1. Isavasya Upanishad Hiriyanna Vani Vilas Press

ÎSÂVÂSYÔPANISHAD

ÎSÂVÂSYÔPANISHAD WITH THE COMMENTARY OF SRÎ SANKARÂCHÂRYA Translated into English BY M. HIRIYANNA, M.A.

SRIRANGAM : SRI VANI VILAS PRESS. 1911. Copyright Registered.

ĪSÂVÂSYÔPANISHAD

ĪSÂVÂSYÔPANISHAD WITH THE COMMENTARY OF SRÎ SANKARÂCHÂRYA Translated into English BY M. HIRIYANNA, M.A. SRIRANGAM : SRI VANI VILAS PRESS. 1911. Copyright Registered.

NOTE.

The rendering into English of a Sanskrit work of this kind presents many difficulties, for the very moulds in which thoughts are shaped in the two languages are often different. But no pains have been spared to make the version given here, as far as possible, faithful to the original. The text followed is that of the Memorial Edition of the Works of Śrī Śankarâchârya published by the Śrī Vâṇî Vilâsa Press, but two manuscripts have been thoroughly consulted and on them are based the few variations of reading mentioned in the foot-notes. The translation is preceded by a brief introduction which summarises the teaching of the Upanishad. Here and there have also been added notes taken from Ânandagiri, and in this form has been incorporated in the book all that is valuable or interesting in his Tîkā. It is hoped that these aids will increase the usefulness of the translation.

M. H.

INTRODUCTION.

The Îṣâvâsyôpanishad—so called from its initial words—forms the concluding chapter of the Samhitâ of the Suklayajurvéda. The name of Samhitôpanishad is also sometimes given to it, in order to distinguish it from the other Upanishads which generally find their place in the Brâhmanas.

According to the commentary here translated, the eighteen verses of this Upanishad are to be understood as falling into four sections—

(i) Verse 1, which teaches that those who understand the Self and are fit for realising it should give up all worldly desires and devote themselves exclusively to attaining final release;

(ii) verse 2, which enjoins the performance of karma on such others as do not comprehend the Self and are consequently unable to realise it;

(iii) verses 3-8, which, having in view persons referred to in verse 1, describe the real nature of the Self and

iv

indicate the consequences of realising or not realising it;

and (iv) verses 9-18, which commend the simultaneous practice of karma and upásaná, to persons referred to in verse 2.

In commenting on this Upanishad, Srī San·karâchârya, now and again touches on the following point which is of much importance in understanding his view aright.

The Veda inculcates, he says, two independent lines of conduct—one of karma or activity and the other of jnâna or withdrawal from the world.

The first forms the subject-matter of the liturgical portion or the karmakânḍa and the second, of the Upanishads or the jnânakânda, of the Veda.

The teaching of the jnânakânda is whole in itself, and should not be considered as subsidiary, in any way, to the teaching of the karmakânda.

Nor should it be imagined that both these teachings can be concurrently followed by anybody, for there is a fundamental antithesis between them.

The latter presupposes a belief in variety, as ordinarily experienced, while the former, denying all this variety, insists on the truth of only the unity underlying it.

Thus the two paths of karma and jnâna are opposed to each other.

Only we should remember that there is a sense in which the first may be looked

upon as subsidiary to the second, for when the

path of activity is followed without any selfish

desire for rewards, it serves as a preparation for

the path of withdrawal by producing that compo-

sure of mind without which man cannot seek

the highest truth. In this nobler sense karma

is reckoned as an 'extrinsic' aid (bahiranga) to

final release. But the 'intrinsic' aid (antaranga)

is jnāna, and when a person once betakes him-

self to it, it logically follows that all karma loses

its significance to him. As has been well put by

the Vārtikakāra,

Satyantarangé vijnāné bahirangam na siddhyati

Samskārakam tu karma syāt jnānāttvajñānanin-

hutih

Sambandha Vārtika 368.

ISAVASYOPANISHAD

TRANSLATED

BY

DR.

SARVEPALLI

RADHAKRISHNAN

GEORGE

ALLEN

&

UNWIN

LONDON

Digitized

by

the

Internet

Archive

in

2008

with

funding

from

Microsoft

Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/isavasyopanishad00sank

ÎSÂVÂSYÓPANISHAD

ÎSÂVÂSYÓPANISHAD WITH THE COMMENTARY OF SRÎ SANKARÂCHÂRYA.

The verses beginning with Îṣâvâsyam are not utilised in ritual1, since they explain the true

1. The doubt whether these verses are to be used in ritual arises because this Upanishad forms part of a Samhitā and the verses in the Samhitā portion of the Veda are generally so employed. If these verses are at all to be utilised in ritual there should be an express statement to that effect in the Veda or there should at least be an indirect guidance afforded by their contents. We find no such express statement, and the subject matter, so far from being connected with karman, is directly antagonistic to it. Further it is usual to classify whatever is subsidiary or supplementary to ritual in four ways as follows—that which is produced as e.g. a sacrificial cake which is newly made out of flour, that which is modified, as e.g. soma juice which is extracted from soma leaves, that which is acquired as e. g. a mantra which is learnt by rote before being used in ritual and, lastly, that which is purified, as e. g. unhusked rice which is utilised after being ceremonially sanctified. The Self cannot be brought under

nature of the Self which is not subsidiary to karma. The true nature of the Self, as will presently be indicated, is purity, taintlessness, oneness, permanence, bodilessness, omnipresence and so forth, which being inconsistent with karma, it is only right that these (verses) are not used in ritual. The Self whose essence is thus described, moreover, cannot be produced, modified, acquired or purified; nor is it of the character of an agent or an enjoyer; in which case it would be subsidiary to karma. (And its existence cannot be called in question) inasmuch as all the Upanishads purport only to unfold its nature. The Bhagavadgita and the Mokshadharma (in the Mahabharata) have also the same aim.

any of these classes. It is neither an effect, nor a modification. It is not external to us to be obtained anew; nor is it impure to require any purification. The only other way of connecting the Self with karma is to make it an agent or an enjoyer. Neither of these, however, can the Self be, as will hereafter be explained in the commentary. Hence the denial of all relationship between the Self and karma.

2. Compare--

Samam Sarveshu bhuteshu tishthantam paramesvaram Vinasvatsvavinasyantam yah pasyati sa pasyati

—Bh: Gita xiii 27.

Eka eva hi bhutatma bhute bhute vyavasthitah. Ekadha bahudha caiva drisyate jalachandravat.

Mahabharata—Mokshadharma.

(It has therefore to be presumed that) karman is prescribed taking (for granted) that, as recognised by the intelligence of the average man, plurality, agency, enjoyment and so forth, as also impurity and sinfulness, are of the Self. Those that know who are eligible (for ritual) state that karman is prescribed only for him who is desirous of its fruit—whether that fruit be visible (i.e. attainable in this life) as spiritual lustre or invisible (i.e. attainable only in another life) as Svarga—and thinks "I am a twice-born, free from blindness, dwarfishness and the like marks of disqualification"³. Therefore the following verses, removing this original nescience concerning the Self, from an explanation of its real nature, produce a knowledge of unity which is the means of eradicating sorrow, delusion and other similar features of mundane existence. We shall briefly comment on these verses, having thus indicated the persons entitled to study them, the subject-matter, aim and their inter-relation⁴.

3. Desire, which is either for attaining happiness or for avoiding misery necessarily implies nescience. For the Self being in reality bliss itself, untouched by sorrow, cannot by its nature, be affected by any desire. Similarly, believing that the Self is fit for performing karman because its bodily adjuncts with which it is empirically connected are fit for it is also an indication of nescience.

4. In the beginning of a commentary it is customary

1. In the Lord is to be veiled

all this—whatsoever moves on

earth. Through such renuncia-

tion do thou save (thyself); be

not greedy, for whose is wealth?

He who rules is (termed) Ît. Îśâ (means), 'by

the Lord'. The Lord is the Ruler and the real

Self of every creature1. By such a Lord, identical

with oneself, is to be overspread i.e, covered.

What? idam sarvam=(all this). yat kincha=

whatsoever. jagatyām=on earth. jagat=all that

(moves). By one's own Self,—the Lord, the

supreme Self—which is the sole reality, all these

unreal (things), both movable and immovable, have

to be covered over, (perceiving) thus—'I am the

to point out specifically the qualifications of persons

entitled to study the treatise, its subject-matter, the aim of

its teaching and their inter-relation, especially that between

the last two. Deficiency in respect of any of these which

are termed the Anubandhachatuṣṭayam is understood to

indicate the unworthiness of the treatise to be commented

upon.

1. The difference between the controller and the

controlled is not to be understood as real. It is merely

apparent and is based on an illusion. In the same sense,

we may, for example, say that a person standing before a

number of mirrors controls the several reflected images of

himself.

inner Self of all'.2 Just as adventitious bad odour in a piece of sandal, arising from moisture, is overcome by true fragrance when the (sandal) piece is rubbed3, so indeed, will all the congenital variety of the world, such as being an agent or an enjoyer, superimposed on the Self, disappear at the perception (everywhere) of the (one) really existent Self. Since jagatyām is (here used) in an indicatory sense, all kinds of effects differentiated as name, form and action (are to be understood as connoted by it). What a person, that is so full of the conception that the Lord is the Self of all, ought to do is to renounce the three-fold desire for offspring etc., and not (be engaged in) karma. In tena tyaktena, tyaktā means renunciation (being used as an abstract noun). (It is not to be taken here as a past participle in the sense of 'given up' because) a son or a servant (for example) who has been abandoned or is dead, cannot save one since all connection is severed between them. Therefore (the word) can only mean 'renunciation'.

2. The sense is that one should realise that all is Self and that there is no variety in the Universe. This is the chief teaching of the present Upanishad and corresponds, in its significance, to the well-known tatvamasi of the Chāndôgyôpanishad.

3. The object of this illustration is to suggest that when conviction regarding the unity of all existence does not spring directly from faith in the teaching, reasoning or enquiry will generally lead to it.

bhunjīthāh=do save4. Having thus renounced desires, be not greedy (mā gridhah) i.e., do not long for wealth. kasya svit=(of anybody). (The meaning is)—Do not long for the wealth of any-body—i.e., yourself or another. (In this inter-pretation) svit is a mere expletive. Or (we may say as follows)—Be not greedy. Why? (The answer is)—kasya svit dhanam=Whose is wealth?—imply-ing a denial. If wealth could belong to anybody it might be sought; (but) everything having dis-appeared through the discovery of the Lord (every-where), all this is of the Self, and all this is the Self. Thus it means—‘Do not seek an unreality.’5

Thus the purport of the text is that after renouncing the three-fold desire for offspring etc., the knower of Self should save himself by devotion to true knowledge. And to the rest who not being knowers of Self, are unable to realise it, the (next) verse states as follows—

4. This statement is not to be understood literally for the Self does not, in reality, require to be saved. It is only intended to extol renunciation by ascribing final release to its influence.

5. The third pāda of this verse enjoins renunciation on such as can discriminate between what is Self and what is not. Such withdrawal from the world is the only course for Self-realisation. By removing the ordinary distractions of life it renders easy the attainment of final release. The fourth pāda prescribes a rule of conduct and prohibits the acquisition by such persons of wealth of any description beyond what is necessary for bare maintenance.

2. Always performing karma

here, one should desire to live.

for a hundred years. So long as

thou (seekest to live) a mere man,

no other (path) exists (where)

activity does not taint thee.

Kurvannêva=always performing. iha=(here)

karmâni=rites such as agnihôtra. jijivishêt=

one should desire to live. satam=one hundred in

number. samāh=years. For thus much is known

to be the maximum age of man. Since (this is) a

(mere) iteration (of an empirically known fact)

what should be taken as enjoined (here) is

that, if one should desire to live a hundred

years, he should live only performing karma.

evam=in this manner. tvayi=(in regard to

you). nare i.e. when you live content to be a

mere man. itah i.e., from this present course of

performing karma like agnihôtra. anyathā—a

different course. na asti=does not exist; in

which course evil action does not stain; i.e., you

do not get tainted by sin. Wherefore if one

should desire for life (one should live) throughout

performing karma such as agnihôtra prescribed by

the śāstra.

How is it to be understood that the former

verse assigns to a sannyāsin devotion to knowledge and the latter, only devotion to karma to one incapable of it (Self-realisation) ? We reply—Do you not remember the aforesaid antithesis between jñāna and karma which remains unshakable as a mountain ? Here also the same has been expressly stated in verses 1 and 2,—(that he who seeks to live must perform karma and that he who does not, must give up all desire. The same conclusion may be arrived at) from the (following) directions to sannyāsins —“ He should desire neither for life, nor for death ; he should enter a forest. This is the law.” “He should not thence return”. The difference in result between the two will also be pointed out later on. (Another statement of the like import is) “These two paths only appeared in the beginning—the path of activity and (the path) of withdrawal.” Of these two, renunciation is higher, cf. Taittirīya Āraṇyaka “Renunciation alone excelled”. And Vyāsa, the great Vedic teacher, after much reflection, taught his son definitely as follows—“ The Vedas aim at inculcating these two paths—one termed the path of activity and the other, of renunciation.” We shall indicate (in the sequel ) the distinction between these two (paths).

And now the (next) verse is begun in dispraise of the ignorant—

9

3. Malignant are those worlds and enveloped in blinding dark-

ness, into which pass, after death, whatsoever people slay the Self.

From the standpoint of Unity in the form of the supreme Self, even dēvas are (reckoned) as

asuras. asuryāh=belonging to demons. nāma is a mere expletive here. te=(those), lokāh=births

(or lives), because therein the fruits of karma are

perceived or enjoyed. andhéna=of blinding nature.

tamasā=by nescience. āvritāh=enveloped. tān=

(those) viz. existences down to the immovable,

prétya=having left this body. abhigachchhanti=

(attain) according to their past deeds and according

to their devotional practices. yé ké cha=whosoever.

ātmahanah=those who slay the Self. Who are

they? People that are ignorant1. How can they

slay the eternal Self? Through their failing of

ignorance they veil (i.e. forget) the ever present

Self. The sign of (a belief in) its existence is the

consciousness of its undecaying immortal nature.

This becomes veiled (i.e. forgotten), as if the Self

has been slain, and the ordinary ignorant people

are termed 'slayers of Self'2. By reason of this

sin of slaying the Self, they transmigrate.

1. I read "ke te? Yé janâ avidvâmsah".

2. Ascribing impurity etc. to the Self is considered as

equivalent to killing it; just as imputing a false and serious

Now is explained of what nature this Self is, by slaying which the ignorant transmigrate and, as distinguished from them, the learned, by not slaying it, attain final release—

4. Unmoving, one, (and yet) speedier than the mind : the senses reach it never; (for) it (Self) goes before. Standing, it outstrips others that run. In virtue of it, does mâtarisvâ allot functions (severally to all).

Anéjat=not shaking, from the root éjr to shake. Shaking is moving, i.e., lapsing from its real state. (The Self is) free from it, i.e., is always of the same form. It is also one in all beings. manasó javīyah=speedier than the mind which is characterised by desire &c. Wherefore these conflicting statements—that it is at once assuredly motionless and speedier than the mind ? This is not wrong, for it can be justified (on the basis of the Self) being conditioned or unconditioned. In its original unconditioned form it is stated to be unmoving and one. (It is also possible to charge against a virtuous man is, in ordinary parlance, spoken of as " murder without a weapon."—aśastravadha

predicate motion of the Self) because it reflects (the features of) its conditioning mind which is the internal sense charaterised by desire and doubt. Since the mind, though residing here within the body can, in an instant, conceive of the distant Brahmalôka and the like, it is ordinarily taken as possessing great speed. When such mind, for instance reaches (in thought) Brahmalôka, with rapidity, the Self appears to have reached there already. Therefore it is said here 'speedier than the mind'. deváh=senses such as the eye--so called because they illuminate. énat=this entity of the Self. na âpnuvan=did not reach, the mind being speedier than they. Since mental operation (always) intervenes, not even the semblance of the

Self becomes perceivable by the Senses.1 (And it is beyond the mind itself) because the Self is always in advance (of it) being all-pervading like space. (Now the verse) states that the Self, always2 free from all features of transmigration, in its own unconditioned form and being altogether changeless, appears to the undiscriminating ignorant, as experiencing all the several modes of life due to limiting adjuncts and also as being many, i.e., one in each body. tat=(that). anavatah=speedily

1. The action of the senses presupposes the operation of the mind. The Self being beyond mind, is necessarily beyond the senses as well.

2. I read sarvaddpi instead of sarvavyápi.

12

going. anyīn. = mind, the organs of speech &c.,

which are all other than the Self. atyēti=seems to

outstrip. The text itself indicates the sense of

iva (seems) by tisthat which means 'itself re-

maining immutable.' tasmin i.e. in virtue of

the existence of the Self which is of the nature of

eternal sentiency. Mātarisvā=He who moves

(śvayati) in the heavens (mātari); the Wind, the

active principle in all creatures ; on which are

dependent all the aggregates of causes and effects

and into which they are woven like warp and woof

and which is also termed 'the connecting thread'

and is the support of the whole universe. Such

is mātarisvā. apah=functions3 of things, such as

flaming and burning of Fire, shining of the

Sun, raining of the Cloud and so on. dadhāti=

allots4; or the word may mean 'directs' agreeably

to texts like "Through fear of Him the wind blows

&c." (Tait: Up : II, viii, 1). The idea is that

all changes of the nature of cause and effect take

place only when the Self, the eternal sentiency and

substrate of all, exists.

Not weary of repeating, the Veda states

3. Apah in a secondary sense means 'Sacrificial acts'

for most of them are performed with water, ghee and such

other liquids. Hence, in what may be called a 'tertiary

sense' the term may be taken to denote all kinds of activity.

4. This implies an argument for the existence of an

all-controlling Lord of the Universe.

once again what has already been said in the previous verse

5. It moves : and it moves not : it is far and it is near. It is inside all this; it is also outside all this.

Tad =the Self in question. íjati=moves. The same does not move (na éjati) i.e., in itself. In other words, being in truth motionless, it (only) appears to move. Moreover, tat=it, dūre=(at a distance). It is distant, as it were, because the ignorant cannot get at it even in a thousand million years. tat u=(it is also); antikē=near. Absolutely so, to the wise for it is their very Self. It is not merely far and near ; it is (also) antah i.e. inside of all this. Compare—‘Which Self is inmost of all’—(Brih. Up. III, iv, 1). asya sarvasyā=( of this all) i.e., the universe consisting of name, form and action. It is outside all this, being pervasive; inside, being supremely subtle like space. ( We should also remember) that it is without interstices from the teaching contained in passages like “wholly solid sentency &c.”—(Brih. Up.IV, v, 13)

6. And he who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings has no aversion thence.

Yah tu i. e., a sannyāsin desiring final release.

sarvāṇi bhūtāni= all beings (i.e., existences) from

prakriti down to the immovable. ātmani eva

anupasyati= (discovers in himself) i. e., does not

understand as other than his own Self. sarva

bhūteṣhu cha i.e. and in the same (beings). ātmānam

= (himself) i. e., his own Self as the Self of all

those beings as well. (The reference here is to

him) who beholds himself, the same in all beings

thus—‘Just as I, the cogniser of all notions,

the perceiver, one and devoid of all attributes,

am the Self of this my body, the aggregate of causes

and effects, so also am I in the same form, the

Self of all beings from prakriti down to the

immovable. tataḥ= through such perception. na

vijugupsate= does not feel repelled. This is an

iteration of what is (empirically) known. All

aversion is from evil things other than one’s own

self, and if one recognises (everywhere) only the

Self, absolutely pure and continuous, it is clear

that (for such an one) there is nothing to excite

repulsion. Hence the statement—‘He has no

aversion thence’.

Another verse also expresses the same idea—

7. When to a knower dis-covering unity, all beings become

his very Self, what delusion then (to him) and what sorrow?

Yasmin = when or in which Self. sarvāni bhū-tāni = the same (already mentioned) beings of all kinds. ātma éva abhūt = became one's own self, through right perception. vijānatah = (to the knower) of Reality. tatra = then or in such Self. kó móhah kasṣokah = (what delusion and what sorrow?)

Sorrow and delusion are for one that does not understand the source of desire and activity but not to one that realises the unity of Self, pure and resembling space. The third pāda by calling in question and denying the possibility of sorrow and delusion which are the result of nescience, indicates (so far as the knower is concerned) the absolute cessation of worldly existence together with its cause.

The following verse (now) states of what description the Self—spoken of in the foregoing verses—in its nature, is—

8. 'He (the self) is all pervading, bright, incorporeal, scatheless and veinless, pure, untouched by sin; a seer, all-knowing, superimposed and self-begotten. (It is He that) has duly allotted to the eternal creators their (various) duties.

Saḥ = the aforesaid Self. paryagāt = went round; i.e. he is pervading like space. śukram = white, i.e. radiant, bright. akāyam = bodiless i.e. without the subtle body, avranam = not to be wounded. snāva = vein; therefore asnāviram means ‘veinless’. The last two (epithets) deny the gross body; suddham = without the stain of nescience. This denies the causal body. apāpaviddham = unsmitten by evil (which term is meant to include) both merits and demerits1. The words beginning with śukram are to be changed to the masculine form, because the verse starts with saḥ (a masculine form) and ends likewise with kavilḥ and manīṣī (which also are masculine in form). kavilḥ = seeing what is past2, i.e. witness of all, according to the text- “There is no seer other than He” (Brh. Up. III, vii, 23), manīṣī = the controller of the mind i.e., the all-knowing Lord. paribhūḥ means ‘who is above (pari = upari) everything’. svayambhūḥ = self-begotten. This signifies that what is above everything as well as what is everything are both

1. According to the view of Sankarâchârya, it should be remembered, good and evil become reduced to the same level in the eyes of a knower of the Self, for both alike lead to a succession of births, although the one be of a higher kind than the other.

2. This word literally means 'one that can see what is past'. Here it is to be understood in a secondary sense, the past indicatin all time—the present as well as the future. Hence it means " witness of all".

17

the Self. Such a Lord, always free, being all-knowing, has allotted duties (arthân) according to past deeds which are instrumental in yielding fruit (in this life) i. e. has appropriately distributed (them). Yâthâtathyataḥ, being derived from yathâtathâ, means 'according to facts'.

sâśvatībhyah = permanent; Samâbhyah i.e. among Creators going by the name of 'Time'*

The first point taught here in Verse 1 is (exclusive) devotion to true knowledge after giving up desires of all kinds. The second point—taught in verse 2,—is that as this devotion to self-knowledge is not possible to the ignorant who seek to live (in the ordinary way) they should devote themselves to karma. The distinctness of the two courses referred to in these verses (belonging to the Suklayajurvêda Saṃhitâ) is also indicated in the Bṛhadâraṇyaka (which forms part of the Suḳlayajurvêda Brâhmaṇa). (Thus we understand) from the passage beginning with " He desired, ' Let me have a wife' etc " (Bṛih. Up. I, iv, 17) that all karma is for the ignorant actuated by worldly desires. And the statement, (in the same passage) " To him the mind is the

• For this sense of Samvatsara see Brh. Up. I, v, 14 and Pr. Up. i. 9. Like everything else Time also is born of the Creator. Hence ' Time' is 'Creator' taking the effect for the cause.

2

Self ; speech, wife ; &c "1 makes it clear that ignorance and covetousness characterise the person devoted to karma. Its result is accordingly the creation of the seven kinds of food and (thereafter) identifying with them oneself (and one's interests)2. Again, as opposed to adherence to karma, exclusive devotion to the Self, in its reality, through renunciation of the three kinds of desire for wife &c., is taught to knowers of the Self in the passage beginning with "What have we to do with offspring—we to whom this Self is the desired end (world)?" (Bṛh. Up. IV, iv, 22.)

In verses 3–8, by first showing, disparagement of the ignorant, the real nature of the Self has been explained to such as devote themselves, after renunciation, to Self-realisation; for it is the knowers and not the worldly-minded that are qualified for it (Self-realisation). The same has been distinctly stated in the Śvētāśvatara Upanishad (vi, 21)—"To those in the highest religious stage, be well explained the sacred truth followed by many sages" The following verses are (now) addressed to the worldly-minded who, devoting themselves to karma, desire to live a life

1. Beleiving mind to be the Self is an indication of nescience.

2. See Bṛh. Up. I, v, 1.

19

of activity. How is it to be known (that they are addressed to such alone) and not to all? The

reply is—None but the deluded would associate with karma or with other kinds of knowledge,

that knowledge of Self-unity, which arises from the destruction of all difference between end and

means as taught to the unworldly in verse 7. In what follows the dispraise of the ignorant is with

a view to associate Karma with Vidyā. (Hence we should understand that) only such (knowledge) is

meant here as can, with reason or in accordance with śāstra, be combined with karma. That

knowledge is knowledge of deities (upāsanā or meditation), known as 'divine wealth' which

is taught here as co-existent with karma, and not the knowledge of the supreme Self, for

a specific result is known to follow (from a knowledge of deities) from the text—“The

world of the gods through meditation” (Brh. Up. I, v, 16). The separate practice of medita-

tion and karma is condemned here with a view to (inculcate their) simultaneous practice and not for

altogether deprecating (either); for specific results are known (from the Veda) to follow from each.

Compare—‘That, They ascend through meditation’;

'The world of the gods through meditation' 'Those who take the southern path do not go there';

'The world of the manes by karma'. Nothing that śāstra prescribes can possibly be blameworthy.—

20

9. Into blinding darkness pass

they who adhere to karma and

into still greater darkness, as it

were, they who delight in medi-

tation.

andham tamah=blinding darkness. praviś-

anti=(they pass). Who ? yé avidyām upāsatē=they

who practise karma. avidyā is what is other than

knowledge i.e. karma, because karma is opposed to

knowledge. upāsatē=devoutly practise i.e. perform

only karma such as agnihótra. tataḥ i.e. than such

blinding darkness. bhūya iva=greater, as it were.1

té tamaḥ i.e. they pass into darkness. Who ?

yé u=those who, on the other hand; vidyāyām=in

meditating on deities ; ratāḥ take delight i.e. who

engage themselves in it to the exclusion of

karma.

Now follows a statement of the distinction

between the respective fruits of meditation and

karma, as an argument for their simultaneous

practice. Otherwise, if of the two thus proximately

stated, one only is known to bear fruit and not

the other, the relation between them would be

(according to rules of interpretation, not one of

co-ordination but) only that of subordination2—

1. I read bahutaram iva.

2. I read angángitaira syát.

10. Distinct, they say, is (the fruit borne) by meditation and distinct again, they say, is (that borne) by karma. Thus have we heard from sages who taught us that.

anyat eva=quite distinct. Vidyayā=(by meditation) i.e. the fruit borne by meditation is distinct. āhuḥ=they say; (the second pāda) means "karma yields a distinct fruit altogether"; as recorded in "The world of manes through karma; the world of gods through meditation". iti=thus. śuśruma=we have heard. dhīram i.e. (the saying) of the wise. yè—i.e., which teachers. naḥ=to us. tat i.e. karma and meditation. vichachakshirê=explained well. The purport is that this their teaching has been handed down by tradition,

Since it is so,

11. Whoever understands meditation and karma as going together, (he) overcoming death through karma, attains immortality through meditation.

The first pāda means 'meditating on deities and karma'. yah=(whoever.) tat=etat=this. ubhayam=

(two.) saha—i.e. to be practised by the same person. veda=(understands). (The second half of the verse) states that only a person, practising

both together, will in due course, achieve the chief end* avidyayā=by karma like agnihōtra.

mrtyum—by this word are here meant usual activity and knowledge. tīrtvā=having overcome those two. vidyayā=by meditation on deities.

amrtam=(immortality); godhead. aṣnuté=attains. Becoming one with the deity (meditated upon) is termed 'immortality' here.

Now with a view to inculcate their simultaneous practice, follows the condemnation of the separate meditation on the manifest and on the unmanifest—

12. Into blinding darkness pass they who are devoted to the unmanifest, and into still greater darkness, as it were, they who delight in the manifest

Sambhavanam means birth. That which is born and is an effect is sambhūti. asambhūti is

• I read Samuchchayakadrina éva ékapurushārtha-sambandhah.

what is other than sambhūti i.e., prakṛti, the undifferentiated cause whose essence is nescience and which is the source of all activity and desire.

They who devote themselves to such Cause enter (as may be expected) darkness which is correspondingly blind in its nature.

Sambhūtyām i.e., in the phenomenal Brahman known as Hiraṇyagarbha.

They who delight only in Him enter darkness which is, as it were, more blinding still.

Now follows as an argument for their simultaneous practice, a statement of the distinction between the respective fruits of the two kinds of meditation—

13. Distinct, they say, is (what results) from the manifest and distinct again, they say, is (what results) from the unmanifest.

Thus have we heard from the sages who taught us that.

anyat evā=altogether distinct. ahuh=(they say). Sambhavāt=from that which has birth i.e., from meditating on the phenomenal Brahman, supernatural power such as assuming, at will, extreme subtlety is said to result.

Similarly, they say that there is a (distinctive) fruit from meditat-

ing on the unmanifest,—viz, that, alluded to in pāda 1 of verse 12 and which is known as " absorption into primal cause'1 to those versed in the Purāṇas. iti=thus. suṣruma dhirāṇām—i.e., we have heard the saying of the wise. The last pāda means " who explained to us the results of meditating on the manifest and the unmanifest"

Since this is so, it is but right that meditation on both the effect and the cause should be practised together; a further reason being the achievement (through such meditation) of the chief end.2

14. Whoever understands the manifest and the unmanifest as going together, (he), by overcoming death through the manifest, attains immortality through the unmanifest.

The first half of the verse means "He who understands that meditation on the manifest and the unmanifest should be practised together". vināśa here means an "effect"—that whose character is transitoriness; the abstract being put for the concrete. vināśena means "by meditating on

1. This state may be sought on account of the absence of the ordinary excitements of life in it as in sleep.

2. I read yukta eva and ekapurushārthatvāchcha.

such (Brahman)”. mrtyum = death i.e., all kinds of deficiency arising from limited power, demerit, covetousness and so on. tirtvā=(having overcome); for great supernatural power is attained by the contemplation of Hiranyagarbha. Having thus overcome death or limitation of power &c., asambhūtya i.e., by meditating on the unmanifest. amrtam i.e. absorption into the First Cause. asnuté (attains). It should be noted that sambhūti in the first pāda is mentioned without the (initial) a (and is to be taken as equivalent to asambhūti) agreeably to the statement that the result is absorption into the First Cause.

The result derivable, according to śāstra, through worldly and divine ‘wealth’1 extends up to absorption into the First Cause. Thus far is metempsychosis. Higher than that, is the realisation of the unity of Self spoken of in verse 9—the result of renouncing all desires and devoting oneself (exclusively) to true knowledge. Thus the twofold teaching of the Veda, as relating to worldly activity and to withdrawal from it, has been explained here. And the (Śatapatha) Brāhmaṇa up to (the chapters on) Pravargya (purificatory ceremonies described in Khaṇḍa xiv

1. Worldly wealth or means comprising cattle, land, money &c., all required for performing karma. ‘Divine wealth’ is knowledge of deities.

chapters 1—3) concerns itself with elucidating,

in full, the Vedic teaching relating to the

path of activity, consisting of injunctions and

prohibitions. The succeeding portion, viz., the

Bṛhadāraṇyaka, explains the path of withdrawal

from the world. In verse 11 it has been stated1

that he who desires to live performing karma (in

its entirety) from conception to death, and along

with it, practises meditation on the lower

(phenomenal) Brahman will attain immortality.

It is now pointed out by what course, one so quali-

fied becomes immortal. (We read in the Bṛh. Up.

V, v, 2) “ That is what is Truth; it is the Sun, the

Person in this disc, as also the Person in the right

eye ”. The worshipper of this two-fold Brahman

—Truth—who has also been performing karma as

prescribed, addresses thus, when the end is come,

Brahman who is Truth, beseeching Him for

entrance—

15. Truth's face is covered

with a golden lid : remove that,

O Pūshan, that I, Truth's

devotee, may see It.

Hiraṇmayam=seeming golden, resplendent

tena=by such. pátréṇa=lid, as it were. satyásya i.e.

1. taduktam iti, tam pratyuktam mantrèṇa vid-

yāmchāvidyāmchètyâdinā.—Ânandagiri. One Ms., reads-

tampratyètaduktam in place of taduktam.

of the Brahman residing in the Solar disc. apihitam = covered. mukham = entrance. tat = (that); tvam = (you); hê pûshan = O Sun, apâvṛṇu = remove. satyadharmâya i.e., to me who am satyadharmâ, through meditation on you who are Truth. Or this expression may mean " one that practises true piety " Drishtayé i.e., for reaching you whose esseace is Truth.

16 O Pûshan, sole traveller, Yama, Sun, child of Prajâpati, recall thy rays : withdraw thy light that I may behold thee of loveliest form. Whosoever that Person is, that also am I.

Pûshan = the sun, so called because he protects the world. Ekarshê, because he traverses (the sky) alone. Yama, Death, because he controls all. Sûrya, because he sucks up rays, life and water. Prajâpatya, because he is the son of Prajâpati, the Creator. vyûha = remove. rasmin i.e. your rays. samîha = unite i.e. withdraw. têjas = your light. yat tê = what is yours. rûpam = form, kalyânatamam = loveliest, tat tê = that of yours pasyâmi i.e. I may see by your grace. Further I am not entreating you as a servant, because whoever is the Person in the Solar disc, composed of

vyāhrtis,* the same am I. He is known as purusha (person) because He is of the form of a person, or because this world is full of Him in His modes of activity and thought or, again, because He lies in the citadel of the body.

17. (May) this life (merge in) the immortal breath! And (may) this body end in ashes! Om! mind, remember, remember thy deeds: mind, remember, remember thy deeds!

Now that I am dying, may my life (Vāyu), abandoning the bodily adjunct assume the godly, in the immortal breath (amṛtam anilam ) of the universal Self, the 'connecting thread' of all. pratipadyatām ("may reach") is to be understood. The meaning, agreeably to the prayer for entrance, is "May this subtle body purified by meditation and karma advance". atha=(and). idam=(this), sarīram=(body), hutam=(burnt) in fire. bhasmāntam i.e., may it end in ashes. Om—thus is addressed Brabman—as identical with what is known as Agni the essence of

• Vyāhṛti is literally 'utterance' and is the term used to denote the three sacred syllables bhūḥ, bhuvah, svahaḥ. See Brh. Up. V, v, 3.

Truth—following the mode of meditating on Him through this symbol. krató i.e., O mind, so called because it desires. smara i.e., remember what has to be remembered, for the time for it is now come. Therefore remember what has till now been meditated upon. Remember also whatever karma you have done till now*—since boyhood. The repetition of the third pada indicates earnestness.

By another verse also, entrance is prayed for—

18. O God Agni, lead us on to prosperity by a good path, judging all our deeds. Take away ugly sin from us. We shall say many prayers unto thee.

Agnê=(O Fire). naya = lead, supathâ=by a good path. This qualifying word excludes the southern path. (The devotee means)—“I am tired of the southern path characterised by birth and death, and therefore do I repeatedly ask you to lead (me) by the good path free from birth and death”. raye=for wealth i.e. (here) for enjoying the fruit of karma. asmân=us, that are qualified for (the enjoyment of) the fruits of the prescribed practices. viṡvâni=all. déva=O God,

• I read agrê in place of agnê.

vayunáni = karma or meditation. vidván = knowing. Further, yuyodhi i.e., separate or destroy. asmat = asmattah = from us. juhuránam = crooked or deceitful. énah = sin; so that becoming pure thereby we may obtain our wish. We are not, however, able now to serve you actively (as of old); we can but do obeisance again and again (bhûyishṭhâm) to you.

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 avidyâ, he attains immortality through vidyâ” 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 vidyâ 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 śâstra) for antagonism or the reverse should be based on śâstraic authority only. Just as the performance of karma and the practice of Vidyá are known through śâstra alone, so also should their opposition or agreement be. As the

śāstraic prohibition "No creature should be hurt" is annulled by śāstra 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.1

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 antagonism between them, we reply 'No'; because2 there can possibly be no option as regards opposition or agreement between true knowledge and avidyā3. If it be rejoined that there is no antithesis

1. I omit samuchchayah after vidyākarmanōścha.

2. I omit hetusvarūpaphalavirōdhāt. I also put a full stop after vikalpaisambhavāt.

3. Option is conceivable in the case of karma. Thus one śākhā of the Veda prescribes "udité juhóti"; another, "anudité juhóti." Here it may be understood that the Veda gives one, option to offer oblations either after sunrise or before. But the same rule cannot apply to vidyā and avidyā, on the strength of the two texts in question. In this case, only one of the statements can hold good and the other, instead of being taken literally, has to be interpreted in such a manner that it will not clash with the first. Reason has to decide which statement is to be understood literally and which not.

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 pursued by the same (person) one after the other1, 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 result2—karma —is equally inconceivable. The immortality spoken of (here) is only relative. Further if vidyā

1. If it is meant that karma precedes knowledge, there is no difficulty in agreeing with the opponent, for it is recognised that karma prepares man for true knowledge. But if karma is to succeed knowledge, the statement of the opponent cannot be admitted.

2. The opponent may argue at this stage that the antithesis hitherto spoken of is between vidyā and avidyā and not between karma and vidyā. This argument is met by stating that dissociating avidyā from a knower is perforce dissociating karma also from him.

passage referred to knowledge of the supreme Self,

praying for an entrance would be inappropriate.*

Thus we conclude by stating that the meaning of

the verses in question is, as we have explained.

• This is said in reference to the Vedic text. “na

tasya prānā utkrāmanti’’ (Brh. Up. v, 6), which declares

that final release is attained by a knower, where he is, and

not by his going elsewhere.

SRIRANGAM:

SRI VANI VILAS

PRESS.