny men do by way of their observances? I shall perform that act of expiation by hard penance." At this, the preceptor was incensed and commanded him to relinquish all that he had learnt from him.

Thereupon, Yājñavalkya spewed out whatever he had learnt from Vaiśampāyana and departed.

देवरातसुतः सोऽपि वेदित्त्वा यजुषां गणम् ।

तत्तो गतोड्य मुनयो ददृशुस्तान् यजुरगणान् ॥

(Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, 12. 6. 64)

Other pupils of Vaiśampāyana taking the form of partridges (tittirī) picked up the texts which he had discarded. And those Yajus mantras became that

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

exceedingly charming branch of Yajurveda, which is

known as Taittirīya Samhitā or Kṛṣna Yajurveda,

and those disciples were called the Caraka professors

(from carana- 'going through' or 'performing')

वंशम्पायनशिष्या वैन् चरकाध्वर्यवोऽभवन् ।

यच्चेहब्रह्माद्वयाहृत्यां: क्षपणं स्वगुरोरन्तम् ॥

(Ibid. 12. 6. 61)

Then Yājñavalkya seeking to obtain the hymns that

his teacher did not possess, performed austerities

to please the Sun-God.

याज्ञवल्क्यस्सततो ब्रह्मान् च्छन्दांस्यधिगवेश यन् ।

गुरोरविद्यामानानि सूर्पत्स्थेड़कमी श्वरम् ॥

(Ibid. 12. 6. 66)

Thus extolled and propitiated, the blessed Lord

taking the form of a horse imparted to Yājñavalkya

the knowledge of the Yajus hymns that were unknown

to others. This is the Śukla or white Yajurveda.

Then Yājñavalkya divided these Yajus-hymns into

fifteen recensions and they were learnt by the Kāṇvas,

the Mādhyandinas and others. And this present

Upaniṣad is the concluding portion of the Śukla-

Yajurveda belonging to the Kāṇva branch.

The tradition has placed this Upaniṣad as the

first. To quote B. D. Basu: "If the mantra portions

are older than the Brāhmaṇas, and they must be so,

as the text is always older than commentary, then

there can be no doubt that this Upaniṣad is older

than the Bṛhadāraṇyaka which, according to some, is

4

Sankara and Madhva

the oldest of all. Many mantras of this Upanisad are

to be found in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. Thus the traditi-

onal order of the Upaniṣads, with the Iśāvāsya as

the first, has an historical foundation."2

Though the Īśa Upaniṣad is said to be the first,

it does not necessarily mean that, there must be a defi-

nite date and time of its composition or of any other

upanisad. But most of the modern scholars like Dr. S.

Radhakrishnan opine: "The earliest of them are certain-

ly pre-Buddhistic, a few of them are after Buddha. It is

likely that they were composed between the complet-

ion of the Vedic hymns and the rise of Buddhism

(that is the sixth century B. C). The accepted dates for

the early Upaniṣads are 1000 B. C. to 300 B.C. Some of

the later Upaniṣads on which Saṅkara has commented

are pre-Buddhistic and belong to about 400 or 300

B. C."3 Paul Deussen writes "In this sense a 'system

of the Upaniṣads.' strictly speaking, does not exist.

For these treatises are not the work of a single genius,

but the total philosophical product of an entire epoch,

which extends from the period of the wandering in

the Ganges valley to the rise of Buddhism, or approx-

imately from 1000 or 800 B. C. to 500 B. C., but

which is prolonged in its offshoots far beyond this

last limit of time."4

As a matter of fact, even an approximate date

cannot be ascribed to the upaniṣads, for, traditionally

they are apauruṣeya, like the Vedas, and not human

compositions at all. "As a part of the Veda, the upan-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

iṣads belong to śruti or revealed literature. They are immortal, sanātana, timeless. Their truths are said to be breathed out of God or visioned by the seers. They are the utterances of the sages who speak out of the fullness of their illumined experience. They are not reached by ordinary perception, inference or reflection, but seen by the seers even as we see and not infer the wealth and riot of colour in the summer sky."5 In respect of apauruṣeyatva of the entire Vedic literature including the upaniṣads Bṛhadāraṇyaka speaks clearly : एवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानानि अस्यैवैतानि सर्वाणि निःश्वसितानि ॥ (II. 4. 10). Others say :

१) साक्षात्कृतधर्माणः ऋषयो बभूवुः तेऽवरेभ्योऽसाक्षात्कृतधर्मभ्यः उपदेशेन मन्त्रान् प्रादुः । उपदेशाय ग्लायन्तोऽवरे बिल्व-ग्रह्नायेम प्रन्थं सममनासिषुः ।

( Nirukta I. 1. 20 )

२) नित्याः वेदाः समस्ताश्च शाश्वताः विष्णुबुद्धिग्राः । सर्गे सर्गेऽमुनैवैते उद्गीर्यन्ते तथैव च ।

तत्क्रमेणैव तेऽवर्णः तेः स्वरैरैव नाड्यथा ॥

(Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa cited in Madhva's Viṣnutattvanirṇaya)

३) ईशेनोच्‍चरितं तच्‍च वक्त्रादीनां परम्परा ।

अनुमूतं स्मरैरैतत्‍यं न करोति स्वयं पुनः ॥

(Vādirāja's Yuktimallikā-Guṇasaurabha-śloka-80)

4. "The only meaning, it seems to us, that we can assign to the above passage is that all these great

6

Sankara and Madhva

works, whether we take the Vedas and the Upanisads on the one hand, or History and Mythology on the

other, may be regarded as having [ been due to the inspirational activity of God in the minds of those

who composed (saw) them."

(A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy By -R. D. Ranade. Bombay, 1968, P. 7.)

5. "Like the Vedas, they are also called sruti, as they are regarded to be the heard or revealed

word of the Supreme Lord to the ancient sages living in forest on alms, practising austerity and med-

itation, and renouncing all desires and attachments of sense objects."

(Prasthanik Trayi of the Three-fold Vedanta By-R. C. Vidyarthi, Agra, Pp. 2-3)

It is said that the eighteen mantras of this Upaniṣad are mystic and they correspond with the eighteen

chapters of the Bhagavadgītā. "The number eighteen is a suggestive figure-the Mahābhārata has eighteen

books; the Gītā has eighteen chapters; and this first in the series of the Upaniṣads has eighteen verses.

Is there any coincidence? Raṅga-Rāmānuja answers the question by saying that the whole of Gītā is the

expansion of these eighteen verses. We say yes, not only the Gītā but the whole of the Mahābhārata is

based upon these eighteen verses. The number is mystic, and whenever employed in any sacred book

indicates that there is a hidden meaning underlying

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

7

the apparent one, and that the reader should pause,

reflect and meditate till he has reached the hidden

sense. For it is thus that his intuition can be brou-

ght into play."6 On this ground, it may be said that

this Upaniṣad as it reveals an integrated synthesis

of the paths leading to Mokṣa can be considered an

aphoristic summary of the whole upaniṣadic philos-

ophy. Hence, the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad, though the shor-

test, is called as the first and the oldest of all the

Upaniṣads, and it occupies a unique place in the histo-

ry of Indian spiritual and philosophical literature.

This Upaniṣad firstly, is commented upon by

Śaṅkara (780-820 AD) the well known founder of the

Advaita school of Thought, and then by some of his

traditional followers like Ānandagiri, Brahmānanda,

Śaṅkarānanda. Rāma chandrapand̥ita Ānandabhaṭt̥op-

ādhyāya Mahīdhara and Uvata among others: and

modern scholars like Paul Deussen Dr S. Radhakris-

hnan Hume. Roar have more or less followed Saṅka-

ra's commentary. Moreover most of the other mod-

ern scholars also pursued the path laid down by

Śaṅkara. The reason might be the popularity of

Śaṅkara's Advaita Vedānta, or their acquaintance

with only Śaṅkara's thought. But Śaṅkara, as will be

shown, has missed the core of the Upaniṣad.

Vedānta-Deśika belonging to the Viśisṭādvaita

school of Thought has commented upon the Īśāvāsy-

opaniṣad, which has been further commented upon by

Veer-Raghavacharya. The latter commentary is na-

8

Saṅkara and Madhva

med as 'Ācārya-Bhāṣya-Tātparya'. Rāmānuja has

touched upon some of the relevant points of the

upanisads in his 'Vedārthasaṁgraha' but he has not

commented upon any of the upanisads.

Madhva, the propounder of the Dvaita school

of Thought has commented upon the Īśāvāsyopani-

ṣad. The available commentaries of this Upaniṣad

in the Dvaita tradition, are comparatively more in

number, than in any other school of Vedānta. They

are :

1. Tīkas by Jayatīrtha., &

Vāmanapaṇḍitācārya*

2. Tippanī of Raghunātha-Tīrtha.

3. Tippanī of Vādirāja-Tīrtha.

4. Tippanī of Śrīnivāsa-Tīrtha.*

5. Khaṇḍārtha of Rāghavendra-Tīrtha.

6. Tippanī of Guhāpura Krishna Sharma*

7. Tippanī of Nṛsimhācārya Chalāri.

8. Tippanī of Satyaprajñā-Tīrtha.7

9. Tippanī of Nṛsimhācārya, disciple of

Śrīpoorṇabodha.*

10. Tippanī of Maṅkāli Dharmācārya.*

11. Tippanī of Gūḍha-kartṛka.*

(* = These manuscripts are in the collection of

Shri V. Prabhanjana, Vyasankere.)

The first aspect that is to be discussed, is the

point pertaining to Maṅgalācaraṇa in the light of

these several commentaries belonging to these three

major schools of the Vedānta.

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

9

Since the olden days: Indian tradition believes

and has laid down the custom of performing maṅgala

either bodily, mentally or orally, at the beginning of

every work. Many authorities might be quoted in

this regard. Among them, the Śabdakalpadruma⁸,

Vyttaṛatnākara⁹, Mūlamathurānāṭhi¹⁰, Abhinavagu-

pta¹⁰ a. Annambhaṭṭa¹⁰ b, the Bālamanorama¹¹, and

Tryambaka Makhi¹² might be read to know the need

of performing the maṅgala.

Tryambaka Makhi articulates an exhaustive acco-

unt regarding the performance of maṅgala. It is

therein enjoined that- "at the beginning of sacred

(vaidika) as well as ordidary (laukika) works, perfor-

mance of auspicious benediction is necessary. And

not only at the beginning of the work, but also in

the middle and at the end of the work, it is the custo-

mary duty of performing the maṅgala. That is why,

in the works like Aṣṭādhyāyī etc. the ending 'aphor-

ism ‘अ अ’ denotes that Pāṇini did perform maṅgala

at the end, as ‘अ’ refers to Brahman.

Thus the authorities shown above emphatically

state that auspicious benediction should be perform-

ed at the beginning of one's work, which removes

obstacles and leads to a safe completion of the work

undertaken.

Regarding this important aspect, it is very surp-

rising to note that, Śaṅkara has not performed any

maṅgala at the beginning of his commentary on the

Īśāvāsyopaniṣad. It is surprising because Śaṅkara

10

Śaṅkara and Madhva

has maṅgala ślokas at the commencement of his commentaries upon other upaniṣads like Kaṭha Taittirīya,

Māṇḍūkya and Bṛhadāraṇyaka.

On the contrary some might argue that, there is no necessity of performing maṅgala, because the

object of the commentary here is Īśa, who is eternally auspicious.

But this opinion contradicts the massive Indian

tradition because, as it is stated before, it is the custom of the wise ones (Śiṣṭācāra-paramparā) to salute

one's Iṣṭa-devatā to get one's work completed without any obstacles. Even Bhagavān Vedavyāsa, the incar-

nation of Lord Nārāyaṇa himself performs maṅgala at the beginning of His works like Śrīmad-Bhāgava-

ta14, Śrīman-Mahābhārata14 and even the Brahma-

Sūtras15. Here it should not be doubted as to whom

does Bhagavān Vedavyāsa who is the Supreme Lord

Himself bows down; because He did an auspicious

introduction not for His own sake but to set an example of the customary duty of performing maṅgala to

the rest of the world.

Being bound by the tradition, Vedānta-Deśika

benedicts :

प्रेताद्वैतामपितं सर्वं नेतान्नेतार्त्तहारकम् ।

विशुद्धसद्गुणौघं तं वासुदेवमुपास्महे ॥

"We meditate on Vāsudeva possessed of a mass of

pure excellence who inhabits sentient and insentient

world"16.

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

11

Similarly Madhva offers salutation to Lord Hari:

नित्यानित्यजगद्धात्रे नित्याय ज्ञानमूर्तये । पूर्णानन्दाय हरये सर्वज्ञ-भूजे नमः ॥

So too, Ânandagiri at the beginning of his commentary17 on the Īśāvāsya-Śāñkara-bhāṣya has done the mangala without fail. These references should go to prove that performing mangala is very essential in any important intellectual feat. But Śaṅkara has unfortunately failed to perform maṅgala, and consequently defaults by ignoring the much too necessary tradition of performing the maṅgala.

Madhva having bowed down to Lord Hari proceeds to salute his Guru too :

यस्माद्ब्रह्माद्रुद्रादिदेवतां श्रियोडपि च ।

ज्ञानस्फूर्तिः सदातस्मै हरये गुरवे नमः ॥

Now let us see the significance of these two maṅ-gala Ślokas :

I VERSE : Here the adjective ‘nityānitya-jagaddhātre’ declares Lord Hari to be the Protector, Supporter,

12

Śaṅkara and Madhva

Controller, Destroyer and so on, of this universe consisting of eternal and non-eternal objects.

A doubt may arise here that the supportershıp etc. of Lord Hari can be apprehended by the phrase 'anityajagaddhātre' only; the word 'nitya' is not necessary. Moreover it also can be argued that, the eternal objects do not require the supportership etc. of the Lord, because nityapadārthas are always nitya-imperishable by their intrinsic quality, nature and etc. They never get perished. So the Lord's supportership is not at all necessary for the existence of eternal objects. But in case of non-eternals, there is a need of support of the Lord, for they have a limited existence and are perishable. 'Hence, the phrase 'anityajagaddhātre' is sufficient.

The objection raised above seems to be absurd, because God's 'supportership' for the eternal things is separately mentioned to show even their dependence on the Supreme Brahman. Moreover, if the eternals do not have the support of the Lord, they would have no substratum. Finally even the Īśādhinatva of any individual soul which will be shown in the very first mantra of this Upaniṣad would not only seriously suffer but become even redundant.

Raghunathatīrtha elucidates : नित्यं नित्यात्मनः यतः । तथाऽनित्यतथाऽनित्यं नित्यशक्त्या स्वयेश्वरः । नियामयति नित्यं चेत्येतावतो ग्रहणं सूचयितुमित्यादेरितयुक्ततम् । यथा अनित्यं घटादिकम् अनित्यतया नियम्यते तथा नित्यं नित्यात्मना नित्यं च सर्वदैवेश्वरो नियामयति ।।

18

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

Lord Hari rules eternals by eternality even as He does the non-eternals by non-eternality. The eternal and non-eternal objects are distinct and can never be mutually interchanged.

In this context, B. D. Basu tries to classify eternal and non-eternal objects: “The eternals are the jīvas or souls. The non-eternals are the bodies and other material objects, which change their forms1 99. The classification of non-eternals may be accepted. But the classification of eternals seems to be much more restricted, because there are many eternal objects other than jīvas. Mūla-Prakṛti, Ākāśa and etc. are as eternal as jīvas. Therefore the statement put forth by B. D. Basu is narrow.

Besides, a doubt may arise here: either to protect or to support, or to control, one should be possessed of a body. But, if the Lord has a body, then He would be subjected to birth and death and other demerits of the human body; hence there remains no superiority of the Lord.

To negate this objection, Madhva puts two adjectives ‘jñānamūrttaye’ and ‘pūrṇānandāya’. i. e., Lord Hari possesses the body which is nothing but knowledge and bliss. Such Lord is most eternal or His body can never be destroyed. Besides Lord Hari, none of the higher gods like Goddess Lakṣmī, Brahmā, Vāyu, Garuḍa, Śeṣa, Rudra & others have such supreme blissful qualities. Therefore the Supreme Brahman alone, who possesses supreme attributes

14

Saṅkara and Madhva

can serve the vyāpāras of the universe, such as creating, protecting, controlling, destroying etc.

Such a God-Head, Lord Hari, is called ‘Yajña-bhuk’ i. e. ‘Enjoyer of all sacrifices’ or the ‘Lord of all sacrifices’

यज्ञेन यज्ञमयजन्त देवास्तानि धर्माणि प्रथमान्यासन् ।

ते ह नाकं महिमान: सचन्ते यत्र पूर्वे साध्या: सन्ति देवाः ॥

(Taittirīya Saṁhitā-III. 5.11; Ṛg Veda I. 164,50)

भोक्तारं यज्ञतपसां सर्वलोकमहेश्वरम् ।

अहं हि सर्वयज्ञानां भोक्ता च प्रभुरेव च ॥

(Gītā V. 29)

(Ibid IX. 24)

Here the point to be noted is that “Viṣṇu is called the Sacrifice also because He is the enjoyer of sacrifices. Sacrifice or Yajña is another name of the Lord. Beings whose happiness is imperfect are running after external objects in order to complete their happiness. Surely, Hari is not the enjoyer of sacrifices in this sense, for His happiness or bliss is perfect and full. His enjoyment therefore, is a mere līlā or sport, in order to show condescension of his devotees by accepting their offerings.”

The attribute ‘Yajñabhuk’ significantly suggests that Lord Hari who is the Lord of all sacrifices is the adhikṛta devatā of the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad which is established by Madhva in his commentary, that follows.

In the second maṅgala śloka, Madhva further proceeds to bow down to his preceptor after offering benediction to his Iṣṭa-devatā, Lord Hari. For Madhva, the preceptor is none else than Lord Hari

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

15

Himself. The word ‘Śrī’ is mentioned separately in order to show the difference between the knowledge of Goddess Lakṣmī and of Brahmā and others. The knowledge possessed by Śrī is eternal and never gets obscured, though it is at the pleasure of the Lord.21 But in the case of Brahmā and other deities there is a need for the manifestation of knowledge ( i. e. Abhivyakti). That is why, Goddess Lakṣmī is mentioned separately.

Thus, we have in these two benedictory verses an epitome of the account of the main tenets of Mādhva philosophy itself.

Then, Madhva has fulfilled the requirement of anubandhacaṭustaya by saying that-

स्वायम्भुवो मनूः एतौः मन्त्रैः भगवन्माकूर्तिसोऽनुं मझनामा अनं विष्णुं तुष्टाव ।

He quotes a statement from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa to support his view :

स्वायम्भुवः स्वदौहित्रं विष्णुं ऋग्यजुऽभि रे मनः ।

ईशावास्यादिर्मंत्रेस्तु तुष्टावावहितात्मना ।

रक्षोऽभिग्रे: समप्राप्तः खादितुं मोचितस्तदा ।

स्तोत्रं श्रत्नेव यजेन तान्हत्वाऽवध्यतां गतान् ।

प्रादाद्धि भगवान्स्तेषामवध्यत्वं हरः प्रभुः ।

तैर्वंध्यत्वे तथार्येषाममतः कोट्यो हरेः प्रभुः ।

From the statement quoted above, it may be said that ( 1 ) The real nature of Lord Viṣṇu, the incarnation of Yajña as described in the mantras of this Upaniṣad is abhidheya, the subject matter.

16

Saṅkara and Madhva

ii) The removal of the sāmsāric bondage and attainment of Highest Bliss is the prayojana or the fruit. This aim is suggested in ‘rakṣobhirugraih sam-prāptah….avadhyatām gatān’.

iii) One who is anxiously, sincerely pining for the grace of Supreme Brahman, like Svāyambhuva Manu is the adhikārin or the eligible to receive the fruit.

iv) Lord Viṣṇu and His greatness as described in the mantras is sambandha22 or the connection among all these.

Madhva proceeds to inform another group of four preliminary considerations in the statement quoted above; i. e.. 1) Svāyambhuva Manu is the Seer or dṛṣṭā (Ṛṣih) of this Upaniṣad23 as he pleases Lord Hari by means of these mantras.

2. Incarnation of Lord Hari as Yajña is Devatā.

3. & 4) Metre and Yoga may be understood by the very nature of the particular mantra. And so, it need not be mentioned separately.

Though Saṅkara has mentioned the requirement of the ‘anubandhacatuṣṭaya’,24 he seems to ignore the four fold laws pertaining to the seer, the Devatā etc. Moreover, it is surprising that Vedānta-Deśika should ignore completely these two groups of four preliminary considerations, with which every work should necessarily be started.

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

Now let us proceed to delineate the purport of

the mantras of the Īśāvāsyopanisad by examining the

principal commentaries of Saṅkara and Madhva with

references to the modern interpretations too,

wherever necessary.

On the first step itself, like ‘mūle-kuṭhārah’, it

might be objected that - the real philosophical topic

of this Upanisad actually starts from the fourth

mantra ‘anejadekam ’ And this Upanisad in full, is

well known as a source of the pure knowledge of the

Supreme Brahman. Hence the first three mantras and

their interpretations too, are not necessary and so

useless, for they deal with some other ‘non-philo-

sophical’ subject-matter.

But it is not so. The implication of the first

three mantras is so deep and related to the forthcoming mantras, that, without these, it is impossible to

understand the teachings of the Īśāvāsyopanisad. If so

then, what actually is the import of the first three

mantras? The reply is, the import of these mantras

is to insist that to acquire the knowledge of Brahman,

one must be qualified requisitely. Those requisite

qualifications of a knower of Brahman such as Vai-

rāgya, or renunciation’ svocita-karmānusṭhāna or

performance of one’s ordained duties etc., have been

brought out in the first three mantras25.

In addition to this, the first mantra brings out

the necessity of having vairāgya, its characteristic fea-

tures and nature, which will lead towards the goal of

acquiring the knowledge of Brahman.

18

Saṅkara and Madhva

I MANTRA

ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यस्किंच जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा: मा गृध: कस्य स्विद्धनम् ॥

"All this whatsoever in the Prakṛti (for its movement) is indwelt by the Lord. (As it belongs to Him alone) enjoy whatever is allotted to you. and do not beg from any other for weath "

Saṅkara-Bhāṣya :- ईशा ईष्ट इति ईश । ईशिता पर-मेश्वर: परमात्मा सर्वेश्य । स हि सर्वेमिष्ठ: सर्वजन्तूनामात्मा सन् प्रत्नयात्मतया तेन स्वेन रूपेणात्मना ईशा वास्यम् आचछादनीयम् ।

किमिदं सर्वं यस्किंचिद्वित् जगत्यां पृथिव्यां जगत् तत् सर्वं स्वेनात्मना ईशोन प्रत्यगात्मतया 'अहमेवेदं सर्वम्' इति परमार्थसत्य-रूपेण अनंतमिदं सर्वं चराचरमाच्छादनीयं परमात्मना ।

यथा चंदनाच-र्गादिकादिसद्बंधकलेदाद्विजमोपाधिकं दोर्गन्ध्ये तत्त्वरूपानिधर्षणेन आचछाद्यते स्वेन परमार्थिकेन गन्धेन तद्धदेव हि स्वात्मनि अध्यस्तं स्वाभाविकं कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिलक्षणं जगत् द्वैतरूपं जगत्यां पृथिव्याम् ।

'जगत्याम्' इत्युपलक्षणार्थस्त्वात् सर्वमेव नामरूपकर्मभि: विकारजातं परमार्थंसत्यात्मभावनया त्यक्तं स्यात् । एवमीश्वरामत्मभावनया युक्तस्य पुत्रादिप्राणात्यसंन्यस्त एवाधिकारो न कर्मसु ।

तेन त्यक्तेन त्यर्थ: । न हि त्यक्तां मृत: पुत्रो मृत्यो वा आत्मसंबन्धताया अभावादात्मानं पालयति अतस्त्यागोनेत्ययमेवार्थ: ।

भुञ्जीथा: पाल-येथा: । एवं त्यक्तेभानस्तं मा गृध: । गृध्धि आकांक्षी मा कार्षी: धनविषयाम् ।

कस्यस्विद्धनं कस्स्विद्धनं कस्यचित्परस्य स्वस्य वा धन मा कांक्षी-रित्यर्थ: । स्वदित्यनर्थको निपात: । अथवा मा गृध: कस्मात् कस्स्विदनमित्याक्षेपार्थो न कस्यस्विद्धनमस्ति यदगृध्येत ।

आत्मैवेदं सर्वमितीश्वरभावनया सर्वं त्यक्तमत् आत्मन एवदं सर्वम् आत्मैव च सर्वम् अतो मिथ्याविष्यां गृध्धि मा कार्षीरित्यर्थ: ॥ १ ॥

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

19

TRANSLATION :

"Īśāvāsyam &c., 'īśā' is the instrumental case, singular number of the noun 'īṭ' Ruler, from the verbal root 'īś' It is equivalent to Īś=īṭā, the Supreme God, the Supreme Spirit of all. He verily rules (īṣṭe) all, being the Ātmā of all creatures, by His being the inmost Self. By Him, i. e., by one's own Self by the Lord (Īśa) is to be covered (vāsyam). What is to be covered? All this (yatkiñcha-idam sarvam). The word yatkiñcha is an archaic form of yatkiñchit, meaning whatsoever. Jagatyām-in the world; Jagat-moving. All this should be enveloped by one's Self, which is the Lord, i. e., with the thought of this highest truth, viz., I am all this being the inmost Self of all. By himself, which is the Highest Self, should be covered all this false immoveable world, as sandal or agaru by its sweet scent covers or perfumes the bad smell produced by putrid matter in water, by overpowering the evil odour: similarly, also by contemplating on the eternal verity of Self, is removed the false notion imputed to the Self that is an agent, an enjoyer, &c., causing the idea of duality, and producing in this world the various modifications having name and form and action. The word world is here illustrative, meaning everything that exists.

"So also is a person who contemplates on the Lord as Self fit for renouncing the threefold desires of possessing sons, (wealth and heaven) and he is not fit for ceremonial works. Tena tyaktena-by renouncing it (the word tyakta=tyāga). A dead son or a servant may be said to be tyakta, or left, as there is a

20

Śańkara and Madhva

want of relatioship to the self, but it cannot save the Âtmā but it is by renunciation (tyāga) alone that is saved, hence the word tyakta (left) here is to be taken as equal to tyāga (renunciation), and not literally. Bhuñjīthāh-pālayethāh, &c., meaning 'thou shouldst protect, or protect thou.' Thou having renounced all desires, covet not (mā grd̓hah), i. e., do not entertain thoughts of acquiring wealth. Kasyasvid-dhanam-do not desire to obtain the property of any one, whether of a stranger or thy own. The word svid in the text is an indeclinable used as a mere expletive without any meaning. Or it may have a meaning in this way: Do not covet. Why? Kasyasviddhanam -whose is the property, i.e., no one can have property that one may covet : (svid having the force of an interrogative). All this is Âtmā only, by such divine contemplation, is everything renounced, because all belongs to the Self only, and the Self is verily all this.

Therefore, covet not these unreal substances.

Mādhva Bhāsya

ईशास्य आवासयोग्यमीशावास्यम् । जगत्यां प्रकृतौ । तेन ईशेन त्यक्तेन दत्तेन भुञ्जीथा: । स्वतः प्रवृत्यशक्तत्ववादेशावास्यमिदं जगत् । प्रवृत्तये प्रकृतिगं यस्मात्स प्रकृतेश्वर: । तद्धीनप्रवृत्तितत्वादतदীয়ं सत्वं यत् । तत्स्वनेनैव भुञ्जीथा अतो न त्वं प्रयाचयेदिति ब्रह्माण्डे ॥ १ ॥

TRANSLATION :

"The word 'Īśāvāsyam' means 'worthy of capable of being dwelt in by the Lord.' 'Jagatyām' in the

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

21

Prakṛti.' 'Tena' means 'by Him the Lord.' 'Tyaktena'

given. Enjoy thou what is given by Him.

Thus says the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa: 'Because Pra-

kṛti is incapable of motion of herself, therefore, the

Śruti says the world is indwelt by the Lord who cau-

ses all its motion.' Since Viṣṇu has entered into

Prakṛti, in order to cause her evolution (pravṛttī),

therefore, He is called the Lord of Prakṛti. Since

the evolution is under His control, everything is said

to belong to Him. Enjoy thou that only which He

has given; and not beg from other.

CRITICAL NOTE :

i) Firstly, according to Śaṅkara, how can the

Supreme Brahman who is 'Paramārthasatya' pervade

this illusory world? If the world is illusory, then

how can the world be Īśāvāsya?1 In respect of these

two questions Śaṅkara has to admit either the reality

of the world; for, the Supreme Reality pervades the

world; or, illuscoriness of the Supreme Brahman; for,

the unreal world is pervaded by Him. But both alter-

natives debase the fundamental teaching of the mantra.

Therefore Śaṅkara instead of admitting the illusori-

ness of the Supreme Brahman, is bound to accept

the reality of the world, because the world which is

controlled, protected by Him is factually real and

cannot be unreal. Thus Śaṅkara must admit the real-

ity of the world which is one of the important princ-

iples of the Dvaita system of Madhva.

2. Secondly, the word 'Īśāvāsya' clearly shows

Vyāpya-vyāpaka-sambandha. But the upaniṣadic state-

22

Śaṅkara and Madhva

ment 'ahamevedam sarvam' (I. verily is this all) quoted

by Śaṅkara to uphold his advaitic view, contradicts

the implication of the word 'Īśāvāsya' i· e., vyāpya-

vyāpaka-sambandha or the relation of the pervader

and the pervaded. In this spirit, how can the state-

ment 'ahamevedam sarvam' make 'aham' alone satya

and 'idam' asatya? If 'aham' is regarded as satya

then 'idam' also should be admitted as satya. And

thus the statement quoted by Śaṅkara instead of

supporting the advaitic view, brings out dualistic

view, as there are two real and different entities.

3. Except Madhva and his followers like Jaya-

Tīrtha, all traditional scholars like Śaṅkara and his

followers like Ānandagiri etc., including Vedānta-

Deśika² have interpreted the word 'Jagatyām' as

'Prthivyām'. But the fact is, if the word 'Jagatyām' is

taken to mean only 'prthivyām', it then leads to the

notion that all movement in the universe is by its

own capacity. But this contradicts the Īśādhinatva of

this Jagat accepted by all revealed texts, and which

is experienced by one and all.

4. Śaṅkara's treatment of 'tena tyaktena' as

'therefore by renunciation' does not clearly bring out

the real meaning of the phrase. The meaning that

Śaṅkara wants to bring out here, is, "one must protect

oneself by renunciation." But what is there to

renounce in the unreal world? But, if the words 'tena

tyaktena' are taken into consideration with reference

to 'bhuñjīthāh' in the light of Śaṅkara's commentary

itself the meaning attributed to 'tena tyaktena' by

him, does not go with that attributed to 'bhuñjīthāh'

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

23

How? one may ask. Śaṅkara interprets the word

'bhuñjīthāḥ' as 'pālayethāḥ' -meaning 'protect yourselves'. But what is there to protect if all worldly objects are renounced? An aphorism of Pāṇini 'Bhujo' na vane'3 declares that after the root bhuj, the ātmane-pada is used except in the sense of 'protecting'; i. e., the root bhuj in the ātmanepada cannot give the meaning 'to protect', but has several meanings as 'to cherish', 'to eat', 'to enjoy' etc. Thus, Śaṅkara's interpretation of both 'tena tyaktena' and 'bhuñjīthāḥ' is not convincing in the context and violates even the grammatical requirement.

5. Then, pertaining to 'mā grdḥaḥ kasya sviddha-nam', Śaṅkara suggests not to covet either the wealth belonging to some one else or one's own, because of the loss of any desire towards anything worldly. And further in his alternative interpretation he concludes by adducing a statement 'Ātmaivedam sarvam' (All this is verily, Ātman) (Chān. Up 7. 25. 2) where he dismisses everything worldly including wealth as mithyā or unreal and hence not worth to be coveted.

This view of Śaṅkara leads to the unreality of even Brahman. How? -One might ask. The reply is obvious. The statement 'ātmaivedam sarvam' says that whatever is in this world is nothing but Ātman itself because of its All-pervasiveness. It is as good as saying that everything in this world is real as Ātman; Śaṅkara, then says 'ato mithyā viṣayām grdḥim mā kārṣīḥ' i. e., therefore, do not desire the unreal things (of the world). The world which is inferred

24

Śaṅkara and Madhva

above as real, is now considered as unreal. This is mutually contradictory. When the wealth which is also Ātman is said to be unreal, it automatically leads to the unreality of the Ātman Itself, because the world is identical with Ātman, whether one likes it or not. Hence Śaṅkara’s interpretation leads us nowhere.

Śaṅkara’s main argument here is ‘saṁnyasa eva adhikārah na karmasu’ - i. e.,- a person who contemplates on the Lord as Self is fit for renouncing the three-fold desires of possessing sons, wealth and fame and not fit for religious works. But where is the justification to say so? There is no support of scriptural texts to say that one who is engaged in the contemplation of the Lord should renounce karmas also. And, so Śaṅkara’s stand lacks authority.

6. Further, Śaṅkara says - ‘svit ityanarthako nipātah’ i. e., the particle ‘svit’ is meaningless. In fact, this indeclinable is in the sense of ‘api’ or ‘even’4 Moreover treating any word of the upaniṣadic mantras as meaningless, is detrimental to the established sanctity and apauruṣeyatva of the Upaniṣads. Thus Śaṅkara’s understanding again goes against the very grain of this mantra.5

Accordingly, the interpretations of a few modern scholars, followers of Śaṅkara, are examined below:

Max Muller renders-‘All this, whatsoever moves on the earth, is to be hidden in the Lord ( the self ) when thou hast surrendered all this, then thou mayest enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any man’6.

Even

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

25

C. Rajagopalacari7, Deussen8, have interpreted the

above sentence in italics, in the same way.

This view of different modern scholars creates a

dilemma that impoverishes the real quintessence of

the Upanisad; The words 'is to be hidden in the Lord'

would imply the idea that the 'moveable things are to

be hidden in the Lord. Here a question arises, "by

whom is this universe to be hidden in the Lord? Is

there any higher Lord by whom this world is hidden

in the Lord than the Highest Supreme Brahman?"

The words of the above scholars suggest no answer to this

question. Therefore the rendering of the above men-

tioned scholars is misleading.

M. P. Pandit writes-"The world is a manifestation

of God for His enjoyment. He has created it out of

himself in joy and takes up his dwelling in it for a

yet fuller joy."9

Here the statement in italics, goes against the

concept declared by the Brahmasūtras in i) 'Na pra-

yojanavatvāt' and ii) 'Lokavattu līlā kaivalyam'

(II. i. 33-34). Therein, it is proved that all the cosmic

activities of Brahman are undertaken by the Lord,

purely for the benefit of the individual souls; and He

has no desire to gain anything thereby. This world-

creation is nothing but His sport. To quote-"the

flowering of mangoes in spring, the upward movement

of the flames are natural. The cosmic acts of Brah-

man are similarly intrinsic to its nature. This is

emphasized by the Śrutī.- 'devasyaiṣa svabhāvo'yam-

āptakāmasya kā sprhā' (Mānd. Up.-Brahman is Āpta-

26

Śaṅkara and Madhva

Kāma, has forever realized the fruits of all Its desires.

Such a Being cannot be supposed to act in order to

realize some unfulfilled desire."10 Therefore the mean-

ing given by M. P. Pandit is not acceptable to Śāstras

John Woodroffe considers oneness between the

world and the Brahman in the following statement:

"The whole world being Brahma should be enjoyed

by renunciation."11 The author here, though appa-

rently following the advaitic way of interpretation, has

ignored the problem of the relation between the world

and the Brahman. He means to say that 'the whole

world is Brahman'. This view leads to the idea of

Brahman being modified into the world which is

accepted neither by Śaṅkara, Vedānta Deśika, nor

even by Madhva, and hence is untenable.

M. R. Desai renders this mantra: "Īśa is formed

from the root 'Īś' 'to command, to govern'. Īśa there-

fore is the Lord; the administrative head of the uni-

verse. He is the Highest hierarchical qualitative mani-

festation of the qualitiless primeval Brahman."12

Though this author has articulated a very good

import of the word Īśa, it is immediately countered

by his own phrase 'the qualitiless primeval Brahman'.

It is that, the word Īśa, which means 'one who governs'

itself proclaims the very attribute i. e., 'controller-

ship' of the Brahman,. The author incurs the fallacy

of sva-vacanavirodha, or self-contradiction.

Moreover the same author says: "tena-tasmāt-

therefore (Śaṅkara connects this with the Īśa and

uses it as a pronoun thus meaning 'by Him'). It can,

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

27

this verse, be connected with the world and it may even be inferred by it (the world)". (Ib. id. p. 30)

Though the author has understood the meaning of 'tena' in the light of Saṅkara's interpretation, the question arises as to what actually is the necessity of 'therefore'. Even in the absence of it, the meaning of this mantra can be cogently known.

Secondly he interprets that Saṅkara connects 'tena' with the 'Īśa' and uses it as a pronoun, thus meaning 'by Him'. But, infact, even a single phrase is not available in Saṅkara's bhāṣya, to show that 'tena' means 'by Īśa'. The author seems to be a bit confused, because only Madhva and his followers have interpreted 'tena' as 'by the Lord'.

Thirdly, the author again tries to connect 'tena' with the 'world'. Here the problem arises as to how the world itself, which is governed by the Lord, can fulfil the desires of His devotees.

Thus, the view of M. R. Desai distracts the mind of the readers towards a wrong apprehension of the real theme of the Upaniṣad.

On the whole, Saṅkara's interpretation and the views of a few modern scholars are not sufficient to convince the readers' mind with a fulfiledged meaning of this mantra. Their opinions are so tenuous that no threads of the teaching of Vairāgya could be knit to drive home effectively the implications of the first mantra.

Now let us see whether the dualistic interpretation of this mantra gives its real purport :

28

Saṅkara and Madhva

Firstly, the word ‘Īśāvāsyam’ means “worthy of

(capable of) being dwelt in by the Lord” according to

Madhva. Madhva splits ‘Īśāvāsyam’ as ‘Īśasya āvāsa-

yogyam’. The word ‘āvāsyam’ comes from the root

‘vas’ to live or to dwell, preceded by ām preposition.

And according to Pānini Sūtra : आहि श्रेत्यततृचरच्‍‌¹³,

the

affix nya is enjoined to the root ‘vas’ when ‘fitness’

is implied; the former letter of the root ‘vas’ is leng-

thened, and finally we get the form ‘āvāsyam’

i. e. आ+वसु=आा+व (व is lengthened) सु+ण्य

=आवास्य, आवास्यम्

The word ‘Īśāvāsyam’ is considered as a whole in

accordance with the Bhāgavata Śloka in which we

find an expliation of this mantra :

आत्मावास्यमिदं सर्वं यज्जगत्यां जगन्मनः ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ॥

(VIII. i. 10)

Herein, the word ‘ātmāvāsyam’ is read as a whole;

if otherwise, its form would become ‘ātmavāsyam’.

Hence Madhva’s consideration of ‘Īśāvāsyam’, as a

whole is an appropriate conclusion.

“Venkatrao Ramachandra comments ईशस्य वसति-

स्थानमित्यः । The sense is the dwelling place of the

Lord.”¹⁴ In the same sense Vinoba also treats the

word ‘Īśāvāsyam’ as ‘samastapada’ meaning Īśvara’s

āvāsa-sthāna¹⁵.

Then, the remarkable point to be considered in

Madhva’s commentary is, about ‘Jagatyām’. He

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

29

deciphers the word ‘Jagatyām’ as ‘prakṛtau’, in the

prakṛti. The word ‘Jagatyām’ is so meant because,

all movements that we perceive in the universe which

is depending upon the prakṛti for its movement, is

because of the existence of the Lord. He creates this

universe through the prakṛti having taken His dwell-

ing in every atom of the prakṛti.

So far as dependence of the Prakṛti on the Lord

is concerned, the following verses among others

from the Bhagavadgītā speaks :

अपरेयमितस्त्वन्यां प्रकृतिं विद्धि मे पराम् ।

जीवभूतां महाबाहो ययेदं धार्यते जगत् ॥ (VII-5)

“O mighty-armed ! this prakṛti (Jadaprakṛti) is

lower and different from chetanaprakṛti by whom this

universe is upheld.

“And, know it. Chetanaprakṛti (Goddess Lakṣmī)

who is the Life source of all jīvas, who are under

the control of Me, as higher than (Jada) prakṛti”.16

In this connection the statement from the Nārada

Purāna declares :

प्रकृतिं द्वे तु देवस्य जडा चैवाजडा तथा ।

अव्यक्ताख्या जडा सा च सृष्ट्या भिन्नाष्टधा पुनः ॥

महान्बुद्धिर्मनश्चैव पंचभूतानि चेति हि ।

अवरा सा जडा श्रीश्च परेयं धार्यते यया ॥

चिद्रूपा सात्विकानन्ता च अनादिनिधना परा ।

यत्समं तु प्रियं किञ्चिन्नादित विष्णोर्महात्मनः ॥

नारायणस्य महिषी माता सा ब्रह्मणोऽपि हि ।

ताम्यामिदं जगत्सर्वं हरिः सृजति भूतिराड् ॥17

30

Sankara and Madhva

Thus these authorities prove that the prakrti is under the control of the Lord. And the meaning of the first line is ‘All this world is indwelt by the Lord and that everything is under the prakrti, which latter, again, is under the Lord.’

Then pertaining to ‘tena tyaktena bhuñjīthāḥ’, Madhva unravels that ‘one should enjoy with what is given by the Lord.’ The phrase ‘tena tyaktena’ is understood as ‘given by the Lord’, because in the first line of this mantra, the Lord is declared to be the Principal. Therefore ‘tena’ should mean ‘by the Lord’ and nothing else. Swami Chinmayananda praises this interpretation of Madhva : “We are indebted to Srī Madhwāchārya for the beautiful new meaning to this portion of the mantra. ‘Tena’ means also ‘by Him’, who has been indicated already as Īśa, the Īśa’; Tyaktena means ‘renounced, gifted away.’ So, Tena tyaktena meaning “that which is left to us by Him. You enjoy (bhuñjcethāḥ)” offer unto the Lord, and then as His prasāda, what you get ‘enjoy it”18.

Even so, Radhakrishnan also opines : “Sometimes this passage is interpreted as meaning : enjoy what is allotted to you by God (tena). Do not ask for more than what is given.”19 R. C. Vidyarthi explains ‘enjoy what he has given, and do not desire the wealth of others.’20

Regarding the meaning of ‘bhuñjīthāḥ’ Sankara’s interpretation ‘to protect’ is not at all in consonance

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

31

with the mantra, and not accepted by modern scholars

too. Mostly all modern scholars like R.H. Griffith21,

Mrs. Chitrita Devi,22 M. R. Desai,23 Hume24,

Aurobindo25. Max Muller26, among others have

taken it to mean ‘to enjoy’. Thus, it is evident that

Madhva’s interpretation is at the head of the inter-

pretations of modern scholars.

The last phrase ‘mā grdḥah kasyasviddhanam’

brings out the main purport of this mantra, and ad-

vises not to beg any one for wealth, because, other

than Lord, kings and other such persons are utter-

ly dependent on the Lord. When, they are dependent,

they cannot have their own capacity to fulfil either

their own or others desire. All things - immoveable

and moveable in this universe belong to the Lord and

are governed by Himself. He alone is the Free

Agent. Therefore one should be content with what

has been given by Him. This is called ‘yadr̥cchālābha-

santr̥pti’. or being contented with whatever one has

got. But it is not that because of the illusoriness of

the wealth one should not crave for it, as Śaṅkara

holds. Illusoriness of wealth is contradictory to our

daily experience and to the three-fold pramāṇas of

Perception, Inference, and Testimony Therefore

‘wealth’ cannot be treated as illusory. Thus, since the

Lord is eternally, truly free He can bestow anything

in accordance with one’s merit or demerit. So one

should enjoy with whatever has been bestowed by

Him. The particle ‘svit’ is used in the sense of ‘api’.

by Madhva which has the support of sanskrit Diction-

32

Sankara and Madhva

aries like that of Monier Williams. Madhva's entire

interpretation is supported by the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa

statement quoted by Madhva himself in his comment-

tary.

Ananta, one of the followers of Sankara com-

ments : यत्किचिछु तिप्रपाणसिद्ध जगत्यां जगतू स्थावरजंगमात्मक-

शेषं विश्वमेशो:पादितं स्थापितं नियमितं चेल्यं:।

अतः कारण-

तेनेश त्यक्तेन विशिष्टेन दत्तेन स्वादृष्टानुसारेण विषयेण भुज्जीथा

भोगामनुभवे:। इतोडधिकं मा गृह्णो गृहीत्वा अभिक्षणायां मा कांक्षी।

इतो ममाधिकं भवत्विति क्रिय त्यजेत्यर्थ:। परमात्माधीनत्लेन त्वदि-

छाया न्याहतत्वादिति भाव:। एतत् सद्दनं कस्यस्वित् स्वदिति

निपातो वितर्के। कस्यापीतव्यर्थ:। स एष सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्पेशान:

सर्वंमिदं प्रशासन यदिदं किचेत्यादितुतेनुय्यदात। परमेश्वरो

न स्वामिसर्वश्वादिलिनितपरोत्पत्तिज्ञानामात्र

प्रकाश्येण भवित्वव्यमिति

तात्पर्यम्।27 This commentary, no doubt, has pointed

out the gist of the first mantra in the light of Mad-

hva's interpretation. It shows that even a follower of

Sankara cannot help being in agreement with the in-

terpretation of Madhva, since it makes out a cogent

meaning of the mantra.

The verses fourth28 and seventh29 of the ninth

and eleventh adhyāyas respectively of the Bhagavad-

gītā speak of the same thing that has been discussed

so far in this first mantra.

One of the śruti texts declares :

यच्च किंचिज्जगत्सर्व दृश्यते श्रूयतेSपि च।

अन्तर्बहिहृश्च तत्सर्व व्याप्तं नारायण: स्थित:॥

(Nārāyaṇa-Anuvāka)

On the Iśāvāsyopaniṣad

33

Other modern scholars like D. V. Gundāppa³⁰,

R. R. Divakar³¹, are in consonance with Madhva's

view in their renderings of this mantra.

Thus, Madhva's view-point in his interpretation

of the first mantra is strongly supported by smṛti and

śruti statements as well as the interpretations of sev-

eral modern scholars; whereas Śaṅkara's interpret-

ation is hidden with many obvious faults. Hence

Madhva's interpretation is the only one and true to

the import of this mantra.

In a nutshell, this mantra declares: Lord Nārāyaṇa,

the Highest Brahman, having created all movable and

immovable matter, enters in this world. This whole

universe takes its shelter under Prakṛti who is depend-

ent on the Lord. Therefore the Supreme Nārāyaṇa

alone is the Controller, Ruler etc. of this universe,

hence this universe belongs to Him. Moreover those

who are other than the Supreme Brahman, being dep-

endent on the Lord, have no independent full power

to fulfil the goals of the people. Thus "the very

first verse, here touches on the twin principles of

Theism-the immanence and the transcendence of the

Deity".³² Therefore, one should be satisfied with

what has been given by the Lord, and should not be

greedy. This is the real code of Vairāgya. Thus the

sādhakas convinced of the sole Lordship of God,

should pursue the goal of salvation in the right frame

of mind of Vairāgya which implies contentment with

what God has given them and avoidance of covetous-

ness.

34

Saṅkara and Madhva

II MANTRA

The import of the first mantra is definitely the concept of Vairāgya, or detachment, the first step in the path of a sādhaka, a mumukṣu, or an aspirant for final liberation. The second mantra speaks of the qualification of a knower of Brahman, stating another requisite aspect of activism. The Upaniṣad declares :

कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः ।

एवं त्वयि नान्यथेतोऽस्ति न कर्म लिप्यते नरे ॥ २ ॥

"One should desire to live for hundred years (in this world), necessarily performing one's duties (without motive of reward); when you are thus, as there is no other path (of living), though you are a mere man, action does not cling to you."

ŚAṄKARA BHĀṢYA :

एवमात्मविद: पुत्राद्येषणात्रयसंन्या-सेन आत्मज्ञाननिष्ठतयाऽऽसन्नमा रक्षितव्य इत्येष वेदार्थः । अथेतरस्य अनात्मज्ञतया आसङ्ग्रहणायाशाङ्कतस्येदमुपदिशति मन्त्रः कुर्वन्नेवेति ॥

कुर्वन्नेवेह निर्वर्तयन्नेव कर्माण्यभिनिहोत्रादीनि जिजीविषेज्जीवितुमिच्छेच्छतं

वत्सराणां समाः संवत्सरान् । तावद्वि पुरुषस्य परमायुरिन्द्र-

पितम् । तथा च प्राप्तानुवादेन यज्जिजीविषेच्छतं वर्षाणि तत्कुर्वे

त्कर्माणि कुर्वीत यथोद्दिश्यते । एवमेव प्रकारेण त्वयि जिजीविषति नरे

नरमात्राभिमानिनीत एतस्माद्गिनहोत्रादीनि कर्माणि कुर्वतो वर्तमान-

त्प्रकारात् अन्यथा प्रकारान्तरं नास्ति । येन प्रकारेण अश्नुभ कर्म न

लिप्यते इत्यर्थः । अतः शास्त्रविहितानि कर्माण्यनिहोत्रादीनि कुर्वन्नेव

जिजीविषेत् । कथम् पुनरिदमवगम्यते । पूर्वेण मन्त्रेण संन्यासिनो

ज्ञाननिष्ठोक्ता द्वितीयेन तदशकतस्य कर्मनिष्ठतेत्युच्यते । ज्ञानकर्मणो-

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

35

विराडयं पवंतवदकल्प्यं यथोकतं न स्मरति किम्। इहाप्युक्तं यो हि 'जिजीविषेत् म कुर्यांत्। ईशा वास्यामिदं सर्वं तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनमिति च। न जीविते मरणं का गृध्नि कुर्वीता-रण्यमियादिति च पदम्। ततो न पुनरियादिति सं न्यासाशासनात्। उभयोः फलमेदं न वक्ष्यति। इमां द्वावेव पन्थानौ अनुनिष्क्रान्तनरौ भवतः क्रियापथैवैव पुरस्तात्सं यासमश्चोत्तरेण निवर्तितमागंणोषणात्यस्य त्यागः। तत्रः सं न्यासपथ एवातिरेचयति। न्यास एवात्यरेचय-दिति च तैत्तिरीयके। द्वानिमावस्थ पन्थानौ यत्र वेदा: प्रतिष्ठिता:। प्रतृत्तिलक्शा धर्मो निबृततत्च विभावित इत्यादि पुत्राय विचार्यं निश्चित-तमुक्तं व्यासेन वेदाचायैण भगवता ।' विमागौ च ज्ञानयोर्देशोप्रिश्याम: ॥

TRANSLATION :

"Thus should the knower of Self, by renouncing the threefold desires of sons, (wealth and heaven.), and by devotion to the realisation of Self, protect (or save) his Self: this is the sense of the first Vedic verse.

Now for that other person,' who on account of non-knowledge of Self is in-capable of apprehending or conceiving the Self, the second verse teaches as follows :

Kurvanneva &c-by simply performing the sacrificial acts, such as Agnihotra, &c.. let him desire to live (jijīviṣet), for.a hundred years(samāh-years) for this period has been ascertained to be the average age of man.

He who is desirous of living a hundred summers, verily must perform sacrifices; this is ordained by way of explanation. By such methods, in thee (tvayi) i. e., to thee, O man who art desirous of living, who imagi-nest thyself as a mortal, from this (itah), i. e., whilst engaged in the performance of sacrifices like 'Agni-

36

Śaṅkara and Madhva

hotra’. &c., from the present method, there is no other method, by which inauspicious deeds should not besmear and contaminate thee. This is the sense of the words karmaṇā na lipyate. Therefore let him desire to live whilst performing the sacrifices ordained by Scriptures, such as Agnihotra. &c. How again, is this meaning deduced from the text of these Mantras, which say that by the first verse is taught the devotion to knowledge (Jñāna) for a Sannyāsi (who has renounced all desires) and by the second verse is taught devotion to sacrifices (Karma) for one who is incapable of renunciation. To this we reply by asking whether you do not remember the saying that the opposition between Jñāna (spiritual knowledge) and Karma (sacrificial acts) is as unshaken as a mountain. Here also (in this Upaniṣad) is mentioned that he who desires to enjoy life, should perform sacrifices, whilst renouncing everything by mantling it over with the idea of God, one should save his soul, and not covet any one’s wealth. So does the Law of Sannyāsa (renunciation) teach-“Let him not covet life nor death, let him go to a forest.” this is a quarter. “Thence let him not return.” this is the commandment of Sannyāsa. The Scripture tells us also concerning the different fru- its of these two (action and renunciation). Thus, in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, we find “Verily these two paths are as old as creation, first the path of Action, secondly the path of Sannyāsa, the road of resignation, the renunciation of the threefold desires. Of these, two the path of Sannyāsa is the best,. Renunciation, verily leads to beatitude.” So does Lord Vyāsa the

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

37

Vedacharya express it as his well thought out opinion to his son : "There are here two paths on which the Vedas are based, first, the duty that leads to devotion and action, second, the resignation of action," We shall show later on the various sub divisions of these two.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

अकुर्वंतः कर्म न लिप्यत इति नास्ति । अज्ञस्य कर्म लिप्यते कृष्णोपास्तिमकुर्वंतः । ज्ञानिनोऽपि यतो हानंदस्य भवेद्ध्रुवम् । अतं अलेपेडपि लेपः स्यादतः कार्येन सा सदैति नारदीये ॥ २ ॥

TRANSLATION :

"If karma is not performed, then the man doth incur sin; for says Nārada: 'If a man is ignorant and does not worship the Lord Krishna, then he incurs sin; but if he is a Jñānin and fails in this, verily the bliss of his self-realization is diminished thereby. Thus, the Jñānin who is free from the taint of Karma, become tainted by his omission; therefore let all work always.'"

CRITICAL NOTE :

1. Śaṅkara puts forth his opening argument in his interpretation, saying that performance of the religious duties is meant for (only) ignorant persons. He states: "athetarasya anātmajñatayā utmagrahaṇāyā śakrasya idamupadiśati mantrah." But ahis idea leads to the conclusion that one who performs religious work is ignorant. This view openly contradicts the very declaration of Lord Kṛṣṇa "Karmaṇaiva hi saṁ-

38

Sankara and Madhva

siddhim asthitā janakādayah." (B. Gītā III.20)¹. where

it is said that through the performance of the

religious acts. kings like Janaka did attain liberation.

And according to Sankara these men of wisdom

would have to become ignoramuses for they have

performed a number of religious acts." Thus Sankara's

is obviously a view that goes against the established

practice of yore. It is also a fact that Lord Krṣṇa

Himself proclaims that even He has to perform His

own duties even though He has nothing to achieve in

the three worlds:

न मे पार्थास्तित कर्तव्यं त्रिषु लोकेषु किञ्चन ।

नानवाप्तमवाप्तव्यं वर्त एव च कर्मणि ॥ (B. Gītā III 22)

Moreover. most of the traditional scholars, who

follow Sankara's interpretation have not accepted

this point. To illustrate: Uvata says: "निःसृङ्खस्यापि

योगिनो ज्ञाननिमित्ते कर्मण्यधिकार इति कुवलयनद कर्माणि मुक्ति-

हेतुकानि"² i.e. though a yogin has renounced all world-

ly enjoyable things. he has to accomplish his daily

religious activities to enrich his knowledge of Brah-

man, through which, emancipation can be obtained.

Thus activism is a means to the attainment of salva-

tion. "According to Sankarānanda, this verse is addr-

essed to those who desire salvation, but cannot reno-

unce the world."³

Similarly, Vedānta Deśika says: "ब्रह्माविदोऽपि याव-

द्रव्यापूर्त जीवनमिष्टं भवति इति ज्ञापनाय सन्नप्रयोगः."⁴

In this connection C. Rajagopalachari states:

"the Vedāntic teaching about the higher knowledge

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

39

should not confuse us into neglect of duties and in-

difference about discipline of mind and control of the

senses. To go through the activities of daily life

in a spirit of detachment serves as a preparation for

the reception of higher knowledge and for the self-

realization which secures mokṣa.⁵ Thus Śaṅkara's

view point of the accomplishment of religious duties

has no co-ordination either with Smṛti texts or with

the opinions of traditional as well as modern scholars.

2. Secondly, Śaṅkara's this representation of the

performance of the duties verily goes against his own

interpretation of the Brahma-Sūtra: “Stutaye anumiti-

rvā” (III. 4. 14) in which activism is ordained in ord-

er to obtain the knowledge of Brahman. Thereon

Śaṅkara himself expresses: “कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि इत्यत्रापरो

विशेष आह्यायते । यद्यापि अन्य प्रकरणमध्येsत्र विद्वान्नेव कुर्वीत चिंति

सम्बन्धप्राप्ते तथापि विद्यामुनयै कर्मानुज्ञानमेतद्रष्टव्यम् । ‘न कर्म

लिप्यते नरे’ इति हि वक्ष्यति । एतदुक्तं भवति । यावज्ज्जीवं कर्म

कुर्वन्नैपि विदुषि पुरुषे न कर्म लेपाय भवति विद्यासामर्थ्यादिति । तदेवं

विद्या स्तुतये ।”⁶

“Or the permission (to do actions) is for the sake

of praise (of knowledge).

“Or, we can interpret the passage of the Īśāvāsyo-

paniṣad cited in Sūtra 7, in another way. No doubt,

the context shows that the doing of acts refers to

persons who have realized Brahman; yet it appears to

us that it is a permission given to such persons to

act, only with the view of praising their knowledge,

and not to show that knowledge is subordinate to

40

Śaṅkara and Madhva

action. For we are told immediately afterwards that

work will cling such men on account of their power

of knowledge, even if they be doing them throughout

their whole life of a hundred years."7

3. Śaṅkara has pointed out that a knower of

Brahman or one who understood the import of the

first mantra should protect himself by becoming

devoted to the knowledge of Ātman; and the ignorant

alone should execute religious works.8 This is as

good as saying that a knower of Ātman need not acc-

omplish any duties. But, infact a keen examination

of this view exposes Śaṅkara's stand as unworthy:

Śaṅkara's view of non-performance of the karmas for

a knower of Brahman should be based on three condi-

tions :

i) the action should not yield any pāramārthika

fruit.

ii) the action should be niṣiddha.

iii) the accomplishment of the action should be

useless. But the examples of Janaka and of Lord

Kṛṣṇa Himself indicate that all these alternatives are

untenable and everybody should perform his own

duties, as shown above.

Vādirāja Tīrtha, similarly, in his lucid style, says:

"ब्रह्मणो जगदारोपविलक्षणत्वाड्गीकाराच्च स्वप्रक्रियया ब्रह्मैव-

च्छादम्। एवं च ईशाच्छादात्वेन त्यागो ब्रह्मण एव त्यागप्रसङ्गः। न तु

कर्मणः। अतोडपि स्वज्ञानविजृम्भितमेवदं व्यवस्थानम्। अपि च

जगदोशाच्छाद्यं चेत्कर्म कुतस्त्याज्यम्। कर्मणोडपि जगदन्तःपातित्वा-

दिति चेत्‌ताह मोक्षसधनमोक्ष्तिरूपापरोक्षज्ञानस्यापि तत् एवोपेक्ष्यत्वं

On the Iśāvāsyopanisad

41

स्यात् । किं च इन्द्रवाज्यादिरूपतया महाज्ञानिनिषिः पाण्डवैरेव महता प्रयत्नेन राजसूयाश्वमेधादिकर्माणां कृतत्वात्कथं ज्ञानिनां कर्म त्याज्यम् । किं च महाज्ञानिनं पाथं प्रति 'कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन' इति निवृत्तरूपकर्मण्येव ज्ञानिन एव अधिकारस्योक्तत्वात् । अननेनैव कश्चित्

कर्मणां त्याज्यत्वोदितः काम्यकर्मणामेवेति सूचितम् ।

(ईशावास्योपनिषद्भाष्यटीकाप्रकाशिका, उडिपि, १९५४, पृ ९)

4. Further, Saṅkara holds an absolute opposition between knowledge and action. He says: "the opposition between spiritual knowledge and sacrificial acts is as unshaken as mountain." In order to support his view, he quotes some authorities. But, the two authorities quoted viz. ‘na jīvite marane vā grdhim .’ and ‘imau dvāveva panthānau …’ are not available.⁹ Moreover, these authorities do not show the opposition between knowledge and work. And ‘tayoh saṁ-nyāsapatha eva atirecayati’ does not reject the performance of the karmas. Similarly ‘nyāsa evāyarecayat’ (Taitt. Nā. 78) does not say that one should abandon the path of action. And the statement ‘dvāvimāvatahā panthānau’ (Mokṣa-dharma 241. 6) points out two essential ways of attaining liberation : one is pravṛtti-mārga, another one is nivṛttimārga. Thus no authorities adduced by Saṅkara to support his view show any opposition between knowledge and action. The Scriptural text: ‘तं मे॑तं वि॒द्वानुवचने॑न ब्रा॒ह्मणा॑ दिवि॒दक्षि॑त य॒ज्ञेन दानेन तप॑साडनाशके॑न’ (Br. Up. 4. 4.22) declares that performance of religious acts, penanace and etc. leads to the enlightenment of the knowledge of Brahman. Thus Saṅkara's interpretation is a discordant one.

42

Saṅkara and Madhva

Again it is also against the famous declaration of the

Gīta : ‘तत् सांख्यैः प्राप्यते स्थानं तद्योगैरपि गम्यते’ (V. 5)

5. Another interesting point to be considered

is that Saṅkara who holds an absolute opposition bet-

ween knowledge and action, finally says ‘vibhāgañca

anayoh darśayiṣyamah’. This statement does not

show any opposition but only difference between

the two. Hence Saṅkara’s standpoint is not convinc-

ing.

6. Lastly Saṅkara interprets ‘Karmāṇi’ as rites

like Agnihotra and etc. But this might be interpret-

ed in favour of the non-performance of the daily

rites like Sandhyāvandanam and etc. But one who

fails to accomplish one’s daily duties is according to

the Gīta, tāmasa.10 To say in the words of Vadirāja

Tīrtha :

"नियतस्य तु सन्यासः कर्मणो नोपपचते । मोहात्तस्य परित्यागः

तामसः परिकीर्तितः इति सन्ध्यावन्दनादिकर्माम् अत्याज्यतत्वस्यैव

भगवता कथनाच्च- "11

Further, Aurobindo exposes the weak points in

Saṅkara’s interpretation : “He (Saṅkara) interprets

‘Karmāṇi’ in the first line in the sense of Vedic sacri-

fices which are permitted to the ignorant as a means

of escaping from evil actions and their results and

attaining to heaven, but the second karma in exactly the

opposite sense ‘evil action’. The verse, he tells repre-

sents a concession to the ignorant; the enlightened

soul abandons works and the world and goes to the

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

43

forest. The whole expression and construction in

this rendering becomes forced and unnatural."12

Thus "Saṅkara's is obviously a one-sided stand

and secondly he has done a lot of mangling and twist-

ing of the meaning. But what is surprising is that so

many scholars follow Saṅkara !"13

On the other hand. Madhva substantiates the

implied meaning of this mantra unequivocally. He

remarks- 'akurvataḥ karma na lipyata iti nāsti.' To

explain-an ignorant one. if he fails to execute daily

duties. certainly incurs sin. If it is argued that a man

while performing any karmas. is bound to do some-

thing bad and in accordance with his bad deeds he

has to be born in a very low category of creatures, as

a result of which, he further does many bad deeds and

incurs sin. But even, by the effect of good deeds he

may be born in a rich family. But his wealth may

lead him to lobha, moha, mada, matsara etc. These

enemies of human beings certainly afflict him with

sin Thus any type of karma is an obstacle to cross

the ocean of worldly life. So avoid all action. The

reply is : the statement from the Nārada Purāṇa,

quoted by Madhva. explicates the secret of Madhva's

sūtra like statement : A man who wants to procure

the knowledge, that leads to liberation, should have

to accomplish his daily and occasional duties, conti-

nuously throughout his life, without a desire for their

fruits, and those karmas performed in the spirit of

divine worship should be surrendered unto the Lord.

By doing so, no sins, either of the past or of the fut-

44

Sankara and Madhva

ure will taint one. Hence he becomes eligible to

obtain the knowledge of Brahman. This type of per-

formance of one's daily duties is meant not only for

the ignorant, but for even a man of wisdom. If a

man of wisdom fails to accomplish his daily duties,

verily thereby, the bliss of his self-realization is ecli-

psed.

Madhva's view 'performance of the karmas in

the form of worshipping Lord Kṛṣṇa' is very signifi-

cant. For, this kind of performance gives rise to the

detachment from the fruits of the respective action.14

Karmas should be God-centered. They are to be

performed even by the wise in order to please the

Supreme Âtman.15 Moreover, Madhva's 'statement

shows a way of escaping from the taint of sin, which

is desired by one and all.

The concept of surrendering the karmas unto the

Lord is also suggested by Madhva in 'Kṛṣṇopāsti-

karma', of which we find clear elucidation in the

Bhāgavata Purāṇa :

कायेन वाचा मनसेन्द्रिैयैर्वा बुद्ध्यात्मना वाDनुसृतस्वभावात् ।

करोति यद्यत्सकलं परस्मै नारायणायेति समर्पंयेत तत् ॥

(XI. 2. 36)

The seminal principle of dedicating one's karma

to the Lord is clearly stated in the Bhagavadgītā :

यत्करोषि यदश्नासि यज्जुहोषि ददासि यत् ।

यत्तपस्यसि कौन्तेय तत्कुरुष्व मदर्पणम् ॥

(IX. 27)

Madhva puts two negations in the sentence-'akur-

vatah karma na lipyata iti nāsti' in order to emphasize

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

the accomplishment of the daily duties. which is

implied by Kurvanneva in this mantra. Likewise the

necessity of the performance of religious duties for a

knower of Brahman16 is also declared by the Brahma

Sūtra 'Niyamāccha' (III. iv. 7)17 where it is said that

a knower of Brahman has to execute his daily and

occasional duties.

"That must suffice to make it clear that the kar-

mas of Aparokṣa-jñānins do not make any difference

to or cause any excellence in the content and power of

their Jñāna as such; but have a bearing only on the

fruits thereof by way of enhancing or intensifying

the joys derived from those fruits.

"In this connection Madhva takes the opportu-

nity to elucidate how there is no conflict of views bet-

ween Bādarāyaṇa and Jaimini and others on the

Aṅgāṅgibhāva relation between Karma and Aparokṣa-

jñāna. Jaimini and others are in fact disciples of Bāda-

rāyaṇa. They are, therefore, all of them in agreement

with him so far as the general proposition is concern-

ed that Mokṣa is attained only by Aparokṣajñāna.

Where they hold different shades of opinion from

Bādarāyaṇa is only with reference to the fruits of

Aparokṣajñāna other than Mokṣa. Here, Bādarāy-

aṇa's view as set forth in iii. 4. 8 holds true of the

Devas among the Adhikārins :

ज्ञानेनापि देवानां विशेष: कर्मेभिरभिवेत् ।

चीर्णेऽकुते वा ज्ञानेन न विशेषोऽस्ति कर्मणि ॥

(Braḥma Sūtra Bhāṣya. III. 4. 9.)

46

Sankara and Madhva

"The Devás are born Jñānins. Still there is appreciable enrichment in the fruits of their Jñāna thro' karmas performed such as Rājasūya or Aśva-medha as in the case of the Pāndavas. Such karmas have the power to enrich only the fruits of their Jñāna and not their Jñāna as such which remains constant with or without performance of karmas."18

The purport of this mantra is poetically and succinctly described in the Bhagavadgītā :

ब्रह्मण्याधाय कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा करोति यः ।

लिप्यते न स पापेन पद्मपत्रमिवाम्भसा ॥ (V. 10)

In short this mantra says that one should perform the daily and occasional duties in accordance with one's varna and āśrama, in a spirit of detachment. and with the notion that all these are to please the Lord, and are all offered to him throughout one's hundred years of life.19 This cleanses the mind of its impurities such as desires, attachments, hatred, selfishness, greed etc. This purification of the mind gives a spiritual stability and leads one safely on the path of meditation. And thus one becomes eligible to attain the knowledge of the Supreme Soul, which leads to liberation, as declared by Lord Kṛṣṇa :

तस्मादसक्तः सततं कार्यं कर्म समाचर ।

असक्तो ह्याचरन् कर्म परमाप्नोति पूरुषः ॥

(Bhagavadgītā. III. 19)

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

47

III MANTRA

The destination reached by 'the killers of the

soul' is declared here. The first mantra teaches indif-

ference to all worldly objects (vairāgya), having rea-

lized that the Supreme Soul is the sole motive power

of the world, by whose grace an individual lives in

the universe. The second mantra is employed to exp!

ain that not only one must possess vairāgya, but has

to accomplish his ordained duties as well, which would

lead to the pursuit of the path of meditation. At this

juncture, a doubt may arise as to what would be the

destiny of those who would not submit themselves to

the course of conduct, which has already been shown

vividly in the first two mantras? This particular

mantra runs :

असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसाडवृता:

तांस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः॥ ३ ॥

"The soul-slayers, after their death, go to those

worlds of grief covered with a blinding darkness."

One may ask, why does the Upanisad indulge in

the condemnation of those who do not bother to

know, instead of merely exalting the worthy who pur-

sue the path of knowledge. By condemning the people

who hanker after worldly things, who fail to execute

their ordained duties with a detachment to their fruits,

and who do not understand the treatises of the know-

ledge of Brahman in a real sense, the mantra impels

a good soul to follow the path of liberation by

48

Sankara and Madhva

eschewing ignorance and atheism which lead one to the depths of darkness.

ŚĀṄKARA-BHĀṢYA

अथेदानींविद्यात्रयिन्द्रियार्थौजसं मन्त्र आरभ्यते-असुर्याः परमात्मभाव-मदृश्यमपेक्ष्य देवदयोऽप्यसुरास्तेषां च स्वभूता लोकाः असुर्याः नाम । नाम-शब्दोऽनर्थको निपातः । ते लोकाः कर्मफलनिलोक्यन्ते । दृश्यन्ते भुज्यन्त इति जन्मानि । अन्धेना अदर्शनात्मकेनाज्ञानेन तमसाऽSस्वता आच्छादिताः । तान् स्थावरान्तान् प्रेत्य त्यक्वैव देहर्मभिगच्छन्ति 'यथा कर्म यथा श्रुतम्' (कठ. उ. III.2.7) ये के चात्ममहः घनन्तीतयाह्महः । के ते ? जनाः ये अविद्वांसः । कथं ते आत्मानं नित्यं हि᳚सन्ति । अविद्यादाषेण विद्यमानस्यĀSस्तमनस्तरस्करणात् विद्यमानस्या᳚डष्ट्मनो यत्कार्यं फलमजरामरत्वादि᳚सवेदनलक्षणं तद्धततस्येव तिरोभतं भवतीति प्राकृता अविद्वांसो जनाः आत्महन् इत्यच्यन्ते । तेन हि आत्मह्ननदोषेण संस्रन्ति ते ॥ ३ ॥

TRANSLATION :

"Now this third verse is commenced in order to censure the ignorant. Asuryāh (literally, belonging to Asuras), even Devas. &c. are Asuras. so long as they have not realised the state of the Supreme Self. the lokāh or births appertaining to these Asuras. (be they Devas or Demons). is called Asuryāh. The word nāma in the text is an expletive particle. The lokah - where the fruits of Karmas (merits and demerits) are perceived (lokyante) or seen or enjoyed is called a loka, i. e., birth. Andhena- by ignorance in which nothing is visible. by darkness. Āvṛtā-covered. Tān-to those births ending with minerals. Pretya-having left this body, Abhigacchanti,

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

they go. As is said in the following Śruti (Kath. II. v. 7) : “Some enter the womb again after death for

assuming a body, others go inside a trunk according to their deeds and according to their faiths.” Ye ke

Ātmahanah : who kills the Self is called Ātmahā. Who are such persons? Those who are ignorant.

How? They always ignore their Self, because they deny the Self which is ever-existing, owing to their

guilt of Ignorance. The common or ignorant people are called killers of Self; for, to them the effects and

attributes of ever-existing Ātmā, such as the consciousness of non-decayingness, immortality, &c.. are al-

ready non-existing or dead. Therefore, owing to the sin of killing the Self, are they reborn in the world.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

सृष्टि रमणविरुद्धत्वात् असुराणा̄म् प्राप्त्यत्वाच्चासुर्याः । ‘न च रमन्त्यहो असुपासनया आत्महन्’ इत्युक्ततत्वात् । ‘महादुःखैकहेतु-

त्वात् प्राप्त्यत्वादसुरैरेस्थथा । असुर्या नाम ते लोका: तान् यान्ति विमुखा हरेः’ इति वामन । ये के चेत्यननन नियम उक्तः । नियमेन

तमो यान्ति सर्वेऽपि विमुखा हरार्वति च ॥ ३ ॥

TRANSLATION :

“The word ‘Asuryāḥ’ means ‘that where the asuras go’ and ‘where there is absence of good (su) enjoy-

ment (ra).’ For says the Bhāgavata Purāṇa : O! the killers of Ātman are those who worship by erroneous

methods. They are called asuras or miserable, for they do not enjoy happiness (su-ra), and suffer great

pains. The Vāmana Purāṇa explains this Mantra : ‘These lokas are called Asuryāḥ, first because they

50

Sankara and Madhva

are full of intense misery, secondly, because they

are the fit abodes of asuras or materialists. To such

Lokas they go who have turned their face away from

the Lord.'

By the words 'ye ke cha' 'whatsoever' a general

rule is declared. All who are opposed to Hari go to

darkness, not that some go there and some do not. As

says a text : 'All go to darkness who are opposed to

Hari. This is the Law.'

CRITICAL NOTE :

It would suffice here to quote M. R. Desai who

has carefully examined Sankara's interpretation :

"Sankaracarya again is very unnatural and clumsy in his interpretation. He tells 'Asuryah' to be

the abodes of the Asuras, but explains these abodes

in rather a ridiculously round-about way. According

to him both the abodes of the Asuras and devas are

'asuryah'. The word 'asuryah' covers both hells and

heavens. (असुर्याः परमात्मभावमहद्धयमपेक्ष्य देवागोत्र्यसुराः तेषां

च स्वभूता लोकाः असुर्या नाम)

"He relegates Devas to the humiliating status of

the Asuras on account of their comparative ignorance

of the ultimate essential unity (advayam tattvam) of

the Brahman. Gods such as Indra, Varuna, Soma,

Surya, Usa etc. whom the Vedas have praised have all

of them thus become the Asuras. And if we are to extend

the same logic not only the regions (lokah) above the

earth, or the abodes (talah) below it, but by reductio

ad absurdum the whole universe becomes 'asuryah'!

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

51

"While interpreting the phrase 'nāma te lokāh'

Śaṅkara finds that the word' nāma' baffles explanation.

This is because Śaṅkara takes 'lokāh' as births after

deaths, where:according to him the fruits of Karman

are seen and, therefore, enjoyed ( te lokāh yatra kar-

maphalāni lokyante dṛśyante). The word 'nāma', there-

fore he summarily disposes of as an unmeaning inter-

polation (nāma śabdo anarthako nipātah). Really,

a dictatorial way of liquidating the unwanted! Tamas

becomes with him darkness of the non-seeing of the

soul (adarśanātmakenena ajñānena).

"He renders 'ātmahanah=ātmānam ghanatītyātmah-

anah' as the killers of the soul and raises the question,

'who these beings are?' (ke te janāh) and replies as:

'the fools engulfed in ignorance, illusion or unenlight-

enment.' Now he raises the question : How this

invulnerable soul which the Gīta describes as 'nāyam

hanti na hanyate is killed? and replies that the fools

can kill (metaphorically) the soul by showing con-

tempt towards it. By such contempt the soul principle

remains as dormant and as inactive as a (real) dead

thing and, therefore, they are called 'Soul dest-

royers.'1

Śaṅkara's rendering of the word 'ātmahanah' is

too ambigious to its 'factual and real import.

The reason is that, the words 'ātmahanah' has its own

purpose to relate its purport to the previous mantras

in a cross reference i. e. They whoS.V.D.College

the path as laid down in the first twoLibraries, are

certainly called 'ātmahanah' here.

TIRUPATI

52

Sankara and Madhva

Accordingly, Vinoba rejects Sankara’s reading, and is of the opinion that ‘He is a killer of Ātman, who is devoid of devotion, who is engulfed in worldly enjoyments, who is avaricious, and who does not perform his religious daily duties.’

Similarly, Veer-Raghavacharya states : ‘killing of Ātman is nothing but not knowing the nature of the Supreme Self in a real sense, and ignoring His controllership and imposing ‘svātantrya’ of the Lord on Jīva and etc. Thus one who knows, is certainly called a killer of Ātman. The opinion suggested by Veer-Rāghavāchārya is no doubt, correct and convincing.

These accounts prove that Sankara’s rendering, defiles the Upaniṣadic flow of thought, and vitiates the root meaning of the mantra. Hence his interpretation is untenable.

Turning to Madhva’s interpretation, we find him just in his representation of the mantra. He says ‘The killers of Ātman are those who worship the Supreme Brahman by erroneous methods and they go to the regions of asuras where there is absolute absence of any kind of enjoyment. To support his interpretation Madhva quotes from the Vāmana Purāna: “These lokas are called ‘asuryāḥ’ firstly because they are full of and are causes of intense misery; secondly, because they are fit abodes of the asuras or those who are averse to God.”

Madhva’s interpretation of ‘asuryāḥ’ in the sense of ‘the regions attained by the worshipper of wrong

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

things. a region of no happiness and full of suffering'

is in accordance with the statement of the Śruti Gīta

"na ca (bata) ramantyaho asadupāsanayātmahan h"

(Bhāg. Pu. X. second part. 87. 22) and of the Vāmana

Purāṇa.

Moreover, Madhva's two-fold interpretation of

the word 'asuryāh' is justifiable grammatically also.

The word 'asuryāh' is the negative form of 'suryāh'.

Here the root 'ram' to 'enjoy', is preceded by the

particle 'su' and is enjoined by the affix 'rya'. Thus

we have 'suryam' and then 'asuryam' in its negative

form. Secondly, as these are obtained by asuras,

these regions are called 'Asuryāh.'

Further, the word 'ātmahanah' as expressed by

Madhva is very spiritually symbolic. Here, according

to Madhva, the word Ātman is referred to the Supreme

Soul.4 Lord Viṣṇu, and killing of such Supreme

Soul is nothing but knowing Him wrongly, knowing

oneself as Brahman,5 knowing Him as attributeless

etc. Thus knowing Him wrongly, one who worships

wrongly and who has turned one's face away from

Him is verily called an 'ātmahantā'.

The words 'Ye ke ca' in this mantra declare the

general rule that all those who are opposed to Hari,

the Supreme Brahman go to that blinding darkness

without any exception.

Thus, we find a point worthy of serious consider-

ation in Madhva's interpretation which has earned

appreciation. To quote: "Madhva's interpretation is

54

Saṅkara and Madhva

interesting. They are called asuras or miserable for they do not (a) enjoy happiness (su + ra) and suffer great pains." 6

So far as the interpretation of modern scholars is concerned, it is very surprising to note that most of the scholars like Aurobindo.7 R.E. Hume.8 Chinma-yananda.9 Chitrita-Devi.10 and others11 have rendered this ‘asuryāh’ as ‘sunless’. Of course, this rendering might be based on ‘asurye tamasi’ of the Ṛgveda (V. 32. 6). But, this mode of rendering invites serious blemishes. E. g. there arises the fallacy of ativyāpti or overpervasion. Because we find in the upaniṣadic texts, that sunlessness is not only in the demoniac regions, but even in the Realm of the Supreme Brah-man who is self-illumined and who is the source of the sun.12 Thus arises ativyāpti fallacy.

Secondly, if the meaning ‘sunless’ is accepted then there will occur mere repetition without any additional meaning conveyed by the word ‘asuryāh’. Because, the sense ‘sunless’ is also conveyed by the phrase ‘andhena tamasāvṛtāh’.. Thus, the meaning of ‘asuryāh’ as ‘sunless’ is not appropriate.

Moreover, the rendering of ātmahanah as ‘soul-less’ by Belvalkar and R. D. Ranade is so abstract that it is agreable to neither the ancient nor the modern scholars. Their rendering runs: “Those die” soul-less says the Upaniṣad, go to the region called Asuryāh, which is full of pitchy darkness.13” In fact,

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

55

the inferiority of this rendering is concentrated in the

phrase 'die soul-less'. Because. the soul-lessness is

nothing but death only. So how can a dead person

die again? It is absolutely opposed to the view of this

particular mantra; hence may be rejected.

Thus the opinions given by the scholars other

than Madhva contravene the original thought of the

mantra. Madhva's interpretation is so straight and

appropriate that it has the close support of authori-

tative statements. Madhva has similarly elucidated

the gist of this mantra in his Bhāgavata-Tātparya:

"अन्यथोपासतयाSSस्तमहनोSसुर्यालोकं लोकान्तरियं निरतिशय-

दुःखान् निरस्तसमस्तसुखान् प्राप्तनुर्वान्त । तदेतदक्ष च रमन्ति नानुभवन्त

न नित्यदुःखमिति च शब्देनावतम् । असुर्यशब्देन च श्वेतो सुह्ट्टवरमण-

रूपत्वादसुरब्रह्मत्वं चेच् । यत्प्रानुसृत्य कुवन्तस्तममार्गेण भ्रमन्ति ।

अभवा जन्मम्रवाजिता: । आत्मह्नन इत्येष शब्दो भगवद्भक्तद्वेषिणामपि

सम इति दर्शंयति ।" 14

Moreover, 'joyless regions' expressed in this

montra is closely cognate with another mantra, which

we find in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad :

अनन्दा नाम ते लोका अन्र्खेन तमसाडSवृता: ।

तांस्ते प्रेत्यासिच्छन्ति अविद्वांसो अबुध्दयो जना: ।। (IV. 4.11)

It explains that, those who do not know the Lord,

even when a competent teacher is there to teach them,

go to the regions of no bliss.

Thus this mantra awakens the ignorant people,

who do not worship the Lord rightly, and who know

56

Sankara and Madhva

Him wrongly and inspires them to follow the rules and the regulations of performing one's daily and occa sional duties. without desiring the fruits thereof. More over, Madhva's interpretation alone undisputedly brings out the hidden import that there is no joy for those who do not care to know God rightly.

IV MANTRA

Now we have in two consecutive mantras, a pict uresque description of the Supreme Brahman. The qua lities of the Supreme Being indicated here, are indeed real'even at the pāramārthika level and are not con sidered as Sankara does, only literally:or empirically real. The Isāvāsyopaniṣad starts its philosophical device, depicting the qualities of the Lord, because, they are like pristine diamonds which radiate the knowledge of the Brahman. This Upanisad advises the philosophical tenets to those, who have abandon ed things of worldly enjoyment and who perform daily religious duties in the form of worshipping the Lord without desiring their fruits, whose antalikarana is thereby purified, and who are aware of the fact that negligence of the real knowledge of the Brahman, or knowing Him wrongly, leads to the worlds of intense misery.1

अने॒जदेकं मनसो॒ जव॑ीयो॒ नैन॒द्‌द॑वा॒ आप्नु॑वन्पूर्व॒म॑र्षत॒ । त॒द्धा॑वतो॒ड॑न्या॒न॑व॒त्ये॑ति॒ ति॑ष्ठत॒सि॒ त॒न्न॑पो॒ मा॑त॒रि॑ष्वा॒ द॑धा॒ति ॥ ४ ॥

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

57

He staying in one place, goes beyond those who run after Him, Mātariśvan (the Principal Vāyu) proffers all activities of all beings to Him.

ŚĀṄKARA-BHĀṢYA

यस्यास्स्तम्नो हननादविद्वांस: ससरन्ति तद्विपर्ययेṇ विद्वांसो जना मुच्यन्तेउनात्महन्: । तत्त्वोदृशंभोमतत्स्वभावित्! उच्यते अनेनोदिति । अनेतद् न एजत् । 'एजत् कम्पते' कम्पनं चलनं स्वावस्थाप्रच्युतिः तद्र्जतं । सर्वदा एकरूपमित्यर्थः । तच्चैकं सर्वभूतेषु । मनसः संकल्पादिलक्षणाज्जवांयो जवत्तरम् । कथं विरुद्धमुच्यते "ध्रुवं निश्चलमिदं मनसो जवीय:" इति च ? नैष दोषः । निरुपाधियुपाधिमत्त्वेनोपपत्तेः । तत्र निरुपाधिकेन स्वेन रूपेणाच्यते अनेनदेकमिति । मनसोन्तःकरणस्य संकल्पविकल्पलक्षणस्योपाधेरनुवर्तमानादिह देहस्थस्थ मनसो ब्रह्मलोकादिदूरगमनं संकल्पेन क्षणमात्राद्भवतीत्यतां मनसो जविष्ठतरं लोके प्रसिद्धम् । तस्मिन् मनसि ब्रह्मलोकादीन् द्वितं गच्छति सति प्रथमं प्राप्त एवात्मचेतन्यावभासो गृहीताते । अतो मनसो जवीय इत्याह । नेन्द्रियैर्द्योतनाद्देवैरचक्षुरादीनिंद्रियैण्येतत्प्रकृतिमात्रमतत्‍वं नास्त्युवस्तु प्राप्त-

वन्तः । तेष्यो मनो जवीयो मनो व्यापारगवभितत्वात् । आभासमात्रव्यतिरेकमनो नैव देवानां विषयीभवति । यस्माज्जवनान्मनसोडपि पूर्वमेव गतं । व्यापत्वात् । सर्वग्यापि तदात्मतत्‍वं सर्व-ससारधमँर्वजितं स्वेन निरुपाधिकेन स्वरूपेणाविक्रियेण सदुपाधि्क्रता: देहु प्रत्‍यवभासत इत्येतदाह-तद्‌दावतो द्वितं गच्छतोऽन्यान् आत्मविलक्षणान् मनोवागिन्द्रियप्रभृतीन् अत्येति अतीत्य गच्छतीव । इममर्थं स्वयमेव दर्शयति तिष्ठदिति । स्वयमाविक्रियमेव सति्त्यर्थः । तस्म-

न्नात्मतन्‍वे सति नित्यचैतन्यस्वभावे मातरिश्वा मातर्यन्तरिक्षे इवयति गच्छतीति । मातरिश्वा वायु: सर्वप्राणभृत्क्रियात्मको यदाश्रयाणि कायँकरणजातानि यस्यन्नोतानि प्रोतानि च यत्सूत्रसंज्ञकं सर्वस्य जगत:

58

Sankara and Madhva

विधारयितुं स माररिष्वा । अपः कर्माणि प्राणिनां चेष्टालक्षणानि । अन्यादित्यपरज्न्यादीनां ज्वलनदहनप्रकाशा|भिवर्णादिलक्षणानि दध्याति विभजतीत्यर्थः । धारयतीति वा । 'मीषामाददातः पवते' (तै. उ. II. 8 ) इत्यादिश्रुतिम्यः । सर्वा हि कार्यकरगविक्रिया नित्यचेतन्या-त्मस्वरूपे सर्वास्पदभूते सत्येव भवन्तीत्यर्थः । ॥ ४ ॥

TRANSLATION :

"As on account of killing the Ātmā the ignorant fall into rebirths, so on the contrary, (by the preserving of the same). the wise get salvation, and they are not killers of Self. What the nature of that Ātmā or Self is, now described in this Anejat-na ejat. The term ejat (participial noun) comes from the root, 'ejṛ' 'to shake'. Shaking is motion, or change of one's own state. That which is devoid of such shaking which always retains one's form is said to be anejat or unshaking. That is also ekam or one among all creatures. It is javīyah or swifter than manas or mind which has the attributes of doubt. How are those two opposite attributes predicable of the same thing? For in one place you say it is fixed and immovable, then you say it is swifter than manas. There is nothing wrong in it.

"These opposite attributes are to be adjusted by applying them to the Ātmā in its two different aspects-absolute ( nirupādhi ) and conditioned ( upādhi ). When viewed in its absolute unconditioned form of Pure Self, it is said to be unmoving and one (anejat ekam). The swiftness of the mind is well known to

On the Iśāvāsyopaniṣad

59

men, as mind (manas) or antahkarana (or internal organ) having the attributes of imagination (or will) and doubt, because it is joined to condition or ‘upā-dhi’, even while dwelling here in the body, can go in imagination to distant regions like the Brahma loka in the space of a second. In spite of the mind going to Brahmalokas so swiftly, yet the spiritual consciousness is already there. as they are the reflections of self-consciousness and are included in it. hence Ātmā is swifter than mind. Nainad devāḥ: the senses like the eyes, &c., are called devāḥ as they illumine (dyot-anāt) the mind. The senses did not attain (āpnuvan) the truth about Self as described above. The mind is swifter than these (senses), because mental operations precede all sensations. Even a dim reflection of Self never becomes an object of perception to the senses. Because of this swiftness, it has gone (arṣat) in advance even of the mind, because it is all-pervading like space. That Ātmā is all-pervading and devoid of all the qualities of the world, and by its own absoluteness, by its own form which is without action, it appears as if it has conditioned all the modifications of the world, as seen by undiscriminating, dull persons; and being one, it appears as if it is reflected in each body.

“Therefore, it is said : taddhāvataḥ-it runs fast; anyān-other than itself, viz., mind, speech, senses, &c., atyeti-goes, as if, beyond these (it runs past them or surpasses them). The idea that motion is an appearance, not a reality, is shown further on by the text

60

Sankara and Madhva

itself. Tisṭhat-itself verily remaining stationary and without action; 'tasmin'-in it. i e.. in this Ātmā. in this Ever-Intelligent. Mātariśvā that which moves (Śvayati) in the firmament (mātari), namely 'Vāyu' the sustainer of all life, the source of all activity in whom are contained as products all these effects and causes. or means like warp and woof. that which is called Sūtrātmā. (The Thread Soul). who is the Regulator of the whole universe. He is mātariśvā : apah means acts, or the functioning of all living beings as well as the acts of illuming, heating, burning, raining, &c., of fire sun, clouds. &c; dadhāti-supports or regulates. Thus other Śrutis teach the same thing as, "through fear of this Ātmā the wind blows". The meaning is that all changes of causes and effects take place in the substratum of all the Ever-Intelligent Self."

MĀDHVA BHĀSYA

अनेर्जिभयत्वादेकं प्राधान्यतस्तथा। सम्यग्ज्ञातुमशक्यत्वात् अगम्य तत्सुरैरपि ॥ स्वयं तु सर्वज्ञगमत् पूर्वमेव स्वभावतः । अचिन्त्य-शक्तितत्च्चैव सर्वगत्वाच्च तत्परम् । द्रवत्वादित्यसन्तिष्ठत्तस्मिन् कर्मण्यध्यान-मुतू । मारुत्येव यतश्छेष्टा सर्वा तां हरये । अर्पयेदिति ब्रह्माण्डे । तं विष्णुं ज्ञाने ॥ ४ ॥

TRANSLATION :

"Anejat" means not trembling, because He is fearless, and sa also, He is ekam or one, because He is 'Supreme.' 'The devas even cannot reach 'Him' means that they even are incapable of understanding

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

61

Him fully and completely. By His very nature.

He knows everything from before the beginning

of time. And because His powers are inconceivable

and He is All pervading, therefore. though others

be running, He surpasses them. And Marut places all

karmas in Him. Because all activities proceed from

Prāṇa or Marut therefore. Jet men resign all their

actions unto the Lord. For, says the Brahmāṇḍa

Purāṇa: 'Since all actions depend upon Spirit (Prāṇa)

but one resign all actions to Hari.' The word arṣat

comes from the root 'īṣa' to know.''

CRITICAL NOTE :

The word 'anejat' is understood as 'Motionless'

by Śaṅkara.2 No doubt. it is not incorrect. But

this meaning contradicts the word 'tadejati' which we

find in the very next mantra.

Then, his remark 'sarvadā ekarūpam' or 'It always

has one form' goes against scriptural statements

which emphatically declare the nature of the Supreme

Soul. The scriptural statements like: Anādyanantam

mahatah param''3 (It is beginningless, possesses endless

forms. and Superior to mahat element): "Yadekam avya-

ktam antarūpam"4 (That which is Supreme, Imperce

ptible or Uncreated, and possesses endless forms); Aci-

ntyamavyaktamanantarūpam"5 (It is beyond one's tho-

ught. Uncreated, and possesses infinite forms) and smṛti

statements like: Atra rāmo antarūpah''6 (Here,

Rāma possesses endless forms); Paśyāmi tvām sarvato

anantarūpam''7 (I see Your endless forms everywhere.)

62

Sankara and Madhva

"Tvayā tatam viśvamanantarūpa"8 (This universe is indwelt by You. O Lord of infinite forms); "Ananta-ścātmā viśvarūpah"9 (That Supreme Self is endless and etc. profess constantly the endless forms of the Highest Soul.

His endless forms are everywhere in this universe.)

Sankara's view of 'manaso javīyah' is very surprising. Because he says: "tasmin manasi brahmalokā-dīn drutam gacchati sati prathamam prāpta iva ātma-caitanyāvabhāso grhyate" Here the word 'iva' subverts the very nature of the Lord i e. His omnipotence. It is as good as saying that the Supreme Soul is not capable of moving Itself. And. it means that He is as if All-pervading. Omniscient. Omnipotent. but not in a real sense.

The meaning of 'nainaddevā āpnuvan' as 'the senses like eyes and etc. do not reach Him. that they cannot make Him manifest'. is an explanation which is not convincing. as this meaning has already been covered by 'manaso javīyah'. B. D. Basu remarks: "The senses like eyes etc. do not reach Him that is. cannot make Him manifest. This explanation is useless as it is contained in the saying that the mind. even cannot reach Him. when the mind. the synthesis of all the senses cannot reach Him. it follows as a necessary corollary that other senses also cannot reach Him "10

Secondly. the phrase 'nainaddevā āpnuvan' if understood as 'not perceivable by the senses'. contradicts the view of 'Yatte rūpam kalyānatamam tatte paśyāmi' (Iśa. Up. 16) where it is declared that 'thro-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

63

ugh Your grace I see Your auspicious form’. M. R.

Desai opines “Śaṅkarāchārya has taken deva to mean

limbs and apas to mean the ordained work of breath-

ing done by Mātariśvan. His commentary is quite

interesting but not comprehensive.”11

Śaṅkara’s interpretation of ‘pūrvamarsat’ is primar-

ily based on the root ‘rs’ ‘to go’. But the word ‘devāh’

or ‘gods’ in connection with ‘arsat’ or ‘to go’ as Śaṅ-

kara says. does not suffice the context. And, thereby

the phrase ‘nainaddevāḥ āpnuvan pūrvamarsat’ would

have to lose its mystic suggestion. Therefore the

root ‘rs’ should take up the meaning ‘to know’. To

quote-“(Though) ‘arsat’ comes from the root ‘to go’.

gati in Sanskrit means knowledge also, therefore it

means ‘knowledge’.”12

In the next half of this mantra Śaṅkara imagines

an application of upādhi, i. e. when it is joined to

upādhi or a conditioning factor., It is said to be that It

surpasses those who run after It, sitting in one place,

or Swifter than the mind; but when viewed in Its

absolute unconditioned state of Pure Self, It is said

to be unmoving and one etc. Though Ātman is devoid

of qualities of the world, it appears as if it has been

conditioned by the modifications of the world as seen

by undiscriminating dull persons; and being one, it

appears as if it is reflected in each body. The idea

is that the motion is only in appearance and not a

reality.

In fact, it seems very improper to say that the

Omnipresent, Omnipotent Lord is conditioned or sub-

64

Saṅkara and Madhva

jected to upādhi for it leads to His inferiority. In

order to establish their own views like 'motionless-

ness' etc. of the Absolute Brahman, advaitins have to

make the Brahman conditioned. This type of oppressing

the Brahman is the same as the killing of

Ātman which has been declared in the third mantra.

When the Upaniṣad itself declares an unconditioned

Brahman, the imagination of a conditioned Brahman

is useless.13

Turning to Madhva's interpretation of this mantra,

we find the authority of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa

which fixes the purport of this mantra appropriately.

The word 'anejat' is taken by Madhva also to

mean 'akampamāna' or 'motionless', as Saṅkara holds.

But the reason given for calling Him 'motionless' is

'nirbhayatva' or 'fearlessness' and not 'niṣkriyatva' as

Saṅkara has suggested; i. e. the Supreme Being is call-

ed 'anajat' because He is 'fearless'.14 Thus the mean-

ing of 'anejat' as a term suggesting the fearlessness of

the Supreme Self is definitely appropriate. In this

regard, a famous commentator Anantācārya clearly

unfolds : 'Anejat' comes from the root 'ej' to tre-

mble (bhvādī); that which does not tremble is called

anejat i. e. fearless. Some translate anejat as equi-

valent to acalat, non-moving but by this construction

the subsequent line 'It is faster than the mind' will

contradict it.'15

He is called 'ekam' for He is Supreme, and so,

none is equal to Him or above Him, and not beca-

use He is without any second.16

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

65

Then the Upaniṣad asserts that the Supreme Reality is swifter than the mind. “He who has swiftness is called javavat; he who has greater swiftness is called javīyah; the affix ‘vat’ (matup) is elided when the comparative affix ‘Īyasun’ is added (see Pāṇini. V. 3. 65). The swiftness of the mind is seen from the fact that remaining in the body, it can travel in imagination to the remotest region of the Brahma-loka. Brahman is proved swifter than the mind because even the mind cannot reach It.”17

Then the Upaniṣad reveals the Supremacy of Brahman i. e. ‘The devas cannot know him fully’.18 But He knows them all from eternity or from before the beginning of time. Moreover ‘pūrvamarsat’ meaning ‘already gone earlier’ as interpreted by Śaṅkara does not accord with the context. Because that ‘He is swifter than the mind’ has been already mentioned by ‘manaso javīyah’. “The word arṣat comes from the root ‘rṣa’ ‘to know’. There is no such root as ‘rṣa jñāne in the Dhātupāṭha, but in the Mahābhāṣya it is said, there is such a root.”19 Thus, with this knowledge of this fundamental basis of ‘devāḥ’ and ‘arṣat’ when the mantra is repeated its meaning becomes amply clear.

The phrase ‘taddhāvato anyān atyeti tiṣṭhat’ reveals two important aspects which uphold His supremacy, in the light of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa statement quoted by Madhva. The phrase ‘dhāvato anyān atyeti’ or ‘runs faster than those who run after It’ ‘declares the Omnipresence of the Highest Reality;

and 'tisṭhat dhāvato anyān atyeti' or 'staying on one place goes faster than those who run after it' points

to the Omnipotence of the Lord.20 Thus, this is the epithet by which the brilliant word-painters of the

Upaniṣad have tried to obtain the knowledge of the concepts of the Omnipotence and Omnipresence of

the Highest Soul, in a network of their irreplaceable words.

Lastly, the closing phrase of this mantra, which brings out the part given to Mukhya Vāyu more vivi-

dly, is — 'Tasmin apo mātariśvā dadhāti'. Madhva explains this phrase in terms of the Brahmāṇḍa-Purāṇa

statement: 'Since all activities depend upon Vāyu, the actions done and resigned unto the Lord by indivi-

dual beings also are finally offered by Marut to Him.'

Meanwhile, the word 'apah' has been understood as 'waters' by some of the scholars. Accordingly,

Paul Deussen says: "Therein according to Īśa 4, Māta-riśvan (i. e. probably the Prāṇa) has already inter-

woven the primeval waters."21 Similarly Swami Chin-

mayananda opines: "the atmospheric air, no doubt supports the element water in the sense it is grosser

than Air."22

No doubt, 'apah' means 'waters'. But it also means 'karma' or 'work'.23 And latter meaning fits

in the context much better. That is why 'apah' should be taken to mean 'karma'.

Thereafter the word 'dadhāti' should mean 'to keep', or 'to lay upon' or 'to place'24 but not 'to

function' or 'to divide' as Saṅkara holds.

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

67

"Thus, when a person does an act with perfect humility, believing that the true agent is Hari and not he, that all acts are sacred and must be performed with the idea of their being sacred, and with full love and devotion towards God, such acts become holy, and are carried by Vāyu to the Lord. Since the man has renounced all fruits of action and does all acts for the Lord, they remain in Him. This of course refers to karmas of good men."25

Another point to be noted here is- Mātariśvan not only offers good karmas, but even bad karmas, done by the persons, to the Lord. But the way of consigning them is different. i. e. One who has performed bad actions, must repent, and has to think on the All-doing capacity (sarvakartṛva-śakti) of the Supreme Spirit. As the Lord inspires, an individual does either bad or good actions in accordance with his prārabdha karma. So while consigning them to the Lord, he should pray to God to make him free from the taint of sin, the effect of bad deeds. Then he will surely be graced by the Lord. This is the way of offering bad actions to the Lord.26

Taittirīya Samhitā declares :

देवा गातुविदो गातुं वित्त्वा गातुमित- मन्त्रयस्व इमं नो देव देवेषु यज्ञ स्वाहा ॥ ( I. i. 13 )

i. e. "All works are primarily consigned to Vāyu or 'cosmic Energy' in its differentiated and homogeneous forms; and he, Vāyu, in his turn consigns all those works to Brahman; therefore Brahman is the

68

Śaṅkara and Madhva

Supreme Substratum of all works like sacrifices, fire-offerings and etc."27

Thus whenever life is sustained, it is because of the presence and operations of Mukhya Vāyu. As such, the Supreme is the very source from which

Mukhya Vāyu takes his potency. by which he gains extra-ordinary capacity to protect, nourish and maintain the life of all individuals.

In fine, this verse discusses the nature of the Lord, and the method of surrending one's karmas to the Lord. In concentrated and paradoxical metaphors the mantra vividly brings out the Omnipotence

of God and reveals the secret of how to surrender our actions through Vāyu, so that the karmas reach Him.

V MANTRA

This mantra unfolds some more hidden meanings, which have taxed the minds of the scholars to bring out the real purport of some attributes which seem to be a repetition of the previous mantra :

तदेजति तन्नैजति तद्‌दूरे तद्वन्तिके ।

तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्य बाह्यतः ॥ ५ ॥

"From Him (the world) moves in fright but He is not afraid of others. (Because He is Omnip­resent),

He is far away, and He is near. He is the Indweller of all this and He is even outside of all this."

ŚĀṆKARA BHĀṢYA :

न मन्त्राणां वामिताडस्तीति पूर्वमन्त्रोक्तमप्यर्थं पुनराहु तदेजतीति ।

तत् आत्मतत्त्वं यत् प्रकृतमेजति चलति; तदेव च नैजति तदेजतीति ।

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

69

स्वतो नैव चलति । स्वतोडचलमेव सत् चलतीवेत्यर्थः । किञ्च तदूरे वर्षकोटिशतैरपि अविरुषामप्राप्त्याद्दूरे हव । तत् उ अन्र्तके इति च्छेदः । तदूर्न्तके समीपे अत्यन्तमेव विदुरुषाम आत्मत्वात् । न केवल तूरे अन्र्तके च, तदन्तः अभ्यन्तरे अस्य सर्वस्य । 'य आत्मा सर्वान्तर:' (बृ.उ.३.४.१) इति श्रूयते । अस्य सर्वस्य जगतो नामरूपप्रतियात्मकस्य । तत् उ अपि सर्वस्यास्य वाझान्ते: क्रियाप्रकृत्यां आकारावत् । निरतिशय-सूक्ष्मस्वात् अन्तः । 'प्रज्ञान घन एव' (बृ.उ.४. ५. १३) इति शास-नात् निरन्तरं च ॥ ५ ॥

TRANSLATION :

"There is no tautology in the sacred hymns."

"a well-known maxim, the sense of the above verse is again repeated in this verse. Tadejati-that Self,

Ātmā, which has been described above, ejati, moves tad-and that verily. 'Naijati' does not move from

itself, the sense being 'itself immovable, it appears as if it moves Moreover, taddūre, it is far away, it is

as if far away, because it cannot be approached even in hundreds of millions of years by the unwise. Tad-

vantike (this word is composed of there words) 'tad antike -it is verily near, not only is it far away, but

it is near; because it is the ultimate Self of the wise (nearest and dearest to them); tadantarasya sarvasya,

it is the inmost of all these. As another 'Śruti' says:

"That Ātmā which is in the interior of all." "of all this-" of all this universe having name, form and acti-

vity. 'Tad u' - that even is outside (bāhyatah) of all this universe on account of its all-pervadingness like

space; being extremely subtle, it is in all. ("On account of its pervadingnesss, it is outside of all, and owing

70

Śaṅkara and Madhv.

to extreme subtlety it is inside of all. then it canno

be always one unchangeable essence,- " to remov

this doubt. the commentator says.) it is always const

ant. because another Śruti teaches, "It is as if a solic

mass of consciousness with on room inside or out

side."

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

तदेजति तत् एव एजति अन्यत्‌। तदस्वयं नैजति । तत्‌

व्रिमेति सर्वोडपि न बिभेति हरिः स्वयम्‌। सर्वंगत्वात्‌ दूरेऽ नु

बाह्येऽतथ्च समीपग इति तत्वसहितायाम्‌ ॥ ५ ॥

TRANSLATON :

"The words 'tad ejati' mean that 'the other tre-

mble for fear of Him.' But He Himself is afraid of

none. and so does not tremble. As we find in the

Tattva-Saṁhitā: 'All even are afraid of Him, but Hari

is afraid of no one. As He is all-pervading, He is

said to be far off as near; to be outside of all as in.

side of all."

CRITICAL NOTE :

The opening sentence of Śaṅkara's commentary

of this mantra, which says that 'there is no tautology

in the sacred hymns, accordingly the sense of the pre-

vious mantra is repeated again in this mantra, seems

to be self-contradictory. Because firstly it is stated

that there is no tautology in the mantras; and of cou-

rse, this is right. So, when it is enjoined that there

is no tautology, there must not be any tautological

rendering of the mantras. But, we see the tautologi-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

71

cal rendering in Saṅkara's commentary of this mantra.

Therefore. whatever tautological meanings are there

in his commentary. cannot be true and faithful to the

subject-matter of this Upaniṣad.

Secondly, Saṅkara works against his own theory

of identity between Brahman and individual soul,

while commenting on 'tad vantike'. He says that

'Brahman is quite near to the wise, for It is their very

self.' Certainly the word 'nearness' cannot give the

sense of 'oneness'. Moreover the authority 'yā ātmā

sarvāntarah' (Brh. Up. 3. 4. 1) quoted by him does

not give any clue to a sense of Its oneness with the

human soul. On the contrary, that authority clearly

supports the difference between jīva and Brahman.

But the defect of tautology or giving up one's

own accepted belief, does not arise in the case of

Madhva's interpretation. In accordance with 'anejat'

of the previous mantra, Madhva takes 'tadejati' as to

mean 'because of Him the universe trembles.' The

word 'tat' is used also in the sense of 'tasmāt'. B. D.

Basu, in this regard, opines : "The words 'tadejati' do

not mean either that Brahman is agitated or active

Himself; or that He is afraid. In fact, the word 'tad'

is an ideclinable here, and means 'from Him' or 'on

account of Him.' The indeclinable has the force of

the ablative case. The word 'anyat' 'others' is under-

stood here, and is the agent to the verb ejati. This

verse cannot be consistently explained on the theory

that Brahman is actionless.'2

72

Śaṅkara and Madhva

Moreover, the very popular rule which states

that an indeclinable may be used in any case, or gen-

der etc, supports the application of the ablative case

of 'tad'. That relevant rule is :

सर्वध्रः त्रिषु लिङ्गोषु सर्वासु च विभक्तिषु ।

वचनेषु च सर्वेषु यन्न व्येति तदव्ययम् ॥

(Kāśikā on Pān. I. i. 37 and Gopāṭha

Brāhmaṇa I. i. 26).3

These authorities clearly prove that Madhva's

rendering of 'tad' in ablative case as 'from Him' is

correct and unbiassed. Thus the meaning of 'tadejati

tannaijati' is 'from Him this world trembles; but He

is not afraid of others. Another Śruti statement decl

ares : भीषास्माद्वातः पवते । भीषोदेति सूर्यः । भीषादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च ।

मृत्युद्रवति पञ्चम इति (Taittirīya Upaniṣad. II. 8. 1 )

saying that 'through the fear of this Brahman, Vāyu,

Sun, Agni, Indra Death-God (and etc) do their work.'

Then, the explanation of the remaining portion

of this mantra-'taddūre tadvantike.4 tadantarasy

sarvasya tadu sarvasya bāhyataḥ5 is precisely pictur-

ed in the Tattva Saṃhitā statement quoted by Madh-

va: “As He is All-pervading, He is far and near; out-

side of all.” Thus Madhva declares through 'taddūre

tadvantike' the 'sarvagatatva' or the 'Omnipresence'

of the Supreme Self; and the latter part unravels

'sarvāpyatva' or the all-pervasiveness of the same

Highest Brahman.

In this connection, there is no dispute among

the scholars, and so their discussion is not specially

dealt with here.

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

73

This unbiassed and unequivocal interpretation of

Madhva steers clear of any tautology feard by Sañ-

kara. In fine, both the fourth and the fifth mantras

form one thought unit. and speak of the real attribut-

es of the Supreme Reality.

VI & VII MANTRAS :

A qualified one, who has understood the nature of

the Supreme Self as has been taught in the previous

mantras, is benefited by the realisation of the know-

ledge of the Brahman, who is the All-supporter, All-

controller etc. Thus these mantras which form one

thought unit, explain vividly, the state of perfect tran-

quility gained by the enlightened soul :

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ ६ ॥

यस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद्विजानतः ।

तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतःः ॥ ७ ॥

"He who sees all beings in the Supreme Self

(knowing that Brahman is the support of them all),

and sees the Supreme Self in all beings (as the Ruler

and Controller from within of all) becomes fearless

and is not anxious to look after his self."

"That Supreme Self, in whom all beings exist,

has existed indeed within all beings (from eternity).

Thus, who realizes the unity (by which the Supreme

is in all, and all in Him), for him, where is delusion

and sorrow?"

74

Sankara and Madhva

ŚĀṄKARA-BHĀṢYA

यस्तु परिन्र्राट् मुमुक्षुः सर्वाणि भूतानि अव्यक्तादीनि स्थावर-

न्तानि आत्मन्येव अनुपश्यति, आत्ममध्यतिरिक्तानि न पश्यतीत्यर्थः ।

सर्वं भूतेषु तेष्वेव च आत्मानं, तेषामपि भूतानां स्वमात्मन्मात्रथ्वेन ।

यथा अन्यद् देहस्थं कार्यकरणसङ्घातिस्थ्य आत्मा अहं सर्वप्रतयात्मक-

भूतस्वेच्छया केवलो निर्गुणः;, अननेनैव स्वरूपेण अव्यक्तादीनां स्थावर-

सान्तानाम् अह्मेव आत्मा' इति सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं निर्विशेषं यस्तत्व-

पश्यति मः ततः तस्मादेव दर्शानात् न विजुगुप्सते विजुगुप्सां घृणा न

करोति । प्राप्तस्तस्यैव अनुवादोऽयम् । सर्वा हि घृणा आत्मनोऽन्य-

ददुष्टं पश्यतो न घृणानिमित्तमर्यादान्तरमस्तीति प्राप्तमेव ततः न विजु-

गुप्सत हि ॥ ६ ॥

इयमेवार्थं अन्योडपि मन्त्र आह-यस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि ।

यस्मिन्न् काले यथोक्तात्मनि वा, तस्मिन् भूतानि सर्वाणि परमार्थत-

मदर्शानात् आत्मैवाऽऽमूत् आत्मैव संवृत्तः परमार्थवस्तुबिजानत;, तत्र

तस्मिन् काले, तन्नात्मनि वा को मोहः, कः शोक:? शोकरहच मोहइन्व

कामकर्मबीजमजानतो भवति, नत्वात्मैकत्व विज्ञातं गगनोपम परयत : ।

'को मोहः कः शोकः?' इति शोकमोहयोरविचार्यैक्योराक्षेपेण अम-

मवप्रदर्शनात् सकारणस्य संसारस्य अत्यन्तमेवोच्छेद: प्रदर्शितो

भवति ॥ ७ ॥

TRANSLATION :

VII. "The ascetic or one anxious after emancipation who sees (paśyati) all objects (sarvabhūta) beginning with the unmanifested mūlaprakṛti called avyakta and ending with the grossest minerals. in his Self only (ātmanyeva), that is, does not see anything else than his Self, and who sees in all those objects his own Self (sarvabhūteṣu cātmānam), his Self being the

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

75

Self of those objects by its Self-hood; thinking thus: "as of this body composed of causes and effects, I alone am the witness and cogniser of all perceptions, though I am pure and without any attributes, so in this very way by myself, I am the Self of all creation beginning with the avyakta, unmanifest, and ending with the minerals" - he who perceives without any distinctions the Self in all objects, by that (tatah) very realisation or perception, does not despise (vijugupsate) any body. This (the statement that he does not despise anybody) is merely explanatory (prāpta anuvāda) as necessarily following form the foregoing statements. Because all hatred and contempt arise from the false perception of a thing as separate from Self; but when one sees always the pure Self, for him there exist no other objects which can cause contempt. Thus the non-hating becomes a necessary corollary of the foregoing propositions."

VII. "That very purport is taught by the present verse number7, beginning with yasmin &c. At what time or in what Self as described above (for the word yasmin, meaning in which, may refer both to soul and time) all these objects (sarvāṇi bhūtāni) become as Ātmā only (Ātmaivābhūt); owing to the realisation or perception of Ātmā which is the summum bonum., the Great End, owing to the full knowledge (vijānatah) that the Ātmā alone is the highest object : then (tatra), i. e., at that time, or in that Ātmā, where is delusion and where is sorrow (ko mohah kah śokah)?

(Because sorrow arises from not knowing the Ātmā which is extreme bliss per se, and consequently unto-

76

Sankara and Madhva

uched by sorrow. It is owing to this ignorance that

one says: Oh! I am killed; Oh! I have no sons! Oh!

I have not fields!. This is. therefore. why he desires

to have sons, &c.. and in order to have such acquisi-

tions he is anxious to propitiate the gods, not seeing

that Ātmā is unity. Therefore by the process of anv-

aya and vyatireka, realising that sorrow, &c. are the

effects of ignorance. when this Primordial Innate Ign-

orance is removed, there results the complete cessa-

tion of all sorrow, &c.; therefore the text teaches that

it is right knowledge which conduces to cessation of

sorrow. In the Suṣupti state of dreamless sleep. tho-

ugh there is cessation of sorrow. yet the root of sorrow

still remains. it being merely a laya state. There-

fore the commentator says:) Sorrow and delusion ari-

se from the ignorance of the seed of desire and action.

For when one sees the self as unity. as perfectly pure,

like the all-embracing sky, where can sorrow or delu-

sion be? The sentence is put in the interrogative form

for emphasis, meaning that sorrow and delusion being

the result of ignorance become impossible when true

knowledge arises. This verse shows the complete

cessation of all the attractions of the world, with its

cause, once knowledge is acquired.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

सर्वंगं परमात्मानं सर्वं न परात्मनि । य: पश्येतस भयाभावा-

त्मानं शोषतुमिच्छति इति सौकरायणश्रुति: ॥ ६ ॥

यदि मन्नु परमात्मनि सर्वभूतानि स परमात्मैव तत्र सर्वभूतेषु

अभूत् । एवं सर्वभूतेषु एकत्वेन परमात्मानं विजानतः को मोह ।

On the Īśāvāsyopanīṣad

77

यस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि स आत्मा सर्वमूतगः । एवं सर्वत्र यो विष्णुं पर्येत्तस्य विजानतः । को मोहः कोडथवा शोकः स विष्णुं पर्यगाद्यत्' इति पिप्पलादशाखायाम् । पूर्वोक्तानुवादेन शोकमोहाभावोदपि विजानतश्च अभ्यगमदच सर्वंगतत्वस्य द्योतनार्थः ॥७॥

TRANSLATION :

VI. "As says the śruti of the Saukarāyaṇas: 'He who sees the Supreme Self as pervading all, and everything in the Supreme Self, does not wish to guard himself, because he has no fear from any one. Being fearless he is never anxious about preserving his little self.'

VII. "That Supreme Self, in whom all creatures, is indeed that same Supreme Self, who exists, and has existed within ail creatures too (from eternity)." This is the Truth. He who knows this Truth, and sees the Supreme Self thus residing in all creatures as a unity, can have no delusion. Ātman in whom are all creatures, is all-pervading, and is inside of all beings. He who thus sees Viṣṇu everywhere, has no delusion nor sorrow, for he has known the Truth.

"Since the knower of the Lord completely attains the Lord, hence takes place the cessation of all sorrow and delusion.' thus says the Pippalāda Śruti. The last verse declared that the knower of Brahman becomes fearless; this verse makes an additional statement that such a knower has no delusion and sorrow. The repetition is for the sake of explaining the full significance of the all-pervadingness of Brahman."

78

Saṅkara and Madhva

CRITICAL NOTE :

These two verses apparently are very helpful to Saṅkara to establish his own theory of advaita. He

says that 'a mendicant who desires to be released,

sees all beings from Avyakta down to unmoving things

in Ātman alone (in particular he sees nothing disti-

inct from Ātman) and the Ātman in them all. does

not despise anybody ' Thus Saṅkara's interpretation

apparently seems to be not incorrect. But the fact

is that, a close examination of Saṅkara's view, after

a scrutiny of the original mantra show that it vitiates

the purport of the ideal teaching of this mantra.

That is to say, the very words 'ātmani, and 'sarva-

bhūteṣu' from which Saṅkara infers his theory of

identity, are in the locative case. Grammatically,

the locative case does not allow the concept of identity of

two things which Saṅkara wants to establish. The

Pāṇini Sūtra 'Saptamyadhikarane ca' (S. Kaumudī

634. declares that 'the seventh case-affix is employed

when the sense is that of location, as well as, after the

word meaning 'distant' or 'near'. Thus the locative

case shows two separate things: as the supporter and

the supported.. (adhāra-ādheya). To quote B. D.

Basu: “It also shows that jīva is not identical with

the Lord, for Ātman is shown there, in the locative

case, and as the receptacle of all. The contents and

the container are always different”1 This is the one

point which does not support the concept of identity.

Secondly, the very concept of seeing everything

in Ātman, and Ātman in everything contradicts the

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

words Sankara himself uses, where it is stated (ātmā-nameva atyanta-viśuddham) 'for one who sees Ātman alone absolutely pure, without anything interposing, there is no other thing which would be the occasion of revulsion'. How is it that a man who has realized the identity of Ātman can see everything which according to him is unreal, in Ātman? Moreover, if that advaita-jñānin sees Ātman everything which is unreal, than that Ātman also would have to become unreal. Therefore, according to Sankara, is 'sarvabhūta' real or unreal? If he says 'sarvabhīta' is real, then it becomes a point to Sankara with the reality of the world even on the pāramārthika level which Madhva holds strongly; but consequently it subverts the very theory of identity. And therefore, Sankara has to say that 'Sarvabhūta' is unreal basing on the interpretation of 'Īśāvāsya' where it is said that 'whatever is coverd by Him. is unreal'. But then, a question arises-how is that, an enlightened one, knowing Him as one with Him, can see all the unreal aspects of this world in Ātman? Thus Sankara's view is not only self-contradictory but even mutually opposite.

Moreover 'ekatvamanupasyatah', in the light of Sankara's interpretation, if taken to mean as an expression of the theory of identity, contradicts the previous statement : 'gods cannot surpass or know Him fully'. To quote : "In previous mantras it has already been discussed that no living being not even the powerful demi-gods can surpass the Supreme Being in any respect. Therefore 'ekatvam' does not mean

80

that a living being is equal in all respects to the Supreme Lord."2 Therefore, no amount of advaitic padding helps one to bring out a consistent and correct import of this mantra, as attempted by Saṅkara.

Such is not the case with Madhva. He differs radically from Saṅkara's interpretation and has brought out the congruent and implicit explanation of these two mantras in terms of the authorities of the Saukarāyaṇa and Pippalāda Srutis.

These two mantras unfold that though the beings are many, yet the Highest Self dwelling in them is One, who is Omnipotent.

The verb ‘anupaśyati’ comes from the root ‘dṛś’ and prefixed by ‘anu’. An aphorism ‘पञयर्थेइञ्चानालोचने’ (S.Kaumudi.. 409) describes that the root ‘dṛś’ has not the sense of physical ‘seeing’, but means ‘knowing’. Moreover it is said3 that the root ‘dṛś’ in the sixth mantra is ‘sāmānya-jñānārthaka; it should be so, in order to remove reiteration, as these two mantras seem to deal with the same subject-matter. Though the fruits that are to be attained by those two are different, yet they are related to each other. In mantra 6, it was stated that ‘he who sees (i. e. knows) Brahman as the support of all and pervading all, becomes fearless’. The mantra 7. is not a repetition. It further states that the same knower of Brahman transcends sorrow and delusion. The same person who had become fearless on account of the knowledge of Brahman, becomes also free from delusion and grief as a result of the same knowledge. So there is no tautology.

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

81

Further. the word ‘na vijugupsate’ has its correlation with ‘nātmānam goptumicchati’ which we find in the authority quoted by Madhva. ‘Vijugupsate’ comes from the root ‘gup’ ‘to protect’, with ‘vi’ an augmentative prefix..4 Besides. ‘vijugupsate’ may be understood also as ‘to despise’ or ‘to censure’ as Śaṅkara would have us believe: But this meaning does not give the real indication of the relation between ‘na vijugupsā’ and ‘fearlessness’. There is a close relationship between ‘na vijugupsā’ and ‘fearlessness’. Fearlessness’ is the product of the knowledge of the all-supportership of the Supreme Brahman. So one who knows Him as ‘all-supporter’ becomes fearless and does not wish to protect himself.5

Thus a mumukṣu who knows Brahman as the Supporter or the Substratum of all things and the Indweller (as well as the Controller of all), becomes fearless and does not desire to protect himself. When that knower of Brahman becomes fearless, where is sorrow and delusion? Here, on the contrary it may be argued that it is as good as saying that the knowledge of Brahman does not lead to salvation, but only removes sorrow, delusion and fear away. To answer this query, one may say that destruction of fear, sorrow and delusion is a stepping stone towards attaining liberation.

Further, the word ‘abhūt’ does not signify the limitation of the existence of Brahman in individual selves, even though it is in the past tense. Though it is in the past tense, it indicates ‘eternity’. To quote in this connection :

82

Saṅkara and Madhva

प्रयोगकालीनः सर्वकालेऽनुषज्यते।

ददर्श विष्णुरित्यादौ नित्यान्तद्रूपतो हरेः॥

The word ‘vijñānataḥ’ indicates aparokṣajñāna, and

‘anupaśyataḥ’ indicates the object of direct vision

(sākṣātkāra) i. e.: Supreme Brahman. The word ‘evam’

in Madhva’s bhāṣya (evam sarvabhūteṣu ekatvena) is

used to ensure the attainment of Mokṣa for enlight-

ened souls.7 The question of some enlightened soul

being not fit for salvation does not arise at all. Beca-

use such unfit persons never attain to the knowledge

of the Supreme.8 Thus all aparokṣa-jñānins are fit

to attain Mokṣa.

Here it may be supposed that these two mantras

have elucidated Brahman as the supporter of all, all-

pervading, all-indweller etc. But the significance of

these attributes has already been shown by the fifth

mantra. If so, then what is the necessity of these two

mantras which describe the same attributes of Brah-

man ?

To this objection, Madhva replies that the repeti-

tion is an indication of explicating the sense of all-

pervasiveness of the Supreme Brahman.

In short, in these two mantras we have a picture-

sque view of the concept of the absolute difference bet-

ween Jīva and Brahman; and one who knows Him

as a supporter of all, indweller of all, Omnipotent

and so on, becomes free from sorrow and delusion

and thus becomes fit to attain liberation.

VIII MANTRA

In the previous mantra the seer has explained to

us that an aspirant who has acquired the knowledge

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

83

of the Supreme Being becomes free from sorrow and delusion. But how is it that by a mere knowledge of

the Supreme Brahman, an aspirant becomes free from delusion and sorrow? To this question, this mantra,

being a direct outcome of the previous one, answers and develops the idea of attaining salvation with a

greater emphasis and practical assertion. This mantra explains more vividly the real attributes of the High-

est Brahman which speak of His unique supremacy. It runs giving its deep significance in the very order in

which the auspicious qualities have been declared in its unitary outlook :

स पर्यगात् शुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम् ।

कविमनीषी परिभूः स्वयम्भूर्याथातथ्यतोऽर्थान् व्यदधाच्छाश्वतीभ्यः समाभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥

"He (an enlightened one) attains to the Supreme Reality who is free from grief, free from the subtle

body, eternally perfect, devoid of the dense body, pure, free from evil, omniscient, the controller of the

minds of all, omnipresent (or the all-controller) and self-reliant. He created the real things in their proper

form eternally.

ŚAṄKARA BHĀṢYA :

योडयं परमात्मेति मन्त्रवर्णैरुक्त आत्मा स स्वेन रूपेण कि लक्षण इत्याहुः । मन्त्रः

स पर्यगात् सः यथोक्त आत्मा पर्यगात् परि समन्तात् अगात् गतवान् ।

आकाशवद् व्याप्रियर्थः । शुक्रम् शुद्धं (शुध्दं) ज्योतिष्मत् दीप्तिमान्

इत्यर्थः । अकायमशरीरं लिङ्गशरीरवर्जितमित्यर्थः । अन्नणम् अक्षतम् ।

अस्ताविरं स्नावाः शिराः यस्मिन् न विद्यन्ते इत्यस्नाविरम् । अन्नणम-

84

Sankara and Madhva

स्नाविरमितयेताभ्यां स्थूलशरीरप्रतिषेधः । श्रद्धं निर्मलं अविद्यामलरहितमिति कारणशरीरप्रतिषेधः । अपापविद्धं धर्माधर्मादिपापवर्जितम् । 'स पर्यगात् अकायम्' इत्युपक्रम्य 'कविः कान्तदर्शी' इत्यादिश्रुते: । नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा' ( बृ. उ. ३. ७. २३) इत्यादिश्रुते । मन्त्रीषी मन्त्रस ईशिता; सर्वज्ञ ईश्वर इत्यर्थः । परिभूः सर्वेषां परि उपरि भवतीति परिभूः । स्वयंभूः स्वयमेव भवतीति । स्वयंभूः स्वयमेव भवतीति । स नित्यमुक्त ईश्वरो याथातथ्यतः सर्वज्ञत्वात् याथातथ्यभावो याथातथ्यम् । तस्मात् यथामूतकर्मफलसाधनतः । अर्थात् कर्तव्यपदार्थात् व्यदधात् विहितवान् यथानुरूपं व्यवजन्त् इत्यर्थः । शाश्वतीभ्यः नित्याभ्यः समभ्यः संवत्सराख्येभ्यः प्रजापतिभ्य इत्यर्थः ।

॥८॥

TRANSLATION :

This verse teaches us what are the specific attributes of the Ātmā, besides those that have been described in the preceding verses. Sa paryagāt. that (sa) already mentioned Ātmā is all-pervading like space (paryagāt=pari, on every side, agāt, gone, therefore, all-pervading). Śukram means pure, full of light, effulgent. Akāyam means without body. i. e., not having the subtle body called the liṅga śarīra. Avranam means without wounds or boils. Asnāviram : that in which there are no tendons (snāva) or muscles. By the-words invulnerable (avraṇam) and without muscles (asnāviram) is excluded the gross body. (i. e., the Ātmā is not the gross body called sthūla śarīra). Suddham-pure, without any dross, free from the dross of Ignorance-this precludes the causal body, kāraṇa śarīra also with reference to Ātmā. Apāpavi-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

ddham: free from all sins in the shape of duty or virtue (dharma), and non-duty or vice (adharma). The words śukram, &c. though in the neuter gender in the text, should be understood, however, to be masculine: because the verse begins with sa paryagāt in.the masculine, and ends with the words like Kavih &c., in the masculine, all referring to the same person. Kavih- seeing on all sides, seeing all, all-wise. As another Śruti says, "There is no other seer than he." Manīṣī means the ruler (Īśitā) of the mind (manas), omniscient, the Lord, Paribhūh: who is (bhavati), above (pari) all beings. Svayambhūh-who is (bhavati), Himelf (svayam) alone, those above whom he is: and that which is above-all, that is only himself-therefore he is called svayaṃbhūh. He, the ever-free Lord on account of his omniscience has ordained (vyadahāt), has distributed all things (arthān), i. e.. necessary objects, according to their nature, according as they are fruits of acts or means of performing acts. The word Yāthā- tathyatah is an abstract noun in the ablative, derived from the word yathā-tathā meaning as that; Śāśvatī bhyah-from everlasting; Samābhyah the years; known as prajāpatis or Lords of creatures.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

सूक्ष्मादिचतुष्टयाहेत्यादप्रमं नित्यभूषणम् ।

पावनत्वात् सदा शुद्धमकायं लिङ्गवर्जनात् । स्थूलदेहहृत्य

राहित्याद्म्न।विरामुदाहृतम् । एवभूतोडपि सवैंज्ञात्

कविरित्यैच शब्द्यते । ब्रह्मादिसवंमनसां प्रकृतेऽनसोड़पि च ॥

ईशितृत्वान्मनंतँषी स परिभूःसर्वतो वरः । सदाडनन्याश्रयत्वाच्च

86

Sankara and Madhva

स्वयम्भूः परिकीर्तितः । स सत्यं जगततादृड्

नित्यमेव प्रवाहतः । अनाद्यन्तकालेषु प्रवाहिकप्रकारतः ॥

नियमेनैव ससृजे भगवानपुरुषोत्तमः । सज्ञानानन्दशीर्षोऽसौ

सज्ञानानन्दबाहुकः । सज्ञानानन्ददेहःसच सज्ञानानन्दपादवान् ॥

एवं भूतो महाविष्णुर्यथार्थं जगदीदृशम् ।

अनाद्यन्तकालीनं जतिमेच्छया प्रभुरिति वाराहे ॥ ८ ॥

TRANSLATION :

The Varāha Purāna explains this mantra as follows : Brahman is called ‘Sukram’ ‘griefless.’

because He is free (ra) from grief (śuk). He is called avraṇam, not small (vraṇam-small), because

He is Eternal and Full; as He is the Purifier. He is said to be always pure; as He has no Liṅga deha or

subtle body. He is called ‘incorporeal’; as He has no dense body. He is called bodiless, or without sinews,

Though He is thus bodiless, yet He is called kavi or Wise, because He is Omniscient; He is called Manīṣī

or the Lord of Manas, because He rules the Intelligences (manas) of all beings from Brahmā downwards

and even Prakṛti and Manas itself. He is called ‘Paribhū’ because He is best of all, and He is Svaya-mbhū, because He never depends upon another. The

Lord Puruṣottama creates the world under fixed rules, in beginningless and endless time, in one uniform

course. He creates this world as a reality and it is eternal as a current (though ever changing). He, the

Lord has a head consisting of pure Being (sat), Intelligence (jñāna) and Bliss (ānanda), His arms are pure

Being, Intelligence and Bliss. His body is Being, Intell-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

87

igence and Bliss His feet are Being Intelligence and

Bliss. Such is the Great God, the Mahā-Viṣṇu. The

Lord created this real world, which is beginningless

and endless, by His mere will.

CRITICAL NOTE :

Śaṅkara's rendering of this mantra dissociates

the relation between this mantra and the former

one. A man of wisdom who knows Brahman as des-

cribed in the preceding verses, becomes free from

sorrow and delusion. But how is it possible? Śaṅka-

ra's words do not suggest the answer to this question,

for he relates the pronoun 'sah' to Brahman instead

of the knower. Following Śaṅkara, renowned schol-

ars like Radhakrishnan1, Paul Deussen2, Dr. E.

Roar3, R. E. Hume4 etc 5 have interpreted 'sah' in

the same manner. In fact, to show the apt relation,

'sah' should be referred to an individualsoul, referred

to in the previous mantra, who has attained the know-

ledge of Brahman. To quote: "He takes 'sah' as a

pronoun of the Ātman (soul); and takes all eleven

words from 'paryagāt' to svayambhūh' as adjectives

of the soul. But neither grammar nor sequence justi-

fies this."6 An advaitin may suppose that the knower

of Brahman as he is one with Brahman may be called

bright, bodiless etc. This view contradicts the tenets

of attributes like kavih and etc. mentioned in the

second line of this man'ra; for those qualities are

unattainable by any one.7 Therefore, the pronoun

'sah' should be referred to a jñān'n and 'paryagāt' as

a verb, meaning 'approaches', to make a proper sense

of this mantra.

88

Sankara and Madhva

So too, Sankara's interpretation of 'Sukram' as 'bright' is also not satisfactory As referring to the

flow of the context. a knower of Brahman becomes free from sorrow and delusion, having attained the know-

ledge of Brahman who Himself is free from sorrow and delusion. To illustrate an analogy : a poverty

striken man approches a king and asks him for help.

Then, that king fulfils his desire. This practical ana-

logy suggests that a man or a Super-human-being can remove one's difficulty and fulfil one's desire only

when he is free from such poverty. Such a king of being is none-else but the Supreme Brahman alone!

Thus the Supreme Brahman being free from sorrow and delusion makes the other (knower of Brahman)

free from sorrow and delusion!

Moreover, the meaning of 'Sukram' as 'bright' invites ativyāpti fallacy, i. e. Brahman is not the only

Reality who is bright; even gods like Sun, Agni, Indra, Brahmā also are bright. 'Sukram' as 'bright' becomes

reiteration for 'Suddham' which also is in the sense of 'bright' or 'pure'. So there arises tautology. Thus,

these accounts show clearly that the meaning of 'suk-ram' as 'bright' is not implied; hence Sankara's expl-

anation of 'sukram' seems to be incorrect.

Then, 'paryagāt' is understood by Sankara as 'all-pervader,' like ether. This interpretation also,

is too unnatural in the context of this mantra. When the pronoun 'sah' is proved to refer to the knowing

individual Self, to make its complete sense, the verb and the object easily fall in line. It is clearly seen

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

that the verb is 'paryagāt' meaning 'attained'. A

knower of Brahman attains to Him who is free from

sorrow and delusion etc. Not only this, even some

of Śaṅkara's followers like Uvata say :

एवमात्मानं उपास्ते स पर्यंगात् परिगच्छति ।8

Anantācārya says : स ईदृशं आत्मानं पर्यंगात् प्राप्तनोति ।9

Mahīdhara asserts : य एवमात्मानं पश्यति स ईदृशं ब्रह्म पर्य-

गात् परिगच्छति प्राप्तनोतीत्यर्थः ।10 Vinoba renders "the

word 'sah' is the subject, 'Śukram' is the object, and

'paryagāt' is the verb." 11 R. H. Griffith states : 'He

hath attained unto the bright '12 Thus these interpre-

tations of the traditional as well as modern scholars

who follow Śaṅkara in their interpretations at other

places, have disapproved of Śaṅkara's interpretation

of 'sa paryagāt'. Moreover the translation of 'parya-

gāt' as 'all-pervader' contradicts the view of the

fourth and fifth mantras, wherein Śaṅkara uses the

words 'prāpta iva, gacchati iva, calatīva.' These 'ivas'

mean that Brahman is as if 'all-pervader' or as if

gone; but not really He is all-pervader'. But here,

Śaṅkara frankly and clearly says: 'He is all-perva-

ding.' Therefore, former ivas are meaningless. This

discrepancy in Śaṅkara's rendering shows evidently

that his meanings are not agreable either to his opp-

onents or to his ardent followers.

Śaṅkara, to defend his own view, says with much

force : 'Śukram and other adjectives should be con-

verted to the masculine gender. because the beginning

word 'sah' and ending words like 'kavih', are in the

masculine gender.' Śaṅkara's proposal of course,

90

Saṅkara and Madhva

could be acceptable only if it does not contradict the

flow of Upanisadic thought. In the preceding verses,

it has been stated that the wise ones become free

from grief etc. when they attain to Him. This mantra

tells why it should be so. The first line of this mantra

is a full sentence which makes complete sense. There-

fore, the adjectives which seem to be in the neuter

gender to Saṅkara are really in the masculine gender

only; they are in the accusative case, as those

are ‘objects’ in the sentence. And the second line

explains some more qualities of Brahman as

referring to “Yāthātathyato arthān vyadadhāt Sāśv-

atibhyah saṃbhyah”. M. R Desai, here points out :

“The first word is verbal in nature; the second group

is of neuter nouns and the third of masculine nouns.

The contradiction of applying both neuter and masc-

uline adjectives at the same time and to the same

subject is too obvious. Saṅkara tries to tide over

this, by a very ‘rough and ready’ device. He dictates

to treat these neuter nouns as masculines (स्त्रक्रिमत्यादौ न

वचांसि पुंलिङ्गतया परिगण्य). This change of the gender,

is made with no apologies. The word paryagāt too.

is smoothly disposed of by calling it a masculine

word.”1

An advaitin may argue here that Saṅkara’s consi-

deration of gender is not incorrect. Because the

sentence like ‘ghaṭo draṇyam’ is accepted as correct.

though both the words are in different genders.

It is not so; the illustration that is quoted to up-

hold their view. is not useful here. Because the gen-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

91

der of ‘dravyam’ i.e neuter, is nitya, and cannot be

interchanged referring to its relation with subject or

object. But here it is not the case. The adjectives

in the first line are verbal nouns, and show their rela-

tion with Brahman, the object of attaining, for a

jñānin. Therefore, the recommendation that ‘the ad-

jectives which are in the neuter gender should be tre-

ated as masculine nouns’ is incorrect for it goes agai-

nst the inner consisteny of the Upaniṣadic mantra.

A close reading of Saṅkara’s interpretation ma-

kes a reader to point out that though the word

‘manīṣī’ meaning ‘ruler of minds’ is rightly under-

stood, yet according to the basic principles of Saṅ-

kara-‘Except Brahman, everything else is unreal’.

the former becomes irrelevant. Because, as Brahman

alone is real and all the rest is unreal, how can

Brahman be the ruler of unreal things like mind etc.?

If one accepts that ‘Brahman alone is real’, nothing

is there to be ruled for Brahman. Thus, for Saṅkara,

‘manīṣī’ cannot perform any function. Not only

this, Saṅkara’s declaration of Brahman as ‘attribute-

less’ also is improper; because the word ‘manīṣī’

evidently is seen as the very attribute of Brahman.

And there is no place to argue this point on the basis

of upādhi, for the application of upādhi to Brahman,

has been already refuted in the first mantra,

Similarly, the interpretation of ‘Yāthātath-

yatah....’ which means — “(He) has distributed all

things among the prajāpatis called saṁvatsaras, in

accordance with the fruits of their actions”, is also

92

Sankara and Madhva

not true to the fact of the Upanisadic theory as well as

to Sankara's own concept; The meaning of 'Samabhy-

ah' as 'prajapatibhyah' may be based on the state-

ments like "samvatsarah prajapatih sodaśakalastasya...."

of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (I. 5 114); "samva-

tsaro vai prajapatih...." of the Prasna Upanisad (I. 9).

But the word 'prajapati' (in the Prasna Upanisad)

which seems to be the synonym of 'samvatsara', is

referred to the Supreme Self in the form of continuous

unbroken Time.14 Further 'prajapati' (in the Brhad-

aranyaka Upanisad) is referred to the moon. in whom

Vayu, is the indweller.15 Thus. the meaning of 'sam-

vatsara' is not in consonance with 'Prajapati'-in this

Upanisad. Moreover, originally the Isa Upanisad

does not say that 'samabhyah', is in the sense of 'pra-

japatibhyah'. Hence Sankara's understanding of 'sa-

mabhyah' as 'prajapatibhyah', is ill-conceived.

Even if, 'samabhyah' in the sense of 'prajapatibh-

yah' is granted. then it would mean. according to

Sankara. those Prajapatis are unreal. as Brahman

alone is real. In the same flow, when Brahman, who

is Omniscient, knows everything to be unreal. then

there remains nothing for Brahman to distribute.16

If so, then what about the message of this Upanisadic

phrase? We find no answer to these objections even

in the commentary of Anandagiri on Sankara's inter-

pretation of this Upanisad. Thus, no amount of San-

kara's interpretation helps one to understand the clear

and true meaning of this mantra.

But in the interpretation of Madhva. we find a

few statements from the Varaha Purana, which eluci-

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

93

date the real purport of this mantra fully and exhaustively. Madhva's explanation of this mantra in the

light of the Varāha Purāna invites no objection regarding the question of authority. The points which

are found in the statement of the Varāha Purāna are listed below :

In the opening stage though Madhva has not deciphered the application of 'Sa paryagāt',

yet his followers like Srī Jayatīrtha unlock17 the explanation of the same as referring to the

individual soul, who meditates on the Supreme Self. With reference to the preceding mantra the wise one

becomes free from sorrow and delusion, for he approaches the Supreme Brahman who is 'Sukram' i. e.

'griefless', eternally. In this mantra 'paryagāt' should be taken to mean 'approaches'. The verb 'parya-

gāt' is the composition of 'pari' a preposition and 'ugāt' the aorist form of the root 'gam', 'to go' or 'to

approach'. Though the root 'gam' is in the aorist, yet it gives the sense of the present tense. The Pānini

Sūtra : "Chandasi lun lān litah" (III. 4.6. OR S. Kaumudi. 3423) declares that: in the mantra literature,

aorist, imperfect and perfect forms of the roots are optionally employed to denote all tenses. For exam-

ple "Ye bhūtasya pracetasa idam tebhyaḥ karam namah' (Ṛgveda. X. 85.17); here 'akaram' is aorist (luṅ)

and has the sense of the present tense. Thus, there is no doubt regarding 'paryagāt'. And it is shown

earlier how other ancient as well as modern scholars have rendered the same meaning for 'paryagāt'.

Then, the word 'Sukram' states the absolutely griefless state of Brahman. The word 'Sukram' is the composition of the two roots: 'शुच्' meaning 'grief' and 'रह्' 'to give up' : शुच्+रह्+डप्रत्यय=शुच्रह्. Here 'ह्' is dropped as referring to 'अचोऽन्त्यादि टि' (S. Kaumudi. 79).

अत् also is dropped and क is substituted for त; and we have the present form 'Sukram'.18 This grammatical formation of 'Sukram' does not support the meaning 'bright'. but upholds Madhva's interpretation as 'griefless'. The word 'Sukram' to mean 'griefless' is described by Jayatīrtha : शुचं शोकं रहति त्यजतीति शुक्रमिति |

This analysis of Jayatīrtha is based on its grammatical application shown above. Thus not only grammatical but even contextual meaning of 'Sukram' substantiates its meaning as 'griefless'. 19

The verse, then, defines Brahman with another attribute; 'akāyam'. This word 'akāyam' expresses the Supreme Self to be 'bodiless' in the sense that it is free from liṅga-deha (subtle body).20 It may be aruged, on the contrary here that by 'akāyam', is also meant as 'devoid of sthūladeha'. And so, why is this not referred to in 'akāyam'? The 'absence of sthūla-deha is not referred to in 'akāyam' because the fore-coming word 'asnāviram' in this mantra itself, declares 'sthūladeha-rāhitya' as it is devoid of

the body of the seven dhātus like māṁsa majjā, snāyu etc. Therefore 'akāyam' should mean 'free from liṅga-deha or subtle body', otherwise, there would be fallacy of punarukti.

In the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

95

Then, the Supreme Brahman is indicated by saying

that it is ‘avranam’ in the sense ‘eternally full of all

uspicious qualities.’ Looking into its grammatical

ormation we find here, the root ‘vran’ is in the sense

of ‘alpa’ or ‘stoka’ or ‘small’. Its negative form ‘av-

ranam’ means ‘full’. This ‘fullness’ is in the sense of

two ways : (1) kālatah and (2) gunatah. i. e. Brahman

is full in time, means He is Eternal; and He, as

full in qualities. means ‘Full of all (good) qualities’.

hus, He is Eternal (kālena astokah) as well as full

all (auspicious) attributes (gunatah astokah).21

An objector might say that. ‘avranam’ is evident-

ly in the sense of ‘no wounds’. Since the Siddhānta

amudī explains the meaning of ‘vrana’ as ‘to wou-

nd’;22 moreover. most scholars also have explained

ranam to mean ‘woundless’. But it need not be so.

he word ‘avranam’ should mean ‘Eternal and Full’

cause : (1) it has no sense of ‘woundless’, for it

uld be conveyed by the next attribute in this mantra

e. ‘asnāviram’. When Brahman is declared to be

ee from dense body’ (sthūla deha). it becomes clear

at He cannot have any wounds. Then, there rem-

is no special meaning for ‘avranam’ and it becomes

etitive. In order to avoid this fallacy, ‘avranam’

ust be understood as ‘eternal and full’. (2) Secon-,

though the Pānini aphorism seems to support the

w of the objector, we have a stronger authority in

Varāha Purāna quoted by Madhva. (3) Thirdly,

ranam’ also has the meaning ‘flawless’.23 This

y meaning clearly applies to the nirdosatva ro

96

Saṅkara and Madhva

'flawlessness' of Brahman; and in its positive from

'guṇapūrṇatva' or 'fullness' is indicated. All these

points substantiate that 'Eternal and Full of attribut-

es' is the correct and appropriate interpretation of

'avraṇam'.

Then, the word 'asnāviram' denies the 'gross

body' i. e. sthūla deha. which comprises of seven ele-

ments like māṃsa, majjā. snāyu, etc., that cause all

adversities to the Supreme Soul.

The term 'Śuddham' represents that He is the

purifying object (pavitryahetu). It also can be under-

stood 'pure' as Saṅkara has referred. But the former

rendering indicates the larger sense that He is not

only Pure Himself, but purifies others making them

eligible for the attainment of salvation; and the inter-

pretation of Saṅkara does not suggest this special

meaning.

A similar idea is being more forcefully emphasiz-

ed. when the Lord is described as 'apāpaviddham'. or

that 'which is untouched by sin'. As Brahman is

declared to be untainted by sin, there arises no kārmic

effects. And thus, 'apāpaviddhatva' of the Lord is the

consequence of the 'Śuddhatva' of the Supreme; simil-

arly 'asnāviram' 'śuddham' of 'akāyam-avraṇam'

and of 'Śukram', etc. Thus all these adjectives of the

first line, are related to one another. But, 'avraṇam'

is related directly to 'Śukram' i. e. as He is Eternal

and full of all auspicious, qualities He is said to be

'free from sorrow and delusion.'

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

97

Thus these six attributes indicate that the Highest Soul is devoid of aprakrta sarīra and possesses eternally an aprakrta sarīra—which is full of knowledge and bliss. Another point to be accounted for, in this first line, is that since Brahman is ‘free from grief’ one who attains His knowledge also becomes griefless; and this indicates ‘sārūpya mokṣa’, or the attainment of emancipation wherein the liberated soul possesses a form similar to that of the Lord24 (not fully, of course, but in accordance with one’s ‘yogyatā’ or fitness.)

In this manner, the first half of this mantra describes some negative attributes of Brahman like ‘akāyam’ etc to prove His ‘grieflessness’. But naturally it gives rise to the doubt, how can such Supreme Self who is ‘bodiless’, create the universe? Because it is seen that, to create a thing like a pot, a bodied person like a pot-maker is necessary.

In order to remove the idea that when the Supreme Ātman has neither a subtle body nor a gross body, in its essential nature, that would become a non-entity; and to assert that it is a positive factor with all differentiated qualities, we have here, a series of phrases to declare the supremacy of the Highest Truth.25

He is called ‘kavi’, because He is Omniscient. The Varāha Purāna uses avadhāraṇa for ‘kavi’, and it means that He is called ‘kavi’ indeed—(sarvajñāt kavirityeva śaddayate). This excludes other adjectives of the Supreme. But the Upaniṣad proceeds

98

Sankara and Madhva

to present some more attributes. So the objector may say that the quotation of the Varāha Purāṇa is inconsistent.

It is not really so. The ‘avadhāraṇa’ is in the sense of ‘indeed’ or ‘really’ or ‘truly’.26 This sense, becomes more appropriate to say ‘He is really Omniscient.’

Moreover, as an indeclinable (eva) has manifold meanings, ‘eva’ may also be treated as ‘evam’ or ‘such’27. Thus ‘avadhāraṇa’ used in the Varāha Purāṇa is consistent and meaningful. i. e. ‘He is really Omniscient’ or ‘Such Supreme Brahman who is declared as ‘Suk-ram’ etc. is indeed Omniscient.28 Accordingly, Bhag-avadgīta glorifies the Lord as ‘kavim purāṇam’ (VIII. 9).

He is called ‘maniṣī’ as He is the Lord of Manas. It states that He controls or rules the minds of all beings from Brahmā downwards, and even the mind of Citprakṛti i. e. Goddess Lakṣmī.

Further, as everything in this world is under His control,29 and as He is the best all, He is called ‘paribhūh’.

He is also called ‘svayambhūh’ because He is Self-reliant. Self-existent,30 and not dependent upon anything. Here, scholars like Vedānta Deśika say :

‘स इत्युक्तमेव ब्रह्मविदमतैर्निर्द्रियसर्वार्थदर्शीस्ततस्वा|दिनं विशिनष्टि’

i. e. the knower of the Brahman, who is declared as above, is described as ‘kavi’ etc.31 This would mean that, the knower of Brahman can become ‘Omniscient’, and can create the Universe like the Supreme Brahman. This is detrimental to Brahman as it

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

implies the existence of more than one Supreme Reality. This is meaningless, for it contradicts the superiority of the Lord. Anantācārya remarks : “Some commentators explain ‘kavih’ and etc. as an attribute of the worshipper. They say that the worshipper by attaining to the Spirit, becomes ‘kavih’, all wise and etc. This interpretation should be rejected as by doing so the continuity of the sentence is broken.”

Thus, the Supreme Brahman possessing glorious and undifferentiated attributes, can create the universe. And He alone is the Creator as He is Superior to all and possesses an ‘aprakrta-śarīra’.

Here, a vivartavādin may object that-for Brahman, body is not necessary, because on Him the world is superimposed, like silver in a conch-shell.

In the same way, an objector may argue that, Brahman naturally is bodiless, but He possesses body at the time of creation; thereafter He may relapse into bodilessness.

But, certainly, we have a stronger phrase in ‘Yāthātathyato arthān’ vyadadhāt śāśvatībhyah samābhyah’ which declares that He, the Omniscient Brahman creates all things really, truly, and eternally ! The very words ‘really’, ‘truly’, and ‘eternally’ emphatically refute the illusoriness and the non-eternity of the world as well as of the body of the Brahman. It is also said that ‘śāśvatībhyah samābhyah’ has the sense of locative case.

100

Sankara and Madhva

Furthermore, the Varāha Purāṇa elucidates that His body is nothing but knowledge and bliss. Lord's head, arms, body, feet (and everything) is pure being or real (sat), knowledge (jñāna) and bliss (ānanda). Such is the Great Lord Mahāviṣṇu who creates this real world by His mere will in endless and beginningless time. The word 'yāthātathyatah' refutes the objection that the world is superimposed on Him and hence is unreal. He creates this world as it was in the previous creation. Similarly 'śāśvatībhyah samābhyah' stultifies the objection that, 'He possesses body only at the time of creation'. and answers by saying that 'He creates this world through eternity.' Thus the Upaniṣad emphatically declares the reality of the world. absolute difference between the liberated soul and the Supreme Soul, and other philosophical tenets of the Dvaita system. To quote, "the reality of creation is affirmed squarely in 'yāthātathyato arthān vyadadhāt śāśvatībhyah samābhyah' (verse 8) which the advaitin struggles hard to escape."35

Not only Madhva, but even some of Sankara's own followers and well known modern scholars have pointed out this very concept of the reality of the world. For example : Rāmacandra Paṇḍit says :

स्वयंरूपो ब्रह्मरूपो यथास्वरूपं तेन तेन रूपेण अर्थान् पदार्थान् भोग्य-विषयान् शर्वतत्त्वस्य: समाध्य: । तादृशे हि कर्तुर्हि । अनन्तवर्षोप-भोगाय व्यदधात् स्वयमेव कर्तवान् ॥36

Anantācarya states : याथातथ्यतो यथातथाभावो याथा-तध्यं येन तेन यथार्थस्वरूपानर्थान् पदार्थान् व्यदधात् विदधाति॥37

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

101

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan states : “Self-existent has duly distributed through endless years the objects according to their natures.”38

Dr. E. Roar says : “He distributed according to their nature and things for everlasting year(s)”38

Shri Aurobindo interprets : “The self-existent has ordered objects perfectly according to their nature from years sempiternal”.40

R. E. Hume represents : “Appropriately he distributed objects (artha) through eternal years.”41

Thus, these opinions point to the reality of the world in a true sense. But how is it that Saṅkara has ignored this which is so real and evident? It has been discussed how Saṅkara has misinterpreted the aspect of the reality of the world etc, and we have seen. how it has been disproved even by his own followers.42

On the other hand, Madhva has substantiated the edification of this mantra in an unassailable way, in terms. of the Varāṇa Purāṇa, which unfolds unequi vocally, the real import of this mantra.43

IX, X & XI MANTRAS :

It is stated in the former mantras that knowledge of the Brahman leads to the highest emancipation. Thereafter, we have six mantras in two triplets. In the first triplet, the attention is concentrated on the most essential part, that explicates the ideal way of the Highest Realization In this first triplet we have

102

Saṅkara and Madhva

an exhaustive account of a combination of Vidyā and Avidyā that constitutes the true knowledge which leads to salvation i.e., mere knowledge of Brahman is not sufficient, but denouncing of wrong knowledge too, is most essential for the attainment of sa!vation1

The mantras run :

अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति ये ऽविद्यामुपासते ।

ततो भूय इव ते तमो य उ विद्यायां रताः ॥ ९ ॥

अन्यदेवाहुःविद्यया अन्यदाहुरविद्यया ।

इति शुश्रुम धीराणां ये नस्तद्विचचक्षिरे ॥ १० ॥

विद्यां च अविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह ।

अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्यया अमृतमश्नुते ॥ ११ ॥

"They, who worship Avidyā (immersed in the wrong knowledge about the Brahman) fall into a blinding darkness; and they who worship Vidyā alone (without condemning false notions of others) fall certainly into an even greater darkness."

"(They) say, one thing (one part of liberation is achieved) with Vidyā; (and) they say, another (part of salvation is achieved) from Avidyā; thus (we) have heard from the wise or the sages who have explained it to us."

"He who knows both Vidyā and Avidyā, together (to be conducive to salvation), having crossed death, by the knowledge of Avidyā (censuring false knowledge of others); and by the knowledge of Vidyā attains to immortality."

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

103

ŚAṄKARA BHĀṢYA :

अत्र आचेन मन्त्रेण सर्वेषाम्‌परित्यागेन ज्ञाननिष्ठोक्ता प्रथमो वेदार्थः । ईशा वास्यमिदं सर्वं मा गृधः कस्य स्विद्धनमित्यज्ञानां ज्ञाननिष्ठासम्भवे कुर्वद्रेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषदिति कर्मविषदिति कर्मनिष्ठोक्ता द्वितीयो वेदार्थः । अनघोऽच निष्ठयोर्विभागो मन्त्रप्रदर्शितयोः बृहदारण्यकेऽपि प्रदर्शितः 'सो कामयत जायामे स्यात्‌' (बृ. उप. १. ४. १७) इत्यादिना अज्ञानस्य कामिनः कर्मिणः इति । 'मन एवास्य आत्मा वार्जाय' (बृ. उप. १. ४. १७) इत्यादिवचनात् अज्ञानत्वं कामित्व च कर्मनिष्ठस्य निश्चितमवगम्यते । तथा च तत्फलं सप्तासंगः (बृ. उप. १. ५. २) तेन्वात्मभावेन आत्मस्वरूपावस्थानं जायादेशणात्रयसन्न्यासेन च आत्मविदः कर्मनिष्ठाप्रातिकूल्येन आत्मस्वरूपनिष्ठैव दर्शिता 'किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयमात्मा अयं लोकः' (बृ. उप. ४. ४. २२) इत्यादिना ।

ये तु ज्ञाननिष्ठाः संन्यासिनः तेष्यः 'असुर्या नाम त' इत्यादिनाTअविद्याद्वारेण आत्मनो याथात्म्यं 'स पर्यगात्‌' इत्येतदन्तेः मन्त्रैः उपदिष्टम् । ते हि अन्राधिकारता न कामिन इति । तथा च इवेताश्वतराणां मन्त्रोपनिषदि 'अत्याश्रमिभ्यः परमं पवित्रं प्रवाच सम्यगृषिसंघजुष्टम्‌' (६. २१) इत्यादिविभज्योक्तम । ये तु कर्मिणः कर्मं कुर्वन्त एव जिजीविषवः तेष्यः इदमुच्यते 'अन्धं तम' इत्यादि ।

कथं पुनरेवमवगम्यते न तु सर्वेषामिति? उच्यते । प्रकामिनः साध्यसाधनभेदोपदर्शन् 'यस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यत' इति यदात्मैकत्वविज्ञानं तत्र केनचित् कर्मणा ज्ञानान्तरेण वा ह्यमूढः समुचिचीर्षति । इह तु समुचिच्छिषया अविद्याद्वारादिनिन्दा क्रियते । तत्र च यस्य येन समुच्चयः सम्भवति न्यायतः शासतो वा तदिहोच्यते । यदैकं वित्तं देवताविषयं

104

Sañkara and Madhva

ज्ञानं कर्मसंनिधावेवोपन्यस्तं न परमात्मज्ञानम् । 'विद्यया देवलोकः (बृ. उप. १. ५. १६) इति पृथक्‌फलश्रवणात् । तयोः ज्ञानकर्मणोः इहैकैकानुष्ठाननिन्दा समुच्चयचोदया न निन्दा परैव । एकैकस्य पृथक्‌फलश्रवणात्‌ 'विद्यया तदारोहन्ति' (शत. १०. ५. ४. १६), 'विद्यया देवलोकः' (बृ. उप. १. ५. १६), 'न तत्र दक्षिणा यन्ति' (शत. १०. ५. ४. १६), 'कर्मणा पितृलोकः' (बृ. उप. १. ५. १६) इति । न हि शास्त्रविदित किञ्चिद्‌कर्तव्यतामियात् ॥

तत्र अद्वयं तम्‌ अदर्शनात्मकं तमः प्रविशन्ति । के? ये अविद्यां विद्याया अन्यां अविद्यां, तां कर्मेत्यर्थः, कर्मणो विद्याविरोधित्वात् । तामविद्यामनिहोत्रादिलक्षणामेव केवला‌मुपासते तत्पराः सन्तो अनु-तिष्ठ‌न्तीत्यभिप्रायः । ततः तस्माद्‌न्धकारमकात्रमसो भूय इव बहुतरमेव ते तमः प्रविशन्ति । के? कर्मं हित्वा ये उ तु विद्यायामेव देवताज्ञान एव रताः अभिरताः । तत्र अवान्तरफलभेदं विद्याकर्मणांः समुच्चय-कारणमाहु, अन्यथा फलवद्‌फलवतोः संनिहितयोः अंगांगितैव जामितैव स्यादित्यर्थः ॥ ९ ॥

अन्यदेवत्यादि । अन्यत् पृथगेव विद्यया क्रियते फलमिति आहु-वंदन्ति । 'विद्यया देवलोकः' 'विद्यया तदारोहन्ति' इति श्रुतेः । अन्य-दद्‌रुहः अविद्यया कर्मणा क्रियते 'कर्मणा पितृलोकः' इति श्रुते । इत्येव शुश्रुम श्रुतवन्तो वयं धीराणां धीमतां वचनम् । ये आचार्याः नो अस्मभ्यं तत्कर्म च ज्ञानं च विचचक्षिरे व्यवस्थापयन्तः तेभ्यो‌मयमागमः पारम्पर्यात् इत्यर्थः ॥ २० ॥

यत् एवम‌तो विद्या चाविद्या च देवताज्ञानं कर्म चेत्यर्थः । यस्तद्‌देतदुभयं स‌हैकेन पुरुषेण अनुष्ठेयं वेद, त‌स्यैव समुच्चयकारण एव एकपुरुषार्थ‌सम्बन्धः कर्मणः स्यादित्युच्यते । अविद्यया कर्मणा अग्निहोत्रादिना मृत्युं स्वाभाविकं कर्मज्ञानं च मृत्यु-ज्ञानद्वाच्यमुख्यं तृतीया अतिक्रम्य विद्यया देवताज्ञान‌नेनामृतं देवतारमभावम‌नुते प्राप्त्नोति । तद्‌धि अमृतमुच्यते यद्‌देवतात्‌मगमनं ॥ ११ ॥

On the Iśāvāsyopaniṣad

105

TRANSLATION :

Here, through the medium of the first verse is taught the devotion to knowledge (jñāna-niṣṭhā) by the renunciation of all desires, and this is the sense of the hymn "whatsoever exists in this world is to be enveloped by the thought of God, and covet not any one's riches." For those ignorant persons who wish for life (and its pleasures), and are incapable of devotion to knowledge, there is taught, by the second verse, the devotion to sacrificial acts (Karma-niṣṭhā) by saying "performing sacred works, let a man desire to live a hundred years." The division of devotion into these two kinds, as shown in the above verses, is also shown in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, as "He desired. let there be a wife to me, &c."; "For an ignorant person who has desire, the sacrifices are ordained, &c."; "Mind is his soul and speech his wife." &c., (Bṛ. Up. I. 4. 17) These verses conclusively establish that ignorance and possession of desires are the necessary qualification of a person devoted to sacrificial works (Karma-niṣṭhā). So also is the result of desire shown there in Chapter I. 5. 2. as the evolution of seven sorts of conditions in which the soul dwells by identifying itself with them. Similarly, it is also shown that by renouncing the threefold desires of wife &c., the knowers of Self by opposing the tendency of absorption in action, are established in the Self : as the verse says "what shall I do with children, &c." They who are devoted to knowledge (jñāna-niṣṭhā), who are sannyāsins, are taught the evil consequences of

106

Śaṅkara and Madhva

ignorance and ignorant men, by the verses "To the

godless Āsuric regions. &c."; and they are also instru-

cted in the true nature of the Self by the verse, "He is

brilliant. all-pervading. &c." The above verses are

addressed to those persons only, and they are fit to

receive the instruction contained therein, and not to

those who have desires. So says also the 21st verse

of the last Chapter of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad:

"Atyāśramibhyah" &c., which means that instructions

contained therein, are not addressed to persons hav-

ing desires. To those who are engaged in works and

devoted to work, and who desire to live by perform-

ing works, are addressed in the following verses:

Andham tamah &c.

How again is this known that these verses Andhan-

tamah &c. are addressed only to Karma-kaṇḍins

and not to all? Because for those who have no desires,

a different end and a different means of accomplishing

it have been laid down; and this is a refutation of the

charge implied by the above question, as is shown in

the foregoing verse -"when a man knows that all

beings are even in soul, when he beholds the unity,

then there is no delusion, no grief." There is no wise

man who ever wishes to conjoin the knowledge,

of the unity of Ātmā with sacrificial works, or with

inferior knowledge. Or with anything other than

knowledge. Those who wish to make such a conjunct-

ion are the ignorant who are censured here. Herein

is taught the conjunction of those two things only,

the combination of which is possible either logically

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

or through the authority of Scriptures, (and Ātma-Jñāna and work can never be so combined.) That which is called Daivam vittam, divine wealth, i. e., the knowledge about things divine, or appertaining to the Gods is the meaning conveyed here by the word Vidyā, because there is the relationship of such knowledge of sacrificial acts and not Brahma-jñāna or the knowledge of the Supreme, for such knowledge has no relationship to karma. Moreover, the different fruit of Deva knowledge is declared in the text “By (the lower) knowledge one attains to the region of Gods : Devaloka.” In the following verse, censure is passed when a person devotes himself exclusively to one of these two, i. e., inferior knowledge or śacrifices separately, in order that one should practise both concurrently; and not that the sacrificial works or lower knowledge is reproachable per se; because the verses show later on the different fruits of each. Thus the text says, “By knowledge they reach to that state. By knowledge they attain to Devaloka. From that region one does not come back. By works one attains to the region of the Fathers.” So that nothing ordained by scriptures should be left unperformed, and thus Śāstric injunctions do not become futile.

IX. There “they enter into gloomy darkness,” viz. darkness in which nothing is visible. Who enter? Those who are devoted to Avidyā, viz., that which is not Vidyā, i. e., sacrificial works. Because work is opposed to knowledge, “Those who worship” (upā-sate), viz. who being intensely absorbed therein per-

108

Saṅkara and Madhva

form merely the Agnihotra and the like, called herein Avidyā. Tatah-from that blind darkness bhūya iva: to even greater, te tamah-darkness they enter. Who enter? Who having abandoned works are devoted to or absorbed in knowledge (vidyā) viz. in the inferior knowledge of the Gods.

The separate and different fruits produced by knowledge and works have been taught in order that both should be combined. These two do not stand to each other in the relation of principal and subordinate; for a subordinate act is never capable of producing independently any fruit. In other words, if the conjunction was not meant, then the juxtaposition of two things; one producing fruit and the other not producing any fruit, would establish between them the relation of principal and subordinate, which is not meant : the text proves the co-ordination of Karma and inferior Vidyā, the end being the conjoint effect of both.

X. By Vidyā or inferior knowledge a different (anyat) fruit is produced, for so they say (āhuh). For the Śruti declares. "by knowledge the world of the Gods; by knowledge they reach there." A different (anyat) fruit is obtained, they say, by ignorance, namely, by works. For the Śruti says : 'by works, the world of the Fathers. "Thus (iti) we have heard (śuśrumaḥ) the speech of sages possessed of wisdom (dhīraṇām) : from those teachers who have explained (vichachakṣire) to us (naḥ) these : namely works and

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

109

knowledge That is to say. that is the traditional

knowledge handed down from antiquity.

XI. Vidyām cha Avidyām cha means the inferior

knowledge of the Gods and sacrifices. He who knows

both these. i. e., who understands that one should

practise both these conjointly, obtains the result here-

in after mentioned, because he combines both to-

wards the accomplishment of one desired object. Such

a person. by sacrifices like Agnihotra &c., called

Avidyā. having crossed or overcome death (mrtyuh)

that is to say, having overcome all natural works and

knowledge. both being connoted by the term (mrtyuh),

by knowledge, i. e.. by knowledge of Gods enjoys or

attains Immortality, i. e.. the idea of one being a

Deity. That is called Immortality when one reaches

a state in which one feels oneself identical with

Divinity.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

अन्यथोपासका ये तु तमोऽन्धं यान्त्यसंशयम् । ततोऽधिकं च

व्यक्तं यान्ति तेषामनिदका: । तस्माद्याथातथ्यरूपं तु नारायण-

नामयम् । अयथार्थस्य निन्दा च ॥९॥१०॥ ये विद्वु: सह सज्जनै: ।

ते निन्दया अयथार्थस्य दुःखाज्ञानादिरूपतिण: । दुःखाज्ञानादिसन्तीर्णा:

सुखज्ञानादिरूपतिण: । यथार्थस्य परिज्ञानात् सुखज्ञानादिरूपतां यान्ति

॥ ९९ ॥

TRANSLATION :

These mantras are thus explained in the Kūrma

Purāṇa : “Undoubtedly, the worshippers of other dei-

ties than Viṣṇu, go to blinding darkness, but undoubt-

edly, to greater darkness they go who do not censure

and condemn such persons (and fail to try to correct

their mistakes). Therefore those. who know the Lord

Nārāyaṇa in his true form as Free from all evils and

who also condemn the worshippers of false deities

are truly the good people. Such persons by condemning the falsehood, whose nature is grief and ignor-

ance. cross over grief and ignorance, and. by knowing

the truth whose nature is joy and knowledge, attain

such joy and knowledge.

CRITICAL NOTE :

Saṅkara in the introduction to the commentary

on this triplet, hints about the distinction between

Jñāna-niṣṭhā and Karma-niṣṭhā. He frankly, says

that, jñāna-niṣṭhā is the teaching of the first mantra of

this Upaniṣad; karma-niṣṭhā is the teaching of the

second mantra for the ignorant ones - and these two

are incompatible. He condemns the latter, and appr-

oves of the former.

At this juncture, any reader does not hesitate to

ask- 'Why should one (karma-niṣṭhā) be condemned,

and another (jñāna-niṣṭhā) be approved ? Does the

Upaniṣad say so ?' When the Upaniṣad gives an acco-

unt of two aspects (jñāna-niṣṭhā and karma-niṣṭhā),

it does not mean that these two are opposed to each

other; those two must be considered as valid, and a

sort of close relationship between the two, must be

there. Moreover. the upaniṣadic authorities like 'so

akāmāyata jāyā me syāt; mana evāsyātmā vāgjāyā"

(Br. Up. I. 4 17), which are quoted by Saṅkara to up-

On the Iśāvāsyopanisad

111

hold the distinction between knowledge and action do not support Saṅkara's view, but deal with the creation of the world 2 They give no account of karma as opposed to knowledge.

Moreover, “kim prajayā karisyāmo yeṣām no'yam lokah (Bṛ. Up. 4.4. 22) deals with the status of unreleased souls (about to be released) and does not declare jñāna-niṣṭhā alone. And, if it is agreed that the above quoted upaniṣadic passage (4.4. 22) is referred to the enlightened persons only; then a question arises, how can an advaita jñānin see anything in this world as everything is unreal to an enlightened one ?

Thus we see in the upaniṣadic passages quoted by Saṅkara that there is no opposition between karma and jñāna. Whatever the Upaniṣad or the Veda enjoins must not be discarded. And Saṅkara who holds absolute opposition between karma and jñāna, agrees to this sanctity of the śrutis and hence he says :- “na hi śāstravihitam kiñcidakartavyatāmiyāt”. The direct corollary is as both karma and jñāna are enjoined in the Upaniṣad they cannot be mutually incompatible as Saṅkara thinks.

Hence it is clear that Saṅkara's conception of distinction between knowledge and action is not maintained properly even by himself; and his view is not supported by upaniṣadic statements, he himself has quoted in his commentary.

Saṅkara introduces : “Ye tu karminaḥ karmaniṣṭhāḥ karma kurvanta eva jijīviṣavah. tebhyah idamuchyate

112

Saṅkara and Madhva

andham-tama ityādi". This evidently means that according to Saṅkara these three mantras are addressed to an ignorant one who has been referred to in the second mantra of this Upaniṣad. But in fact, this view contradicts the upaniṣadic thought, which here declares the way of attaining salvation, of the knower of Brahman. Because, these mantras are referred to an aparokṣajñānin who is eligible to get liberation. M. R. Desai remarks : "The six verses that follow, tell how to attain and maintain the idea presented in the last verse".3 If the opponent's view is accepted, then it tends to mean that even an ignorant one can get liberation. Thus Saṅkara's introductory remarks are not only not clear but also not justified by the context.

Thus, since these mantras are recalling the path leading to Mokṣa, the very words ‘vidyā’ and ‘avidyā’ should be considered in consonance with the attainment of the highest goal i.e. liberation.

But on the contrary, Saṅkara takes ‘vidyā’ as ‘knowledge of the gods’, and proceeds to say that by knowledge of the gods, one gets immortality. This view is not only against the tenets regarding the attainment of Immortality, but even breaks the continuity of the flow of the Upaniṣadic thought starting from the fourth mantra, the knowledge of the real and undifferentiated auspicious qualities of the Supreme Being, like ‘Fearless’, ‘All-pervasive’, ‘Omniscient’, ‘Omnipotent’ etc. as being the sole cause of salvation. When the case is thus, the word ‘vidyā’ should mean the

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

113

'knowledge of Brahman', and not the 'knowledge of inferior deities', which never results in immortality.

On the other hand, even if the meaning of 'vidyā' as 'knowledge of the gods' is granted, then it would mean that by the knowledge of (inferior) gods one gets liberation.4 Then, why should one aspire at all to obtain the knowledge of Brahman?

A step going further. Saṅkara's rendering 'by knowledge of the deities one attains immortality or oneness with the gods', betrays an idea of duality even at the highest level, that there are two states of immortality, one is oneness with the gods, and the other, oneness with the Supreme Self.5

It is open to answer that -for the advaitin there is nothing other than Brahman at the highest level. And so the above mentioned view is self-contradictory. Moreover, though Indra, Varuṇa etc. are called immortal; yet they are different from the Supreme Self. It tends thus to the concept of duality. Thus consideration of 'two states of immortality' breaks the idea of Saṅkara himself. Saṅkara instead of defending his own theory of identity lands into the theory of duality.

Thus these views point out that 'devatājñāna' as the meaning of 'vidyā' is logically untenable. Not only this, his way of interpretation of 'vidyā' is not followed by his own followers. For, Uvata says :

विद्यया ब्रह्मपरिज्ञानन अमृतत्वं मोक्षमइनुते प्राप्नोति

Saṅkarānanda considers : आत्मज्ञानोत्पादेन अतिक्रम्य विद्या

114

Saṅkara and Madhva

अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति साक्षात्कारेण अमृतं ब्रह्मात्मत्वमहंते व्याप्तनोति स एव भवति इत्यर्थः:॥7

Then, turning towards Saṅkara's interpretation of ‘avidyā’ which is meant as ‘desire-prompted rituals’ that leads to pitṛloka. we find that it vitiates the way of crossing the death denoted by the Upaniṣad. Because : 1) In the eleventh mantra it is emphatically declared that by ‘avidyā’ one crosses death, (but not the attainment of pitṛloka). Are pitṛloka-prāpti and mrtyutaraṇa the same? No. one cannot cross death by attaining pitṛloka. After the enjoyment of one's fulfilment. one has to return to this mundane world.8

No doubt. it is said in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad that karma leads to pitṛloka. (karmaṇā pitṛlokah vidyayā devolokah .. 1.5.16) and ‘vidyā’ leads to the world of the gods. But therein, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is not dealing with the attainment of the Highest Truth. Therefore the passage from the Bṛha-dāraṇyaka Upaniṣad quoted by Saṅkara does not support him.

Moreover. are the fruits of Vidyā and Avidyā real? If unreal, there is no necessity of attaining those fruits. And how does Saṅkara show the distinction between Vidyā and Avidyā which is unreal. Then, it only indicates that. the teachers do not teach the aspirant the right way to the truth.

If Saṅkara sees an opposition between karma and jñāna, the Upaniṣad itself should declare the same. But referring to the fruits of Vidyā and Avidyā

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

as declared in the eleventh mantra it is obvious to

conclude that action and knowledge are not oppos-

ed. Karma also gives rise to the knowledge of Brah-

man. The authoritative statements like “Tasyai tapo

damah karmeti pratiṣṭhā” (Kena, Up.IV. 8), “Tametaṁ

vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇā vividiṣanti, yajñena dānena

tapasā anāśakena, evameva viditvā muṇirbhavati” (Br.

Up. IV. 4. 22). Āimavidyā “tapo-mūlam” (Svet. Up.

I. 16) declare the same thing.9 Śaṅkara himself, in

the tenth and eleventh mantras is willing to see the

close relationship between karma and jñāna.10

Śaṅkara, who maintains firstly the opposition bet-

ween action and knowledge, accepts their close rela-

tionship in the commentary on the 10th and 11th

mantras. It seems that Śaṅkara himself is shaky in

expounding the real message of this triplet.

Swami Chinmayananda writes: “Also the mean-

ing that ‘by karma one would reach Pitṛloka and

by Upāsanā of the devatā, one would attain the Deva-

loka’. is not quite an appropriate theme in the Upan-

iṣads, as these topics have been already exhausted in

the earlier part of the Veda-text book, in its Karma-

kāṇḍa portions. At the same time, we cannot also

emphatically say that these topics are totally absent

in the Upaniṣads.11”

In brief, the critical remarks of Śaṅkara’s inter-

pretation of this triplet can be surmised as: “It hardly

needs to be argued that Śaṅkara inflicts his own ideas,

theories, and bias on the upaniṣad and the theory is

116

Saṅkara and Madhva

is hardly consistent and fails to bring out the meaning

in the mind of the sage. Ninth verse has confused al-

most all including Saṅkara. He feels that Vidyā cannot

lead to darkness. He therefore distorts the meaning of

the word Avidyā in the context. The meaning given

by him are ceremonial Piety-‘agnihotrādilakṣaṇāmeva’

and Vidyā as knowledge of the deities-‘devatājñāna’.

The real reference seems to be that both blind work

not leading to the knowledge and more knowledge

not leading to work and higher concentration are bad.

In the eleventh mantra Saṅkara just fails to explain

the purport. Here his exposition is weak. See ‘vid-

yāṁ cāvidyāṁ ca devatājñānaṁ karma anuṣṭheyam

etc.”12

Besides, Vedānta Deśika13 and other modern

scholars like Swami Chinmayananda14 explain the

word ‘avidyā’ as the performance of the karmas. not

addicted to their fruits therefrom which leads to the

knowledge of Brahman. This view also contradicts

the very teaching of ‘avidyayā mrtyum tīrtvā’. No

scriptural authoirty supports the view that karma

directly leads to liberation. The upaniṣadic authority

declares : “Na karmanā na prajayā dhanena tyāgena-

ike amrtatvamānasśuh”.15 Thus the meaning of ‘avi-

dyā’ as ‘works without desire for fruits’ is not correct

as it does not fulfil the purport of this mantra.

Madhva has explained this triplet by quoting the

statement from the Kūrma Purāṇa and not in his own

words, lest one may ask for the sources of Madhva’s

impetus and authoritative clarifications. The Kūrma

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

Purāṇa gives an exhaustive account of the teachings

of this triplet in its lawful and unabated tenets :

According to Madhva, the word ‘Avidyā’ is under-

stood as ‘wrong knowledge (ayathārthajñāna) and

‘Vidyā’ as ‘true knowledge (of the Brahman)’ (yathār-

thajñāna).

In more detail, it is to explicate that, the negative

particle ‘a’ of ‘Avidyā’ has the force of denoting some-

thing other than the word as when ‘a’ is added in a

word like ‘abrāhmaṇa’, it means. a man other than

a brahmin. a kṣatriya Therefore it must be under-

stood here that, the negative particle ‘a’ is used in

the sense of ‘non’, but not in the sense of ‘not’. Thus

‘avidyā’ means ‘false knowledge’ or ‘not worth one’s

knowledge’.,2 and not ‘karma as other explicators

have understood.

Thus the sense of the ninth mantra is: “Certainly

they who are the worshippers of the Lord in a way

other than the true one, go into a blinding darkness.

Such people are called the worshippers of avidyā. They

who are immersed only in the knowledge of the Brah-

man go to an even greater darkness, undoubtedly.,

M. R. Desai seems to uphold Madhva’s explana-

tion as below : “The atharva (XI. 8. 23) is very expli-

cit as to the true meaning of Vidyā and Avidyā. It

runs :

विद्यां च वा विद्यामच यच्चान्तमयुपदेशयम् ।

शरीर ब्रह्म प्राविशदृक् सामाथो यजु: ॥

“Vidyā. Avidyā or any other piece worthy of

of advice, all that has entered the body in the form

of Ṛk, Sāma Yaju or Wisdom.’

118

Sankara and Madhva

"This verse tells us the nature of knowledge contained in the Vedas whether the Ṛk, Sāma, or Yaju.

Here Avidyā is sandwiched between Vidyā and worthy advice. It is shown that avidyā in some respects is on par with Vidyā and advice. The commonality between Vidyā and Avidyā is 'upadeśyam. worthy advice'. It is thus definite that Avidyā too, is knowledge of a particular type. This lends support to the etymological meaning of the word avidyā. Avidyā was never meant to be ignorance. The meaning of Avidyā is not. Not-Vidyā but non-vidyā. According to the ancient, only soul knowledge came to mean as knowledge worth knowing and Vidyā acquired this secondary meaning; and all other knowledge not, worth knowing from the soul point of view was termed as avidyā."18

More perspicuously it is pointed out by both S. K. Belvalkar and R. D. Ranade : "To our mind, it appears that Avidyā and Vidyā have here almost the same meanings which the words 'doxa' and 'episteme' had in Greek thought, 'false knowledge', and 'true knowledge', the latter being entitled to the dignity of knowledge proper. When we understood the words Avidyā and Vidyā in these senses, it follows that those who seek the path of false knowledge necessarily enter into blind darkness; but those who betake themselves to right knowledge's sake, that is those who pride themselves on their possession of right knowledge go into a greater darkness still.19

Thus avidyā should mean here as 'false knowledge'20 and 'Vidyā' as 'true knowledge' of the Brahman.

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

119

Then in the tenth mantra different fruits of the

same goal, attained by 'Vidyā and Avidyā are suggest-

ed; and the same subject matter is elucidated in detail

in the next mantra : "One who knows Lord Nārāyaṇa

in His true form as free from all evils, and also who

condemns the wrong knowledge or the worshippers

of the God other than Lord Viṣṇu becomes liberated.

Thus by condemning falsehood, one crosses death

which is in the form of grief and ignorance, and by

knowing the true nature of the Supreme Self attains

to immortality which is in the form of joy and know-

ledge."

Thus there are two part in the processs of salva-

tion. One is 'aniṣṭanivrtti' which can be attained by

censuring the wrong knowledge. And the second is

'istaprāpti', that can be attained by the true knowledge

of the Brahman. It becomes clear that both the true

knowledge of the Lord Viṣṇu and the denouncing of

the false knowledge are very essential to get liberation.

Here Swami Chinmayananda objects : "Shri

Madhvacharya has a strange meaning for these terms.

According to him in the tenth mantra, 'Cultivation of

right knowledge of Brahman' is Vidyā. and 'wrong

notions of Brahman' is Avidyā. Thereafter he goes

to say that those who having a right knowledge do

not condemn the 'wrong notions' stand to suffer

more than those who entertain the 'wrong notions' of

Brahman and in 10th and 11th mantras, to him,

Avidyā is 'condemnation of wrong notions'. This is

queerin deed.' 21

120

Sankara and Madhva

This view of Swami Chinmayananda is not correct. It seems, he has not understood correctly the implication of Madhva's commentary. Because the change shown by Madhva in his interpretation of avid-yā in this triplet is purely dependent upon the different fruits suggested in the ninth and eleventh mantras. To explain, in the ninth mantra, attainment or the entrance into the regions of worse blind darkness is ordained to those who are immersed in false knowledge (avidyā). But the latter two mantras speak of the attainment of Mokṣa. If it is said that Mokṣa can be attained by false knowledge, then contextual subject-matter becomes vexed. Therefore to remove this difficulty the word ‘avidyā’ in the latter two mantras, in accordance with the attainment of liberation, is understood as ‘censuring of false knowledge by which aniṣṭanivṛtti is effected. Here it is said that the denouncement of false knowledge should be accounted by applying jahallakṣaṇā for avidyā.22 Thus in Madhva's interpretation, we find no obstructive links. Each and every word is significant, if one cares to understand the context.

It is noteworthy here, to represent the opinion of Anantācārya, a follower of Advaita, as he suggests an alternative meaning of this mantra that veers to Madhva's interpretation : अत्रैव योजनां-ये अविद्यामन्यथा-ज्ञानमुपासते तेऽन्धं तमो नाम नरकं प्रविशन्ति । ‘असन्नेव स भवति, असदृक्प्रति वेद वेदिं’ ति श्रुते: । अथ योजनां विद्यायामु आत्म-याथात्थ्यज्ञान एव रतां न तु अन्धं तम साधनानि अन्यथाज्ञाननिर्- दने तत्तो अन्यथाज्ञानं प्राप्य तमस: सकाशाद्भूय इव बहुतरमेवान्धं तम: प्रविशन्तीति ।23

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

"The sense of this verse, those who are devoted to Avidyā i. e. false knowledge about the Spirit enter the hell called Andham tamas. Thus Śruti says 'who knoweth the Brahman to be asat, he becomes as if asat.' Similarly, those who are selfishly engaged in the acquisition of the knowledge of the true nature of the Spirit (vidyā), and do not censure the false knowledge of the Spirit, by which people fall into a state of Andhamtamah, fall, on this very account, into deeper darkness than that in which those enter who have not the true knowledge of Spirit. (In other words, this explanation shows that selfish seekers of Spiritual knowledge miss their aim. Not only should a man himself acquire spiritual knowledge but it is his duty to put right, those who entertain false notions about the Spirit.)"24

Thus "He, Madhva enunciates the great altruistic doctrine, so gloriously illustrated in the lives of all great teachers, that great responsibility rests with him who knows. He is bound to teach others in order to dispel the ignorance of the world; otherwise his lot is even worse than those of the ignorant."25

In fine, Madhva alone, has brought the real import of this triplet by clearly chalking out the twofold path of salvation, the demolition of false knowledge and the pursuit of true knowledge, together. A mere pursuit of higher knowledge might imply a selfish pre-occupation with liberation which might very well plunge the seeker into a greater darkness precise-

122

Sankara and Madhva

ly, because he works under a spiritual vanity. By trying to demolish false knowledge, he not only clears the hidden clouds of his own ignorance, but that of others also and performs lokasamgraha which the Gita so emphatically enjoins on even a 'brahmabhūta'.

On the Iśāvāsyopanisad

123

XII, XIII, & XIV MANTRAS :

In the previous triplet, it has already been said that Vidyā a nd Avidyā are not mutually opposite but complementary to each other on the path of salvation. The mantras 12 13 and 14 form another triplet in which a similar idea is being described, using another set of words ‘Sambhūti’ and ‘Asambhūti’ to represent the supremacy of the Lord in all respects. And it is taught here that by knowing Him as being possesed of all auspicious, undifferentiated and imperishable qualities, one gets emancipation. Those three mantras run as :

अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते ।

तत्तो भूय इव ते तमो य उ सम्भूत्यां रताः ॥ १९ १॥

अन्यदेवाहुः सम्भवादन्यदाहुरसम्भवात् ।

इति शुश्रुम धीराणां ये नस्तद्विचचक्षिरे ॥ १२ ॥

सम्भूति च विनाश च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह ।

विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वा सम्भूत्याऽमृतमश्नुते ॥ १३ ॥

“Those who worship the Lord as Destroyer only (of the universe), enter into a blinding darkness; and those who worship Him as Creator alone, enter undoubtedly even a greater picty hell.”

“They say, by knowing Him as Creator, one part (of liberation) is gained; and by knowing Him as Destroyer, another part (of liberation) is attained. Thus we have heard from the sages who expressed it to us.”

124

Saṅkara and Madhva

"He who knows Him both as Creator and as Destroyer, having crossed death by knowing Him as Destroyer2, gains salvation by knowing the Lord as Creator (also)."

SAṄKARA BHĀṢYA

अधुना व्याकृताव्याकृतोपासनयोः समुच्चिच्छङ्कया प्रत्येकं निर्निदेश्यते । अनधं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽसम्भूतिम्, असम्भवनं सम्भूति: सा यस्य कार्यस्य सा सम्भूतिस्तस्याऽन्याडसम्भूतिः प्रकृतिः कारणमविद्याऽऽद्यै—कृतास्या, ताम् असम्भूतिमच्याकृताध्यां प्रकृतौ कारणमविद्यां कामकर्म—बीजभूतामदर्शानात्मकामुपासते ये ते तदनुरूपमेवाऽऽनु तमो अदर्शानात्मकं प्रविशान्ति । ततस्तस्मादपि भूयो बहुनाऽऽरमिव तमः प्रविशन्ति य उ सम्भूत्यां कार्यब्रह्मणि हिरण्यगर्भाख्ये रताः ॥ १२ ॥

'अधुनोभयोरुपासनयोः समुच्चयकाऽरणमद्यवयवफलबुद्धेमा'नन्य-देवेति ॥ अन्यदेव पृथगेव आहुः फलं सम्भवात् सम्भूते। कार्यब्रह्मो-पासनात् अनिमादिदोषैरव्यलक्षण व्याकृतावन्त इत्यर्थः । तथा चाऽऽन्यदा-हुरसम्भवादसम्भूत्यऽऽकृतात् अव्याकृतोपासनात् यदुक्तम् "अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति" इति" प्रकृतिलय इति च पौराणिकैः स्म्यते । इत्येवं शुश्रुम धीराणां वचनं ये नस्तद्विदचक्षिरे व्याकृताऽव्याकृतोपासनफलं व्याख्यातवन्त इत्यर्थः ॥ १३ ॥

यत् एवचत् समुच्चयः सम्भूति-रसम्भूत्युपासनयोरुक्त एवक पुरुषार्थत्वात् चेत्याह सम्भूति च विनाशं च । यः तद् वेद उभयं सह, विनाशन विनाशो धर्मो यस्मात् कायंस्य स तेन धर्मिणा अमेदेन उच्यते—विनाश इति । तेन तदुपासनेन अनैश्वर्यादिमदधर्मकामदिदोषजातं च मृत्युं तीर्त्वा, हिरण्यगर्भोपासनेन हि अनिमादिप्राप्तिः फलम् । तेन अनैश्वर्यादिमृत्युमतीत्य असम्भूत्या अव्याकृतोपासनथाऽऽवृतं प्रकृति-लयलक्षणम् शरणुते । 'सम्भूति च विनाशं च' इ:यन्न अवर्णलोभेन निर्देशो दृष्टव्य । प्रकृतिलयफलश्रुत्यनुरोधात् ॥ १४ ॥

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

125

TRANSLATION :

XII “Now desirous of teaching the collective

and conjoint worship of the manifest and the unmani-

fest. the text censures the exclusive worship of each.

They enter into blind darkness who worship Asam-

bhūti. The creation is called sambhūti; that of which

the effect is cretion is called Sambhūti; that which is

not Sambhūti is called Asambhūti, viz.. nature, cause,

ignorance, called the unmanifest.. Those who wor-

ship her, the great unborn. called the unmanifest,

the Nature. the Cause. the Ignorance. the Seed of des-

ire and action. the Invisible, they enter into a gloomy

darkness appropriate thereto and into a greater dark-

ness than that enter they who are devoted to God in

nature (Kāryabrahmā) called the Hiranyagarbha.

XIII. “The Śruti now mentions the different or

partial result of the worship of each separately, thus

showing the reason for worshipping them both conjo-

intly They say (āhuh) the fruit is verily different of

worshipping the Brahman in its effects. i. e. they

have explained that the fruit of such devotion is the

attainment of psychic powers, called animā, &c. So

also they say the result is different if one worships the

Unmanifest, for the authors of the purāṇas, say that

by such worship, one enters the state of prakṛti-laya

or absorption into nature—the state of blind darkness

mentioned in text. Thus have we heard from the sages

the different fruits of the worship of Avyākṛta and

Vyākṛta, from those who have explained it to us.

126

Saṅkara and Madhva

XIV. "Because this is so, therefore it is reason-

able that the worship of Vyākṛta and Avyākṛta should

be combined in one person, as then only does it

lead to the proper end of man. Therefore says the

text. "He who knows both together the created nature

and destruction. &c." "By destruction"-by that whose

products have the attribute of being subject to destr-

uction; here by a figure of rhetoric, the attribute sta-

nds for the thing possessing the attribute. By the

worship of such destruction having crossed over

death, viz., imbecility, and vice produced from sins

of lust and the like; he obtains the fruit of possessing

psychic power like aṇimā &c. by worshipping Hiraṇ-

yagarbha. Thus having transcended Death in the

shape of want of power. &c., he, by worshipping the

Asambhūti or the Unmanifest, enjoys Immortality by

being dissolved into nature (prakṛti-laya). In the

text, Sambhūtim cha vināśam. &c.. the negative parti-

cal अ should be supplied. i. e.. the text should read

thus : Asambhūtim cha vināśām, &c. Because the

fruit Asambhūtyā amṛtamśnute, he attains Immortal-

ity through Asambhūti, shows that vināśa refers to

Sambhūti."

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

एवं विशिष्टकर्त्तृकं नाशं गोकुर्वन्ति ये हरेः । तेऽपि याथितं तम-

घोरं तथा सहारकर्त्तृंताम् । नाशंगिकुर्वन्ति तेऽप्येवं तस्मात् सर्वे-

त्मकं । सर्वकर्त्तीरमितांशोऽं सर्वसंहारकारकं ॥ १२॥ १३ ॥ यो वेद

संहृतिज्ञानाद् वेहब-धाद्धिमुच्यते । सुखज्ञानादिकलत्रुज्ञानात् तन्व्य चिंतमा-

व्रजेत् । सर्वदोषविनिर्मुंस्तं गुणरूपं जनार्दनं । जानीयात्न गुणानां

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣād

127

च भागहार्नि प्रकल्पयेत् । न मुक्तानामपि हरे: साम्यं विष्णोरभिन्न-

ताम् । न वै प्रचिन्तयेत्स्मात् ब्रह्मादे: साम्यमेव वा । मानुषादि-

विरुद्धान्तं तारतम्यं त्रिमुक्तिगम् । तत्‍तो विष्णो: परोत्कर्षं

सम्यग्ज्ञात्वा विमुच्यत इति कौमः ॥ ९४ ॥

TRANSLATION :

(Quotation from the Kūrma Purāṇa continued)

"Similarly, those also, who do not acknowledge that Hari is the Creator, go to deep darkness, and so also those who do not acknowledge Him as the Destroyer. Therefore those, who thus know the Lord as possessing all qualities, as the Creator of all, as the Lord of Lords, as the Destroyer of all, become freed from the bonds of embodied existence through their knowledge that the Lord is the Destroyer; and by the knowledge that He is the Creator of all joy and knowledge, &c. get verily joy and knowledge. Let one know that the Lord, the sifter of men, is eternally free from all faults and full of all auspicious qualities; and let him not divide or take away any of His attributes, nor let him imagine that the released souls can ever become equal to Hari, or that they become identical with Viṣṇu. Nor, similarly, should he imagine that a freed soul can become equal to Brahmā and the rest. Let one know that, even among the released souls, from men upto Brahmā there is difference between them, and that Viṣṇu is the highest of all beings (whether they be bound or released souls) for only by such complete knowledge, is there mukti."

128

Sañkara and Mādhva

CRITICAL NOTE :

Sañkara, though very modest in his style of interpretation, yet mistakes the root-meanings of upaniṣadic terms, and their relation too. His explanation of Asambhūti and Sambhūti produces no significant concepts: He takes ‘Asambhūti’ as avyākrtāvidyā -undifferentiated world by the name of ‘Avyā’ . And ‘Sambhūti’ is understood by him as ‘Kāryabrahmā’ called ‘Hiraṇyagarbha (vyākṛta)’. Here one may ask him - whether these two (avyākṛta and vyākṛta) are real. If they are, Sañkara should agree the reality of the world. Therefore, he must assert that those are unreal. If they are unreal, what then is the necessity of distinguishing their nature in the 12th mantra and their respective fruits in the 14th mantra? And similarly, if unreal, why would the Upaniṣad censure the exclusive worship of each? And why should they (Sambhūti and Asambhūti) be meditated or worshipped collectively ?

Sañkara has no answer to any of the questions raised above. Therefore, one can obviously say that the Upaniṣad is not in agreement with Sañkara’s far fetched interpretation.

Another surprising point that is to be considered in Sañkara’s interpretation of the 14th mantra, is the omission of the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘Sambhūti’. He wants to say that actually ‘a’ is dropped while reading ‘Sambhūtiñca vināśañca’; therefore ‘a’ should be prefixed to ‘Sambhūti’ i.e. the text should read-‘Asa

On the Īśāvāsyopanīṣad

129

mbhūtiñca Vināśañca....etc'; it is because. the fruit i. e.

immortality can be attained by 'Asambhūti'2. M. R.

Desai remarks : "He admits that asambhūti. asambh-

ava and vināśam are synonyms and that sambhūti

and sambhava mean the same. He explains asambh-

ūti as prakṛti and sambhūti and sambhava as kāryabr-

ahma; but in verse no. 14, he explains 'vinasam as

kāryabrahma. He has already given that as the syno-

nym of sambhūti or sambhava. In the 14th verse,

both sambhūti and vināśa have come together. Now

he has placed himself on the horns of a dilemma. He

must admit that the meaning already given by him is

wrong or that given now is wrong. To admit either

is to impale his prestige and undermine his stand.

Instead he impales the word. he dictates sambhūti is

to be taken as asambhūti. This stand goes against

all logic. His wringing out is audacious but absurd."3

Swami Chinmayananda similarly has pointed out

"Says Sañkara - 'Read the letter' A' before each of

the words. Sambhūti and Vināśa; and take that letter

'A` denoting negation, as having been found dropped

in the original . . . permissible by the Vedic grammar

(Chandām)! This is again an instance where philos-

opher enters into unproductive arguments.'"4

It must be said here, being fair to Sañkara. that

he does not want us to prefix 'A' to both Sambhūti

and Vināśa. as the learned Swami thinks. He wants

to prefix 'A' before Sambhūti only.

Similarly, if we compare the nature of the immor-

tality taught in the previous triplet as understood by

130

Sañkara and Madhva

Sañkara, with what he understands under this partic-

ular triplet, we find a lot of difference : There. he

considers 'immortality' as 'attainment of Devaloka

which is regarded as 'not identity with Brahman'. But

in this triplet, 'immortality' is understood by him as

'prakṛtilaya-lakṣaṇam', or of the nature of the disso-

lution of prakṛti. It is said by Sañkara's followers

that the attainment of the nature of Prakṛti-laya is

the highest fruit (i. e. oneness with Brahman).5 But,

why does Sañkara show the difference between these

two ? Are they not, the fruits taught in both triplets,

one and the same? No upaniṣad ever declares differ-

ent kinds of immortality into successive breaths !

Thus in a nutshell, Sañkara's attempt to make

out a case of 'immortality' within the framework of

his 'Brahmaiva satyam' remains and must for ever

remain unsuccessful and unconvincing. It is not an

exaggeration to say that Sañkara's far-fetched impo-

sition to the advaita theory is a wilful distortion of

the Upaniṣad.

Madhva continues his quotation from the Kūrma

Purāṇa as a commentary on this triplet, which has

been quoted for the former triplet. It gives an elab-

orate description of the mantras in their true meani-

ng; and excels in its unique thought. The Kūrma purāṇa

declares : As taught in the former triplet, here also

one who does not acknowledge that Hari is the Crea-

tor. goes to pitcy darkess; so also one who does not

understand Him as Destroyer of this universe enters

an even greater darkness. Therefore one has to know

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

131

Him as possessing endless auspicious qualities, become free from the bondage of the body, by the knowledge that He is the Creator of all, blissful, omniscient etc. and get immortality. Such a released soul should not take away any of His attributes, and should not think himself as being ‘equal to Him’. Nor should he imagine that a free soul could become identical with Brahmā and the rest. He should know that there is a hierarchy of difference from men upto Brahmā, and that Viṣṇu is the highest of all beings. Then only that liberated soul enjoys his own bliss.

Moreover, it is defined that the Lord is always to be worshipped by every one according to one’s own innate merit.6 In this spirit, only the two attributes of Lord Hari (Creator and Destroyer) are understood in this triplet which are to be meditated upon by one who desires liberation. And therefore, it cannot be objected that the Supreme Being possesses only two qualities, such as those of the Creator and the Destroyer.

Madhva’s interpretation is upheld by even a few other scholars. For example :

परमेश्वर: न जगदुत्पत्त्यादिकर्ता नपि तु स्वभावतः एवोत्पद्यते अवतिष्ठते नश्यतीति आत्मानमपासते ते अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति7 । ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते, येन जातानि’ इत्यादिश्रुते: । यत् प्रयन्न्यभिसविशन्तीत्यादि श्रुतिविरुद्धत्वात् ॥7

i. e. Those who worship that God is not the Creator Preserver etc. of the world, but by nature the world is created, preserved and destroyed, enter into the

132

Sankara and Madhva

blinding darkness. For, the scripture declares : ‘From

whom all these things are produced, by whom they

live and etc. in whom they enter. and as such their

upāsanā contradicts this śruti.

B. D. Basu remarks : “God is generally meditat-

ed upon either as a terrible Being punishing all or as

a loving father rewarding all. More worship Him

through fear. a few through love. But God is not

only the Destroyer, but the Creator too !”8

Uvata takes the word ‘sambhūti’ as ‘Highest Bra-

hman as the Creator of the Universe.’9

R. E. Hume says : Becoming (Sambhūti) and

destruction (vināśa). he who this pair conjointly (sa-

ha) knows. with destruction passing over death, with

becoming wins the immortal.”10 But going a step

further. it may be asked” by whose command all this

becoming (construction) and destruction is carried

on”? It is Madhva’s interpetation. that removes the

doubt having declared that the Supreme Lord is the

sole authority of creation, destruction etc. of the thi-

ngs in this universe. And there is no difference bet-

ween His form and His attriobutes. He is svagata-

bhedavarjita, undifferentiated in His attributes.

Thus. Madhva’s interpretation decipers the hidd-

en points in the symphony of Vedantic teachings. in

its full-throated expressions in the body of the Upan-

isadic tenets. His interpretation. with the support

of the right study of the scriptures. is in consonance

with the whole scriptural authority : The Brahmas-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

133

ūtras like 'Janmādyasya yataḥ' (I. i. 2); 'Attā carāca-

ragrahanāt' (I.ii.9); Tadabhidhyānādev tu tallimgāt saḥ

(II. iii 13); 'Prakṛtaitāvattvam hi pratiṣedhati tato

bravīti ca bhūyaḥ (III. ii. 22) and Jagadvyāpāra-

rijam' (IV. iv. 17) unequivocally state that the Supre-

me Lord alone is the Creator, the Preserver and the

Destroyer and that though He takes the mukta to His

very bosom and endows him with manifold attributes,

the privilege of creation and destruction belōngs to

Him alone. While Saṅkara messes up the meanings

and distorts the delicate charm and profound dignity

of the mantras, Madhva opens up a vista of dimensi-

ons unplumbed by his renowned forbear.

XV MANTRA

The Upaniṣad having described the nature of the

Supreme Being and the way of realizing Him etc.,

now throws open the last door i.e. devotion, through

which a man of wisdom has to proceed to have a

direct vision of the Lord, through His grace. There

is no place for the objections of a pūrvapakṣin, that,

this and forecōming mantras are useless; because

knowledge of this Supreme Soul, as has been taught

so far, leads on its own to the final goal i. e. libera-

tion, and so there is no necessity to declare anything

more for the Upaniṣad. For, knowledge alone is not

a guarantee of liberation. It leads to the divine

vision and God grants His grace for the attainment of

salvation. The present mantra shows how an enligh-

tened one should pray to God for His grace, after

sākṣātkāra.1

134

Śaṅkara and Mdḥava

"Knowledge ends in meditation; culminates in constant remembrance that leads to a seeing or realization i. e. an insight into Reality, and this insight begets.devotion."2 Devotion in other words, means contemplative prayer to the Lord. Devoting oneself towards the Lord is so essential that without devotion one cannot become liberated. "Truth can be known by jñāna and effort, but not merely that The favour of God, which can be won by prayers and uhstinted devotion, is essential. Thus for a jñāni engrossed in jñāna and karma, bhakti is necessary."3

Thus, bhakti is defined as intense love towards the Supreme Lord surpassing all objects of desires, generated by the knowledge of His Supremacy; liberation is obtained only through such devotion and not otherwise.4

Therefore, a seeker on the ascending scale of emancipation, having arrived at the very threshold of salvation, prays :

हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण सत्यस्यापिहितं मुखम् ।

तत्त्वं पूषन्नपावृणु सत्यधर्माय दृष्टये ॥ १५ ॥

"O pūṣan (Nourisher or Full)! the entrance (or the face) of Truth is concealed by a golden disc. (So) unveil for thy devotee, so that I may see Thee."

SĀṄKARA-BHĀṢYA :

मानुषदेवित्तसाध्यं फलं शास्त्रलक्षणं प्रकृतितिलयान्तम् । एतावती संसारगति: । अतः परं पूर्वोंवत्तम आत्मैवाभूूदिज्ञात इति सर्वात्मभाव एवं सर्वषणासं न्यासज्ञाननिष्ठाफलम् । एवं द्विप्रकार: प्रवृत्तिलक्षणो

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

135

वेदार्थोद्धार प्रकाशितः । तत्र प्रवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य विधिप्रतिषेध-

लक्षणस्य कृत्स्नस्य प्रकाशने प्रवर्ग्यांतं ब्राह्मणमुपयुत्तम् । निवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य प्रकाशन अत ऊर्ध्वं बृहदारण्यकमुपयुक्तम् । तत्र

निषेकादिस्मशानांतं कर्म कुर्वन् जिजीविषेत् यों विद्यायाः सह अपरब्रह्म-

विषयया तदुक्तं "विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभय सह, अविद्यया मृत्युं

तीर्त्वा विद्ययाऽमृतमश्नुत" इति । तत्र केन मार्गेण अमृतत्वमश्नुत

इति ? उच्चते 'तद्यत् तत् सत्यमसो ऽऽदित्यो य एष एतस्मिन्

मण्डले पुरुषो यश्चायं दक्षिणेऽक्षणन् पुरुष:' (बृ. उ. ५. ५. २) एतदुभयं

सत्य ब्रह्म उपासीनो यथोक्तकर्मकृक्च यः सोऽन्तकाले प्राप्ते सत्यात्मा-

नमात्मनः प्राप्तिहेतुं याचते--

हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण--हिरण्मयेनऽपिहिरण्मयं ज्योतिर्‌मयंम् इत्येतत् ।

तेन पात्रेणेव ऽऽपिहितेन सत्यस्य ऽऽदित्यमण्डलस्थस्य ब्रह्मणः ऽपि-

हितं ऽऽच्छादितं मूलं द्वारम् । त्वं हे पूषण्, अपावृणु अपसारय सत्य-

धर्मीय । तव सत्यस्य उपासनात् सत्य धर्मों यस्मात् मम सोऽहं सत्य-

धर्मा, तस्मै मह्यम् । अथ वा यथाभूतस्य धर्मस्य ऽनुष्ठाने दृष्टये तव

सत्यात्मन् उपलब्धव्यो ॥ १५ ॥

TRANSLATION :

"The highest result attainable through human

objects and celestial knowledge, according to the

scriptures, culminates in absorption into nature (Pra-

krti-laya). So far extends the circuit of worldly life,

i. e. the sphere of Kārmic forces causing transmigra-

tion. Beyond that, is the sphere of the renunciation

of all desires and devotion to pure knowledge which

teaches that all that exists is Self only, as taught in a

former verse. Thus two sorts of Vedic teachings

have been described here, viz., the doctrine of work

136

Śaṅkara and Madhva

(pravṛtti) and the doctrine of renunciation (nivṛti).

This two-fold doctrine is taught in other Upaniṣad a

also, thus in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad that por­ti-

on of the Brāhmaṇa which ends with the pravargya

sacrifice is adapted to explain all the rules of positive

duty and negative virtues relating to the Vedic doctri-

ne of activity. The other portion of the Bṛhadāraṇ-

yaka is meant to teach the Vedic doctrine of cessation

of works. In the text." he who knows both know-

ledge and ignorance together" (verse 11), is taught

the knowledge of inferior Brahman appertaining to

works, beginnlng with the ceremonies to be perform-

ed at the time of birth and ending with the rites at

funeral pyre, performing which one should desire to

live for hundred years. In the above verse it is also

said that he enjoys the ambrosia of Immortality thro-

ugh knowledge. Now, in the present verse, is explai-

ned the path through which Immortality is to be enj-

oyed. Thus the Bṛhadāraṇyaka says. (V. 5. 2): "That

which is truth, that is Āditya, the Puruṣa whieh is in

that luminous orb and the Puruṣa which is in the

right eye, both are truth (Satya)." A worshipper of

Brahman who has duly performed all the various

works, when the time of death approaches, prays thus

to the soul of Truth, in order to obtain an entranc

for himself into that luminous sphere.

"Hiraṇyamaya-like as if it was golden and ful

of light, concealed or covered by such a golden screer

i. e. covered by the photosphere of light, hides th

face of truth, i. e.. the face or entrance to Brahma

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

residing in the solar orb is enveloped (apihitam) or closed by this golden screen, or photosphere. Tattvam:

O Pūṣan, remove or open (apāvṛnu). Thou that screen, for me (Satyadharmāya’) who am a worshipper of Truth by worshipping Thee. O Truth, for Truth is my religion, so that I may see Thee i. e., approach Thy Soul of Truth. The word satyadharma may mean also the establisher of the religion of Truth; in that case the verse should be translated, O Pūṣan, open Thou that door so that I may see the establisher of the religion of Truth.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

पात्रं हिरण्मयं सूर्यं मण्डलं समुदाहृतम् । विष्णोः सत्यस्य तेनैव संवदार्पितहृतं मखम् । तत्तु पूणंत्वतः पूषा विष्णुः दर्शंयति स्वयम् । सत्यधर्माय भक्ताय ॥ १५ ॥

TRANSLATION :

“The phrase, ‘by the golden disk’, means ‘by the solar orb’. The phrase, ‘of the true’, denotes ‘of Viṣṇu’. By this solar photosphere is constantly hidden in the body of the Lord. Pūṣan, the Full Lord Viṣṇu, reveals that form Himself to His devotees, called here Satya-Dharmā, the Lover of the True.”

CRITICAL NOTE :

Śaṅkara takes this mantra as a prayer of the dying man. Thereby, we meet many contradictions :

138

Śaṅkara and Madhva

1. Firstly, the meditator who prays to the Brah-

man is a jñānin. So, how is it that a jñānin who has

realized the knowledge of identity. or having realized

his identity with the Brahman, again descends to a

state of duality? Prayer is impossible without two

entities-the devotee and the object of devotion. Acc-

ording to Śaṅkara. after acknowledging Brahman as

being one with himself. there should not be any kind

of two entities like devotee and his object. There-

fore, for advaitajñānin, prayer to the Supreme Lord is

absolutely meaningless and irrelevant. But how surp-

rising it is that, Śaṅkara says here that a jñānin prays

to the Lord !

2. Secondly, Śaṅkara adds that a jñānin who

prays to the Satyatman should perform his duties.

But. how is that Śaṅkara, who has declared before

more than once, that the performance of one's duties

is meant only for ignorant persons. or to those who are

unable to know Brahman, now says a brahmajñānin

must perform his duties'? It seems, Śaṅkara is not

aware of what he has stated just before.

3. The third point suggested by Śaṅkara, that

subverts his own stand is : 'this is the prayer of the

dying man'. But in fact, this mantra cannot be a

dying man's prayer. If Śaṅkara's view is accepted it

would mean that the advaitajñānin is afraid of death !

It is very surprising to note that the aspirant, who

has crossed sorrow, delusion etc. by the spirit of the

knowledge of Brahman is afraid of mere death ! To

quote Swami Chinmayananda: "Thus as Srī Śaṅkara

On the Iśāvāsyopaniṣad

139

says: it is certainly the last prayer of the dying individual; but the individual meant here the ego-centre.

We are not to understand that it is literally the prayer of a dying old man on his death-bed. It is the

last prayer of the active spiritual seeker in his meditation seat when he. in his divine effort, is shaking off

his last vesture of ego which is lingering to veil the Self in him."5

4. Thenceforth, Śaṅkara proceeds to say that the face of the Truth (Highest Brahman) who resides

in the solar orb, is covered by the photosphere of light. Therefore, the devotee asks 'O Pūṣan, remove

this veil, so that I may see Thee.' Śaṅkara here seems to admit the theory 'Indweller-Indwelt', (antarāmi-

niyamya) which clearly shows the difference between the jīva and the Brahman. The pūrvapakṣin here may

argue that in this mantra, Saguna Brahman is invoked as the Indweller of the solar orb; and so the difference

between the jīva and the Brahman is not material.

If so, then, the pūrvapakṣin has to solve the question : Is Saguna Brahman real or unreal? If real, then

there are two real entities, and is not helpful to the advaitin to maintain his concept of advaita. If unreal,

then Saguna Brahman need not be invoked. In fact, 'praying to the Lord' is self-contradiction to any

advaitin.

5. According to Śaṅkara, in this mantra Pūṣan (God Sun)6 is prayed for, to unveil the covering of

the golden photosphere. Here Śaṅkara fails to answer

140

Śaṅkara and Madhva

the question: Is Pūṣan, who is capable of removing

the covering of Brahman, more powerful than the

Supreme Brahman? Thus Śaṅkara's interpretation

lands us into a jungle of difficulties and covers the

mantra with mystifying words.

Some of the scholars like Vedānta Deśika, have

treated the word 'satyasya' as to mean 'individual

soul'.7 True to the contextual meaning referring

'satyasya' as 'individual soul' is incorrect; because

since the eighth mantra 'sa paryagāt....', the nature of

the Supreme and method of attaining His Realm is the

object of discussion. If 'satya' is referred to as 'Jīva',

it contradicts the prakaraṇa (prakaraṇa-virodha).

the context.

Moreover the Śruti statements quoted by Vedānta

Deśika to maintain his own theory; do not give any

support t) his stand.9

Similarly 'Hiraṇmayena' in the sense of 'ignorance'9 is used nowhere in the Yajurveda10, or in the

Rgveda11, or in the upaniṣads12, as understood by

Vedānta Deśika. Like wise, the word 'satya' in the

second line of this mantra, is understood by him as

'Brahman'. No doubt, it is not incorrect. But refe-

rring the same word, to 'Jīva' in the first line is not

consistent with the latter 'satya' referred to as 'Brahman'.

All these views of Vedānta Deśika also are

misleading and unfounded.13

Madhva illustrates the smrti statement from the

Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, which runs up to 17th mantra.

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

141

that makes the import of this mantra more clear and

also removes the baseless doubts. It explains that the

meaning of ‘the golden disk’ is ‘the solar orb’. The

word ‘satya’ in the mantra indicates Lord Viṣṇu. By

this`solar photosphere the form of the Lord is const-

antly concealed. So the devotee called ‘satyadharmā’

earnestly asks for auspicious form of the Lord Viṣṇu.

Here, the meaning of the word ‘pātra’ is that

which drinks (pā) the water and saves (trā) the world.

So, ‘hiraṇmayena pātrena’ means ‘by the solar disk

which is refulgent as gold, and which saves the world

by evaporating waters and raining them back’.14

The solar photosphere is brighter because it is

indwelt by Lord Viṣṇu who is All-effulgent. The

word ‘Pūṣan’ in this mantra comes from the root

‘Puṣ’ to develop, to bring into relief, or to nourish.

Because the Supreme Brahman takes His dwelling in

the solar orb the latter is capable of evaporating the

water, and protecting the universe from danger. The

word ‘satyasya’ means, of Him who is full of Sat or

good qualities. Moreover, that devotee is called here

as ‘satyadharmā’, for he holds the satya i. e. the

Highest Truth, in his heart. (satyam brahmā hṛdaye

dhārayatīti satyadharmā), that he is a bhakta.

Thus, we find that Madhva’s commentary releases

enormous significance from each of the terms. He

is as straight and simple as ever, and he produces a

pattern of meaning free from any self-stultifying

contradictions.

142

Sankara and Madhva

XVI MANTRA

The metaphysical import of the prayer is contin-

ued and brought into a greater relief by addressing

the Supreme Brahman, in a few more telling epithets.

A few writers like C. Rajagopalachari1 consider

here that, the prayer is to the Sun God. But this

mantra makes it clear, through some strong epithets

that the Supreme Brahman, the Indweller of the Sun

God is beseeched here, and not any other deity like

the Sun himself.

पुषन्नेकर्षे यमं सूर्यं प्राजापत्यं व्यूह रश्मीन् समूह ॥

तेजो यत्ते रूपं कल्याणतमं पद्यामि, योऽसावसो

पुरुष: सोऽहमस्मि ॥ १७ ॥

"O the Full one! O the Omniscient! O the all-con-

troller ! O the One! known by the wise! O the Lord of

Prajāpati! expand my inner knowledge 'svarūpajñāna),

and illumine my outer knowledge (vrttijñāna), so

that through Your grace, I may see Thy most auspic-

ious form. The Puruṣa (the Lord) who is the Indwe-

ller of the solar photosphere (and of others) is verily

the Indweller of my life-breath."

ŚAṄKARA BHĀṢYA :

हे पूषन् जगतः पोषणात् पूषा रविः । तथा एक एव ऋषभति गच्छतीति एकर्षिः, हे एकर्षे । तथा सर्वस्य संयमनात् यमः, हे यम ।

तथा रश्मीनां प्राणानां रसानां च स्वीकरणात् सूर्यः हे सूर्यं । प्रजापतेरपरतं प्राजापत्यः हे प्राजापत्य । वपूःू विगमय रश्मीन् स्वान् ! समूह

एकीकुह । उपसंहर ते तेजः तापकं ज्योतिः । यत्ते तव रूपं कल्याण-

तमम् अत्यन्तशोभनं तत्ते तवात्मनः प्रसादात् पद्यामि । कृत्स्न

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

143

अहं न तु त्वां भृणयवत् यांचे । योऽसौ आदित्यमण्डलस्थः व्याहृतयवयवः

पुरुषः पुरुषाकारतया । पूर्णं वा अनेन प्राणबुद्ध्यात्मना जगत् समस्त-

मिति पुरुषः । पूरैः शयानाद्वा पुरुषः । सः अहं अस्मि भवामि ॥ ९६ ॥

TRANSLATION :

O Pūṣan : The Sun is so called because it supports (poṣayati) the universe.

O Ekarṣe: O One Ṛṣi -the only One that moves (ṛṣati) or goes.

O Yama! O Controller! so called because he controls (samyamanāt) all the various worlds. O Sūrya! O Attracto! her is so called because he withdraws or attracts to himself (svī-karanaṭa) all the rays, all the vital forces and fluids.

O Prājāpatya - O Son of Prajāpati ! withdraw (vyūha) i. e., withhold all Thy rays (raśmin) and diminish (samūha) i e., collect together all Thy splendour (tējas). i. e., Thy heat and light. So that I may see Thy gracious and most auspicious form. Thy most beautiful form. Verily. I do not ask this favour from Thee as a beggar or a servant. But of right, because that Puruṣa. which is in Thee is the same as I. That Being dwelling in the orb of the sun, whose limbs consist of the several Vyāhṛtis, is called Puruṣa, because it has the form of a man; or it is so called because by it in the shape of vital forces, the intellect and self has filled (pūrṇa) the whole universe; or it is so called because it dwells in the body.

144

Saṅkara and Madhva

('Puri-Śayanāt') "so 'hamasmi"- I am verily that,

I become verily that.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA :-

प्रधानज्ञानरूपत: । विशिष्टुरेक ऋषिर्विज्ञेयो यमो नियमनात् हरि: ।

सूर्य: स सूर्याग्निमयत्वात् प्रजापतय: प्रजापते: विशेषेणैव गम्यत्वात् अहं

चासावहेयवत् । अस्मि नित्यास्वित्तामानात् सर्वंजीवीवेशु सस्स्थितत: ।

स्वयं तु सर्वंजीवीवेशयो व्यक्तिरक्त: पशो हरि: । स कतुर्जानरूपत्वात्

अग्निरडङ्ग प्रणेतृत् । सत्यं ब्रहम हृदये धारयतीति सत्यधर्मा ॥१६॥

TRANSLATION :

The word 'Ekarṣe' means "O thou who art pric-

pally (eka), all knowledge and wisdom (ṛṣi)." The

word ekarṣi is thus the name of Viṣṇu. Hari is

called Yama, because he controls and punishes all.

He is the Great Judge. He is.called Sūrya because

He is the Goal of the wise (sūris). He is called

prājāpatya. because he is especially the Goal of

Hiraṇyagarbha. Prajāpati. He is cal!ed Aham.

because he is not discardable (aheya). In other

words 'Aham' means 'the Supreme'. He 'is called

'Asmi' because he dwells in all beings, and thus he is

the measure (mā) of their existence (as) (their exis-

tence or be-ness depends upon his being in them.

He is the standard of their existence). But Hari,

the Supreme Lord, however, is apart from all his

devotees (jīvas) though ensouling them all,

CRITICAL NOTE :

This mantra according to Saṅkara is the prayer

to the Sun, for, he refers all the adjectives to that

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

145

god. But he has already suggested in the previous

mantra that it is a prayer to the Indweller of the Sun

God.2 So here, Śaṅkara fails to bring out the ideas

to whom this prayer is addressed. One may ask: why

does a devotee, who has obtained the knowledge of

the identity of Himself with the Highest Brahman,

unnecessarily invoke the Sun (who is really unreal for

an advaitajñānin)? But if this mantra is meant as a

prayer to the Supreme Brahman, all the adjectives in

this mantra which appear to refer to the Sun, become

the attributes of the Supreme Self. And Śaṅkara's

rendering of those words as referring to the Sun, is

fruitless.

Another remarkable point to be noted is that

Śaṅkara speaks of the dependence of the human soul

upon the Highest Soul. He says 'by Your Grace ['

see Thy auspicious form.' It should be noted that

without the grace of the Supreme, an advaitajñānin is

not sure to attain salvation. But the whole stance is

self-annihilating: An advaitajñānin seeking for His

grace, is improper, because he has realised that he

himself is the Brahman. When He himself is Brah-

man, why should he beg of the Supreme? Whom sho-

uld he ask? Thus Śaṅkara is tossed on the dilemma

of his own device.

For a correct import of this mantra, we must go

to Madhva's interpretation. Madhva continues here,

the statement from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa that is

cited for the earlier mantra. Here, the devotee besee-

146

Sankara and Madhva

ches to expand his knowledge, which promotes him

to see His most auspicious form through His Grace.

That devotee addresses Lord Visnu by invoking five

of His attributes :

1. Pūṣan : He is called Pūṣan (comes from the

root puṣ), as He supports, nourishes the lives of all

individuals.

2. Ekarṣi : He is so called because He is Full of

Supreme knowledge (pradhānajñāna-svarūpatvāt).

The word 'ekarṣi' has two components. viz. 'eka' and

'rṣi'. The word 'eka' indicates His Supremacy. And

'rṣi' which comes from the root 'rṣ' to know.3 denotes

the knowledge of that Supreme. Therefore He is called

Full of supreme knowledge.4 The word 'pradhāna'

in the statement of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. is to show

the difference between the knowledge possessed by the

Supreme Soul and by Goddess Lakṣmī etc. in the order

of gradation. In the absence of the word 'pradhāna',

it would mean that the knowledge possessed by the

Supreme, Goddess Lakṣmī, Brahmā, Vāyu etc. is of

the same order. Therefore Srī Jaya-Tīrtha in his

commentary on the Pramāṇa Lakṣaṇa of Srī Madhva

elucidates : अनादिनित्यत्वसाम्येऽपि स्वस्ततोदौ स्वतन्त्रमोक्षज्ञानं

तदघोनत्वं लक्ष्मीज्ञानम् ॥5

Though the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman and

of Goddess Lakṣmī is interminable through eternity

and co-terminous, the knowledge of the Supreme is

entirely Independent, where as the knowledge of

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

147

Goddess Lakṣmī is dependent on the pleasure of the Lord. Thus the word ‘pradhāna’ is fully significant.

3. He is also called Yama (comes from the root ‘yam’ to control), as He controls all immovable and movable things of the whole universe.

4. He is called Sūrya, for He dwells in the Sun to illuminate him6 and for He is attained by the wise (sūri) persons.

The word ‘sūrya’ comes from the root ‘या’ to attain or to obtain (yā prāpane) and preceded by an upasarga ‘ऋ’ (or ‘स्’). Then, the affix‘क’ should be enjoined to that root. The ending vowel ‘आ’ of the root ‘या’ is dropped from the aphorism’आतो लोप इति च’ (S. Kau-

mudī. No. 2372) which says that the final ‘आ’ of a root is elided before an ārdhadhātuka affix with an augment ‘इट्’ as well as when it begins with a vowel and has an indicatory क् or ण्. (अजाद्योराधंधातुकयोः किड्डिटोः

परयोःरातो लोपः स्यात्)

Then, the aphorism ‘यस्येति च’ (S. Kaumudī. No 311 or P. S. VI. 4. 148) which states that the final अ and

अ both long and short of अ stem, are elided before a taddhita affix and before the feminine affix ई. drops the final ई of ‘सूरि’.7

सूरि+या+क (आतोऽनुपसर्गे क:) =सूरि+य (आतो लोप इटि च)+अः.

=सूर् (यस्येति च) + य + अ = सूर्यः।

This grammatical study of the word ‘sūrya’ gives out

148

Saṅkara and Madhva

the idea that, Madhva's interpretation of 'sūrya' is appropriate.

5. Lastly, in this mantra, the Lord is addressed as 'Prajāpatya'. He is so called because He is specially attained by Prajāpati.

Thereofth, the word 'raśmi' and 'tejah' convey 'svarūpajñāna' and 'vṛttijñāna' or 'bāhyajñāna' respectively, of the individual soul. It is explicated that, 'raśmi' has three letters: ra+ś+mi. The first letter 'ra' denotes 'rati' i. e. 'happiness'; second letter 'ś' indicates 'śam' or 'knowledge'; and third letter 'mi' represents 'mita' i. e. limitedness. In other words, it means that happiness and knowledge are limited for the individual soul. Therefore, that devotee asks the Lord earnestly to expand his knowledge and happiness.

This is the real meaning indicated by 'raśmi'. Similarly 'tejas' is meant as 'bāhyajñāna or vṛttijñāna'; because, vṛttijñāna is the modified form of taijasa i. e. the subtle essence of antahkarana. Thus 'tejah' should be understood as 'bāhyajñāna or vṛttijñāna'.9 In this connection B. D. Basu remarks "The raśmīn and tejas have no reference to the rays of the Sun and his heat and light rays. For no amount of enfeebling of the light and heat rays of the Sun will give one the divine vision. Therefore raśmīn is translated as 'knowledge of the self'-expansion of raśmīn means the expansion of consciousness. While the expansion of tejas means controlling the non-self getting more and more power over the forces of nature. In short, it is prayer for the expansion of one's consciousness and the growth;

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

and the purification of one's vehicles. When the raśmīn and tejas, the consciousness and the vehicles of consciousness. are fully developed. then there is the possibility of the God-Vision."9

On the whole, the Lord Brahman, who is the supporter, omniscient, all-controller, all-indweller etc, is being prayed to, for a direct vision of the Supreme Self, which leads to one's own state of experiencing the highest bliss. The ecstatic prayer of the bhakta invoking some of the prominent attributes of the Lord is for winning the Grace of the Lord, which alone paves the way for a direct vision of God and the subsequent attainment of salvation by His special grace.10

Then, the Upaniṣad, through the phrase "Yo'sā-vasau puruṣah so'hamasmi" goes to establish the concept of identity between the various propitious forms of the Supreme Spirit. This mantra shows how it is necessary for a devotee to know God in a specific form as the Indweller of Mukhya Vāyu, the highest of all jīvas. In this manner, the indwelling, controlling capacity of the Highest Brahman is declared 11

Saṅkara emphasizes here that the devotee is not begging His favour as a servant, but demands it as of right, because "that Puruṣa which is in Thee (the Sun) is the same as I." This view of Saṅkara is open to objection. The idea that, one can beg the Lord, not as a servant but with equality or identity, is too false to be convincing. In other words, what a surprise that

150

a man of wisdom who has the right to say 'He is me', begs or prays to the Lord! Such a man need never beg anybody, not even the Brahman. A dependent or a servant, indeed. has to pray to the Highest Soul to get his desire fulfilled; on the other hand, if one is not a servant, one need not beg anybody. There is an anvayavyāpti between 'begging and serving'. But Śaṅkara's view 'begging not as a servant' contaminates this anvayavyāpti, hence, his is an illegitimate stance.

Secondly, since the Upaniṣad enunciates the prayer (prārthanā-prakaraṇa), its inherent doctrines too should declare the same. But Saṅkara tries to enforce his doctrine of identity basing on "So'hamasmi". As a matter of fact, according to Saṅkara 'prayer' gives the idea of 'duality'; and "So'hamasmi" denotes the concept of 'identity', these two are absolutely opposite. Then, in what way, is it possible to visualise the relation between these two ?

Thirdly, Saṅkara thinks that, the Puruṣa who is dwelling in the orb of the Sun possesses the limbs in the form of vyāhṛtis. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati simplifies 'bhūḥ' indicates His head; 'bhuvah' denotes His arms; and 'svaḥ' signifies His feet.12 Of course, this may be accepted as it is so explained in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (V. 5. 3-4). But, for Saṅkara, who maintains 'formlessness' (nirākāratva) for Brahman, how is it possible to concede these positive ideas? 'Sākāratva' for Brahman goes against Saṅkara's

On the Iśāvāsyopaniṣad

own favourite standpoint. Therefore, his view is self

-contradictory.

Further, what is the necessity for the aspirant,

who has realized his identity with Brahman, to see

the Puruṣa, who is dwelling in the solar photosphere?

Similarly how does the advaitajñānin see the solar

photosphere which is unreal for him? Thus Śaṅkara's

interpretation is full of false positions.

According to Madhva, the meaning of this mantra

is that, the well known Person who resides in the

Prāṇa, also dwells in His devotees as aham.13 He,

the Supreme Being though resides in all, is always He

Alone, and does not become differentiated or modifi-

ed, owing to the differences of beings in whom He

dwells. That Lord is one in all beings. The Lord is

called ‘aham’ in this mantra. The word ‘aham’ in the

sentence “So'hamasmi” does not mean ‘I’ and the

sentence above given does not denote 'He is me'. But

on the other hand, ‘aham’ means ‘aheyam’, that which

cannot be discarded. And as He is known to be eter-

nally there (nityāstitāmānāt), to have eternal reality,

He is called ‘asmi’. And ‘asmi’ as Saṅkara thinks,

does not mean ‘I am’. It also can be said that ‘asmi’

is a compound of two words 'as' meaning existence

(asa bhūvi, to be), and ‘mi’ meaning knowable (mān-

māne, to know). So, ‘asmi’ also can be understood

as, He whose knowledge is ever existing and is never

obscured.

In ecstacy, one may exclaim, 'I am He'; but as a

truth, the jīva can never become Brahman.

152

Sankara and Madhva

Of the two ‘asau’ in this mantra, first one is a noun. It is the locative singular of ‘asu’ i. e. life. And the second is a pronoun. It is the nominative singular of ‘adas’ which means ‘that’ (that Person in the heart of the devotees). Meanwhile, Sankara it seems, does not consider the word ‘asau’ which occurs twice in the mantra, and hence his commentary does not bring out the purpose of this use.

One of the western scholars, R. C. Zaehner, has brought out the real import of this mantra in a beautiful manner : “God is the Father of the soul, and the soul once it is transformed into one substance with him can thus say So’ham ‘I am He’ -but this can never mean identity, since even in mokṣa, the soul is still a servant, united with God but under His feet.”14

Anantācārya here, points out “the being dwelling in the orb of the Sun and in the forms is one with the luminous being that is in my heart. The sense being that I see Thy form in this way. The purport being that the means of liberation consists in the consciousness alone of such unity.”15

Thus as Madhva points out, the inherent meaning of the phrase “So’hamasmi”, So too, in the Zoroastrain Faith, we find similar secret names of the Lord Below is an extract from Hormuzd Yasht :

“Then spake Zarathustra: Tell me then, O Pure Ahuramazda, the name which is thy greatest, best, fairest, and which is the most efficacious for prayer : thus

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

153

answered Ahurmazda-‘My first name is Ahmi : I AM

• • • • and my twentieth is’ Ahmi Yad Ahmi Mazdao

I AM THAT I AM (Avesta…. XVII, 4 & 6)

“This too was also the most secret name of God

among the Jews, as we learn from the Old Testament,

Exodus, chapter III, verses 13 and 14.

“And Moses said unto God : Behold, When I

come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto

them. The God of Your fathers hath sent me unto

you; and they shall say to me; what is his name ?

What shall I say unto them?

“And God said unto Moses : I Am That I Am

and He said : Thus, shalt thou say unto the children

of Israel-`I AM hath sent me unto you.

“Thus among the Israel also both these names

were well-known : God is called “I AM” or Ahmir of

the Pārsis. and Asmi of Madhva; and also 'I am that

I AM’, the same, word for word as ‘Ahmi yad Ahmi’

of the pārsis, and So’ham Asmi of Madhva.

“Another point which Madhva clearly brings out

is the indwelling of the Lord in Asu. Now Asu is a

word derived from ‘asa’ ‘to be’ to `breathe’. Asu

means life or Prāṇa. It is the First Begotten of God,

the Spirit. `The God dwelling in Asu is called Asura

(or Ahura of the Pārsis)- the active Saguṇa Brahman.

This Asu or Prāṇa is the Christ-principal of the Gno-

stics. These strange coincidences cannot all be acci-

dental. They prove that all prophets whether zara-

154

Śaṅkara and Madhva

thustra or Moses or Madhva, were messengers of the

Great White Lodge : and so naturally taught the same

doctrine. In fact, Dr. Speigal is of opinion that the

word Ahura (the principal name of the deity in the

Zendavesta) is identical in meaning with the word

Jahova Ahura literally would mean the Lord of Ahu

or Life or existence. The word 'ra' means 'who takes

delight in.' It is Ahu or Christ in whom the Lord

takes delight, and through whom and by indwelling in

whom, the whole universe is created. Ahu or Asu is

also the name of God, and Asura would mean 'the

living delight',16

Thus, comparing the thoughts conceived by Śaṅ-

kara and Madhva, it is obvious that the contribution

of Madhva to the exegesis of the Upaniṣad is fundam-

ental and strong as it is supported by the Brahmāṇḍa

Purāṇa also. And his opinion is consonant with

those of even the modern scholars. His interpretation

once again shows, how Madhva's insight is unerring

and how he jealously preserves the beautiful signifi-

cance of the sacred word.

XVII MANTRA

It has been declared before that the Highest

Being, the Lord Hari, is the most auspicious form,

and is the Indweller of an individual soul. But here,

a doubt arises, when that embodied one dies, his body

is reduced to ashes, then what about the Lord who is

the Indweller of that embodied soul? Does He die

with the individual soul? The present mantra removes

this doubt.1

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

155

वायुरनिलममृतमथेदं भस्मान्तं शरीरम् ।

ॐ कृतो स्मर कृतं स्मर कृतो स्मर कृतं स्मर ॥१९७॥

"The Prāṇa who is the abode of the Supreme Lord is immortal. Then, this dense body is reduced to ashes. (Though this body gets destroyed into ashes while the Prāṇa is immortal in it, then it is no wonder that the Supreme Lord, who is the support of the imperishable Vāyu, is Himself immortal.) 'O Lord, the Omniscient, the Full, the All-protector, favour me, O Hari, remember my good deeds (like meditation) and show me Your grace,'

ŚĀṄKARA-BHĀṢYA :

अथेदानीं मम मरिष्यतो वायुः प्राणः अध्यात्मपरिच्छेदं हित्वा अधिदैवतमानं सर्वात्मकनिलयममृतं सूक्ष्मात्मानं प्रतिपद्यतामिति वाचयक्षेपः । लिङ्गं चेदं ज्ञानकर्मसंस्कृतम् उत्त्क्रामतु इति दृष्टव्यम् । मार्गंयाचनसामध्यात् । अथेदं शरीरमग्नौ हुर्तं भस्मात् भूयात् । ॐ प्रत्यक्‌ऋत्मकत्वात् सत्यात्मकरमग्न्याख्य ब्रह्म अभेदेन्यच्यते । हे ऋतो, सकल्पात्मक, स्मर यन्मयम् स्मरतं यम् । तस्य कालोडयं प्रश्युपस्थत: । अतः स्मर एतावन्तं कालं भावितं कृतमग्नే स्मर यन्मया वायुप्रभृत्यनुष्टितत् कर्म तच्च स्मर । ऋतो स्मर ऋतं स्मर इति पुनर्वचनमादरार्थम् ॥ १७ ॥

TRANSLATION :

Vāyur anilam amṛtam :- Now, of me dying, let the Vāyu-the vital force or Prāṇa, abandoning this individual body, (adhyātma) dissolve itself into the universal body called adhidaīvata, the natural fountain of all life; the great fluid. the great Immortality,

156

Saṅkara and Madhva

the Sūtrātmā or the cosmic life. The words 'resolve itself or obtain' should be supplied in order to complete the sense. This is a hint showing that the vital airs should go out, being purified by knowledge and work. (The Vāyu of all persons does not mix in the universal reservoir, it is only of those who are pure, whose Liṅga-Śarīra undergoes complete disintegration as soon as death ensues.) This is to be inferred from the fact that the person is capable of claiming entrance into the solar region. Athedam &c. -Now may this gross body, being offered as a sacrifice to fire, be resolved into ashes. Aum Krato &c. In prayers, Aum stands as a symbol for Truth, and is a name of fire, though as a fact Brahman itself is called Aum, O Krato! Oh Mind, whose function is willing, remember that which ought to be remembered at this juncture, for, the time has approached very near in-deed, so remember all the past deeds done up to this time. O Fire! I remember those works which I have done from my childhood upwards. The repetition is for the sake of emphasis.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA :

एकोऽसौ शब्दः प्राणे स्थित इति । यस्मिन्मयि स्थितः सोऽयंमृतः किमु परे ।। अः ब्रह्मैव निलयं यस्यै वायोः सङ्घनिलयं । आत्म-रोहितविज्ञानात् वायुरपि अमृतः स्मृतः । मुग्यामृतः स्वयं रामः पर-मात्मा सन्नातन इति रामसंहितायाम् । भक्तानां स्मरणं विष्णोर्नित्य-ऋतिं त्वरूपत । अनुग्रहोन्मुखत्वं तु नैवान्यत् क्वचिदिष्यत इति ब्रह्मतर्कं ।। १७ ।।

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

157

TRANSLATION :

Because the Supreme Lord is in Vāyu, the Vayu has become an Immortal (how great must He be whose presence makes others immortal). How great must be the Immortality of the Supreme then ?

The word anīlam, is compounded of two words. a, meaning Brahman. and nīlayanām. abode. The Vāyu is called Anīlam. because it is the abode of Brahman (Brahmadhāma); or, because it is supported by Brahman. Vāyu is called Immortal, because His knowledge does not get obscured even in the Pralaya. (In the case of other Jīvas there is an obscuration of consciousness in the Pralaya.) For. thus says Rāma Samhitā: ‘The Lord Himself is the Chief Immortal (others are immortal in a secondary sense only). The Supreme Self is alone the Eternal. with the Nāda (or voice ever vibrating through the eternities of the Pralaya.).

In the Brahmatarka. it is declared: “The phrase O Viṣṇu remember Thy devotees.” means have mercy on thy devotees; for memory in reference to the Omniscient Lord has no meaning. He always remembers, or rather knows everything; for past. present and future are one to Him; His knowledge is eternal. Therefore “remember” is not to be taken here in its literal sense, but in the sense of “Have compassion upon Thy devotee”.

CRITICAL NOTE :

The interpretation of Śaṅkara invites many objections that any even-handed Vedāntin can posit:

158

Sankara and Madhva

1. Are the Universal form (or Immortal Sūtrātman) and the Supreme Brahman the same? If it is said that both are one. then it goes against the prakarana in which the immortality of the life force i.e. Mukhya Vāyu and of the Supreme Soul is being discussed. If otherwise, they are said to be different. Sankara then. has to say that the life-force i.e. Vayu is unreal to protect his concept of identity. If. the life force is treated as unreal, then there arises the absolute annihilation of the existence of the embodied soul. So this is improper.

2. If it is said that 'let my Vital Force i.e. Prāna Vāyu, attain the immortal Sūtratman; it means that the Prāna Vāyu is not immortal. Consequently, this mortality of Prāna Vāyu or Mātariśvan2 contradicts Brahma Sūtra -"Etena mātariśvā vyākhyātah" (II.3.8) . which speaks of the native immortality of Prāna Vāyu.

3. Sankara takes this mantra as a prayer of the dying man. The dying man prays to the Lord asking that his vital breath should leave his body and that the latter should be reduced to ashes; and that vital breath should join the eternal. "The explanation is open to objection, that a thing which is ineyitable is never prayed for; and the reduction of the body to ashes is inevitable. and so there is no need for praying that it should be reduced to ashes. The real sense of the verse, which is not a prayer, but a statement of fact, is that, when Vāyu has become immortal by mere indwelling of the Lord in him, a fortiori the

On the Īśāvāsyopanisad

159

Lord must be immortal, and His immortality, is beyond all question.

"But, says an objector, the verse has two words only-- 'Vāyu' and 'amrtam'. It does not say 'in the Vāyu there is the Lord. and so the Vāyu is immortal.' How do you 'read all this meaning into it? To this, it is answered. that the word anilam suggests the above explanation. This word literally means 'that whose support or refuge is Brahman. called अः'. The Vāvu is called anila. because he has the Lord for his Befuge."3

"It is immaterial whether Sankara has laid a new tradition of constructing this verse as a dying prayer or whether he too was a victim of an old tradition.

"But this has done a great wrong to the interpretation of this simple verse. The hypothesis of the last prayer has made the verb optative in nature, while it really is in the present tense."4

4. Then, according to Sankara. the Lord Brahman by the name 'Agni' is symbolized as Om! What is the purpose of naming Brahman as Agni? How is Brahman who is attributeless according to him, addressed as Agni? "How far reaching is the effect of the dominant tradition of Sankara on the various commentators in constructing this verse even may be against their intentions and sober judgement, is seen from the unanimity in those who follow his tradition."5

5. Furthermore, Sankara says, the devotee is asking the Brahman to remember his deeds. Why

160

Śaṅkara and Madhva

should the Brahman who alone is real, remember the deeds which are false? All karmas are practised out of ignorance. So 'remembering' them by Brahman is not suitable. Moreover "when a thing passes out of perception, then arises the memory of it, from the impressions left by the object on the mind. In the case of the Lord, no object can ever vanish out of His perception; in fact, all objects owe their be-ness to his perception of it. So the Lord has no memory, but eternal perception and cognition; for the essential nature of the Lord is eternal knowledge."6

6. Another remarkable digression is -Śaṅkara takes the word 'kratu' to mean 'mind'.7 Modern scholars like Max Muller.8 Griffith9, C. Rajagopal-achari10, etc. too, have understood it in the same manner. But, then to whom is this 'mind' referred? Śaṅkara has no support to uphold his own view of kratu as mind. And what is the necessity of under-standing it so? Without it, the mantra can properly be known. We do not get any satisfactory answers to the questions raised above, hence his interpretation is undependable.

A few scholars like Ānandabhaṭṭa11, Uvata12, etc. have understood 'kratu' as Viṣṇu the presiding deity of the sacrifice. This form of Lord as 'sacrifice is not incorrect. But this does not suit the particular context and does not remove the wrong understanding of 'smara' as 'remember'.

Thus, the suggestions made by Śaṅkara are the tissues of his uneven imagination and they have no

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

power to bring out the Upaniṣadic purport, and they vitiate the original significance of the mantra.

On the other hand, Madhva develops the import of the first line of this mantra in the light of the statement from the Rāma Samhitā and thereby indirectly shows the incongruity of Sankara's interpretation.

Vāyu has become immortal by being merely the dwelling of the Supreme Lord. Then how great must be the immortality of the Supreme Brahman : Vāyu is immortal because his knowledge of the Supreme Lord is eternal and never gets obscured. The knowledge possessed by Vāyu, refers to the functional knowledge obtained through the vrttis or modifications of the vehicles. Such functional knowledge, or vrtti-jñāna, persists in the case of Vāyu and Bhārati (Vayu-patni) in pralaya. Even though Vāyu and Bhārati also go to sleep in the pralaya, yet their functional knowledge in the pralaya is something like our dream. It means that their manas remains active, though their external functioning ceases. In the case of other jīvas, not only they cease to function but they remain totally unconscious in pralaya, something like deep sleep. In the words of Raghunāthathīrtha :-

ननु प्रलये वृत्तिज्ञानतिशोभावाभावे वायोः सुप्तस्यनुपपत्तिः । वृत्त्युपर-मध्येव सुप्तितत्त्वात् । न च नास्त्येव वायोः प्रलये सुप्तिरिति च्यम् । सुप्तौऽपि स्वसस्थानब्रह्मादिकानिति तदुचितविरोधापत्तेः । ब्रह्मग्रहणं वायोरपि गृहीतत्वात् । न च ब्रह्मादिकानिते अतद्गुणसं विज्ञाने बहु-

द्रीहिः । सुप्तास्त्रयो जीवाः सर्वे ब्रह्मशिवादिकाः इति विशेषप्रमाण-विरोधादिति चैव मेवम् । यतस्तेषां असम्लस्वप्नावस्थासदृशी, मनोवृत्तेः सद्भावात् बाह्यापाराभावाच्च ॥13

162

Saṅkara and Madhva

Moreover the words ‘anilam’ and ‘amrtam’ here should be considered as adjectives.

On the contrary it may be argued that the words ‘vāyuh’ ‘anilam’ and ‘amrtam’ are characterized by different case terminations. ‘Vāyuh’ is nominative singular; and, ‘anilam’ and ‘amrtam’ are accusative singular. Therefore, these two cannot be treated as adjectives.

It is not so. Those words are in the same case affix i. e. nominative singular, as they are in the neuter gender.14 Vāyu is called anilam because It is the abode of Brahman, or because It is supported by Brahman. (The word ‘anilam’ is a compound of two words ‘aṅ’ meaning ‘Brahman’ ‘nilam’ (or nilayanam) means ‘abode’).

On the whole, though the body of an individual is reduced to ashes, the Supreme Lord is Immortal. Thus there are no contradictory meanings in Madhva’s interpretation. By affirming that vāyu and his resort, God Himself are immortal, Madhva makes the prayer meaningful and in perfect conformity with the spirit of the mantras that precede. Though the body is doomed to destruction, the indwelling Lord Vāyu and his master God himself defy destruction. With this conviction strengthened, the prayer becomes all the more relevant.

So too, Madhva finds the gist of the second line of this mantra, in which, the devotee is praying to Lord Viṣṇu, symbolized as Om, in the Brahmatarka. That

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad.

163

relevant statement declares: The 'rememberance' of

the Lord Viṣṇu of (His) devotees means to have com-

passion or grace (on His worshippers) for He is eter-

nally omniscient; and no other meaning is intended

here.

The word 'kratu' meaning 'Omniscient' (nitya-

jñaptisvarūpatvam) reminds the reference of the Brah-

mānda Purāṇa quoted in the earlier mantra which says

that 'He is Kratu for He is Omniscient'. (sa kratuh

jñānarūpatvāt).

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan15, who everywhere follows

Śaṅkara's interpretation, takes the word 'kratu' to

mean 'intelligence'. This meaning does not differ

from 'Omniscient'.

Here the Lord Hari is symbolized as Om, because

He possesses undifferentiated, endless and, auspicious

qualities.16

The repetition of the words indicates the empha-

tic nature of the prayer.

The word 'smara' means 'to have mercy on', and

not 'to remember', because He is the eternal form of

knowledge. He is in no need of the memory which is

attributed to Him by Śaṅkara. Therefore, an ardent

devotee beseeches Brahman to favour him, taking into

consideration the deeds done by him.

Vedānta Deśika similarly interprets the word

'smara' as 'sānugrahayā buddhyā viṣayī kuru' i.e. make

my deeds the object of Your mind for extending Your

grace.17

164

Śaṅkara and Madhva

Anantācārya says that the remembering by the

Supreme Spirit is a sign of grace to the devotees.

Thus, "this portion of the verse is a prayer to the

Lord. symbolized as Om, to have compassion on His

worshipper. Not only must one pray for mercy. but

shoułd never forget his own duty. Both are necessary

performing diligently one's duty, and praying for the

mercy of the Lord."19

Thus. one can see here again. how Madhva. by

his cogent interpretation. maintains the spirit of pra-

yer that is intended by the mantra. The bhakta hum-

bly lays his modest efforts at the feet of the Lord.

and prays to Him to turn in grace to him. God,

nityarpta expects his bhak as to do their bit before

they ask for His exceeding grace: nidadattamupatiṣṭhati

XVIII MANTRA :

Having said in the mantras - 'hiraṇmayena etc.'

that through hearing. meditating etc.. one should earn-

estly ask for the direct vision of the Supreme, the

Highest Brahman; now. in this mantra the seer even

after His blissful direct vision. prays for divine favour

again. With a view to ensuring His grace. he invokes

the Supreme Brahman addressing Him as Agni.

अग्ने नय सुपथा राये अस्मान् विद्वान् ।

युयोध्यस्मज्जुहुराणमेनो भूयिष्ठां ते नमउक्तिं विधेम ॥२०॥

"O Agni (the Leader of the universe. the Indwe-

llet of Agni) direct us on a good path (from which

there is no return) or devayāna for the attain ment of

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

165

salvation. O! God ! (O! Omniscient), You know (the height of) our knowledge. Take away from us the degrading sin. In a bid to offer Thee, (our) best salutations (enriched with knowledge and devotion). we utter the word ‘namah’.

ŚAṄKARA BHĀṢYA

हे अन्ने नय गमय सुपथा शोभनेन मार्गेण । सुपथा इति विशेषणं दाक्षिणमर्गनिवृत्त्यर्थम् । निर्विशणोडहं दक्षिणेन मार्गेण गतागतलक्षणेन; अतो याचे त्वां पुनः पुनः गमनागमनर्वाजतेन शोभनेन पथानय । राये धनाय, कर्मफलभोगायेत्यर्थः । अस्मान् यथोक्तधर्मफलविशिष्टान् विशिष्टान् सर्वाणि हे देव, वयुनानि कर्माणि प्रज्ञानानि वा विद्वान् जानन् । किञ्च युषोद्धि वियोजय विनाशाय अस्मत् अस्मतः जूजुराणां कुण्ठलं वृक्कनाभिकम् एनः पापम् । ततो चयं विशुद्धः सन्: इष्टं प्राप्स्याम इटयभिप्रायः । किन्तु वयमिदानीं ते न शत्रुमः परिदृश्यां कर्तुम् । भोगिष्ठां बहुत्रां ते तुभ्यं नम उक्तिं नमस्कारवचनं विधेम । तमस्कारेण परिचरेभ इत्यर्थः: ॥ २० ॥

"अविद्यया मृत्यं तीतर्वा अविद्ययाडमृतमश्नुते" "विनाशेन मृत्युं तीतर्वा असंभूत्याडमृतमश्नुते" इति श्रुत्वा केडित संशयः कुर्वन्ति । अतः तन्निराकरणार्थं संक्षेपतो विचारणां करिष्यामः । तथा तावत् किंनिमित्तः संशयः इत्यते । विद्यावादिनः मुख्याः परमात्मविद्यैव कर्मात्म गृह्यते अमृतं च । ननूक्तायाः परमात्मविद्यायाः कर्मणश्च विरोधात् समुच्चयानुपपत्तिः । सत्यम् । विरोधस्तु न वगम्यते, विद्याविरोधयोः शास्त्रप्रामाण्यात् । यथा अविद्यानुष्ठानं विद्योपासनं च शास्त्रप्रामाणकत्वात् । यथा तद्विरोधाविरोधावापि । यथा च "न हिंस्यात् सर्वां भूतानि" इति शास्त्राद्वगतं पुनः शास्त्रेणैव बाध्यते "अध्वरे पशून् हिंस्यात्" इति, एवं विद्याविदयोरेपि स्यात् विद्याकमणोश्च समुच्चयः ।

166

Sañkara and Madhva

न । "दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची अविद्या या च विद्येति ज्ञाता" (कठ.उप. १. २. ४) इति श्रुते: । "विद्यां चाविद्यां च" इति चेतु । न । हेतुस्वरुपकलनविरोधात् । विद्याविद्याविरोधाविरोधयो: विकलपासम्भवात् । समुच्चयविधानात् अविरोध एवेति चेतु

न । सहसम्बन्धानुपपत्ते: । ऋमेणैकाश्रयस्य स्यातां विद्याविद्या चेतु ।

न । विद्योत्तरत्ती अविद्याया ह्यस्तत्वात् तदाश्रये अविद्यानुपपत्ते: । न हि "अविद्यारुपण: प्रकाशार्च" इति विज्ञानोत्तरत्तौ यत्स्मिन् आश्रय तदुत्पत्त्यामुप-

त्तम्, तस्मिन्नेवाश्रये "जीवोडनिरप्रकाशो वा" इत्यविद्याया उत्पत्ति:, नापि सत्य: अज्ञानं वा । "यत्स्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूत्

विजानत: । तत्र को मोह: क: शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यत:" इति शोक-

मोहादिसम्भवश्रुते: । अविद्यादसम्भवात् तदुपादानस्य कमण्डोडपि अनु-

पर्यन्तमवोचाम । "अमृतमस्नुते" इत्यापेक्षिकमृतम् । विद्याशब्देन परमात्मविद्याग्रहणे "हिरण्मयेन" इत्यादिना द्वारमार्गादियाचनम् अनु-

पपत्तु स्यातु । तस्मात् उप,सनयो: समुच्चय: न परमात्मविज्ञानिन्ति यथा अस्माभि: व्याख्यात् एव मन्त्राणामर्थ इत्युपरम्यते ।।

TRANSLATION :

By this verse again the departing Soul prays for

clear passage. Agne naya– O Fire, lead Thou by the

good path: (supathā), by the pleasant passage The

word supathā. good path. is an adjective showing that

the other path caled the southern path is to be avoid-

ed. I am disgusted with the southern path wherein,

there is a constant circle of births and deaths, there-

fore I again entreat Thee to lead me by that beauti-

ful way which is free from transmigration. Rāye-for

the sake of wealth i. e. for the sake of enjoying the

fruits of action. Asmān, &c.- O Effulgent One! Thou

knowest (vidvān) all (viśvāni) these works (vayunāni)

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

or thoughts and dispositions consisting of the above mentioned fruits of duty. Moreover. destroy (yuyodhi) and purge away from us (asmad) the crooked (juhurāṇam). the evil sins (enaḥ); the sense is that thereby we, becoming pure, may obtain the desired end; but unfortunately now we cannot serve Thee fully (Bhūyisthām) with due rites. Therefore we offer (vidhema) or serve Thee (te) with namas only, i. e.. by merely uttering the word Salutation; (for not having the physical body. we cannot even bow down to Thee in salutation. but can only utter the word salutation.)

*Some entertain a doubt (as regards the antithesis between karma and true knowledge) hearing the statements (contained in verses 11 and 14) - "Overcoming death through avidyā he attains immortality through vidyā" and "overcoming death through the manifest. he attains immortality through the unmanifest". We shall therefore briefly consider (the matter now) in order to clear (this doubt). Now then. what is the reason for the doubt? The answer is -Why should not true knowledge itself be understood by vidyā in the above passage? and also (by amṛtatva true) immortality? Well. are not this knowledge of the Supreme Self and karma mutually exclusive on account of the antithesis between them? True; but this antagonism is not known (through śāstra) for antagonism or the rev-

• As B. D. Basu's translation of Śaṅkara's concluding commentary is not available here. Prof M. Hiriyanna's translation is given.- Īśāvāsyopaniṣād; Kavyalaya Publishers. Mysore, 1972 pp 35-37

168

Śaṅkara and Madhva

erse should be based on śāstraic authority only. Just

as the performance of karma and the practice of Vidyā

are known through śāstra alone, so also should their

opposition or agreement be. As the śāstraic prohibi-

tion “No creature should be hurt” is annulled by śās-

tra itself, in “In a sacrifice animals may be killed” so

also should it be in the case of vidyā and avidyā as

well as in the case of knowledge and karma.

No; because the Veda says: “Distant are these

opposed and leading in diverse ways-karma and

knowledge” (Kaṭha Up.ii.4). If it be said that owing

to the statement in verse 11, there is (likewise) no anta-

gonism between them, we reply ‘No; because there

can possibly be no option as regards opposition or

agreement between true knowledge and avidyā. If it

be rejoined that there is no antithesis at all, on the

strength of the injunction (here in verse 11) regarding

their combined practice, we repeat ‘No’; for the two

cannot conceivably co-exist.

If it be urged that vidyā and avidyā are to be pur-

sued by the same (person) one after the other we reply

‘No’; for when true knowledge comes to a person,

nescience is inconceivable in him. Thus (for instance)

if once a man experiences heat and light in fire, there

cannot arise in him the ignorance- that fire is cold or

devoid of light. Nor can there be doubt or delusion

(in a knower) for verse 7 denies all possibility of

them. Nescience being inconceivable, we have said

its result-karma is equally inconceivable. The im-

mortality spoken of (here) is only relative. Further if

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

169

vidyā in this passage referred to knowledge of the

Supreme Self, praying for an entrance would be inap-

propriate. Thus we conclude by stating that the mean-

ing of the verses in question is, as we have explained.

MĀDHVA BHĀṢYA

वयुन्त ज्ञानम् । “तद्वद्वत्तया वयुनयदेमचष्ट विरश्वं” इति वचनात् ।

जुहुराणं अस्मान् अल्पीकुरुत । युयोद्ध वियोजय । यदस्मान्कुरुते

अल्पीकांसतदेनोऽस्मद्वियोजय । नय नो मोक्षवत्तायेत्यस्तौदयं मनुः :

स्वराडिति स्वानंदे । ययु वियोग इति धातुः । भक्तितज्ञानाभ्यां

भूयिष्ठां नम उकितं विधेम ॥ १८ ॥

TRANSLATION :

The word 'vayunam' means 'knowledge'. The

word is used in this sense in the following line addre-

ssed by Dhruva, to the Lord in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa :

Tvad dattayā vayunayā idam acasta viśvam ……. (This

all is energised by the knowledge given by Thee.

The word 'asmān' 'us.' should be repeated after

Juhurāṇam. This last word does not mean crooked,

but degrading, making small: 'Juhurāṇam' yenah

means 'the sin that degrades us, makes us small.' The

verb 'yuyodhi' is imperative second person of the

yuyu, meaning to separate. Separate from us our sins.

which degrade us and throw us back into Samsāra.

As says the Skanda Purāṇa: “Remove from us that

sin which makes us look very small (i. e., causes re-

birth) and be thou our leader to make us acquire the

treasure of salvation. Thus prayed the Monarch

Manu to the Yajña.”

170

Saṅkara and Madhva

CRITICAL NOTE :

Saṅkara says 'lead us by the auspicious path,

from which there is no returning. and going there is

for the wealth that is. for the enjoyment of the fruits

of our actions.' But, how does the fruit of actions

lead to the highest path. (uttaramārga). The phra-

ses punah gamanāgamana-varjitena' and karmaphala-

bhogāya' are mutually opposite. And this has been

pointed out by no less a follower of Saṅkara than

Shri Satchidanandendra Sarasvati Swami of Hole-

narasipur.1 Firstly he asks Him to lead him by the

unreturnable path; at the same time he wants to enjoy

the fruit of karma which again ought to pull him to-

wards this creation. Thus. Saṅkara commits a glaring

blunder.

Moreover, the unreturnable path on which a man

of wisdom proceeds, indicates the highest fruit i. e.

the final goal. But, it is Saṅkara who stresses the

enjoyment of the perishable fruit in the state of

Mokṣa. It is just like growing rice for the sake of

its threshing power.

Saṅkara gives alternate meanings for 'vayunāni'

as 'karmas' or 'prajñānas'.2 Here Saṅkara seems to

be not sure, which is efficacious. Also, his saying

'na saknuvan pāricaryām kartum' is not faithful to

the mantra, for the mantra does not use such a

wording.

Then, the meaning of 'juhurāṇam' as 'deceitful

sin' is not convincing, for the karma in question is

prārabdha karma,

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

171

"Saṅkara, again construes this verse alone with the 17th as the dying man prayer. As by death the person will be deprived of rendering service to Agni, a request for abundance of wealth; material happiness becomes superfluous, if a person is to die immediately; hence a far-fetched metaphorical meaning is attached to it.

"But even Saṅkara's ingenuity and scholarship have not extricated him for the crude contradiction; he has indulged in his commentary of this verse. Asmān is the first person plural of aham. This, he renders as 'I'; but subsequently he renders 'asmat' and 'vidhema' in the plural. Saṅkara in trying to take liberty has much mangled and twisted the meanings. He has definitely done great injustice to the sage of the Īśāvāsya Upaniṣad. Though some commentators thrust on īśa non-sense and no sense, the Īśa preaches sense and super-sense."4

Initially Madhva interprets this mantra in his own words : The Supreme Brahman is addressed here as Agni because He leads this body (or universe) and He is the indweller of Agni. It is used in this sense even in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa : "All this is potentialized by the knowledge given by You" Juhurāṇam means 'knowledge.5 'Yuyodhi' which comes from the root 'yuyu' means 'to remove'. Madhva then, gives a perfectly accurate quotation from the Skanda Purāṇa. This is perfectly consistent with his very first quotation from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇā which tells us of Swāyambhuva Manu praying to the Lord Yajña.

172

Saṅkara and Madhva

A pūrvapakṣin may argue here as to how is it that a man bound by the prārabdha karma attains salvation? To this, the mantra answers : ‘Yuyodhyasmat ... etc’ O Lord, remove or separate from us the prārabdha which degrades us i. e. make less, the amount of the prārabdha karma which obstructs the attainment of salvation. Accordingly, the Brahmasūtra ‘Upamardañca’ (III.4. 16) states the possibility of the mitigation of unavoidable effects of the prārabdha. karma by the sheer power of aparokṣajñāna.6

Thus, this mantra pinpoints that the unavoidable effects of the prārabdha can be alleviated by the power of aparokṣajñāna, through the grace of the Supreme Brahman. So too, He, the Supreme Soul, is prayed here, after His direct-Vision, for the attainment of final liberation. This is the real import of this last mantra. Here ends the Vedāntic teaching of the Iśāvāsyopaniṣad.

Saṅkara, even at the conclusion of this Upaniṣad seems to invite the remarkable dilemma : He discusses the concept vidyā-avidyā at the end, which declares the means of attaining emancipation. But it is shown that paths leading to the regions of deities, regions of Fathers are, according to him, unreal. The upasamhāra cannot be sidestepped by bringing the plea of the lower truth or any unreal subject-matter. If the teaching is about unreal things even at the conclusion, the Upaniṣad has very little use. A scrutiny of Saṅkara’s commentary would easily reveal that he consta-

On the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad

ntly twists and perverts meanings and tricks himself

into dilemmas for which he alone is responsible.

So, to understand the real teachings of the Upa-

niṣad we must rely on Madhva's interpretation. Madh-

va as he offered adorations to Lord Viṣṇu in the beg-

inning of the commentary on this Upaniṣad, at the

end also offers his adorations :

पूर्णंशक्तिचिदानन्दश्रीतेजः स्पष्टटमूर्त्तये ।

ममाऽध्वर्यैकमित्राय नमो नारायणाय ते ॥

"All hail to Thou ! Lord ! O Nārāyaṇa ! O my

dearest and best Friend ! who has a definite and dis-

tinct form consisting of the plenitude of power, know-

ledge and bliss, glory and light."

CONCLUSION :

It is seen from this comparative and critical study

of the Īśāvāsyopaniṣad and its commentaries of Śaṅ-

kara and Madhva, that Madhva's contribution is defi-

nitely remarkable. Madhva's principal purpose is to

reveal in the Upaniṣad on the basis of logic, scriptural

statements etc. his central teachings. The subsequ-

ent interpretations of Jayatīrtha, Raghunāthathīrtha,

Rāghavendratīrtha reinforce the disciplined system

of Madhva.

From an impartial study of the two chief commentators on the Upaniṣad, Śaṅkara and Madhva, one

can not but come to the conclusion that, apart from

the so-called die-hardness of schools of thought,

Madhva's interpretations have an amazing consistency

174

Śaṅkara and Madhva

and convincingness. He does not at all labour to refute Śaṅkara. Śaṅkara stands discredited by his own inconsistencies and self-contradictions and constant betrayal of the text on which he is commenting. He abuses his scriptural authorities by putting them to uses which work against the central import of the Upaniṣad. But Śaṅkara would have largely escaped unnoticed with his tricks of thought but for the strength and perfect neatness of Madhva's commentary. Madhva's infallibility lies in his almost complete personal reliance. He just arranges a phalanx of unassailable pramāṇavyūhas, and drives straight into the vast ocean of the Srutis and the Smṛtis and fetches those exact and radiant pearls which throw a steady light on the key passages of the text Such an ordering of irrefutable material automatically puts Śaṅkara in a poor light. Śaṅkara only seems to know his authorities to hinder him from looking at the text straight in the eye and almost betrays his imperfect knowledge by his ignorance of the right sources which Madhva alone seems to know. Madhva unwaveringly pierces through the difficult passages of the text and weaves a perfect pattern of meaning which beauti- fully preserves the dignity and grandeur of the upani-ṣadic thought. By his aptness and sureness of touch, by his profound insight and extensiveness of vision, Madhva makes the beautiful and brief Upaniṣad into a perfect symphony of devotional work conducive to right action and contemplation which are but the true pointers on the path of salvation.

ABBREVIATIONS

B. G: Bhagavadgītā; B S. B: Brahmasūtrabhāṣya; B.S.

B. D: Brahmasūtrabhāsyadīpikā of Jagannāha Yati;

B. U: Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad; B. U. Bh: Brhad-āraṇyaka-Upaniṣadbhāṣya; E. U. A: Eight Upaniṣads-Aurobindo; H I. P: A History of Indian Philosophy;

I. P. R: Indian Philosophy-Dr. S. Radhakrishnan;

I. U. B. A: Iśāvāsyopanisadbhāṣya of Anantācārya;

I. U. B. T. P: Iśāvāsyopanisadbhāṣya -ṭīkāprakāśikā Ed. by Narayan Tantri; I. U. B. T. V: Iśāvāsyopaniṣadbhāsyatīkāvivṛtti of Raghunāthatīrtha; I. U C: Ish-avasopaniṣhad-Swami Chinmayananda; I. U. D: Isha Upanishad - M. R. Desai; I. U. K. Iśāvāsyopaniṣad -khaṇdārtha of Rāghavendratīrtha; I U. S: Śaṅkara's Iśāvāsyopanisadbhāṣya; I. U. V: Iśāvāsyopanisadbhā-sya of Vedānta Deśika; K. U: Kaṭha Upaniṣad; Kv.U: Kaivalya Upaniṣad; M. U: Maitri alias Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad; Mu. U: Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad; Mbh. T. N: Mahābhārata-Tatparya-Nirṇaya; Mn. U: Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad; P. U. D: The Philosophy of the Upaniṣads- P. Deussen ; P. U. R: The Principal Upaniṣads-Dr. S. Radhakrishnan; P. T. V: Prasthānik Trayī of the Threefold Vedānta - P. C. Vidyarthi; S. B. E: Sacred Books of the East - Max Muller; S. B. H: The Sacred Books of the Hindus - B D. Basu; S.U: Śvetā-śvatara Upaniṣad; T. P. U. H: The Thirteen Principal Upaniṣads-R. E. Hume; T. P. U. R: The Twelve Principal Upaniṣads-Dr. E. Roar; T. U: Taittirīya Upani-

ṣad;

U.

A.

C:

Upanishads

for

All

–

Chitrita

Devi;

U.

L.

R

:

Upanishads

for

the

Lay

Readers–

C.

Raja-

gopalachari;

W.

Y.

G

:

The

White

Yajurveda

–

R.

H.

Griffith

NOTES FOR REFERENCE

INTRODUCTION

1. The Ishavasyopanishad; Mysore University. Jour-

nal, Section A-Arts, March-September, 1977.

2. S. B. H., Vol. I. Allahabad, Introduction -p. ii &

Ibid-Vol. XXII part. I, p. i

3. I. P. R., Vol. I, Allen & Unwin, London. 1971,

pp. 141-142.

4. P. U. D., T & T Clark. Edinburgh, 1919. p. 51.

5. P. U, R. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London

1953, p. 22. A point to be noted here, is, while

this scholar in his Indian Philosophy Vol. I. as

stated above. speaks of the date of composition

of the Upaniṣad. here he supports the traditional

notion that they are seen by the seers and hence

immemorial.

6. S. B. H. Vol. XXII, part I, Introduction, p. i.

7. S. Dasgupta. H. I. P. Vol. IV, 1975, p, 89

8. "प्रशस्ताचरणं नित्यमप्रशस्तविवर्जनम् । एतद् द्वि मङ्गलं

प्रोक्तं ऋषिभिस्तत्त्ववर्द्धि शम्भि:॥ इत्येकादशगीततत्त्वम् ॥"

Śabdakalpadruma, Vol. III Ed. by Syar Raja

Radhakantadeva Bahadur, Motilal Banarasi

Dass, Delhi. 1969, p. 564

9. "ग्रन्थारम्भे स्वीकृतशिष्टसमयपरिपालनातिभारो ग्रन्थकारो

निखिलविधनाचलकुलिशाकारम् अभिमतदेवतानमस्कारं सुजन-

मनोवशीकरणशाम्नीन् प्रेक्षावत्प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमिदम् अभिधेयादित्रयं

इलोकत्रयेण ऋषेण प्रतिपादयन्नाह ।"

2

Notes For Reference

Vrttaratnākara-with four Sanskrit comms. Ed. by Dr. Aryendra Sharma. I Edn, Sanskrit Academy, Osmania University, Hyderabad. 1969 p. 5.

10. "अनुमितश्रुतिरंच समाप्तिकामो मड्‌गलमाचरेत् इति । अत्र श्रुत्यनुमानं तु नमस्कारादिकं मड्‌गले वेदबोधितस्समाप्ति-साधनताकं समाप्त्युद्देश्यकालौकिकविगीतशिष्टाचारविषयत्वात् दर्शोद्दिवत् इति । अत्र यो यदुद्देश्यकाविगीत-शिष्टाचारविषय: दृष्टया । यथा दर्शः इति समाप्त्यतो व्याप्त: दृष्ट्या ॥"

Mīlamathurānāthī with Tattvacintāmani commentary; By- Mathuranatha Tarkavagisha Bhattacharya, Calcutta, 1834, p. 16

&

Nyāyakosā-By Bhimacharya Zalkikar B. O. R. I. Poona. 1978, p. 637.

10. a. "स्वयमड्‌गयुच्छलसपरमेश्वर-नमस्कारसम्पन्नतच्चरितार्थोंस्पि व्याख्यातुश्रोत्रुणामविध्नेन अभीष्टटव्याश्रवणलक्षणफलसम्प-तथे समुचिताशी: प्रकटनद्वारा परमेश्वरसामुख्यं करोति वृत्ति-कार: 1"

Dhvanyāloka with Locana of Abhinavagupta. Ed. by Prof. S. Kuppuswami Shastri T. V. Ramachandra Diksitar & Dr. T. R. Chintamani. Madras. 1944, p. 11

10. b "ननु मड्‌गलस्य समाप्तिसाधनत्वं नास्ति । मड्‌गले कृतेsपि किरणावल्यादौ समाप्त्यदर्शनात्, मड्‌गलाभावेsपि कादम्बर्यादौ समाप्तिदर्शनात् अन्वयव्यतिरेकव्यभिचारादिति चेन्न, किरणा-वर्यादौ विघ्नबाहुल्यात् समाप्त्यभाव: । कादम्बर्यादौ तु ग्रन्थाद्विहितेव मड्‌गलं कृतमितो न व्यभिचार: । ननु मड्‌गलस्य

Introduction

कर्तव्यत्वे किं प्रमाणमिति चेत् न, शिष्टाचारानुमितश्रुतेरेव प्रमाणत्वात् । ‘समाप्तिकामो मङ्गलमाचरेत्’ इति श्रुते: ।

Tarka-Samgraha with Dīpikā of Annambhaṭṭa,

B. O. R. I., Poona 1974. pp 1-2

11. ‘मङ्गलादीति मङ्गलमध्येति मङ्गलान्तरिति च शास्त्राणि प्रपञ्चते।

वीरपुरुषकाराणि भवन्ति आयुष्मत्पुरुषकाराणि च अध्येतारश्च वृद्धिं-

युञ्जतां यथा स्यु:' इति वृद्धै:सूत्रै:स्थंभाद्यै:सिद्धकतङ्गयताकं,

ग्रन्थादौ कृतं मङ्गलं शिष्यशिक्षायै प्रन्थतो निवन्धनं प्राचीन-

ग्रन्थैरगतार्थंतां विषयप्रयोजनसम्बन्धाधिकारीणश्च सूचनं

चिकीर्षितं प्रतिजानीते ।

Vaiyākaraṇa Siddhānta Kaumudī- with Bālama-noramā & Tattvabodhinī Comms; Ed. by-Giri-dhara Sharma and Parameshvarananda Sharma,

Motilal Banarasi Dass, Delhi. 1975, p. 1

12. "मङ्गलस्य फलं कार्यसिद्धिरेव, शिष्टाचारविषयत्वेन सफलस्य

मङ्गलस्य फलान्तराभावे सति, परिशेषात्तद्यैव फलत्वौचित्यात् ।

न च सर्वपुरुषाभिलाषितस्वर्गफलत्वमेव विवक्षितुंन्यायात् भवि-

ष्यतीति परिशेषोऽसिद्ध इति वाच्यम् । फलान्तरबोधकप्रमा-णाभावे

हि विवक्षितुंन्यायाय: । अन्यथा दृष्टफलान्तरक्ततामपि स्वर्गफलत्वं

स्यात् । इह च अभीष्टसिद्धिरेव फलमिति, अन्रापि तत्कामनया

शिष्टानां मङ्गलाचार एव प्रमाणम् । अत: अभीष्टसिद्धिरेव

फलम् । तच्च न साक्षादिति विध्नध्वंसो द्वारम् ।

"ननु अकृते कृतेऽपि वा मङ्गले आरब्धकार्यसमाप्त्य-

न, दर्शनेन व्यभिचारात् । मङ्गलं समाप्तौ हेतुरिति चेत्,

जनमान्तरीयमङ्गलेन व्यक्तिरेकव्यभिचारस्य वैयधिकल्पनेन

अन्वयव्यभिचारस्य च परिहर्तुं शक्यत्वात् । अन्यथा केवलदृष्ट-

वृष्टिफलककार्यरीष्ट्र्यादनुष्ठानेऽपि वृष्टिप्रदर्शनात् न कार्यो-

4

Notes For Reference

षट्पादिर्वृष्ट्यादि हेतुभवेत्त् । यदि च 'वृष्टिकामः कार्यी यजेत्' इत्यादिश्रुत्या साधनत्वेनावगतस्य प्रतिबन्धादिकलपनया व्यवभिचारपरिहारः, तदा प्रकृतेsपि विशिष्टाचारात् समाधित्साधनत्वेन अवगतस्य प्रतिबन्धादिकलपनया व्यवभिचारपरिहार: निश्चितो मड्गलेsपि तुल्यः । वस्तुतस्तु मङ्गलस्य विधनघ्वंस एव फलम्, समापत्तिः स्वकारणादेव । एतद् च सक्तिविघनसंशयस्य फलसंशयवत्त्व् अप्रतिबन्धकत्वात् सन्देहेsपि मङ्गलानुष्ठान निरवद्यम् ।

"इदं च मङ्गलं देवतातस्तुतिस्मरणादिरूपम् । तत्रानुरूपकार्येषु सर्वत्र मङ्गलस्य अनुष्ठानमात्रं ग्रन्थादिरूपकार्येषु कृतस्य मङ्गलस्य ग्रन्थतोऽपि निबन्धनं कार्यम् । तदुक्तं 'देवतात्वाचका: शब्दा ये च भद्रादिवाचका: । ग्रन्थादौ ते प्रयोक्तव्या यतस्ते मङ्गलार्थका: ।' इति, 'आशीर्नमस्क्रियावस्तुनिदेशो वा तन्मुखम् ।' इति च । इत्थं ग्रन्थतो मङ्गलनिबन्धनस्य प्रयोजनं ग्रन्थस्य सकलशिष्टसद्भिः ह्यातत्वमेव । अन्यथा हि मङ्गलाननुष्ठानेन निर्विघ्नपरिसमाप्त्यापि ग्रन्थःय प्रमत्तकृतत्वशङ्कया महाजनपरिग्रहो न भवेदेव । तथा च सर्वोsपि प्रयातः अनर्थको भवेत् । एवं ग्रन्थसमाप्त्यर्थं कृतं मङ्गलप्रयासवशेन च ग्रन्थादौ निबन्धनीयम् ।

"नन्वेव सति बादरायणजेर्मिनिप्रभृतिभि: ब्रह्मविचारसूत्रकृद्धिभिः, कल्पसूत्रप्रणेतृभिः बोधायनापस्तम्बाचार्यप्रभृतिभिः, भगवद्बाल्मीकिना च मङ्गलाननुष्ठानात् प्रश्नः । अतिबन्धनात् भद्रादिवाचकशब्दप्रयोगाभावाच्च तत्त्वकृतग्रन्थसमादृतः महाजनपरिग्रहादिकं कथं स्यादिति चेतु; न, बहिः कृताज्जन्मान्तरा-तुष्टिताद्वा मङ्गलाद्वा ग्रन्थसमाप्त्यादे: सम्भवात् । वस्तुतस्तु तैरपि अस्मिन् जन्मनि मङ्गलाचरणं निबन्धनादिकं च कृतमेव ।

Introduction

5

तथा हि-सूत्रेषु तावत्सवंत्र अथशब्द: प्रयुज्यत:। स च मड्गल-

थंक: । तदुत्तम् 'ओंकाररुचाथशब्दरुच द्वावेतौ ब्रह्मण: पुरा ।

कणठ मित्त्वा विनिर्गतौ तस्मान्मड्गलिकावुभौ ।।' इति ।

"बदरविचार्तीशाकमुत्सेधवड्भूपो रूपे' इति रत्नमालावचनात् । तथा-

ब्दडपि चन्द्र वाचक:, 'थ: पुंष्पूर्वम गिरिन्दुषु' इति रत्नमाला-

वचनात् । सौत्रे च अविभक्तिको निर्देश: । तथा च 'अथं वुद्धवा शब्दरचनां' इति न्यायात् आदौ विष्णवादिस्मरणं, तत् तत् छन्द-

रचनम्, तस्य प्रन्थतो निरन्वयनम् । इत्थमेव मड्गलस्मरणं तद्वाचकाथशब्दरचनं प्रन्थतो निरन्वयनमित्य खलमपि अथशब्द-

पूर्वकेषु ग्रन्थेषु सुलभमेव

"नन्वेवमपि कर्मब्रह्मविचारसूत्रेषु तत् तद्विचारेहतुभूतन-

ध्ययनज्ञानसंतोधकैप्स्थलेषु: कथ मड्गलं वाच्यमेतत्, अन्योऽर्थ: च

(एकस्य शब्दस्य) अनेकार्थस्वम्' इंत न्यायादिति चेत्; न, अन्ये-

कार्यसड्ग्रहाय प्रवृत्ते विश्वतोमुखे सूत्रे नानार्थत्वस्यालड्कारत्वात्

अन्यथा 'अल्पाक्षरमसन्दिग्धं सrarवद्विश्वतोमुखम् । अस्तोभमन-

वचं च सूत्रं सूत्रविदो विदु:' इंत सूत्रलक्षणाभावात् सूत्रत्वमेव न

स्यात् । अत एव 'हलन्यम' 'वा सुप्या पिशाले:' इत्यादिसूत्रेषु

तत्र तत्र अनेकार्थत्वमड्गीकुर्वन्ति वैयाकरणा: अतो मड्गलार्थकोs

(प्य)थशब्द: । वस्तुतस्तु न पदार्थ विध्याय मड्गलं ब्रूते, येन

अनेकार्थत्वं भवंत; किं तु दर्शनधारणादिनां सुवर्णादीनां

मड्गलस्ववदुच्चारणमात्रण मड्गलत्वसम्भवात् । (उक्तं च)

दर्शनादिना सुवर्णादिमड्गलमित्येतत् स्मृतिपु- 'सुवर्णं चन्दनं

रत्नं पञ्चगव्यানি रोचनम् । प्रियङ्गु: सर्वपं क्षौद्रं मड्गलानि

प्रचक्षते ।' 'विप्राग्रण्यकामिभुगाहेमनृपाज्यं मड्गल स्मृतम्,' 'दूर्वा

च सर्पिदध्रि चोदकुम्भो धेनुं सवत्सां वृषभं सुवर्णं च । मृद्र्गोमयं

स्वस्तिकमक्षतांश्च तैलं मधु द्वाह्मणकन्यकां च' । इति ।। तत-

रच्यमानतर्थ्यंक एवाथ शब्दः उच्चारणमात्रेण मड्गलमपि भवति

इति मड्गलप्रयोजनकोटिपि । एतदभिप्रायेण अनन्तर्थ्यंक-

शब्दान्तःशर्वज्ञेन अथच्वदप्रयोमोऽध्यर्थवान् भवति ।" अन्योडपि

अथशब्दपूर्वकः सर्वोऽपि ग्रन्थः कृतमड्गल एव । भगवान्वादरपि

वैयासिकसूत्रभाष्ये सर्वानर्थ(क)प्रत्यनौकचिदानन्दात्मकप्रत्यग्-

भिन्नोऽतिप्रतिपादिकास्मच्छब्दप्रयोगरूपं मड्गलं कृतमेवं युग्मदस्मत्

प्रत्ययगोचरयोःत्रिषयविषयिणोः' इत्यत्र । आपस्तम्बाचार्यैरपि 'यज्ञं

व्याख्यास्यामः' इत्यारम्भे 'यज्ञो वैं विष्णुः' इति श्रुतिसिद्ध-

विषयदर्शक-यज्ञशब्दप्रयोगात् मड्गलं कृतमिति बोधयम् । रामा-

यणौडपि भगवान्वाल्मीकिमड्गलामिप्रायेणैव तपः शब्दमादौ

प्रयुज्यदान् ।

"इदं मड्गलं कार्यस्यादिमध्यान्तेषु कर्तव्यम् । तथा च

भाष्यकारः - 'मड्गलादौनि मड्गलमध्ये च मड्गालावसानान्ति हि

शास्त्राणि प्रयुङ्क्ते वारपुरुषाणि च भवान्ति आयुष्मत्पुरुहाणि च

अध्येातारश्च वृद्धियुक्तः यथा स्युः' इति । तदभिप्रायेणैव महर्षि:

पाणिनिः वृद्धिशब्दं शास्त्रादौ, 'भूवादयो धातवः' 'वासुदेवार्जु-

नाश्यां वुन्' इति शास्त्रमध्ये अमृतबोञ्ज वकारमु, परमात्मवाचकं

वासुदेवशब्दं च, 'अ इ उ' इत्यन्तिमे सूत्रे विष्णुवाचकं आकारं च

प्रयुक्तवान् । भाष्यकारोडपि वृद्धिशब्दो मड्गलार्थ इत्याह-

'इदमेकमाचार्यस्य मड्गलार्थं मृष्यताम् । माड् गलिक आचार्यो

महता: शास्त्रोऽस्य मड्गलार्थं वृद्धिशब्दमा दितः प्रयुङ्क्ते' इति

इत्थं भुवादिसूत्रे वकारागमस्य मड्गलार्थत्वमपि भाष्ये-'माड् ग-

लिक आचार्यो महता: शास्त्रोऽस्य मड्गलार्थं वकारागमं

प्रायुङ्क्त' इति ।"

Dharmākūtam-An Encyclopaedic commentary on Srīmad Rāmāyaṇa (Sundara-kāṇḍa)-Tanjore

Introduction

Saraswati Mahal Series No. 29, T.M. S.S. Mahal Library, Tanjore, 1951 Pp. 32-36

13. जन्मादास्य यतोऽन्वयादितरतश्चार्थेष्वभिज्ञः स्वराट् ।

तेन ब्रह्म हृदा य आदिकवये मुह्यन्ति यत्सूरयः ॥

तेजोवारिमृदां यथा विनिमयो यत्र त्रिसर्गोऽमृपा ।

धाम्ना स्वेन सदा निरस्तकुहकं सत्यं परं धीमहि ॥ (I. i. i.)

14. नारायणं नमस्कृत्य नरं चैव नरोत्तमम् ।

देवीं सरस्वतीं चैव ततो जयमुदीरयेतु ॥

15. The very first word अथ of ‘अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ shows the sense of mangala. For, Madhva says: अथशब्द्रो मङ्गलार्थोऽधिकरणाननतयोर्‌थसंच ।

Sankara too, interprets अर्थानंतरप्रयुक्त एव हि अथशब्दः श्रुत्या मङ्गल-

प्रयोजनो भवति । It enshrines the idea that, though Sankara is aware of performing mangala at the beginning of any work, he seems to have ignored the same aspect at the beginning of this Upanisad.

16. I. U. V. Edited in English by K. C. Varadachari and D. T. Tatacharya, Vedānta-Deśika Research Society, Madras, 1975, p. 29

17. येनाऽSऽसृजमन्य परेणेशया व्याप्तं विश्वमशोषत: ।

सोडहं देहद्रपीं साक्षी वर्जितो देहवद्‌गणः॥

18. I. U. B. T. V. Nirnaya Sagar, Bombay, 1907, p. 6

19. S. B. H. Vol. p. 1.

20. Ibid.

21. Jayatīrtha in the प्रमाणलक्षणटीका says: अनादिनि र्यस्व-

मव्येडपि स्वतःसिद्धमीशज्ञानं तदधीनाॅं लक्षणमीशानम् ॥

Daśaprakaraṇas of Madhva- Vidyāmānya

8

Notes For Reference

tīrtha of Palimaru Math. Vol. I. 1969. Udipi. p. 19

22. Jayatīrtha says: अनेनोऽपनिषदो ऽधिकारे विषयप्रयोजन-

भिम्बन्धोऽपि दर्शितो भवति । मन्वादीनामधिकारीणां यज्ञना-

म्नो विष्णोविषयस्य मोक्षस्य प्रधानस्य रक्षोनिरसनस्य अप्रज्ञानस्य

च प्रयोजनस्य च सूचितत्वात् । I.U.B.T.P Vādirāja-

grantha Prakashan Udipi. 1954. p. 5.

23. See my article "The Seer of the Īśāvāsyopanisad"

in which it is discussed in detail. Karnatak

University Journal (Humanities). 1979.

24. तस्मादते मन्त्रा आङ्मनो याथात्म्यप्रकाशनेन आत्मविषयं स्वाभा-

विकम्ज्ञानं निवर्तयन्तः, शाकमोदादिसंसारधर्मविच्छेत्तिसाधन-

म(त्संक्तवा)दिविज्ञानमत्पादयन्ति इत्यैव मुक्त्यधिकार्यधिक्रिये-

सम्बन्धप्रयोजनात् मन्त्रान् संक्षेपतो व्याख्यास्यामः । I. U. S.

25. ननु आद्यमन्त्रस्यैव व्यर्थंत्वात् तद्गतेशावास्यापदव्यस्य्यानपरमु-

तरभाष्य सुतरां अनर्थकं इत्यतो मन्त्रं तावद्वतारयति । उप-

दृष्टमपि इत्थादिना उपनिषद्विच्छेदतृष्णत्वमाद्येन मन्त्रेण

विद्यत्ते इत्थंवय: ॥ I. U. B. T. V. p. 14

I Mantra

9

I MANTRA

1. T. N. Mallappa has raised the same objection in his Īśāvāsyopaniṣat-prakash (Kannada) Bangalore, 1954, p. 28

2. Vedānta Deśika considers ‘Jagatyām’ as ‘lokānt-aranāmupalaksanam’ - meaning significator for other worlds also.-I. U. V., p. 6

3. S. C. Vasu Siddhānta Kaumudī Vol. II. Sūtra. No. 2737.

4. Monier Williams. Sanskrit-English Dictionary 1976., p. 1284.

5. M. R. Desai has tried to point out the wrong interpretations of Śaṅkara. Ref. I. U. D. Sushīla Prakashan. Kolhapur, p. 40.

6. S. B. E. Vol. I, Motilal Banarasi Dass, Delhi, p. 311.

7. U. L. R. Hindustan, Times Ltd, Delhi, 1942 p. 24.

8. P. U. D., p. 405

9. The Upanishads-Gate way of Knowledge. Ganesh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Madras. 1960., II Edn. p. 57

10. Dr. B. N. K. Sharma, The Brahma Sūtras and their Principal Commentaries- A Critical Exposition, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, Vol. I. pp. 400-401.

11. Īsopaniṣad. Ganesh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Madras, 1971, p. 47

12. I. U. D., p. 29.

13. Siddhānta Kaumudī, Sūtra No. 2822. Tattvabod-hinī, commentary on it, of Jñānendra Saraswatī

10

Notes For Reference

reads: अहं योरगे कर्त्तोरि गाम्यमानो कृत्यतृचो भवन्ति । त्वया कन्या वोढव्या । वहनीयाः । त्वं कन्यां वोढा । कन्यां वहेरिति कन्योद्वहनयोग्र्स्त्वमित्यर्थः । नतु अहं किमर्थं कृत्यतृचो विधि-

यन्ते । यावता सामान्येन विहितत्वात् अनहं पदिभविष्यन्तीति चेत् मन्नाहुः । अहंतायां धोर्यायामप्राप्तो लिङ्‌ विधीयते, तेन तु लिङ्‌ बाधा मा भूदिति कृत्यतृचोः विधानम् । न च वासरुंप-

विधिना समीहितसिद्धिः । स्त्यधिकिकाराध्चं तद्प्रवृत्तेरिति ॥

Moreover, the affix nya which is enjoined to the root ‘vas’ is based on an aphorism “ऋदुप्लोण्यन्त” (Sūtra. No. 2872), which says that the affix nya comes after a verb that ends with ‘ऋ’ (long or short) or with a consonant.

14. I. U. D. p. 30

15. Iṣāvāsya Vritti., Sahitya Prakashana Samiti, Bangalore. III Edn. 1950. p. 5.

16. We have similar authorities showing that both Cetana and Jaḍa prakṛtis are under the Lord. For example :

सर्वंभूतानि कौन्तेय प्रकृतिं यान्ति मामिकाम् । कल्पक्षये पुनस्तानि कल्पादौ विसृजाम्यहम् ॥ (B G. IX. 7)

प्रकृतिं स्वामवष्टभ्य विसृजामि पुनः पुनः । भूतग्राममिमं कृत्स्नमवशं प्रकृतिवंशात् ॥ (Ibid. IX. 8)

17. Bhagavadgītābhāṣya of Madhva., Chapter VII. 5

18. I. U.C., Chinmaya Publication Trust, Madras, 1977, p. 79.; Monier Willims takes ‘tyāga’ in the sense of ‘gift or donation’-Sanskrit - English Dictionary, p. 456

19. P. U. R., p. 567

20. P. T. V., Gita Bhavan, Agra, p. 19

I Mantra

21. W. Y. G., E. J. Lazarus & Co., III Edn., 1957, p. 363.

22. U. A. C., S Chand & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New-Delhi, I Edn., 1973., p. 7

23. I.U. D., p. 30

24. T. P. U. H., Oxford University Press, Madras, 1949, p. 362

25. E. U. A. Shri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, 1963. p. 3

26 S. B. E., Vol. I. p. 311

27. I. U. B. A. Ed. by V. G. Apte, Ananda Ashram, Poona, 1934 pp. 1-2

28. मया ततमिदं सर्वं जगदव्यक्तमूर्तिना । मत्स्थानि सर्वभूतानि न चाहं तेष्ववस्थितः ॥ (IX. 4)

29. इदं हि एकस्थं जगत्कृत्स्नं परयाद्य स चराचरम् । मम देहे गुडाकेश यथैवाऽत्रोदकृत्स्त्रिचक्षसि ॥ (XI. 7)

30. "ಈ ಜಗತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವಯಾವದಂ ಇದೆಯೋ ಅದೇಲ್ಲೀ ಈಶ್ವರನ ವಂತೆ, ಅದ ಕ್ಕೆಲ್ಲ ಈಶ್ವರನು ಮನೆ, ಈ ಜಗತ್ತನ್ನೇ ನೀನು ನನ್ನ ದಲ್ಲಿವೆಂಬ ಭಾವದಿಂದ ಅನುಭವಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು. ಮತ್ತು ಇದು ನಿನಗೆ ಈಶ್ವರನಿಂದ ಬಂದ ಪ್ರಸಾದ ವೆಂದು ಅನಭಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು. ಯಾರೊಬ್ಬರ ಒಡೆತನಕ್ಕಿಂ ಯೂ ಆಶೆಪಡ ಬೇಡ. ಒಡೆಯಾದರೂ ಯಾರದು? (ಈಶ್ವರನದು ಎಂಬ ಭಾವ)," Ishopanishad (Kannada), II Edn, Kavyalaya, Mysore, 1970. p. 25

31. "ಇದೇಲ್ಲ ಈ ವಿಶ್ವದೊಳಗಿನ ಚಲನಾತ್ಮಕ ಯೇಜ್ಞವ ಪತ್ ವಸ್ತ್ರಗಳೆಲ್ಲ ಪರ ಮಾತ್ಮನ ವಾಸಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಂ. ಅಂದರೆ ಅಧಿಷ್ಠಾನಗಳ. ಅವನ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಪದಾರ್ಥಗಳನ್ನ (ಅವನ ಪ್ರಸಾದವೆಂಬ ಭಾವನೆಯಿಂದ) ಉಪಭೋಗಿಸೆ, ತನ್ಸಂವಟ್ಟಿಗಾದರೂ ಪರಧನವನ್ಮ ಅಪೇಕ್ಷಿಸಬೇಡ." Kannada Upanishat-Prakashan, Part I., Dharwar 1926., p: 6

12

Notes For Reference

32. Dr. B.N.K. Sharma A History of Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature. Vol.I, Book Sellers' Publishing Co. Bombay, I Edn. 1960., p. 210

II MANTRA

1. Here the word 'eva' may be read after 'asthitāh'; if otherwise performance of the karmas becomes direct mean for the attainment of emancipation.

OR

This verse also may be read as "kings like Janaka have obtained the knowledge of the Supreme by means ofperformance of Karmas:" Cf. कमंण सह कर्म कुवंत एवेत्यर्थः । कर्मकृत एव ततो ज्ञानं प्राप्यते । न तु ज्ञानं विनā 1-Madhva's Gītā-bhāṣya

2. Ed. by. V. G. Apte. Pune. 1934. p. 1

3. P. U. R., p. 569.

4. I. U. V., p, 28

5. U. L. R., p. 25

6. Brahma-Sūtra-bhāṣya of Saṅkara.

Edited in Hindi by Swami Hanumandas Shatshastri, Vol. II Chowkhamba Vidya bhavan, Varanasi, 1957., p. 905

7. V. H. Date, Vedanta Explained, Vol. II

Book Sellers' Publishing Co., Bombay, I Edn, 1959, p. 278

8. See first two lines of Saṅkara's commentary on this mantra :

9. Swami Satcchidanandendra Saraswati, I. U. S. (Kan) Holenarasipur, 1970., pp.10-11, foot-notes-5 & 2 on respective pages.

II Mantra

10. नियतस्य तु संन्यासः कर्मणो नोपपद्यते । मोहात्तस्य परित्यागस्तामसः परिकीर्तितः ॥ B. G. XVIII. 7

11. Vādirājatīrtha has refuted the same point in his commentary on the Īśāvāsyopanisad :

Cf. I. U., B., T. P., p. 9,

12. E. U. A., p. 5

13. I. U. D., p. 41

14. कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन । मा कर्मफलहेतुर्वूमा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥ B. G. II. 47 यज्ञदानतपः कर्म न त्याज्यं कार्यमेव तत् । यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैव पावनानि मनीषिणाम् ॥ Ibid, XVII. 15 तस्मादसक्तः सततं कार्यं कर्म समाचर । असक्तो हि आचरन् कर्म परमाप्नोति पूरुषः ॥ Ibid, III, 19 पाण्डवत्वेऽपि कर्माणि कुर्यादिति श्रुतिर्न तु । तस्मिन् नैविकर्मण्य नो इतरस्मिन् ॥ T. U. I. 11. 1

15. Srī Satyadhyānatīrtha elucidates: "ವೇದಕ್ಕೆ ಫಲೇಚ್ಛೆ ಯಿಂದ ಕರ್ಮಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂಬ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತात್ಪರ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲದ್ದರಿಂದ ವೇದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯಾ ವರ್ಣಾಶ್ರಮಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೇತಿದ ಕರ್ಮಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ಷುದ್ರಫಲೇ ಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ ಮಾಡಕೊಡದು. ಪರಮಾತ್ಮನ ಪ್ರೀತಿಗಾಗಿಯೇ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಪರವಾತ್ಮನ ಪ್ರೀತಿಗೋಸ್ಕರ ಕರ್ಮಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡದೇ ಇರ ಬಾರದು."

Gītā-Sāra-Samgraha and Gītā-pratipadārtha-candrikā (Kan) Ed. by V. N. Desikachar. Pub. by M. R. Galagali. Dharwad, 1940, II Edn., p. 95;

Cf. Bhāgavata Purāna :

वेदोक्तमेव कुर्वाणो निःसङ्गोऽपि मतिमीरवरेः । नेष्टकर्मी लभते सौदृढ रोचनार्था फलश्रुतिः ॥ XI. 3, 46

16. Srīmad-Bhagavadgīta declares that Brahmajñā-nins also perform their daily duties :

14

Notes For Reference

कायेन मनसा बुद्धया केवलैरिन्द्रियैरपि ।

योंगिनः कर्म कुर्वन्ति सङ्ग त्यक्त्वात्मशुद्धये ॥ V. 11

एवं ज्ञात्वा कृतं कर्मं पूर्वैरपि मुमुक्षुभिः ।

कुरु कर्मैव तस्मात्वं पूर्वःः पूर्वतरं कृतम् ॥ IV, 15

17. On this sūtra Madhva states : 'ज्ञानी च कर्माणि -

सदोदितानि कुर्वीतकामः सततं भवेत् । इति कठश्रुतो ज्ञानव-

तोस्पि विधिनात् । केवलं विहितत्वात् ज्ञानिनः कर्म न लीलामा-

न्रमपि तवकरणे प्रत्यवायश्रुतेरचेतिं अर्थप्रतिपादकं सूत्रं पठित्वा

तां श्रुतिमुदाहरति नियमाच्चेतिं । एवं कर्मकरणे त्वयि कर्म न

लिप्यते । इतो अन्यथा करणे नरे ज्ञानिनपि पापं कर्म न

लिप्यत इतो नास्तीतव्यर्थः ।

18. Dr. B. N. K. Sharma, The Brahma-Sutras and

their Principal Commentaries-A Critical Exposition. Vol. III., p. 503

19. In this spirit, Vedas have stressed the same point;

तच्चश्रुदेवहितं शुक्रमुच्चरत । पश्चयेम शरदः शतम् । जीवेम

शरदः शतम् । Ṛgveda Saṃhitā. VII. 65.16

III MĀNTRA

1. I. U. D., pp. 48-49

2. a) Ishavasyavritti. (Kan) Sahityà Prakashan

Samiti, B'lore. 1950., p. 14

b) ಹಂಸರುಣಂಕರಂ (ವೇದಾಂತದೇಶಿಕ ಈಶಾವಾಸ್ಯಾಷ್ಠಕ ಭಾಷ್ಯ ಟೀಪ ಶಂಕರರು)

ಈ ವೆಂತ್ತ್ರದ ಪ್ರಕಾಶಿಕೆಯಂ ಅವತರಣಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ, ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಿಧಿಯಂನು ತ್ಯಜಿಸಿ,

ಯಜ್ಞಾದಿಕರ್ಮಗಳಂನು ಮಾಡಿದವರೂ, ನಿಷಿದ್ಧ ಕರ್ಮಗಳಂನು ಆಚರಿಸು

ಇವರೂ ಈಶಾಖಿಗಳೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿರ್ಪದರಿಂದಲೂ ಆತ್ಮಹನನಂದರೆ ಬೃಹ

ವನ್ರಿಯದವರೇನೆಂದು ಮಾತ್ರವೇ ಸೂಚಿತವಲ್ಲ; ನಿಷಿದ್ಧ ಕಾಮ್ಯ ಕರ್ಮ

ಗಳಂನು ಮಾಡುವವರನೂ ಆತ್ಮಹನರನ್ನೆ ಬಹುದು,

III Mantra

T. N. Mallappa. Ishavasyopanishatprakasha-(Kan.) Bangalore, 1954.. p. 63.

3. "आत्महन्तनं हि नाम यथावस्थितात्मस्वरूपापरिज्ञानम् । देहेंद्रियादिलक्षणत्वेन परमात्मनियाम्यत्वेन च तदपरिज्ञानम् । एवं परमात्मदेहत्वेनास्वतन्त्रे जीवे स्वतन्त्रत्वभ्रमः, प्रत्यगात्मदेहादौ प्रत्यगात्मत्वभ्रमरच्योऽतो भवतः । तथाऽ च देहात्मभ्रमस्याऽपि स्वबदतो लाभात् तस्यैव ब्रह्महत्यादिपातक मूलभूतत्वाऽच्च तेषां पातकानामपि अर्थात् उक्तिभवति ।" I. U. V. with Ācārya-bhāṣya-tāparya p. 55

4. Jayatīrtha says : "विमुखा हराविति समाख्यया अन्नात्म-शब्दो हरिपर इति ।" I. U. B.T.P.,p. 10

5. आत्मानं वेदितुं शीलात् अयमस्मीति पूरुषः । किंमिच्छतु कस्य कामाय शरीरमनुसंज्वरेत् ॥

B. U. IV. 4. 12

6. Dr. Sitanath Goswami, Isopanisad - Pub. by S.P. Bhattacharjee, Calcutta. III Edn. 1975. p. 40

7. E. U. A. p. 5

8. T. P. U. H., p. 362, fn. 2

9. I U. C., p. 95

10. U. A, C, p. 8

11. Dr. E, Roar's reading is mutually opposite. Cf, T, P, U, R., Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1979. p.6, fn 1

12. 'चक्षोः सूर्यो अजायत'-Puruṣa-Sūktam 'न तत्र सूर्यो भाति, न चन्द्रतारकम् । नेमा विद्यतो भान्ति, कृतोऽयमग्निः? ॥ तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं । तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति ॥ -Śvet. Up. VI. 14

13. H. I. P., Vol. II Bilvakunj Publishing House, Poona, 1927, p. 170

16

Notes For Reference

14. Bhāgavat-tātparya., Chapter X (uttarārdha) 9th Adhyāya, 24 & 25 ślokas.

IV MANTRA

1. Jayatīrtha hints : एवं निवर्तकंणा। विशद्राजयस्य ऐहिका-मुंषिमकांशेविषयेष्यो द्यावृत्तत्स्प ईश्वरतस्त्वबुमुत्तसावत: कोड़मा-वातमा यद्विपरीतोपासनमसुर्यैलोंकप्राप्तिसा।धनं स्वादितयपेक्षायां परमात्मतत्त्वोपदेश: क्रियते अनेनदित्यादिना।

I. U. B. T. P., p. 11

2. Brahmānanda opines : ‘Svataścalanavarjitam’-Íśāvāsya Rahasya., Ed. by V. G. Apte, Pune. 1934. p. 8., This rendering seems to be more ambiguous for it takes off the omnipotence of the Lord i. e. the Lord would mean here as ‘He cannot Himself move’ or ‘He is devoid of His own movement.’ And the modern scholars like R. E. Roar, Aurobindo, R. E. Hume, S. Radhakrishn-an have translated ‘anejat’ as ‘unmoving’ or motionless’ or ‘not-moving’.

3. K. U. I. 3. 15.

4. Mn. U., I. 5

5. Kv. U., 6

6. Rāmapūrvatāpini. 23

7. B. G., XI. 16.

8. Ibid, XI, 38

9. S. U., I. 9

10. S. B. H., Vol. XXII, part. I. p. 42

11. I. U. D., p. 54

12. S. B. H., Vol, XXII, part I, p, 42

IV Mantra

13. Jayatīrtha says : न च सोपाधिकत्वेन व्यवस्था। मुख्यार्थं-सरभवे अमुख्यार्थयोगात्। स्वप्रधाने ब्रह्मणि वेदान्तानां तात्पर्यादिति स्वरूपकथनमात्रेण वाक्यपरिसमाप्तिः। I, U. B, T, P., p, 12

14. Vedānta Deśika merely says ‘anejat akampamān-am’ and does not go in detail to think ‘why is It akampamāna?’

15. S, B. H., Vol. XXII, part. I, pp, 41-42; To quote Anantācārya’s original words : एजृकम्पने न एजतीत्यनेनेजत अकम्पमानोऽभयमचलदिति केचित्। तथातवे न मनसो जवीयः इत्युत्तरविरोष्खोड्जवरोज्मृत-तोऽभयो ब्रह्मेति श्रुतेश्च ॥ Ref : I. U. B. A., p. 3

16. Vedānta Deśika also says similarly : एकं प्रधानम्तं स्वाधीनस्वसमानद्वितीयरहितं वा। He is Transcendent or That which has no second being outside within His controlling power or equal to Him,

17. S. B. H., Vol. XXII., part I, p, 42

18. a) John Woodroffe here beautifully states: “The devas that is shining Ones, the deities presiding over the senses, do not get it, that is do not get this Brahman, on account of their Rājasik and ‘Tāmasik impurity.” Ref : Ishopanishad, Ganesh & Co (Pvt) Ltd, Madras, 1971, p. 55

b) The B. G. also speaks : No one can know Him or has fully known Him : वेदांहं समतीतानि वर्तमानानि चार्जुन। अतीतानि च भूतानि मां तु वेद न कश्चन ॥ VII. 26

18

Notes For Reference

सर्वमेतदृतं मऽ्ये यन्मां वदसि केशव ।

न हि ते भगवान्‌ग्र्यङ्कित विदुरदेवा न दानवाः ॥ X. 14

19. S. B. H. Vol. I. p. 5

"Loke sarvamāvṛtya tiṣṭhati" ....B. G., XIII. '4

21. P. U. D., p. 190

22. I. U. C., p. 104

23. G. B. Joshi, Sanskrit-Kannada Dictionary. Arun Prakashan, Hubli, 1965, p. 56, &

Monier Williams. Sanskrit-English Dictionary

Motilal Banarasi Dass. Delhi. 1976. p. 47

24. V. V. Bhide, Sanskrit-English Dictionary,

Chitra Shala Press. Poona. I Edn. 1926. p. 572.

25. S. B. H., Vol. I, p. 6

26. Raghunāthathīrtha says : 'तेषां भगवदपेर्णं नाम तत्कृत-

त्वेन अनुसन्धानमिति ज्ञातव्यम्‌' Cf. I.U.B.T,V., p. 27

27. S. B. H., Vol. XXII. part. I, p. 43.

V MANTRA

1. So too. Raghunāthathīrtha hints : नतु तदेजततीत्याद्युक्त-

रभाष्य वयर्थम्‌। नच श्रौतपदानुवादेन व्याख्यानार्थमिति वाच्यम्‌ ।

अप्रतीत्यानन्यथाप्रतीतिरुपव्याख्यानबीजाभावेन तदयोगात्‌ ॥

I. U. B. T. V., p. 28

2. S. B. H., Vol. I. p. 6

3. K. V. Abhyankar, A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar. Oriental Institute, Baroda, 2nd Edn, 1977. p. 47

"अस्मोते हि वृत्ति प्रज्ञानो शब्धि सर्छेत्‌". K. U. I. 2. 21

5. a) 'अन्तर्बहिश्च तत्सर्वं व्याप्य नारायण: स्थित:' ।

Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad. 1

b) बहिरन्तश्च भूतानमचरं चरमेव च ।

सूक्ष्मत्वादविज्ञेयं दूरस्थं चान्तिके च तत्‌ ॥ B. G. XIII. 16

VI & VII Mantras

VI & VII MANTRAS

1. S. B. H., Vol. I., p. 7

2. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Śrī Īśopaniṣad. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, New York. 1976, 9th Edn., pp. 33-34.

3. Raghunāthathīrtha says : न च यस्त्वतिमन्र्रस्य ज्ञान- सा मा न्यपरत्वे तत्त्वसाक्षात्कारो मोक्षसाधनमिति अतीत ग्रन्थेनोक्त-मित्यग्रिमट्टीकाविरोध इति वाच्यम् । अनुक्तपरोक्षज्ञानस्य अपरोक्षज्ञानद्वारा मोक्षसाधनत्वेन साक्षात्कारस्यापि मोक्षसाधनत्व-मुक्तप्रायमित्यभिप्रायेण वा यन्मत्न्रे विनियत इत्यनेन साक्षात्कारस्य उत्कत्वाभिप्रायेण वा अग्रिमग्रन्थप्रवृत्त्युपपत्तेरिति ॥ I. U. B. T. V., p. 31

4. Refer : i) I. U. D., p. 58 ii) V. V. Bhide. Sanskrit-English Dictionary. p. 432.

5. a) तत्सच्च परमेश्वरस्य सर्वभूताश्रयत्वादिज्ञानात् भयाभावः । भयाभावात् नात्मगोपनेच्छेति सुगमः साध्यसाधनाभावः । I. U. B. T. V., p. 32 b) K. U., IV. 5 & 12 c) B. U., IV. 4, 15

6. I. U. B. T. V. p. 33; & Cf. I. U. K., Ed. by. B. R. Avadhani, Dvaita Siddhanta Karyalaya, Pune. p.8

7. Similarly the Brahmasūtra speaks: ‘अनियमः सर्व- मनिरोद्धात् शब्दानुमानाझ्याम् ।’ (III. 3. 32)

8. "अयोग्यानां ज्ञानस्यैव उत्पत्त्यनुपपत्ते�:" Madhva's Nyāyavivarṇam.

9. a) सर्वेषु भूतेपु एतमेव ब्रह्मेत्याचक्षते-Aitareya Āraṇyaka

III. 2. 3. quoted in the B. S. B. D., Govt. Press,

Madras, 1900, Vol. I, p. 159

b) Cf. B. G:

सर्वभूतस्थमात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि ।

ईक्षते योगयुक्तात्मा सर्वत्र समदर्शनः ॥ VI. 29

यो मां पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति ।

तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मे न प्रणश्यति ॥ VI 30

VIII MANTRA

1. P. U. R., p. 573

2. P. U. D., p. 148

3. T. P. U. R., p. 8

4. T. P. U. H, p. 363

5. E. U. A., p. 9

6. I. U. D., p. 65

7. a) स विश्वकृत् विश्वविदात्मयोऽनः कालकारो गुणी सर्व्विद्

य प्रधानकेतॄज्ञपतिः गुणेशः संसारबन्धमोक्षस्थितिबन्धहेतुः ॥

S. U. VI, 16

b) वासुदेवात्परं को नु ब्रह्मशब्दोदितो भवेत् ।

स हि सर्वगुणः पूर्णः तदन्ये तूपचारतः ॥

B. S. B. D., p. 159.

8. I. U. B. U., p. 3

9. I. U. B A., p. 5

10. a) Cf. Mahīdhara's commentary on this mantra.

b) Vedānta Deśika too, says : सः सर्वभूतान्तरात्मभूत-

ब्रह्मादिर्भी पर्यगात् पर्यंगच्छत् प्राप्तनुयादित्यर्थः ॥

I. U. V., p. 175

VIII Mantra

11. "న:- శుకృపద శుకృo- కవృపద, పర్యగాత్-కృత్స్నాపద"

Ref : Iśāvāsyavritti (Kan) Sahitya Prakashan

Samiti, Bangalore, III Edn. 1950, p. 28

12. W. Y. G., p. 365

13. I. U. D., p. 66

14. S. B. H., Vol. I. pp. 154-155

15. S. C. Vasu, B. U. 1933, pp. 155-156

16. M. R. Desai, here points out the opinion of

Rajwade- "Here Saṅkara wants to throw the

blame of creation on the Prajāpatis and leave

the 'advaitabraḥma free from all blame."

I. U. D., p. 66

17. a) ज्ञानिन: शोकाद्यभावे युक्तितरवैन स पर्यगाद्दित विष्णुप्राप्त-

रुत्त्वा । I. U. B. T. P., p. 16

b) Rāghavendratīrtha says : स ज्ञानी पर्यगात् प्राप्त्तोड-

भूत ब्रह्मोति शेष: ॥ I. U. K., p. 8

18. Raghunāthathīrtha explains : अनन्त शुद्धश्रद्दे कर्मण्युपपदे

रहत्याग इह्यस्मात् बाहुलके डप्रत्यये टिलोपे उपदान्तस्य कुत्वे

शुन्कृमिति सिद्ध्यति इत्युक्त्वत् भवति । एतेन शुंक्रं रोचिष्मत्

दौचित्यमदित्यपङ्यारध्यानमपहंसितं वैदितङ्ग्यम ॥

I. U. B. T. V., p. 36

19. a) तदेव शुंकं तद् ब्रह्म तदेवामृतमुच्यते ॥ K. U., V. 8

b) तदेव शुंक तद् ब्रह्म ॥ S. U., IV. 2

c) अथ अन्यत्राप्युक्तं निद्रेऽन्तर्हितेन्द्रिय: शुद्धितमया धिया

स्वप्न इव य: पश्यतोन्द्रियबिलेऽविवश: प्रणवाङ्क्यं प्रणेतारं

भारूपं विगतनिद्रं विजरं विमृत्युं विशोकं च स ईडपि प्रणवाङ्क्य:

प्रणेतार भारूपो विगतनिद्रो विजरो विमृत्यु: विशोको भवति ॥

M. U., VI, 25

22

Notes For Reference

20. Saṅkara also, in the same way explains 'akāyam'

as 'devoid of subtle body.' Vedānta Deśika ren-

ders the same word as 'अकायं सवैंशरीरकमपि कर्मकृत-

शरीररहितम्' i. e. "though having all as His body,

yet free from any kārmic body." Here Vedānta

Deśika tries to bring out Sarīra-Sarīrī-bhāva.

21. Jayatīrtha says : 'व्रण संचूर्णनं' इत्यत: स्तोको व्रण.

कालेन अस्तोऽकं नित्यं, गुणैरस्तोकं पूर्णमिति ॥

I. U. B. T. P., p. 16

22. "Vrana gātravicūrṇane" "S. Kaumudī. Sutra No.

2574, Curādi rout No. 391.

23. Monier Williams. Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

p. 1042

24. Vādirajatīrtha says : तस्य हृद: शोकरहितत्वेन तं प्राप्त-

स्य मृतस्यापि शोकराहित्यघटनाय सारूप्यादिलक्षणां तद्गति-

मित्युत्तम् ॥ I U. B. T. P.. p. 16

25. Jayatīrtha says : अत: कथमहशरीरत्वमित्याशङ्कापरिहा-

राय उक्ततस्य कंविरित्यादे: व्याघ्यानम् ॥ I.U.B.T.P., p. 17

& Anantācārya asserts : कायादिरहितोऽपि परमात्मा

जगत्सर्जनादि करोति अचिन्त्यशक्तितया इति यत आह कविरिति ॥

I. U. A., p. 6

26. Monier Williams. Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

p. 232

27. a) Ibid.

b) G. B. Joshi. Sanskrit- Kannada Dictionary,

Arun Prakashan, Hubli, 1965, p. 191,

28. अनन्तमव्ययं कवि समुद्रेऽन्तं विशवशाम्भुवम् ॥

Mahānārāyaṇa Up. IX. 1

VIII Mantra 23

29. Anantācārya renders : ज्ञानस्वरूप: परिभू: परिभवति सर्वं वशीकरोतीति परिभू: ॥ I. U. A., p. 6

30. Satyasandhatīrtha says : ‘स्वयमेव भवतीति स्वयम्भू:’-Shri K G. Kalakoti. Śrīviṣṇusahasranāma-bhāṣya, Tiruchira-palli, 1972, p. 7

31. Uvaṭa in his commentary on this mantra, similarly says : आत्मोपासनायुक्ततस्य फलमाहु-यइच कविः कान्त-दर्शनः ... । It means, the worshipper, having meditated upon Brahman, becomes ‘kavi’ etc.

32. S. B. H., Vol. XXII, Part. I. p. 50; Cf. Anantācārya's original statement : कविरित्युत्तरार्धमुपासितुः फल-कथनपरमिति केचित् व्याचक्षते तत्प्रकृतमभङ्गादुपेक्ष्यम् ॥ I. U. A., p. 6

33. Swami Chinmayananda uses ‘याथातथ्यतः:’ as ‘यथा-तथ्यतः:’ (Ref : I. U. C., pp. 114-115). This alteration is baseless, and unnecessary.

34. Jayatīrtha says : तदनेनैव शाश्वतीष्य: समास्य: इति सप्तमयर्थे व्याख्यातं भवति । अनाद्यनन्तसंवत्सरेषु याथार्थ्येन वर्तमानानुपोष्यः ॥ I. U. B.T.P., p. 17 and-Anantācārya similarly says : ज्ञानी यं पर्यन्ति स आत्मा शाश्व-तीष्य: समासु विभक्तिव्यतयय: ॥ I. U. A. p. 4

35. Dr. B. N. K. Sharma- A History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature, Vol. I. I Edn. p. 210

36. Iśāvāsyopanīṣad-rahasya-vivṛtti. Ananda Ashram, Pune, 1934, p. 10

24

Notes For Reference

37. I. U. A., p. 6

38. P. U. R., p. 573

39. T. P. U. R., p. 8.

40. E. U. A. p. 9

41. T. P. U. H., p. 363.

42. Surprisingly enough, the reality of the things created by Lord is agreed by Swami Satcchidānandendra Saraswati. He says : "ಎರ್ಮಗಳು ಸತ್ಯವಾಗಿ-ರಂವು ಎಂದರೆ ಆಗುಗಳ ಫಲವು ಅವಶ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಆಗಿಯೇ ತೀರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರ್ಥ."

I. U. S. (Kan). Holenarasipur, 1965, p. 26. fn. 5

43. ದ್ವೈತಪರವಾದ ಅರ್ಥವನ್ನೂ ಶ್ರೀ ವೇದಭಾರ್ಯರು ತಮ್ಮ ಮಾತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪವೂ ಹೇಳದೇ ಮಹಾಪುರಾಣವೇ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಆಧಾರಗಳಿಂದ ಈ ಉಪನಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಮಂತ್ರಗಳಿಗೆ ಭಾಷ್ಯವನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಈ ಮಂತ್ರದ ಭಾಷ್ಯದಿಂದಲೂ ಮುಂತಾದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತವಾಗುವುದು. T. N. Mallappa, Ishavasyopanishad-prakasha (Kan). Bangalore, 1954, p. 130

IX, X & XI MANTRAS

1. Rāghavendratīrtha says : विजानतोनुपश्यतः इत्यत्र यथावत्परमात्मज्ञानं मुचितहेतुरुस्तियुक्ततम् । तद्ज्ञानं मिथ्याज्ञान-निर्दामुचितमेव मुचितहेतुर्न केवलमत्म्याह्न-अनघं तम इत्यादि-मन्त्रत्रयेण

I. U. K., p. 9

2. a) S. C. Vasu, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 1933, Allahabad, pp. 104-105

b) P. U. R., p. 172.

3. I. U. D. p. 69

4. Ānandabhaṭṭopādhyāya says: "vidyayā vedantajñānena amṛtam devatātmabhāvamaśnute vyāpnoti",

IX X & XI Mantras

25

Īśāvāsyopanisad-bhāysa. V. G. Apte. Pune, p. 7;

Here the author himself has failed to bring out

the clear picture of the word ‘vidyā’. He should

have to treat it either ‘devatājñāna’ as Saṅkara

holds, or Brahmajñāna. and their respective

fruits as ‘devalokaprāptī’ or ‘oneness with the

Brahman’. Author here, takes ‘vidyā’ as ‘vedān-

tajñāna’ (i. e. knowledge of the Brahman) and

states its fruit as ‘attaining oneness with the

gods’ as Saṅkara holds. Kārya and kāraṇa are

mutually opposite. Hence his is an incorrect

view.

5. Swami Vidyanandagiri says : अमरत्व भी कई प्रकार

है । यथा संसारबन्धन से मुक्त हुये को अमर कहते हैं । एवं हरिश्चन्द्र के समान अचलकीर्त्तिवाले

को भी अमर कहते हैं । इन्द्रादिदेवों को उपासनेरूप विद्या से

मुक्ति तो संभव हि नहीं हे । अखण्ड अचलकीर्ति भी संभव

नहीं, परिशेषत: देवात्मभाव को प्राप्तहोना ही अमरत्व है ।

क्योंकि सवर्गादिलोक मे निवास करने वाले देवों को अमर

कहते हो है । ऐसे अमरत्व को ही देवोपासना से सहानुष्ठान-

करनेवाले प्राप्तकरते हैं ॥

Ref : Īśāvāsya-pravacana-sudhā (Hindi).

Kailasa Ashrama, Hrishikesh, 1971, pp. 170-171.

6. I. U. B. U., p, 4

7. Saṅkarānanda-Īśāvasyopanisadbhāsya. Ananda

Ashram. Pune, p. 4

8. Cf. कामात्मान: स्वर्गंपरा जन्मकर्मफलप्रदाम् ।

क्रियाविशेषबहुलां भोगैश्वर्यगतिं प्रति ॥

Bhagavadgītā II. 43

26

Notes For Reference

9. a) Vedānta Deśika in his commentary on "अचार-

दर्शिनात्" (B. S. III. 4. 3) quotes a statement from

Viṣṇu Purāṇa "इयाज सोऽपि शुभदृशन् यज्ञान् ज्ञानचयपाथ्रयः,

and says that 'performance of karmas gives rise

to knowledge, and those who have obtained

knowledge. karmācaraṇa is essential"; & Cf.

ज्ञानात् पूर्वाणि कर्माणि शुभानि ज्ञानसिद्धये ।

अकाम्यानी निषिद्धानि ज्ञानरोधाय मुक्तये ॥

Madhva's Anuvyākhyāna III. 4. 12

b) Similarly Madhva in his Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya

(III. 1. 7) quotes the authority :

कर्मणा ज्ञानमातनोति ज्ञानेन अमृतो भवति ।

अथामृतानि कर्माणि यत एनममृतं नयति ॥

10. Saṅkara in his B. U. bh. (4. 4. 22) also, necessia-

tes the performance of actions for the dawn of

knowledge of Brahman :-

एवं कास्म्यर्जितं नित्यं कर्मजातं सर्वमात्मज्ञानोत्प तिद्धारेण

मोक्षाधनत्वं प्रतिपद्यते ॥

11. I, U. C., p. 122

12. Ramesh Chandra Sundarji Batia-Iśāvāsyopani-

sad-A New Interpretation, JGJRI, Allahābad,

1961-62. Vol. XVIII. p. 105

13. Vedānta Deśika says : विद्यादृग्गतया चोदितकर्मणा मूल्यु

ज्ञानसङ्कोचरुपमृतिहेतुं प्राक्तनं कर्म तत्त्वी... ॥ I.U.V., p. 135

14. "Selfless dedicated work prepares one for con-

templation "- I. U. C., p. 127

15. Nārāyaṇopaniṣad. XII. 14

IX, X & XI Mantras

27

16. To quote2"Here both Vidyā and Avidyā are used in their strictly etymological and grammatical meaning. Vidyā as knowledge - worth knowing and avidyā as non-vidyā or knowledge-not worth knowing." Ref : I. U. D., p. 75

17. This ninth mantra is identical with B.U. IV.4.10. which also declares the same subject-matter.

18. I. U. D. p. 75

19. S. K. Belvalkar & R. D. Rande- H. I. P. Vol. II p. 172

20. a) Avidyā as ‘wrong knowledge’ in Yoga Sūtra I. 24, Ref : C. V. Shankar Rau-A Glossary of Philosophical terms. Venkateshwar Oriental Institute, Tirupati. 1941. p. 15

b) “Avidyā-mithyā-jñānam. vidyā-virodhinī. āyā-thārtha-buddhih”. Ref : Sabdakalpadruma-Vol.I, p. 131

21. I. U. C., p. 123

22. Raghunāthathīrtha says : अन्यथाज्ञानवाचिका विद्या - शब्दस्य तन्निन्द्रायां जहल्लक्षणोऽ्याह - अन्यथाज्ञाननिन्दया चेति यावदिति । I. U. B. T. V., p. 49

23. I. U. B. A., pp-6-7

24. a) S. B. H., Vol. XXII, part I, p. 54

b) Madhva's view of Vidyā and Avidyā is also conveyed by the Brahmasūtra "ātmeti tūpagacc-hanti grāhayanti ca" (IV.1.3)

25. S. B. H. Vol. I, Introduction, p. iii.

28

Notes For Reference

XII, XIII & XIV MANTRAS

1. B. D. Basu translates this mantra as : "Of these two, the Creator and Destroyer by (a knowledge of) the Destroyer alone death is overcome.... . .... obtains liberation." (S. B. H. Vol. I, p. 12). A keen observation of this' translation gets out the phrase 'destroyer alone' for it degrades the Supremacy of the Lord, who is eternally full of all auspicious qualities. Moreover, there is no such word in the mantra as 'vināśena eva' to render 'by (a knowledge of)destroyer alone'. Hence his is the wrong rendering in this connection.

2. In accordance with this, Swami Satchidanendra Saraswati suggests that 'tīrtvā sambhūtyā' should read as 'tīrtvā asmbhūtyā'. Ref : I.U.S. (Kan. Edn.) Holenarasipur, 1975, p. 40, fn. 2

3. I. U. D., p. 96

4. I. U. C., p. 136

5. Jayamangalacharya says : प्रकृतिलयान्तमित्यनेन सर्वो-त्तमोत्तमन्तिमं फलं प्रकृतिलय इत्यर्थंप्रतीते: । Iśāvāsyopani-ṣad. - Swami Kashikananda Trust, Varanasi. p. 202

6. a) अयोग्यमिच्छन्त पुरुष: पतत्येव न संशय: । तस्माद्योग्यानुसारेण सङ्गयो विष्णु: सदैव हि ॥ Madhva's Mbh. T. N. I. 97

b) Cf. 'न सामान्ददशन्नमात्रेण मुक्ति: । यथा मृत्युमात्रात् । न हि लोकाप्तिमात्रं मुक्ति: । सामान्ददशन्नाल्लोकामुक्ति-योग्यातमदर्शनात् ॥ इति नारायणतन्त्रे ॥ मुच्यते नात्र सन्देहो

XV Mantra

दृष्ट्या तु स्वात्मयोग्यया । इति च । दर्शनेनात्मयोग्येन मुक्तिनिर्णयेन केन चित् ॥ इति चाध्यात्मे ॥

Madhva's B. S. B, III, 3, 53

c) Cf. मुक्त्यर्थंमात्मयोग्यं हि कार्यमेव हि उपासनम् । नृंसिंहादिकमन्यच्च दुरितादिनिवृत्तये । उपासते यथायोग्यं न वा फलविमदत: ॥ इति ब्रह्मतर्क ॥

Ibid. III, 3, 61

7. Īśāvāsyopanisadbhāṣya, Ananda Ashrama, Pune, 1934, p. 7

8. S, B, H., Vol. XXII, part. I, p. 5

"Samastasya jagatah sambhavaikahetum ca param-brahma". The author, at the same time differs to interpret ‘vināśa’ as-"vināśam ca vināśī ca śarīram"-I, U, B, U, p. 4. Infact, the author should have to interpret 'vināśam' as 'vināsahetum' as referring to the former one.

10. T, P, U, H, p. 364

XV MANTRA

1. Jayatīrtha states : एवं प्राप्ताराधकारं शिष्यं प्रति परमात्मस्वरूपं निरूप्य तह्माक्षात्कारो मोक्षसाधनमित्यतिप्रन्थेनोक्तम् । स चेश्वरसाक्षात्कारो न श्रवणादिमात्रेण भवति । नापि मोक्ष: साक्षात्कारमात्रेण । किन्तु भगवत्प्रसादादेव इत्यत: अनुष्ठित-श्रवणादिकेनापि साक्षात्कारार्थं प्राप्तसाक्षात्कारेणापि च यथा भगवत्प्रार्थनं कार्यं तत्त्वकारदर्शनार्थी हिरण्मयेन मात्रेणेत्यादियुक्तरो ग्रन्थ: ॥ I. UJ. B. T. P., p. 23

2. Govindagopal Mukhopadhyaya - Studies in the Upanishads, Sanskrit College, Calcutta, 1960, p. 184

30

Notes For Reference

3. Dr. R. Sundaraji Batia-Īśāvāsyopaniṣad-A New Interpretation. JGJRI, Allahabad, 1961-62.

Vol. 18. p. 93

4. माहात्म्यज्ञानपूर्व्वस्तु सुदृढः सर्वतोऽधिकः ।

स्नेहो भक्तिरिति प्रोक्तस्तया मुक्तिर्न चान्यथा ॥

Mbh. T. P. of Madhva, I. 86

5. I. U. C., p. 141

6. "Jagatah posanāt pūsā raviḥ", (Śaṅkara-bhāṣya), 16th mantra

7. "Satyasabdo atra jīvaparah" I. U. V., p 153

8. "Satyam cānytam ca satyamabhavat", as it occurs in the Brahmā Vallī of the T. U., it becomes clear that the subject matter discussed with therein, is nothing but Brahman as 'Blissful'. Similarly "atha nāmadheyam satyasya satyamiti prāṇā vai satyam itesāmesā satyam", (Bṛ.U., II. 3. 6) describes the method of contemplation upon Brahman, and He is described as the Truth of Truth etc. And, thus, these statements do not support the view of Vedānta Deśika at all.

9. "Hiraṇmayena pātreṇa apihitam rāgātmakaṭayā hiraṇmayasadṛśena rajomayena pātreṇa I.U.V.

10. The word 'hiranya' which is similar to 'hiraṇm-ayena', spaciously occurs in the Yajurveda : हिरण्मयं पुरुषम् ... (V. 2.7. 5); हिरण्यपात्रं मधोः पुर्णम्... (V. 7.1.5); हिरण्यपाणिमूर्त्तये....... (I. 4. 25. 1); etc.

11. In the Ṛgveda, we have : हिरण्यदन्तं शुचिवर्ण्णम्.......... (V. 2. 3.); हिरण्यपाणि सविता विचर्षणिः .... (I.35. 9); हिरण्यरूपः स हिरण्यसदृक् ...... (II. 35. 10); etc.

XVI Mantra

31

12. In the upaniṣads like B. U: हिरण्मयः पुरुषः एकहंसः.... (IV. 3.11); हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण.... (V. 15. 1); Mu. U: हिरण्मये परे कोशे विरजं ब्रह्म निष्कलम् (II. 2. 10); T. U: मनोमयः अमृतो हिरण्मयः (I. 6. 1); M. U: रश्मवर्णः कर्तार-मेशः पुरुषम् (VI. 18).In these statements the word `hiramaya' is never understood as 'full of rāga-passion. Thus Vedānta Deśika takes this mantra to a bathetic anticlimax.

13. The commentator Jayamangalacharya has examined the view of Vedānta Deśika in the work called 'Īśāvāsyopanisad'- Swami Kashikananda Trust, Varanasi, pp. 213–215

14. Rāghavendratīrtha says : हिरण्मयमव हिरण्मयं ज्योति-र्मयंम्, परिवृत्ति रसान् न्रायते जगत् इति च पात्रम् । (I. U. K.).

XVI MANTRA

1. a) U. L. R., p. 30

b) Swami Chinmayananda also refers it as the prayer of the God Sun. Ref : I. U. C., p 139

2. "तद्यत् तत् सत्यमसौ स आदित्यो....सत्यात् मानमात्मनः प्राप्त-द्वारं यच्छते ॥

3. a) Though the root 'ṛṣa'- is popular in the sense of 'to go' or 'to approach', yet it is found in the sense of 'to know'- Cf. commentary on Un. IV. 119, ṛṣati jñānena samsārapāram (p. 226); 'ṛṣu' knowing (p. 227) - Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Motilal Banarasi Dass, 1975.

32

Notes For Reference

b) Anantācārya also in his commentary on the I. U. has referred the root ‘ṛṣa’ in the sense of ‘to know’ (ऋष ज्ञाने) I. U. B. A., p. 10.

Jayatīrtha states : एकशब्दस्य प्रधानवाचकत्वादृष ज्ञान

इत्यतस्तत्प्रधानज्ञानरूपत्वात् एकर्षि शब्दकृतम् ।

I. U. B T. P., p. 24

Vidyāmānyatīrtha- Daśaprakāraṇas of Madhva, Palimaru Math, Udipi, 1969, Vol. I, p. 19

न तत्र सूर्यों भाति न चन्द्रतारकं, नेमा विद्युतो भान्ति कुतोऽयमग्निः ।

तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति ॥

K. U.; V. 15

The above statement of the K. U. occurs in the Mu. U. (II. 2. 11) and in the S. U (VI. 14), with no change.

I. U. B. T. V., p. 54. Also Vādirājatīrtha says :

अन्न निहितस्त्वात् इकाराल्लोपः । अन्यथा सूरिय: इति स्यादिति

ज्ञेयः ।

I. U. B. T. P., p. 24

Raghunāthatīrtha says : तत्‍त्त्वप्रदीपे अहं तत्त‍्ज्ज्ञोरस्मीन्नारायणमित्येतद्‍व्याख्यानावसरे रतिः शोक‍्चमितस्येति रतिमर्ज्जीव

इति व्याख्यात्‍त्वेन जीववाचकस्य रतिशब्दस्य तत्‍त‍्वरूपज्ञान

लक्षणामपि श्रेतयेदं व्याख्यानमिति दृष्ट‍व्यम् ।

तेजः शब्दस्य व्याख्यानमिति ।

वृत्तिरूप ज्ञानमित्यर्थः ।

इदं च

अन्तःकरणस्थ तेजस्तत्त्वेन तत्प्रतिपादनमरूपवृत्तः अपि तेजः शब्द-

वाच्यत्वात् ।

एवं तेजः प्रातिमुख्यं बाह्यं चेति द्विधा मतमिति-

प्रमाणानुसाराच्च उपपद‍्यत इति भावः ॥

I. U. B. T. V., p. 58

a) S. B. H., Vol. I, III Edn., p. 14

XVII Mantra

b) Anantācārya similarly says : मदीयान् रश्मीन्त्

प्रकाशायन् व्यूह तेजः समूह च स्वरूप बाह्यं च मदोयं ज्ञान

विस्तारयेत् अर्थः ॥ I. U. B. U. p. 10

10. भक्त्या ज्ञानं तत्तो भक्तिः तत्तो दृष्ट्टस्ततस्तृ सा ।

तत्तो मुक्तिस्ततो भक्तिः सैव स्यात् सुखरूपिणी ॥

Madhva's Anuvyākhyāna. III. 4. 32-

11. Rāghavendratīrtha in his I. U. K. introduces :

सर्वज्ञी वोत्ममुख्यवायु रूपप्रतीकैः स्थितिादिज्ञानमावइयकमिति

भावेन ततु स्थित्यादिकमाह य इति ॥

12. Swami Satcchidanandendra Saraswati - I. U. S. (English Edn.) Holenarasipur, 1972. p. 34. fn. 1

13. a) य आदित्ये तिष्ठन् आदित्यादनन्तरो यस्मादित्यो न वेद यस्य-

दित्यः शरीः: य आदित्यमन्तरो यमयत्येष आत्मान्तरयो-

मृत्॥ B. U., III. 7. 9.

b) अयं विश्वं भुवनमस्यवशाम्॥ T. U., III. 10. 6

14. R. C. Zaehner - Hinduism. Oxford University Press, London. II Edn.. 1966, p. 90

15. S. B. H., Vol. XXII, part I, p. 66

16. S. B. H., Vol. I. III Edn. Introduction. pp. ii-iii

XVII MANTRA

1. ननु परमेश्वरस्य यत्कल्याणरूपत्वमुक्तं तत्र च सोऽहं स्मृति

जीवान्तर्गतस्य नित्यास्वित्यभुक्त तद्युक्तितः । देहादास्य

प्रत्यक्षादिसिद्धतया तदस्तर्गतस्य जीवस्येव मरणाद्यवश्यं भावात्

इत्याशंकां कैमुत्येनाह वायुरिति ॥ (I. U. K)

2. a) See I. U. S on 4th mantra.

b) Aurobindo says: "Vāyu is called elsewhere

Mātarisvan, the Life Energy in the Universe.

E. U. A., p. 15. fn. 1

3. S. B. H., Vol. I. pp. 16-17

4. I. U. D., p. 116

5. Ibid.

6. S. B. H., Vol. I. p. 17

7. Cf Swami Satcchidanandendra Saraswati-I.U.S. (English End.) Holenarasipur. 1972, p. 35

8. S. B. E., Vol. I. p. 313

9. W. Y. G., p. 367

10. U. L. R., p. 34

11. Ānandabhaṭṭopādhyāya - Īśāvāsyopanisadbhāṣya, p. 10

12. I U. B. U., p. 5

13. I. U. B. T. V., p. 63

14. Raghunāthathīrtha clarifies : वायुरोमलेऽमृतेमत्येतत्तोः पदात्न समानाधिकरणानि प्रथमं विभक्तिमादायैकविभक्ति-कान्त इत्यर्थः ॥ Ibid., p. 61

15. P. U. R., p. 577

16. Rāghavendratīrtha, in his I. U. K. edifies : श्रोतत्वादिगुणयुक्ततया ॐ इत्युच्यमानः ॥

17. I. U. V., pp. 195-196

18. S. B. H., Vol. XXII. part I. p. 68

19. S. B. H., Vol. I., p. 17

XVIII MANTRA

1. "बरियಂ कर्मವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದವರು ಹೋಗುವ ಮಾರ್ಗಕ್ಕೆ ದಕ್ಷಿಣವರ್ಗ ಅಥವಾ ಧೌವಮಾರ್ಗವೆಂದು ಹೆಸರು.

I. U. S. Holenarasipur, 1965, p. 48. fn. 1

XVIII Mantra

35

2. Vedānta Deśika takes 'vayunam' as 'knowledge':

विड़्वानि वयुनानि-सर्वाणि ज्ञानानि । "माया वयूनं ज्ञानम्"

इति नेष्टपटुकः ।। I. U. V., p. 204

3. Vedānta Deśika too. translates in the same

manner. Ibid. p. 221

4. I. U. D., pp. 123-124

5. The word 'vayunam' as 'knowledge' is also

understood in the following references :

a) Monier Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary

p. 920

b) V. V. Bhide, Sanskrit-English Dictionary,

Poona, 1926, p. 952

c) G. B. Joshi, Sanskrit-Kannada Dictionary.

p. 663

6. a) तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावदेव इन्द्रियैः सम्पत्स्यते

(छा. उप. ६. १४. २) इति तद्वघे: । तु शब्द: स्मृत्यादोतक: ।

"यदनारब्धपापं स्यात्तदिनइयति निइचयात् । पश्यतां ब्रह्म

निद्रेऽहि हानं च ब्रह्म परयतः । द्रष्टो वा भवेत् पुण्यनाशो

नास्त्यत्र सशय: ॥ तस्यापि आरब्धकार्यस्य न विनाशोऽस्ति

कुत्र चित् । आरब्धयोगश्च नाश: स्यादलपोः पुण्यपापयोः ॥

इति नारायणतन्त्रे ॥ Madhva's B. S. B. IV. 1. 15

Jagannātha Yati, in his B. S. B. D, clarifies the

meaning of the statement of the Chāndogya

Upaniṣad, quoted in the above passage :-

ननु ज्ञानानन्तरं प्रारब्धप्रतिबन्धक सद्राव: कुत: कल्प्यत इत्यत:

तदुत्तरत्वेन तदवघेरित्यं शास्त्रपुलकसकतया व्याचष्टे तस्येति ॥

इतीत्यनन्तरं श्रवणादिति शेष: । तदवघेरिति. भावप्रधान: ।

तद्विति भिन्नं पदं समस्तं च श्रुतिस्थपरामर्शकोट्यम् । तथा

36

Notes For Reference

न तस्य मोक्षस्य तद्वधिरवस्य प्रारब्धकर्मनिवृत्त्यवधि कत्वस्य 'तस्य' इत्यादौ श्रवणादित्यर्थः। तथा च ज्ञानोत्तरमपि कर्म-

सन्द्रावो ज्ञायत इति वाक्यशेषः। 'तस्य' अपरोक्रज्ञानिनः 'तद्वदेव' तावानेव 'चिर' मोक्षविलम्बः। कियत्कालं?

यावत् ज्ञानोप्रारब्धेन कर्मणा 'न विमोक्ष्ये' न विमोक्ष्यते । 'अथ' कर्मनिवृत्त्यनन्तरं ब्रह्म 'सम्पद्स्यते' मुक्तो भवतीति छान्दोग्यश्रुत्यर्थः।।

Ref : B. S. B. D.. Vol. III. pp. 1014-1015

b) Similarly, Madhva in his Śrīmad-Bhāgavata-

tātparya says :- प्रारब्धकर्मणेैवां कल्पान्तदुःखस्य सूचकम् ।

इदानींतनकर्मस्यात्तु रणहेतुरयंथा रणः। देवादीनाں स्थितप्रज्ञ-

भावाच्च भावान्‍ध्या भवेत्। प्रारब्धमपि तु क्वापि किञ्चिद्दृष्टं भवेदिति च ॥ (VI. 13. 1)

Narahari Ārya, son of Varadacharya, in his

commentary 'Bhāgavata-tātparya-dīpikā.' on the

above quoted passage. says thus :- 'उपमर्दं न' इति सूत्रे विषमभक्षान्मृतेरिव प्राप्तमस्यापि अनिवृत्तस्य किञ्चिद्मुक्तस्य

सविदा ॥ "उपमर्द इह प्रोक्तः चतुर्थालय इष्यते" इत्यनुग्या-

द्यानुसारेण प्रारब्धकर्मणः एवं उपमर्दो भवतीति भावेन प्रायश्चित्तोक्तहुपपन्ना न तु अपरोक्रज्ञानोत्तरकृतपापपरिहारराशिं

प्रायश्चित्तोक्तिरिति भावः। किञ्चिद्दृष्टं तु फलह् सेन तथो-

च्यते न तु ज्ञानेऩ प्रारब्धकर्मणः कस्यचिद्राशः इति भावः ॥

---

ERRATA

Page No. Line No. Incorrect Correct

12 25 नित्यातम्न: नित्यातमनः

14 7 पूर्वे पूर्व

25 14 wrie write

48 10 अविद्यादोषेण अविद्यादोषेण

49 18 चैतनन चैतन्येन

60 11 illuming illumining

67 15 Sarvakarttva Sarvakartytva

68 18 mantra mantra1

74 14 शोक: शोकः

79 9 than then

82 2 हरे: ॥ हरे: ॥6

84 3 वच्चोसि वचोसि

89 24 agreable agreeable

90 21 पुल्लिङ्गत्नेन पुल्लिङ्गत्वेन

103 11 येषां येषां

104 2 ज्ञानकर्मणो: ज्ञानकर्मणोः

104 15 स्यादित्ययं: स्यादित्यर्थः

119 12 part parts

125 6 cretion creation

127 17 qualittes qualities

-2-

132 22 attriobutes attributes

132 24 decipers deciphers

135 12 अपिधानभूतेन अपिधानभूतेन

135 15 मह्याम् मध्याम्

136 1 (nivṛti) (nivṛtti)

136 2 Upaniṣad a Upaniṣads

143 10 Attracto ! her Attracter ! he

144 3 ऋषिभिर्ज्ञेयो ऋषिभिर्ज्ञेयो

144 7 ब्रहम ब्रह्म

156 23 ब्रह्मैव ब्रह्मैव

164 14 bhak as bhaktas

165 8 गमनागमनर्वाजितेन गमनागमनर्वाजितेन

Sole Distributors :

BHARAT BOOK DEPOT & PRAKASHANA

Phone : 8251

Subhas Road, DHARWAD-580 001