Ishavasya Upanishad complete English Explanation by– Sri Shankara

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Sri Shankara’s Introduction   «   »

OM TAT SAT

 

Adoration to the Brahman. The mantras beginning with Isavasyam, etc., have not been utilized in rituals, because they serve the purpose of enlightening us on the true nature of the Atman who is not an anga of i.e., not connected with. Karma. The true nature of the Atman consists, as will be described, in its purity being untouched by sin, oneness, being eternal, having no body, omnipresence, etc., and as that conflicts with Karma, it is only reasonable that these mantras should not be utilized in rituals; nor is the true nature of the Atman thus defined, a product, a modification, a thing to be attained or a thing to be refined; nor is it of the nature of a doer or enjoyer so that it may be connected with Karma. All the Upanishads exhaust themselves in describing the true nature of the Atman; and the Gita; and the Mokshadharma are bent on the same end. Therefore all Karma lias been enjoined in accordance with worldly understanding, which attributes to the Atman diversity, agency, enjoyment, impurity, sinfulness, etc. Those that know who are competent to perform Karma and who are not, (Adhikaravidah) tell us that he who seeks the fruits of Karma—visible such as the inherent splendour of a Brahmin and invisible such as Heaven,etc.,—and thinks “I am a twice-born free from any defect such as being one-eyed or hunch-backed, etc., which disqualifies one for the performance of Karma” is entitled to perform Karma. So, these mantras by enlightening (us) on the true nature of the Atman remove our natural ignorance and produce in us the knowledge of the oneness, etc., of the Atman,—the means of uprooting grief, delusion, etc., the concomitants of Samsara.

We shall now briefly comment upon the mantras, the persons competent to study which, the subject matter of which, the relevancy of which (samhandha) and the fruits of which, have been thus declared.

Ishavasya Upanishad – Invocation   «   »

ओं | पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पूर्णमुदच्यते ।

पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥

oṃ | pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇātpūrṇamudacyate |

pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate ||

The whole (Brahman) is all that is invisible. The whole (Brahman) is all that is visible. The whole (Hiranyagarbha) was born out of the whole (Brahman). When the whole (the Universe) is absorbed into the whole (Brahman) the whole alone (Brahman) remains.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

An in-depth study of this Invocatory Verse by Swami Dayananda

 

This is an innocuous looking verse: one noun, two pronouns, three verbs and a particle for emphasis. Yet, someone once said: “Let all the UpaniSads disappear from the face of the earth. I don’t mind so long as this one verse remains.”

 

Can one small verse be so profound? “Of course not. Utter nonsense!” would have been the response of a certain Englishman, who did not find the verse sensible at all, let alone profound. This Englishman, who was something of a scholar, asked a pundit to teach him the UpaniSads. The pundit, agreeing, began the course of study with ISAvAsyOpaniSad, the text traditionally studied first by a new student. The text begins with the SantipaTa (prayer verse): “Om pUrNamadah pUrNamidaM.” The pundit carefully translated the opening verse into English:

 

That is whole; this is whole;

 

From that whole this whole came;

 

From that whole, this whole removed,

 

What remains is whole.

 

The Englishman stopped his study at that point and did not go further! He said that the UpaniSads are the “prattlings of an infantile mind.”

 

Which point of view is correct? Is this verse something which is wondrous and profound or is it just “infantile prattlings”?

 

Idam, This PurNam, the single noun in the verse, is a beautiful Sanskrit word which means completely filled – a filledness which (in its Vedic scriptural sense) is wholeness itself, absolute fullness lacking nothing whatsoever. Adah, which means ’that’, and idam, which means ’this’, are two pronouns each of which, at the same time, refers to the single noun, pUrNam:

 

PUrNam adah – completeness is that,

 

PUrNam idam – completeness is this.

 

Adah, that, is always used to refer to something remote from the speaker in time, place or understanding. Something which is remote in the sense of adah is something which, at the time in question, is not available for direct knowledge. Adah, that, refers to a jnEya vastu, a thing to be known, a thing which due to some kind of remoteness is not present for immediate knowledge but remains to be known upon destruction of the remoteness. Idam, this, refers to something not remote but present, here and now, immediately available for perception, something directly known or knowable. Thus it can be said that adah refers to the unknown, the unknown in the sense of the not-directly known due to remoteness, and idam refers to the immediately perceivable known.

 

Traditionally, however, idam has come to have a much broader meaning. Idam is stretched to stand for anything available for objectification; that is, for any object external to me which can be known by me through my means of knowledge. In this sense, idam, this, indicates all driSya, all seen or known things. Idam can be so used because all adah, all things called ’that’ become ’this’ as soon as their thatness, their remoteness in time, place or knowledge is destroyed. It is in this sense that the SantipAta “pUrNamadah” uses idam.

 

The first verse of IshAvAsyOpaniSad, following the SantipATa makes clear that idam is used in the traditional sense of all driSya, all known or knowable things:

 

idam sarvam yat kinca jagatyAm jagat

 

“ all this, whatsoever, changing in this changing world..” Verse 1 – Isavasya Upanishad.

 

Given this meaning, idam, this swallows up all ’that’s’ subject to becoming ’this’; in other words, idam stands for all things capable of being known as objects. So when the verse says pUrNam idam, “completeness is this”, what is being said is that all that one knows or is able to know is pUrNam.

 

This statement is not understandable because pUrNam means completeness, absolute fullness, wholeness. PurNam is that which is not away from anything but which is the fullness of everything. If pUrNam is total fullness which leaves nothing out, then ’this’ cannot be used to describe pUrNam because ’this’ leaves something out.

 

What? The subject. ’This’ leaves out aham, I, the subject. The world ’this’does not include I. I, the subject, is always left out when one says ’this’. If I am not included then pUrNam is not wholeness. Therefore, pUrNam idam appears to be an untenable statement because it leaves out I.

 

Adah, That What about the other pronoun, adah, that? What does adah mean in context? Does ’that’ have a tenable relationship with pUrNam? Since idam, this, has been used in its traditional sense of all knowable objects, here or there, presently known or unknown, the only meaning left for ’that’ is to indicate the subject. Idam, this, stands for everything available for objectification. What is not available for objectification? The objectifier – the subject. The subject, aham, I, is the only thing not available for objectification. So, the real meaning of the pronoun adah, that, as used here in contrast to idam, this, is aham, I.

However, it was said that adah, that, indicates a jnEyavastu, something to be known; in other words, something not yet directly known because it is remote from the knower in time, place or in terms of knowledge. If that is so, how can adah, that, mean aham, I? Am I remote? I am certainly not remote in terms of time or place. I am always here right now. But perhaps I may be remote in terms of knowledge. If in fact I do not know the true nature of myself I could be a jnEyavastu, a to-be-known, in terms of knowledge. Because it is only through the revelation of shruti (scripture functioning as means of knowledge) that I can gain knowledge of my true nature, it can be said that in general the truth of aham is remote in terms of knowledge – something that is yet to be known.

 

So in context, adah, the pronoun ’that’, stands for what is meant when I say, simply, “I am”, without ay qualification whatsoever. ’That’ so used as ’I” means AtmA, the content of truth of the first person singular, a jnEya-vastu, a to-be-known, in terms of knowledge. When that knowledge is gained, I will recognize that I, AtmA, am identical with limitless Brahman – all pervasive, formless and considered the cause of the world of formful objects.

 

So far, then, the first two lines of the verse read:

 

PUrNam adah – completeness is I, the subject AtmA, whose truth is Brahman, formless, limitlessness, considered creation’s cause;

 

PUrNam idam – completeness is all objects, all things known or knowable, all formful effects, comprising creation.

 

PurNam, Completeness

 

The statement, “Completeness is I, the subject” on its face dos not seem any more tenable than the statement, “Completeness is all objects.” Both statements seem to suffer from the same kind of defect. Each looks defective because it fails to include the other. Moreover, each looks like it could not include the other; and, pUrNam, completeness, brooks no exclusion whatsoever.

 

If aham, subject, is different from idam, object; if idam, object, is different from aham, subject, if pUrNam, to be pUrNam, cannot be separate from anything, then the opening lines of the verse seem not to be sensible. But this conclusion comes from failure to see the two statements as a whole from the standpoint of pUrNam. To find sense in the lines, do not look at pUrNam from the standpoint of aham, I, and idam, this, but look at aham and idam from the standpoint of pUrNam. The nature of pUrNam is wholeness, completeness limitlessness. There cannot be pUrNam plus something or pUrNam minus something. It is not possible to add or to take away from limitlessness. The nature of pUrnam being what is, ’that’ pUrNam must include ’this’ pUrNam; ’this’ pUrNam must include ’that’ pUrNam.

 

Therefore, when it is said that aham, I, am pUrnam and idam, this, is pUrNam, what is really being said is that there is only pUrNam. Aham, I, and idam, this, traditionally represent the two basic categories into one or the other of which everything fits. There is no third category. So if aham and idam, represent everything and each is pUrNam , then everything is pUrNam. Aham, I is pUrNam which includes the world. Idam this, is pUrNam which include me. The seeming differences of aham and idam are swallowed by pUrnam – that limitless fullness which shruti (scripture) calls Brahman.

 

If everything is pUrNam, why bother with ’that’ and ’this’? Is it just poetic license to make a riddle out of something which could be stated simply? It seems an unnecessary confusion to say ’that’ (Which really stands for aham – I) is pUrNam and then to say ’this’

 

(Which really stands for all the objects in the world) is pUrNam when one could just describe the fact and say: everything is pUrNam. PurNam is absolute fullness; absolute fullness is limitlessness which is Brahman.

 

Why not such a direct approach? Because it would not work; it would only add to confusion, not clear it. Although such simple statements are a true description of the ultimate fact, to communicate that fact so that it can be seen as true, something else must be taken into account. What? Experience. My everyday experience is that aham, I, am a distinct entity separate and different from idam jagat, this world of objects which I perceive. My experience is that I see myself as not the same at all as idam, this. When I hold a rose in my hand and look at it, I, aham, am one thing and idam, this rose I see, is quite another. In no way is it my experience that I and the rose are the same. We seem quite distinct and separate. Because shruti tells me that I, aham, and the rose, idam, both are limitless fullness, pUrNam. I may come up with some logic that says, “Therefore I must include the rose and the rose must include me’ but that logic does not alter my experience of the rose as quite separate from me.

 

Furthermore, it is not my experience that either I or the rose are, in any measure, pUrNam, completeness – limitless fullness. I seem to me to be totally apUrNah, unfull, incomplete, inadequate, limited on all sides by my fellow beings, by the elements of nature, by the lacks and deficiencies of my own body and mind. My place and space are very small; time forever crowds me; sorrow dogs my path. I can find no limitless fullness in me. No more does there seem to be limitless fullness in this rose even now wilting in my hand, pressed by time, relinquishing its space; even in its prime smaller and less sturdy than the sunflowers growing outside my window. It is my constant experience that I, aham, and all I perceive, idam, are ceaselessly mutually limiting one another.

 

Based on one’s usual experience, it is very difficult to see how either aham, I or idam, this can be pUrNam; and, even more difficult to see how both can be pUrNam.

 

PurNam, completeness, absolute fullness, must necessarily be formless. PurNam cannot have a form because it has to include everything. Any kind of form means some kind of boundary; any kind of boundary means that something is left out – something is on the other side of the boundary. Absolute completeness requires formlessness. Sastra (scripture) reveals that what is limitless and formless is Brahman, the cause of creation, the content of aham, I. Therefore, given the nature of Brahman by shruti, I can see that pUrNam is another way for shruti to say Brahman. Brahman and pUrnam have to be identical; there can only be one limitlessness and that One is formless pUrNam Brahman.

 

Thus, the verse is telling me that everything is pUrNam. PurNam has to be limitless, formless Brahman. But when I look around me all that I see has some kind of form. In fact, I cannot perceive the formless. The only things I can perceive are those which I can objectify through one of my means of perception. Objectification requires some kind of form. How then can it be said that idam, this, which stands for all objectifiable things is pUrNam – is formless?

 

It is easier to accept the statement that adah, that, which refers to aham, I, is pUrNam, has no form. Upon a little inquiry, it becomes apparent that the nature of adah which stands for the ultimate subject, I, has to be formlessness. The ultimate subject can have no form because to establish form there would have to be another subject, another I to see the form – the other I would then become the ultimate subject which if it had a form would require another subject, which would require another subject, which would require another subject, endlessly, in a condition called anavastA, lack of finality. But, this is not the case. Adah does not stand for a state of anavastA, but for an ultimate being. Sastra reveals and inquiry confirms that the essential nature of the ultimate subject, I, is self-luminous; “I” is self-proving formless being.

 

Duality is False.

 

Thus, shruti’s revelation of the formlessness of I is confirmed by inquiry as a logical necessity for the ultimate subject. But neither the revelation nor the confirmation by logic change the contradiction of experience. Whether aham, I, is formful or formless, my experience remains that I am not full, complete, and this world is different from me. “The world limits me and I limit the world, too.”

 

This paricchEda, limitation, is the experience of every individual: aham parichhinnah – I am limited. Everything else limits me and I limit everything else. Therefore, there is a relationship of mutual limitation, between the individual and the world. So, I become a paricchEdaka for other things. ParicchEdaka means that which limits another. Then again I am paricchinnah, that which is limited by others. So I am a limiting agent and I am a limited object. I seem to myself to be a separate, distinct conscious entity in a world of many different things and beings.

 

 My experience proclaims “differentness” – difference. But there can be no difference in fullness, pUrNam. Fullness requires that there be no second thing. Fullness is not absolute if there is something different from it. Fullness means nonduality – no second thing. Difference means more than one thing. There must be a second thing for difference. The nature of experience is difference. Difference is duality: the seer and the seen; the knower and known; the subject and the subject. When there is difference, duality, there is always limitation.

 

When I consider myself paricchinnah, limited, I cannot but struggle to be free from my sense of limitation. No human being can accept the sense of limitation. Everyone struggles against the conclusion that one seems to be a limited, inadequate, incomplete mortal being. Behind all life’s struggles is rebellion against this basic conclusion. Therefore, since I have this experience-based limitation – in fact, experience itself is a limitation – I always am seeking a solution to the problem of being a ’wanting’ person.When I turn to the Upanishads for an answer to my problem of limitation, shruti tells me that I am the limitless being who I long to be. But, at the same time, shruti recognizes my experience of difference. In this SantipATa, the two separate pronouns adah and idam (together comprising everything in creation) are used to indicate pUrNam, not for the sake of a riddle, but to recognize the experience of duality. Adah recognizes I, the subject – I who seems to be a being separate and distinct from all else; idam recognizes all known and knowable objects which appear to differ from me and from one another. Thus, shruti says there is nothing but fullness, though fullness appears to be adah, that (I), and idam, this (objects). In this way, shruti acknowledges duality – experiences of difference – and then, accounts for it by properly relating experience to reality. Shruti accounts for duality by negating experience as nonreal, not as nonexistent.

 

Thus, to the VedAntin, negation of duality is not a literal dismissal of the experience of duality but is the negation of the reality of duality. If one to be pUrNam, a literal elimination of duality is required, fullness would be an intermittent condition brought about by a special kind of experience – an experience in which the subject-object thought forms in the mind resolve in a state of undifferentiated consciousness. Such experiences – nivikalpa samAdhi, special moments of resolving joy, of even drug born ’trips’ are compelling and enchanting; in them all sense of limitation is gone. But experience, any experience, is transitory. Even nirvikalpa-samAdhi, the conscious state of mind-resolution, free from subject-object duality, the goal of the practices of yoga, is not free from the force of difference. SamAdhi is bound by time. It is an experience. Its boundary is ’before’ and ’after’; it comes and goes.

 

A fullness dependent on experience grants reality to duality. To enjoy such a fullness one engages in various practices seeking the release of nirvikalpa-samAdhi, or one courts moments of great joy. Courting the experience of nonduality is based on fear of the experience of duality. Duality is seen as something from which one must escape. But escape by means of experience is false freedom. You, the limited being, and this world which limits you, are always waiting when the experience is over.

 

Shruti-praMANa

 

Shruti is not afraid of experiential duality. The problem is the conclusion of duality – not experience of duality. The problem lies in the well-entrenched conclusion: “I am different from the world; the world is different from me.” This conclusion is the core of the problem of duality – of samsAra. Shruti not only does not accept this conclusion but contradicts it by stating that both ’I’ and ’this’ are pUrNam. Shruti flatly negates the conclusion of duality.

 

Is shruti’s negation of one’s conclusion that the world and I are different, a matter for belief? No. Statements by shruti in the upaniSads, negating this conclusion, are a pramANa. A pramANa is a means for gaining valid knowledge of whatever the particular pramANa is empowered to enable one to know. For example, eyes are the pramANa for knowing colour; ears are the special instrument for sound. The statements in the upaniSads are a pramANa for the discovery of the truth of the world, of God and of myself – for gaining valid knowledge about the nature of Reality. The upaniSad vAkyAs (statements of ultimate truth), when unfolded in accordance with the sampradAya (the traditional methodology of teaching) by a qualified teacher are the means for directly seeing – knowing – the nondual truth of oneself. The teacher, using empirical logic and one’s own experience as an aid, wields the vAkyAs of the upaniSads as pramANa to destroy one’s ignorance of oneself.

 

A teacher would unfold the meaning of the vAkya, “pUrNam is that; pUrNam is this” by relating it to other statements of shruti and by using reasoning and experience to corroborate shruti. It should be pointed out that what is here called pUrNam, elsewhere shruti defines as Brahman (satyam jnAnam anantam brahma – existent, conscious, boundless is Brahman – TaittirIya UpaniSad, II.1.1). That in other statements shruti describes Brahman as the material cause of creation, the upAdAna-kAraNa (yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante; yena jAtAni jIvanti, yatprayantyabhisamvishanti;. tadbrahmeti – Wherefrom indeed these beings are born; whereby, having been born, they live; that toward which going forth (upon death), they enter;.. That is Brahman – TaittirIya UpaniSad, III.1.1.) but that no shruti statement directly names Brahman as the efficient cause, the nimitta-kAranNa; however, the implication [So’kAmayata bahu sham prajAyeyeti – He (Brahman) desired, “Many let me be; let me be born (as many).” – TaittiriIya UpaniSad, II.6] is clear and logic requires that limitless Brahman, which is the material cause of creation, also must be efficient cause. A limitless material cause does not allow any other to be the efficient cause – the existence of an ’other’ would contradict the limitlessness of Brahman.

 

Material and Efficient Cause

 

So in this verse, shruti’s statement that aham and idam each is pUrNam, requires that, while appearing different, they be identical. Elsewhere shruti identifies Brahman as the material and (by implication) the efficient cause of creation, which makes Brahman the complete cause of aham, I, and idam, this; conversely, aham and idam are effects of Brahman, shruti’s statements here and elsewhere are logically consistent.

 

For aham to be idam and for idam to he aham they must have a common efficient and material cause. Consider an empirical example, a single pot referred to both as ’that’ and ’this’: for ’that’ flower pot which I bought yesterday in the store to be the same as ’this’ flower pot now on my window sill, there has to be the same material substance and the same pot maker for both ’that’ and ’this’. It is clear that this ’twoness’ of ’that’ pot and ’this’ pot is functional only; the two pronouns refer to the same thing which came into being in a single act of creation.

 

Similarly, it is clear that if both the seer (aham) and the seen (idam) are identical, being the effects of a common cause, the cause necessarily must be not only the material cause but also the efficient cause, due to the identity of the seemingly dual effects, and also due to the nature of the cause. The cause, being pUrNam, nothing can be away from it. Therefore, if in addition to a material cause, creation requires a nimittakAraNa, an efficient cause, a God, then God, the creator also is included in pUrNam. PurNam is the upAdAna-nimitta-kAraNa, the material-efficient-cause of everything: God, semigods, the world, the seer of the world. Nothing is away from pUrNam.

 

Is it possible to discover a situation in which two seemingly different things are in fact the non-different effects of a single, common material and efficient cause? Yes, in a dream. Our ordinary dream experience provides a good illustration of a similar situation. In fact, a dream provides a good example not only of a single cause which is both material and efficient, but also of effects which appear to be different but whose difference resolves in their common cause. In a dream both the dream’s substance and its creator abide in the dreamer. The dreamer is both the material and efficient cause of the dream.

 

Furthermore, in a dream there is a subject-object relationship in which the subject and object appear to be quite different and distinct from each other. There is bhEda, difference, in dream. The dream world is a world of duality. The dream aham, I, is not the same as the dream idam, this. But this dream bhEda, difference, is not true – is not real. When I dream that I am climbing a lofty snow-covered mountain, the weary, chilled climber, the dream aham is nothing but I, the dreamer; the snow-capped peak, the rocky trail, the wind that tears at my back, the dream idam, the dream object, are nothing but I, the dreamer. Both subject and object happen to be I, the dreamer, the material and creative cause of the dream.

 

As in a dream, where the creator and the material necessary for the dream creation happen to be I, the dreamer, so it is in the first quarter of the SantipATa where the nimitta-kAraNa (efficient cause) and the upAdAna-kAraNa (material cause) of adah (I) and of idam (this) are pUrNam, Brahman; and even, as I, the dreamer, swallow the bhEda, the experienced difference between dream subject and dream object, so too, does I-pUrNam Brahman, limitless fullness, swallow as unsubstantial – unreal – all experienced difference between aham, I, the subject and idam jagat, this world of objects.

 

Creation is MiTyA

 

After saying “pUrNam is that; pUrNam is this”, shruti having recognized and swallowed the experienced difference between ’that’ and ’this’, for the rest of the sAntipATa deals PUrNAt pUrNam udacyate – from completeness, completeness comes forth.

 

From the grammatical construction and in the context of the analysis of the quarter, we know the meaning to be:

 

pUrnAt – from (adah) pUrNam, completeness, which is limitless Brahman, the content of aham-I, the efficient and material cause of creation;

 

pUrnam – (idam) pUrNam, completeness, which is the known and knowable objects comprising the world, idam jagat, the effect called creation;

 

udacyate – comes forth.

 

By grammatical construction, shruti indicates that the relationship is one of material cause and effect: pUrNAt in the ablative case which shows that (aham) pUrNam is the prakriti, the material cause; whereas, (idam) pUrNam is in the nominative case, the subject of udacyate, a verb with the meaning, ’to be born’, which makes (idam) pUrNam the product or effect of whatever is indicated by the ablative case, namely, of pUrNAt, which is aham-pUrNam. Thus, shruti grammatically sets up a causal relationship of material cause and effect between formless ’I’ – pUrNam and formful ’this’ – pUrNam.

 

How can ’this’-pUrnam, which comprises the world of formful object “come forth” from ’I’-pUrNam which is formless? (That which is limitless must necessarily be formless. Shruti in many ways and places defines Brahman, the content of I, as formless.

 

 Ashabdam asparsham arUpam avyayam taTa arasam nityam agandhavacca yat

 

“Soundles, touchless, colourless, immutable and also tasteless, time-free, odourless is that (which is Brahman)..” Katha UpaniSad I.3.15)

 

Are  there  after  all  two  pUrNams?  Formless pUrNam and formful pUrNam? No. Limitlessness does not allow two pUrNams. Then did formless I pUrNam, the cause, undergo a change to become formful this-pUrNam, the effect? Aham pUrNam (I) is both the efficient and material cause of idam jagat, this world. In cause-effect relationship, the efficient cause does not undergo a material change, but for the material cause, some kind of change constitutes the very production of the effect.

 

So what happens? What kind of change can formless limitless undergo to produce ’formful’ limitless? The only kind of change that the limitless can accommodate is the kind of change that gold undergoes to become a chain: svarNAt svarNam – from gold, gold (comes forth).

 

When one has formless gold (an unshaped quantity of gold relatively form-free compared to a chain made from gold) and from that form-free gold a formful chain is produced, there is a change that is no real change at all.

 

From formless, chain-free gold comes formful, chain-shaped gold. Is there any real change in gold itself? There is none. SvarNAt svarNam – from gold, gold. There is no change.

 

PurNAt pUrNam – from completeness, completeness. What a beautiful expression! It explains everything. See how brief but profound shruti mantrAs are. It is not necessary for shruti to repeat adah, I, and idam, this; grammar and context indicate what is cause and what is effect. But more than simple brevity, the beauty of the expression lies in what is made clear by what is left out! By leaving out the pronoun idam (by not saying that idam is produced by pUrNam but only saying that pUrNam comes from pUrNam) it is made clear that pUrNam alone is the reality – whatever is referred to as idam does not touch pUrNam but still udacyate, comes forth, pUrNam remains untouched, but an appearance comes forth. PurNam does not undergo any intrinsic change, but idam comes about; just as gold undergoing no intrinsic change, a gold chain comes about; or as the dreamer undergoing no change, the dream objects come about.

 

So what is the relationship of pUrNAt pUrNam? Is it a cause-effect relationship? It is a peculiar relationship. But then, even within creation, any material cause-effect relationship is peculiar. Such relationships are peculiar because one cannot say anything definitive about any of them. No real definitive line can be drawn between any material cause and its effect. For example, you cannot say this cloth is an effect which has come from the material cause cotton.

 

Why not? Because cloth does not differ from cotton. The cloth is cotton. Then what came about? Cloth. Does that mean that there are now two things, cotton and cloth? No. Just one thing. Cotton is there. Cloth comes. Cotton is still there. Cotton and cloth cotton appearing as cloth – are one single nondual reality. That is all creation is about.

 

A rope that is mistakenly taken to be a snake is a favourite example used by VedAntins to illustrate many things: ignorance, error, dismissal of the unreal through knowledge. This example, although useful, can lead to the feeling that it has applicability only for subjective projection and not to empirical creation – not to the ’real’ world. This does not matter because the teacher does not need ’rope-snake’, a subjective illustration, to show the unreality of creation in the ’real’ world. The world – the empirical world itself is good enough: the creation of a clay pot, a gold chain, a piece of cotton cloth, all show that in empirical ’creation’, effects non-different from their material cause, appear without intrinsic change occurring in the cause; and in fact, the given cause and effect never being other than one. The effect is but a form of the cause.

 

Above commentary continued

A rope that is mistakenly taken to be a snake is a favourite example used by VedAntins to illustrate many things: ignorance, error, dismissal of the unreal through knowledge. This example, although useful, can lead to the feeling that it has applicability only for subjective projection and not to empirical creation – not to the ’real’ world. This does not matter because the teacher does not need ’rope-snake’, a subjective illustration, to show the unreality of creation in the ’real’ world. The world – the empirical world itself is good enough: the creation of a clay pot, a gold chain, a piece of cotton cloth, all show that in empirical ’creation’, effects non-different from their material cause, appear without intrinsic change occurring in the cause; and in fact, the given cause and effect never being other than one. The effect is but a form of the cause.

 

PurNam Alone is

 

What next? What else does the verse have to say? The last two quarters of the verse are taken together. Here shruti says:

 

PUrNasya pUrNam AdAya – taking away pUrNam from pUrNam, adding pUrNam to pUrNam

 

PUrNam eva avashiSyate – pUrNam alone remains

 

AdAya can mean either taking away from or adding to – both meanings are in the verbal root and both meanings have relevance in the verse. What is being said is whether you take away pUrNam from pUrNam or whether you add pUrNam to pUrNam, all that is there is pUrNam alone.

 

In context the meaning is: whether you take away (idam) pUrNam (formful object pUrNam) from (adah) pUrNam (formless I, Brahman pUrNam) or whether you add (idam) pUrNam to (adah) pUrNam, all that is there all that ever remains, is pUrNam alone.

 

If you have a gold chain and take the chain away what remains? Gold. If you restore the chain to the gold, what is there? Gold. The second half of the verse is needed to make certain that one sees that pUrNam undergoes no change whatsoever. PurNam is always there, available. Idam, the objects of the world, do not have to be eliminated to reveal pUrNam any more than the chain has to be melted to see gold. What is called chain is no different from gold. It is gold now; it was gold before. From gold alone this gold has come. Take away this gold, gold alone remains.

 

Similarly, addition of idam, the name-form-appearances which are the objects comprising creation, to pUrNam, the formless, limitless, I, Brahman, does not make any addition to pUrNam; taking away creation from pUrNam, taking away the names and forms experienced as objects, does not eliminate anything from pUrNam. Nothing need be taken away to reveal pUrNam. PurNam is always there, available. Shruti mentions “adding to” and “taking away from” pUrNam not because there is any need to take anything away from pUrNam in order to discover limitlessness – to discover that I am that limitless which I long to be. Shruti makes the statement to make clear the opposite fact – the fact that whether anything is added to or eliminated from pUrNam makes no difference. Why does it make no difference? Because there is nothing that can be added to or taken away from absolute fullness.

 

Any ’adding to’ or ’taking away from’ is purely an appearance. There is no real different thing to add to or take away from another different thing. All difference – object / object difference; subject / object difference; formless/formful difference – is but an appearance. Difference is miTyA – that which makes an appearance but lacks reality. From me alone came the dreamer subject and the dreamt object. Remove the dreamer and the dreamt and I alone remain. The dreamer subject and the dream resolve in me alone. PurNam eva avashiSyate. PurNam alone remains.

 

In shruti’s light one sees that there is no real bhEda, difference between drishya and drishya, between object and object. Even at the empirical level of reality, inquiry reduces the apparent substance comprising any object to aggregation of sub-atomic particles. Modern physics, from its standpoint, confirms lack of substantiality by finding lack of ’real’ difference in apparently ’real’ things.

 

Shruti-based inquiry (which defines real as what cannot be negated) reveals any known or knowable object, to be unreal because it is negatable by time, limited by space, and, in actuality, only a name and form reducible to some other apparent substance or substances which in turn are but names and forms reducible again to other substances. No known or knowable thing reduces to a known or knowable substance incapable of further reduction. A knowable thing, anything which can be objectified, defies final definition – has no reality of its own. Things are but names and forms, ever changing aggregate processes, limited by time and space, dependent for their apparent reality upon a real substratum, formless, limitless, time-free Brahman.

 

Thus, when I pick up from the stream bed a shiny, solid stone and hold it in the palm of my hand, I can appreciate and enjoy the apparent difference seen by me between this smooth, solid object and the flowing rippling water which had been rushing over it. But at the same time that I enjoy the apparent difference between rock and water, I can also see and appreciate, with no uncertainty, the fact of non-difference between these two drishyAs, these two known things each of which is but a name and form, limited, reducible, negatable and their differentness – their ’twoness’ – resolving in the single, nondual reality of pUrNam Brahman.

 

Although I see nondifference between the objects that comprise idam, the things of creation that constitute idam jagat, this world – I find it more difficult to see the absence of difference between me and idam: between I, the seer, and this stone, the seen. I, whose skin, the sense of touch, divides me from the world, see the stone outside while I am inside; my skin is the wall, my senses the windows through which I view outside, and my mind the master of the house who takes stock of what is seen. This long conditioned conclusion of internality and externality between the seer and the seen can be a problem. But like all false conclusions, it yields to inquiry.

 

Idam (this) or drishya (the seen) indicates anything that is known or knowable – anything which is objectifiable. My skin is part of and the boundary for a given physical body and its functions. This body is a known thing, drishya, something objectifiable. Associated with this body and its functions is a certain bundle of thoughts, comprising sense perceptions, decisions, judgments, memories, likes and dislikes, and a sense of agency (a sense of, “It is I who am the doer, the enjoyer, the knower, the possessor”). Each of these thoughts is known – is objectifiable, is drishya, a known thing. No thought or any collection of thoughts is nonobjectifiable. Thoughts, including the pivotal I-the agent thought, are known things.

 

Steps by step, inquiry finds no separating gap between I, as seer, and this stone as seen – no place to draw a line between seer and seen. Everything knowable by me through my senses or inferable through sense data is drishya. All objects, all events, this body, mind, memory, sense of agency and interval measuring time as well as accommodating space – all are known or knowable, all are drishya. Drishya establishes no difference. No real difference can be established between the seer and the seen. The only difference between known things is the apparent difference of ever changing name-forms projected upon never changing formless reality of pUrNam Brahman. I, as seer, have no greater reality than the stone, as seen, Each of us has for its reality only nondual, formless Brahman, pUrNam.

 

Thus, the difference between seer and seen have no independent reality; they are apparent only being negatable by the knowledge gained through inquiry into the reality of the experience of difference. Try to find a line dividing the seer and the seen. It cannot be found. Every time you find a place where you think the seer is on one side and the seen on the other, both sides turn out to be the seen, drishya. The only thing you can see, the only thing you can objectify is drishya. However, viewed experientially from the point of view of their common reality level, subject/object differences seem very real. The knowledge aham idam sarvam, “I am all this”. (or, “This stone and I are one”) is not a conclusion to be reached experientially. When subject and object enjoy the same degree of reality, the experienced difference will seem real. That experienced difference is not eliminated as experience but is negated as nonreal through knowledge. Simple reasoning – logical inquiry shakes the reality of difference. Shruti, as pramANa, a means of knowledge, destroys difference and reveals Oneness.

 

A dream is good example of the ’realness’ of experienced difference within its own level of reality. If I dream of a fire which I am trying to put out by throwing water on it, then that dream water which puts out the dream fire is as real as the fire – and the fire is as real as the water. And I, the dream fire fighter, am as real as the water and the fire. But I am no more real than the fire or water. Enjoying the same degree of reality, the fire fighter, the fire, the water, all seem real, all seem different, but all resolve as unreal. Upon waking I find no ashes on my bedroom floor. Dreamer and dreamt have both resolved. Dreamer has no greater reality than dreamt. Both resolve. Nothing is left out. I alone remain PurNam eva avashiSyate.

 

Now the question can be answered: Is this verse profound or prattle? The Englishman was wrong. It is not prattle; it is very profound. This one verse has everything. Nothing is left out. Subject, object, cause, effect, experience and fullness – nothing is omitted. It is not an ordinary verse. It contains the vision of the upaniShads – the truth of oneself.

 

I am PurNam

 

The reality of I is limitless pUrnam. I as seer of the stone am but an appearance, no more real than the stone I see. In reality I am limitlessness alone, one non-dual existent boundless consciousness pUrNam. Subject and object are nothing but passing projections superimposed upon I; they neither add to I nor take anything away from I. I, unconnected to any appearance, am the One unchanging, non-negatable formless reality – pUrNam – into which all appearances resolve.

 

I am pUrNam, completeness, a brimful ocean, which nothing disturbs. Nothing limits me. I am limitless. Waves and breakers appear to dance upon my surface but are only forms of me, briefly manifest. They do not disturb or limit me. They are my glory – my fullness manifest in the form of wave and breaker. Wave and breaker may seem to be many and different but I know them as appearances only; they impose no limitation upon me – their agitation is but my fullness manifest as agitation; they are my glory, which resolves in me. In me, the brimful ocean, all resolves. I, pUrNam, completeness, alone remain.

 

Om ShAntih ShAntih ShAntih

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 1   «   »

ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्य स्विद्धनम् ॥ १ ॥

īśāvāsyamidaṃ sarvaṃ yatkiñca jagatyāṃ jagat |

tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā mā gṛdhaḥ kasya sviddhanam || 1 ||

1. All this-whatsoever moves in this universe (and those that move not) is covered (indwelt or pervaded or enveloped or clothed) by the Lord. That renounced, enjoy. Do not covet anybody’s wealth (Or – Do not covet, for whose is wealth?).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

The word ‘Isa’ is from the verb ‘Ishte’ (rules) and means ‘by the Lord.’ The Lord is Paramesvara, the Paramatman of all. He rules everything being the Atman of all. Should he covered by the Lord, by his own self, the Atman. What? All this, whatsoever moveth on the earth. All this universe, movable and immovable, unreal in absolute truth, should he covered by his self, the Lord, Paramatman, with the idea, “I alone am all this as being the inner self of all.” Just as the had odourthe result of moisture, etc.,produced by contact with water, in sandal and agaru, etc., is hidden (lost) in their naturally agreeable smell produced by the process of rubbing, similarly all this on this earth (the word earth being illustratively used for the whole Cosmos) differentiated as name, form, and action, this bundle of modifications, superimposed upon the Atman by ignorance, and consisting in this seeming duality with its distinctions of doer, enjoyer, etc., will be abandoned by the contemplation of the true Atman. One who thus contemplates on the self as the Paramatman is bound to renounce the three-fold desire of son, etc., and not perform Karma. ‘Tena tyaktena’ means ‘by such renunciation.’ It is well-known that one’s son or servant, abandoned or dead, having therefore no bond of connection, does not protect that one. ‘denunciation’, therefore, is the meaning of this word tyaktena. Bhunjithah means protect. Having thus renounced all desires, do not cherish any desire for wealth. ‘Anybody’s wealth’; do not long for wealth either yours or another’s. Svit is a meaningless particle.

 

Or, it may be thus interpreted. Do not covet. Why? ‘Whose is wealth?’ is used in the sense of an objection; for nobody has any wealth which could be coveted. The meaning is “all this has been renounced by the contemplation of Jsvara, that the Atman is all. All this, therefore, belongs to the Atman and the Atman is all. Do not, therefore, covet what is unreal.”

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

This first Mantra deals with Jnana-nishtha. It is addressed to those who struggle for the attainment or Knowledge of Brahman or Atma-Jnana. This is the Nivritti marga of Sannyasins or the path of renunciation.

 

The word Isa comes from the verb Ishte, to rule. It means ‘by the Lord’. The Lord or Isvara rules the whole world. He is the Supreme Ruler. Vasyam means ‘to be covered’ or ‘to be inhabited’. Sankara explains that one should lose the sense of this unreal world in realising Brahman with the idea ‘I alone am all this as being the inner Self of all’.

This world of Nama, Rupa, Kriya and Guna (name, from, action and ality) is superimposed upon the Atman, on account of Avidya or nescience. Therefore duality has cropped up. There are doer, enjoyer, knower, known, seer, seen, subject, object, etc. He who contemplates on the Self as the aramatman or pure Brahman will surely renounce the three kinds of desires viz., son, wealth, name and fame (Putreshana, Vitteshana and Lokeshana). Tena tyaktena means ‘by such renunciation’. Tyaktena means ‘renunciation’. Sankara takes this a noun. Svit is a participle which has no meaning. As the world is unreal and as the objects are worthless what is the use of coveting others’ wealth? Further you will get the supreme, imperishable wealth of Atman by Self-realisation.

 

Renounce (the desire of ) the world. Renounce (the desires of) the other world. Renounce egoism, selfishness, Deha-adhyasa (body-idea). Renounce the desire for liberation. Renounce the renunciation itself (Tyaga Abhimana). Then you will become that. You will be in itself. “Brahmavit Brahmaiva Bhavati-The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.’ Desire for liberation will destroy all earthly desires. You must renounce the desire for liberation also. “Na Karmana na prajaya dhanena tyagenaike amritatvam-anasuh-Neither by works nor by progeny, nor by riches but by renunciation alone one attains immortality.’

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 2   «   »

कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः ।

एवं त्वयि नान्यथेतोऽस्ति न कर्म लिप्यते नरे ॥ २ ॥

kurvanneveha karmāṇi jijīviṣecchataṃ samāḥ |

evaṃ tvayi nānyatheto’sti na karma lipyate nare || 2 ||

2. Should one wish to live a hundred years on this earth, he should live doing Karma. While thus, (as) man, you live, there is no way other than this by which Karma will not cling to you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

Thus the drift of the Vedic text is that he who knows the Atman should renounce the three-fold desire of son, etc., and save his Atman by being centred in the knowledge of the Atman (Gnananishtha). The mantras now proceed to inculcate the following for the benefit of him who does not know the Atman and is not competent to cognize the Atman as above indicated.

 

Kurvanneva means certainly doing, i.e., ‘only by doing.’ Karmani means ‘Agnihotara, etc.’ Jijivishet means ‘should like to live.’ Satamsamah means ‘a hundred years.’ It has been declared that that is a man’s longest life. Thus declaring agreeably to natural inclination the desire to live a hundred years, the text lays down the injunction in respect of how one should livecontinually performing Karma and not otherwise. If you would thus live, content to be a man, there is no other mode of life than the one of performing Agnihotra, etc., by which bad Karma may not cling to you. Therefore, one should like to live doing Karma enjoined by the Sastras such as Agnihotra, etc. But how is this drift arrived at? By the previous mantra, Gnananishtha has been inculcated to the sanyasin. By this. Karmanistha is enjoined on those who are not able to become sanyasins. Do you not remember it was pointed out that the antithesis between Knowledge and Karma is a fact unshakable like a mountain? Here also it has been said that be who would like to live must perform Karma and that this universe must be abandoned as unreal, in the contemplation of the Lord as all, by one who would protect his Atman having renounced all and not coveting anybody’s wealth. According to the Srutis it is settled that one should not long for either life or death and should leave for the forest. There is also the injunction by which one is interdicted from returning thencethus ordaining sanyasa.

 

The distinction in the results of the two courses will also be pointed out. (The Narayana Upanishad) says

 

“In the beginning these two roads were laid. The road through Karma and sanyasa; the latter consists in the renunciation of the threefold desire. Of these, the road through sanyasa is the preferable one.”

 

The Taittiriya Upanishad also says, “Renunciation (Nyasa) certainly is to be preferred.”

 

Bhagavan Vyasa, the preceptor of the Vedas, after much discussion told his son his firm conviction in the following text.

 

“These then are the two roads on which the Vedas are based. Both the coursesone which leads to Karma and the other which draws away from Karma have been explained, etc.” This division will be explained.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

The first Mantra lays down the rule for Knowledge. This Mantra lays down the rule for works. This gives advice to those who cannot get themselves liberated from the bonds of the world. Karmanishtha is prescribed here for those who are unable to take up Sannyasa. Kurvanneva means certainly doing, only by doing and not refraining from them. Eva gives definite force. Karmani means works enjoined by the Vedas such as Agnihotra and other rites. The omission of these works causes sin.

 

Jijivishet means ‘should wish to live’. Satam samah means ‘a hundred years’. This is the longest period of life for a man in Kaliyuga. One should wish to live for one hundred years continually doing Karma and not otherwise. Leading an idle, easy-going life will not do. He should do the religious rites daily and also he should do constant selfless, disinterested service to the humanity with Atman-Bhava. Then only he will get purification of heart (Chitta-suddhi). Then only Atma-Jnana will dawn in his heart. By such performance of works without any motive, one will not be bound to works. This is the path of action or Pravritti Marga.

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 3   «   »

असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसावृताः ।

तांस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ ३ ॥

asuryā nāma te lokā andhena tamasāvṛtāḥ |

tāṃste pretyābhigacchanti ye ke cātmahano janāḥ || 3 ||

3. Those births partake of the nature of the Asuras and are enveloped in blind darkness. After leaving the body they who kill their Atman attain them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

This mantra is begun for the purpose of condemning those who have no knowledge of the Atman. Asuryah: even Devas, etc., are Asuras, relatively to becoming one with the Paramatman. Asuryah because they belong to them (Asuras). Kama is a meaningless word. Those lokas (births) so called because the fruits of Karma are there perceived or enjoyed (lokyante). Andhena tamasa, ‘ignorance which consists in inability to see one’s self.’ Avritah means covered. These births down to the immovable. Pretya means ‘leaving the body.’ ‘Abhigachhanti’ means ‘attain in accordance with their Karma and Knowledge.’ ‘Atmahanah’ means ‘those who kill the Atman.’ Who are they? Those who do not know the Atman. How do they kill the eternal Atman? By drawing the veil of ignorance over the Atman that exists. Those who do not, under the influence of their natural tendencies (Prakriti), know the Atman are called ‘Atmahanah’ (slayers of the Atman); because in their case the result of the existence of the Atman, i. e., the knowledge of its undecaying and immortal nature is veiled, as if the Atman were killed. By this fault of slaying the Atman, they get into Samsara.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

There are two readings. Asoorya, sunless and Asurya, undivine. In comparison with the state of Supreme Self, the most exalted words of the gods are also godless. Andhena tamasa, blind darkness, i.e., ignorance which stands in the way of realising one’s darkness, i.e., ignorance which stands in the way of realising one’s Self. Avrutah means ‘covered’; Pretya means ‘leaving the body’; Abhigachhanti means ‘attain’; Atmahanah means ‘slayers of the Atman’ i.e., those who kill their Self.

 

Those who have drawn the veil of ignorance over the Atman are not able to perceive their Self. They move about self-deluded in this world and run after perishable sensual objects. Their minds are filled with passion, greed, wrath, pride and egoism. They do all sorts of evil actions when they are under the fluence of lust, greed and anger. They are caught up again and again in the Samsaric wheel of birth and death. They have mistaken the body as the imperishable Self. They worship the perishable body like Virochana and his followers, the Asuras. They have entirely forgotten the glory and splendours of immortal Sat-Chit-Ananda Atman. Hence they are called Atmahanah, slayers of the Atman.

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 4   «   »

अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयो नैनद्देवा आप्नुवन्पूर्वमर्षत् ।

तद्धावतोऽन्यानत्येति तिष्ठत्तस्मिन्नपो मातरिश्वा दधाति ॥ ४ ॥

anejadekaṃ manaso javīyo nainaddevā āpnuvanpūrvamarṣat |

taddhāvato’nyānatyeti tiṣṭhattasminnapo mātariśvā dadhāti || 4 ||

4. It is motionless, one, faster than mind; and the Devas (the senses) could not overtake it which ran before. Sitting, it goes faster than those who run after it. By it, the all-pervading air (Sutratman) supports the activity of all living beings.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

As the ignorant by killing their Atman whirl in Samsara, contrariwise, those who know the Atman attain emancipation; and they are not slayers of the Atman. What then is the nature of the Atman will now be explained.

 

Anejat is a compound of na and ejat. The root ejri means to shake. Shaking is motion, i.e., deviation, from a fixed position. Free from that, i. e., ever constant. It is, besides, one in all Bhatas. It is fleeter than the mind, whose characteristics are volition, etc. How is this inconsistent statement made i. e., that it is constant and motionless and at the same time fleeter than the mind? This is no fault. This is possible with reference to its being thought of, as unconditioned and conditioned. It is constant and motionless in its unconditioned state. That the mind travels fastest is well-known to all, seeing that the mind encased within the body and characterised by volition and doubt is able at one volition to travel to such distant places as the Brahmaloka etc.; and travelling so fast as it does, it perceives on landing (at its destination) that the intelligent Atman has, as it were, gone there before it; therefore, the Atman is said to be fleeter than the mind. Devas, from the root which means ‘enlighten,’ signifies the senses such as the eye, etc. Etat means the entity of the Atman which is now being treated of. These senses could not overtake it. The mind is faster than these, because these are distanced by the activity of the mind. Not even the semblance of the Atman is within the perception of the senses; for, it had gone even before the mind which is fleeter than they, being all-pervading, like the Akas. The entity of the Atman, all-pervading, devoid of any attributes of samsara, and in its unconditioned state subject to no modification, appears to undergo all the changes of samsara. superposed upon it. and though one, appears, in the eyes of ignorant men, diverse and enclosed in every body. It seems to travel beyond the reach of others’ mind, speech, the senses, &c., which are dissimilar to the Atman, though they run fast. The sense of ‘seems’ is suggested by the mantra using tishtkat (sitting). ‘Sitting, means ‘being itself inactive.’ ‘Tasmin’ means ‘while the entity of the Atman endures.’ ‘Matarisva’ means ‘air,’ so called, because it moves (svayati) in space (matariantarikshe). Air (matarisva) is that whose activity sustains all life, on which all causes and effects depend, and in which all these inhere, which is called sutra (thread, as it were) supporting all the worlds through which it runs. The word ‘Apah’ means all Karmathe manifested activity of all living things. (This air) allots to fire, sun, clouds, &c., their several functions of flaming, burning, sinning, raining, &c. Or, it may be said that it supports these, from the Srutis, such as “From fear of this, the wind blows, &c.” The meaning is that all these modifications of effects and causes take place only while the eternally intelligent entity of the Atman, the source-of all, endures.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Here is a description of the nature of the Atman. Na and Ejat make up Anejat. The root ejri means ‘to shake’. Anejat means ‘unagitated’ i.e., steady.

 

“It is motionless, but swifter than the mind.” This seems to be an apparent contradiction or aradox. But it is not so. Because the Atman is all-pervading and all-full (Paripurna), it is said that the

Atman is swifter than mind. Before the mind reaches a place, the Atman is already there, as it is all-pervading. So the mind can never be in advanced of It. Here, Devas means the senses such as ear, eye, etc. It comes from the root which means to ‘illuminate’. Tishtat i.e., sitting, means that the Atman is Nishkriya. It keeps quiet.

 

Matarisva is the ruler of the atmosphere. He is the divine life-power in all forms. Sankara explains: “Matari antarikshe svayati gachhatiti vayu- he who moves in the mother, the air, which is the upholder or sustainer of the whole world, the Sutratman, Hiranyagarbha, the universal Soul. Matarisva means air. This air supports the fire, sun, rain, etc.

 

Apas means all Karmas or actions. Water stands for acts, because all sacrificial acts are performed with water.

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 5   «   »

तदेजति तन्नैजति तद्दूरे तद्वन्तिके ।

तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्यास्य बाह्यतः ॥ ५ ॥

tadejati tannaijati taddūre tadvantike |

tadantarasya sarvasya tadu sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ || 5 ||

5. It moves, it is motionless. It is distant, it is near. It is within all, it is without all this.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

Showing that there is no superfluity of mantras, the following mantra declares again what was expressed by the previous mantra. ‘It’ means ‘the entity of the Atman which is being treated of.’ ‘Ejati’ means ‘moves.’ ‘Xaijati’ means ‘does not move of itself.’ The meaning is that though motionless in itself, it seems to move. Besides, it is distant, i.e., it seems to be far removed, because it is not attainable by the ignorant, even in the course of hundreds of millions of ages. Tadvantikê is split into tad, u and antikê. It is very near to the knowing; for, it is their Atman. It is not merely distant and near; it is within everything according to the Sruti “The Atman which is within everything.” All means ‘all the world of names and forms and activity.’ It is without all this, being all-pervading like the Akas; and within everything, being extremely subtle. It is indivisible according to the Sruti “It is dense with knowledge.”

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

The ideas of the fourth Mantra are continued here. Ejati means ‘moves’. Naijati means ‘does not move.’ Apparently it seems that this Mantra also is full of contradictions and paradoxes. But it is not so for the thinker. The meaning is ite clear. The Atman is the primum-mobile (prime mover). It gives a push to the Prakriti and the Prakriti move by simple gazing, by Its simple presence. So it is said ‘It moves’. When It is all-pervading all-full, where can it move? Hence it is motionless. ‘It moves not’.

 

It is distant for the ignorant. It is very far for those who are immersed in worldlines, who have lunged themselves in Samsara. It is very, very far for those who are very selfish, proud, egoistic, hot-tempered and passionate. It is near for the enirer. It is very, very near for those who are eipped with purity of mind (Chitta-Suddhi) and the four means of salvation and who have started hearing at the feet of Guru, reflecting and meditation (Sravana, Manana and Nididhyasana), because It is their Inner Self or the Atman (Antar-Atman). It is very subtle (Ati-sukshma). It transcends Akasa (ether). It fills and covers everything. It is all-full (Paripurna). Hence It is within and without. ‘all’ means ‘the objects of this whole world’. Brahman is the substratum or support (Adhishthana) of all beings, as It is inside all and pervades all.

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 6   «   »

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ ६ ॥

yastu sarvāṇi bhūtānyātmanyevānupaśyati |

sarvabhūteṣu cātmānaṃ tato na vijugupsate || 6 ||

6. Who sees everything in his Atman and his Atman in everything, by that he feels no revulsion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

Who, i.e., the sanyasin, who wishes for emancipation. All Bhutas, i.e., from the Avyakta down to the immoveable creation. ‘Seeing them all in his own Atman’ means ‘seeing that they are not distinct from his own self.’ ‘Seeing his Atman in them all’ means ‘seeing his Atman as the Atman of all.’ Just as he finds his Atman the witness of all his perceptions, the thinking principle, pure and unconditioned, the soul of his body, which is a bundle of effects and causes, he finds bis Atman in the same unconditioned state, the life principle of all the universe, from the Avyakta down to the immoveable. He who thus views does not turn with revulsion by reason of such view. This statement is only a declaration of a truth already known. All revulsion arises only when one sees anything bad distinct from one’s Atman. To one who sees his pure Atman alone continuous, there is no other object which could excite the feeling of revulsion. Therefore he does not turn with revulsion.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

The thoughts of this Mantra are found in the two Slokas of the Bhagavad-Gita (VI – 29 & 30). ‘The Self, harmonised by Yoga, seeth the Self abiding in all beings and all being in the Self; everywhere he seeth the same.’ He who seeth Me everywhere, and seeth everything in Me, of him I never lose hold, and he shall never lose hold of Me.’ Mantras 1.1.6।। and 7 give a description of the state of a Jnani who has full Self-realisation. Sarvani Bhutani ordinarily means all creatures. Literally it means ‘all things that have become’. i.e., from the unmanifested (Avyakta) down to the immovable objects. You will also find in the Sruti, ‘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 anyone. Being fearless, he is never anxious about preserving his little self.’

 

The sage who has realised his Atman beholds that all objects and all beings are not distant from his own Self and that his Atman is the Atman of all. The Atman is the common consciousness for all beings. The Atman is common in the king and the peasant, the saint and rogue, the cobbler and the barber, the ant and the elephant, the tree and the stone. How can that great soul who is resting in his own Atman and who has such an exalted cosmic consciousness shrink from any being or object with a feeling of revulsion? How can he dislike anything? How can he hate anybody? Absolutely impossible.

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 7   «   »

यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः ।

तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥ ७ ॥

yasminsarvāṇi bhūtānyātmaivābhūdvijānataḥ |

tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka ekatvamanupaśyataḥ || 7 ||

7. When to the knower, all Bhutas become one with his own Atman, what perplexity, what grief, is there when he sees this oneness.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

This other text also expresses the same purport. The word ‘Yasmin’ means either ‘when’ or ‘in which Atman.’ When all the Bhutas have become one with the Atman, owing to the knowledge of the Atman, then or in the case of the Atman, how can there he perplexity or grief? Perplexity and grief, the seed of all desire and Karma, affect the ignorant, hut not him who sees the oneness, pure and like the sky. The negation of perplexity and griefthe effect of ignorancebeing shown by the form of a question, the total uprooting of all samsara with its seed has been indicated.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

This Mantra further explains the idea contained in Mantra 6. Both the words Vijanata in Mantra 1.1.7।। and Anupasyati in Mantra 6 have the same significance. Mere intellectual assent that the one Self abides in all beings will not do. Actual Self-realisation or direct perception (Aparoksha Anubhuti) is indispensably reisite. In verse 6 it is said that the Knower of Brahman becomes fearless. Here it is said that the same Knower transcends delusion and sorrow. These are the fruits of attaining Brahma-Jnana.

 

‘Tarati Sokam atmavit-The knower of Atman crosses over grief’, is the emphatic declaration of the Srutis. The three knots (Hridaya-granthi) are Avidya, Kama, Karma (ignorance, desire and action ). A worldly man is drowned in delusion and sorrow on account of the three knots. When these three knots are destroyed by realising unity or oneness, by realising that all the Bhutas have become one with the Atman, how can there be delusion and grief in the knower of the Atman? Absolutely impossible. He always rejoices in the bliss of the Atman. Even heaviest sorrow cannot shake him a bit. He stands adamantine. Gita says: ‘Yasmin sthito na duhkhena gurunapi vichalyate -wherein established, he is not shaken even by heavy sorrow.’

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 8   «   »

स पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरंशुद्धम् अपापविद्धम् ।

कविर्मनीषी परिभूः स्ययम्भूर्याथातथ्यतोऽर्थान्व्यदधाच्छाश्वतीभ्यः समाभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥

sa paryagācchukramakāyamavraṇamasnāviraṃśuddham apāpaviddham |

kavirmanīṣī paribhūḥ syayambhūryāthātathyato’rthānvyadadhācchāśvatībhyaḥ samābhyaḥ || 8 ||

8. He pervaded all, resplendent, bodiless, scatheless, having no muscles, pure, untouched by sin; far-seeing, omniscient, transcendent, self-sprung, (he) duly allotted to the various eternal creators their respective functions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

This text describes the real nature of the Atman, spoken of. in the previous texts. Sah means ‘the Atman previously spoken of.’ ‘Paryagat means went round.’ The meaning is ‘he is all-pervading like the Akas.’ Sukram means pure, hence bright, resplendent. Akayam, means ‘bodiless,’ i.e., having no linga sarira or subtle, boy. Avranam means ‘scatheless.’ ‘Asnaviram’ means ‘having no muscles.’ The adjuncts Avranam and Asnaviram show that the Atman has no sthula sarira or gross body. By the word suddha, pure or free from the taint of ignorance, it is shown that it has no karana sarira or causal body. ‘Apapa-viddham means ‘untouched by Karma, good or bad.’ ‘Sukram’ and the following epithets are to be read as masculine, because of the beginning and the end being in the masculine, as sah, kavih etc. Kavih means far-seeing, i.e., all-seeing; for, says the Sruti “There is no seer other than the Atman, etc.” ‘Manishi’ means ‘prompting the mind,’ hence ‘omniscient, omnipotent.’ Paribhuh means ‘being above all.’ Svayambhuh means ‘himself being all above and all below becomes all.’ He, the ever free, and omnipotent, being omniscient, allotted their respective functions, i.e., objects to be created to the various and eternal Prajapatis, known popularly as ‘years,’ as aids to the enjoyment of the fruits of Karma.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Sah means ‘the Atman described above’. Paryagat means gone abroad or went round’. The ideal meaning is ‘The Atman is all-pervading’. Sukram means pure or brilliant. Akayam means without a body. Here it means that the Atman has no subtle body or Linga Sarira. The terms Avranam and Asnaviram denote that the Atman has no gross physical body. The term Suddha (Pure) indicates that the Atman has no causal body, and that He is free from the impurity of ignorance. Apapaviddham means that the Atman is not affected by good and bad actions (Nirlipta, Asanga, Asakta). Sankara takes the subject to be the Self and explains the neuter odjectives as masculine, because the biginning Sah and the ending Kavih are masculine. Kavih means a seer who has direct vision and illumination. Manishi means ‘Lord of the mind’. ‘Prompting the mind’. Paribhu means ‘Lord of the mind’, is the best of all’. Svayambhu means ‘self-existent’. The Atman never depends upon another. The ‘years’ means here the Prajapatis or the creators.

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 9   «   »

अन्धन्तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्यामुपासते ।

ततो भूय इव ते तमोय उ विद्यायां रताः ॥ ९ ॥

andhantamaḥ praviśanti ye’vidyāmupāsate |

tato bhūya iva te tamoya u vidyāyāṃ ratāḥ || 9 ||

9. They who worship Avidya alone fall into blind darkness; and they who worship Vidya alone fall into even greater darkness.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

The first purport of the Vedas, the acquisition of knowledge of the Brahman by renunciation of all desires has been explained in the first mantra Isavasyam, etc. The second alternative, i.e., the spending of life in continually performing Karma has been explained, for the benefit of the ignorant who are not capable of Gnananishtha, in the second mantra beginning with ‘Kurvanneveha Karmani.’ The bifurcation, i.e., Knowledge and Karma here pointed out by these texts has also been clearly indicated in the Brihadaranya Upanishad, by the text “he wished, let me have a wife, etc.” And from the texts ‘Karma for the ignorant and men having desires’ and ‘the mind is his Atman and speech, bis wife, etc.,’ it is clear that ignorance and desires are the characteristics of one engaged in the performance of Karma. Thus, the result of Karma is the creation of the seven kinds of food and of an indentification of self with them considered, as the Atman. It has also been shown that concentration in the self, i.e., the Atman (as opposed to the performance of Karma) by the renunciation of the three-fold desire of wife, etc., is the only necessary condition for those who know the Atman. Indirectly by condemning the ignorant, the true nature of the Atman has-been disclosed to those sanyasins bent on the acquisition of knowledge by the text beginning with ‘Asurya – nama’ and ending with ‘saparyayat’ etc., so as to show that they alone and not those who have desires are qualified to acquire knowledge. To the same effect says the Svetasvatara Upanishad. “In the midst of a crowd of seers, he taught the greatest and the holiest truth to those who belonged to the highest order of life.” This text “Andhantamah,” etc., is addressed to those who desire to live here continually performing Karma. How is it inferred that this text is addressed to such only and not to all alike?, Because, he who has no desires has got over the false distinction between means and ends, according to the mantra “Yasmin sarvani bhutani, etc”; for, it is easy to perceive that none who is not a fool will like to associate the knowledge of unity of the Atman with Karma, or with any other piece of knowledge. But here, in view to combining two elements, the ignorant are ridiculed. That which can possibly combine with another, either from logic or from the Sastras, is here pointed out. It is the knowledge of the deities that is here represented as fit to combine with Karma, not the knowledge of the Paramatman; for a distinct result is predicated of the knowledge of the deities by the text by such knowledge, the Devaloka is attained.’ Either of such knowledge and Karma separately pursued is here denounced, not really to condemn but in view to the desirability of their combination; for distinct fruits are said to result from either individually, by the texts “by such knowledge, they climb up to it.” “by such knowledge is Devaloka attained,” “there they do not go who go south” and “by Karma is the abode of the manes attained. It is also well-known that nothing ordained by th e Sastras can ever become unworthy of performance.

 

Here. They enter into blind darkness. Who? They who follow Avidya. Avidya is something other than Vidya or knowledge, lienee Karma; for Karma is opposed to knowledge. The drift is that those who are continually performing Agnihotra etc., alone, fall into darkness. And they fall even into greater darkness. Who? Those who having given up Karma are always bent upon acquiring the knowledge of the deities. Reason is given for combining Knowledge and Karma each of which separately bears different fruits. If one of the two alone bore fruit and the other not, then by a well-recognised law that which bore no fruit by itself would become a mere appendage to the other.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Avidya means here Karmas or Vedic rites such as Agnihotra, etc., that are performed with xpectation of fruits. Performers of such Karmas enter into blind darkness. The abode of the means or Pitriloka is obtained by those who do such kinds of Karmas. When the fruits of their Karmas are exhausted they are hurled down back to Mrityuloka. Vidya means here inferior knowledge, i.e., the knowledge of the deities. By such knowledge Devaloka is attained. When the fruits of worship of Vidya are exhausted they also come back to this Samsara. Those who have abandoned Karmas and who are seeking after the nowledge of deities alone fall into still greater darkness. Karma and Vidya bear different fruits when each is done separately. A combination of Karma and Vidya is recommended in this verse. In Kurma Purana it is said: ‘Undoubtedly the worshippers of deities other than Vishnu go to blind darkness, but undoubtedly to greater darkness they go who do not censure and condemn such persons and fail to try to correct their istakes. Therefore those who know Lord Narayana 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 ignorance, cross over grief and ignorance, and by knowing the truth whose nature is joy and Knowledge attain such Joy and knowledge.’

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 10   «   »

अन्यदेवाहुर्विद्ययाऽन्यदाहुरविद्यया ।

इति शुश्रुम धीराणां ये नस्तद्विचचक्षिरे ॥ १० ॥

anyadevāhurvidyayā’nyadāhuravidyayā |

iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṃ ye nastadvicacakṣire || 10 ||

10. One result is predicated of Vidya and another of Avidya. We have so heard from wise men who taught us both Vidya and Avidya.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

‘Anyat’ means ‘something distinct.’ They say that by Vidya, some distinct result is produced according to the Srutis, “by knowledge is Devaloka attained” and “by knowledge they climb up to it.” They say that other results are produced by Avidya (Karma) according to the text “by Karma is the abode of the manes attained.” We have heard this stated to us by wise men, i.e., those preceptors who taught us both Knowledge and Karma. The purport is that this is their view as handed down from preceptor to disciple.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Anyat means something distinct. By worship of Vidya, Devaloka or the world of gods is attained. By Avidya or Karmas, the abode of the means, or the world of Pitris or forefathers is attained. This the view or opinion of the spiritual teachers, who taught us both knowledge and Karma. Thus it is handed down from Guru to Chela (disciple).

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 11   «   »

विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह ।

अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते ॥ ११ ॥

vidyāṃ cāvidyāṃ ca yastadvedobhayaṃ saha |

avidyayā mṛtyuṃ tīrtvā vidyayāmṛtamaśnute || 11 ||

11. He who simultaneously knows both Vidya and Avidya gets over Death by Avidya and attains immortality by Vidya.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

This being so, the following results. Vidya is the knowledge of the deities; Avidya is Karma. Who knows that both these should simultaneously be followed by the same person, he alone, so combining the two, gradually secures the one desirable end. ‘By Vidya’ means ‘by Karma such as Agnihotra, etc.’ ‘Death’ means ‘action and knowledge induced by Prakriti (nature).’ ‘Tirtva’ means ‘having got over.’ ‘By Avidya’ means ‘by the knowledge of the deities.’ ‘Asnute’ means ‘attains.’ To become one with the deities is what is called immortality (Amritam.)

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Mrityu or death means work and worldly knowledge. Tirtva means having go over. Asnute means attains. To have communication with the deities is Amritam or immortality.

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 12   «   »

अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते ।

ततो भूय इव ते तमो य उ संभूत्यां रताः ॥ १२ ॥

andhaṃ tamaḥ praviśanti ye’sambhūtimupāsate |

tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u saṃbhūtyāṃ ratāḥ || 12 ||

12. They fall into blind darkness who worship the unborn Prakriti. They fall into greater darkness who are bent upon the Karya Brahman Hiranyagarbha. (12).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

Now, in view to the combining of the worship of the Avyakrita (Prakriti) and manifested Brahman, each in itself is denounced. “Asambhutih” is what is not Sambhutih or that which is born of another; hence unborn Prakriti. This again is ignorance, cause of all, known as Avyakrita. Those who worship this Prakriti, known as Avyakrita, ignorance which is the cause of all. the seed of all desire and Karma, and mere blindness in its nature, fall into corresponding or answering darkness which is blindness in its nature; and they who worship the Karya Brahman named Hiranyagarbha fall into even greater darkness.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Asambhutih is that which is not Sambhutih (born of another); uncreated nature, i.e., nature which has no cause; this is Avyakta or Avyakrita, the unmanifested nature, wherein three Gunas exist in a state of eilibrium (Guna-samya Avastha); matter and energy and the different kinds of sounds exist in an undifferentiated state. This is the cause of all. The whole world exists in a seed state in Avyaktam, just as the tree exists in the seed. Worship of this unmanifested Prakriti is known as Avyakta-upasana. Avyakta is also ignorance. It contains the seed of all desires and Karmas. Hiranyagarbha is Sambhuti or Karya Brahman. He is born of Avyakta. He is the effected of unmanifested Prakriti. Here is a beautiful interpretation of verses 1.1.12।। to 14 by Dr. Paul Deussen:-

 

Into dense darkness he enters

Who has conceived becoming to be naught,

Into yet denser he

Who has conceived becoming to be naught.

Different is it from coming into being;

Different also from not coming into being.

Thus have we from the ancient seers

Received the doctrine.

He who knows (as non-existent)

Both becoming and not-becoming

He passes through both

Beyond death, and has immortality.

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 13   «   »

अन्यदेवाहुः संभवादन्यदाहुरसंभवात् ।

इति शुश्रुम धीराणां ये नस्तद्विचचक्षिरे ॥ १३ ॥

anyadevāhuḥ saṃbhavādanyadāhurasaṃbhavāt |

iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṃ ye nastadvicacakṣire || 13 ||

13. They say one thing results from the worship of Hiranyagarbha and another from the worship of Prakriti. We have thus heard it stated by wise preceptors who taught us that.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

Now, the distinction in the fruits of the two individual worships is jointed out, in view to their combination. They have said that from the worship of Sambhutih or Karya Brahman or Hiranyagarbha results the attainment of Anima and other Siddhis. Similarly, they have said that according to Paurairikas the absorption into Prakriti results from the worship of the unborn Prakriti. We have heard it thus stated by wise preceptors who taught us the fruits of the worship of Prakriti and Hiranyagarbha individually.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

He who worships Sambhuti or Hiranyagarbha (Karya Brahman) obtains Anima (the state or becoming like an atom) and other Siddhis. He who worships the unborn Prakriti gets absorption (Laya) into the Prakriti. He becomes a Prakriti-laya (vide Patanjali Yoga Sutras, Chap. I, Samadhipada). Thus we have heard from the wise preceptors who taught us the fruits of the worship of Hiranyagarbha and Prakriti separately.

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 14   «   »

संभूतिं च विनाशं च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह ।

विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वा संभूत्यामृतमश्नुते ॥ १४ ॥

saṃbhūtiṃ ca vināśaṃ ca yastadvedobhayaṃ saha |

vināśena mṛtyuṃ tīrtvā saṃbhūtyāmṛtamaśnute || 14 ||

14. Those who worship the unmanifested Prakriti and Hiranyagarbha (Destruction) together, get over death through the worship of Hiranyagarbha and attain immortality through the worship of Prakriti.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

As this is so, this mantra declares the desirability of combining the worship of Prakriti and Hiranyayarbha as they combine to secure the one aim of the individual. ‘Vinasa’ means that active object whose characteristic attribute is Destruction, the abstract being here used for the concrete. ‘By vinasa’ means ‘by the worship of Hiranyagarbha.’ ‘Gets over death’ means ‘gets over the defects of vice, desires and anaisvaryam (limited powers) and attains anima and other siddhis which are the result of the worship of Hiranyagarbha. Having thus overcome anaisvaryam, death, etc., he, by the worship of Prakriti, attains immortality, i.e., absorbtion into Prakriti. It should be noted that the word Sambhutih is an apheresis for Asambhutih agreeably to the results predicated, i.e., absorption into Prakriti.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Here the word Sambhuti is an aphesis for Asambhuti. The taking away of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word is aphesis. The letter ‘a’ in Asambhuti is taken away. Here Sambhuti really means Asambhuti. Vinasa means Hiranyagarbha. The abstract is used here for the concrete. ‘Death’ here means limited powers, desires, vices. By worship of Hiranyagarbha he gets Aisvarya (Siddhis). Immortality here means absorption into Prakriti. The desirability of combining the worship of Hiranyagarbha and unborn Prakriti is mentioned in this verse, just as the desirability of combining the worship of Avidya and Vidya is declared in verse 11.

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 15   «   »

हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण सत्यस्यापिहितं मुखम् ।

तत्त्वं पूषन्नपावृणु सत्यधर्माय दृष्टये ॥ १५ ॥

hiraṇmayena pātreṇa satyasyāpihitaṃ mukham |

tattvaṃ pūṣannapāvṛṇu satyadharmāya dṛṣṭaye || 15 ||

15. The entrance of the True is covered as if by a golden vessel. Remove, O sun, the covering that I who have been worshipping “The True” may behold it.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

The highest result that could be achieved. according to the Sastras, by wealth of men and the deities is absorption into Prakriti. Up to this is rotation in Samsara. Beyond this is the result of the pursuit of knowledge preceded by a renunciation of all desire, i.e., the seeing of the Atman in everything as indicated in verse 7. Thus the two-fold purport of the Vedas, one stimulating to activity and the other drawing to renunciation has been explained. The Brahmanas up to Pravargya Brahmana were utilized for the elucidation of the former purport of the Vedas which is indicated by mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. The Brihadaranyaka hereafter is to deal with the elucidation of the latter purport of the Vedasrenunciation. Now, by what road he, who has been performing Karma as enjoined from conception to the grave and along with it the worship of the lower Brahman in accordance with verse 11, attains immortality, will be explained. He who has been worshipping the manifested Brahman referred to in the passage “That is the True, the Aditya, the Purusha in this orb: and the Purusha in the left eye; both these are true” and also has been performing Karma as enjoined, entreats, when the hour of death is arrived, the way leading to the Atmanthe True, by the text beginning with ‘Hiranmayena, etc.’ ‘Hiranmaya’ means seeming golden hence resplendent. ‘Patrena’ means as if by a lid forming a cover. ‘Satyasya,’ means ‘of the Brahman sitting in the orb of the Sun.’ ‘Apihitam’ means ‘covered.’ ‘Mukham’ means‘opening.’ ‘Apavrinu’ means ‘open.’ ‘Satyadharmaya,’ to me who have been worshipping Satya or the True or who have been practising Satya, i.e., ‘virtue as enjoined.’ ‘Drishtaye’ means ‘for realizing the Satya or the True which thou art.’

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Hiranmayena means ‘by the golden’. Patrena means ‘as if by a disc or lid’. The phrase ‘golden disc’ means ‘the solar orb’. Hiranya means ‘line a golden’ i.e., ‘full light, effulgent’. Satyasya means ‘of the Brahman who is inside the orb of the Sun’. Apihitam means ‘covered’. Mukham means ‘face’. Apavrunu means ‘open’. Satyadharmaya-to me who have been worshipping Satya or the Truth (Brahman) or who have been practising Satya, i.e., virtue in accordance with the injections of the Sastras. “O Pushan (Fosterer or nourisher), remove the veil from they face that I may see Thee, that I may have Self-realisation-I, who am a Satya-Dharma-who constantly meditates on Thee, the Satya.” Pushan means ‘the nourisher’ and is another name for the deity of the sun.

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 16   «   »

पूषन्नेकर्षे यम सूर्य प्राजापत्य व्यूह रश्मीन्समूह ।

तेजः यत्ते रूपं कल्याणतमं तत्ते पश्यामि योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि ॥ १६ ॥

pūṣannekarṣe yama sūrya prājāpatya vyūha raśmīnsamūha |

tejaḥ yatte rūpaṃ kalyāṇatamaṃ tatte paśyāmi yo’sāvasau puruṣaḥ so’hamasmi || 16 ||

16. O Sun, sole traveller of the Heavens, controller of all, Surya, son of Prajapati remove thy rays and gather up thy burning light. I behold thy glorious form; 1 am he, the Purusha within thee.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

‘Pushan,’ vocative case meaning ‘O Sun.’ The Sun is called Pushan because he feeds the world. ‘Ekarshi’ means ‘one who travels alone.’ The Sun is called Vania, because he controls all. He is called Surya because he imbibes Prana, rays and liquids. ‘Prajapatya’ means ‘son of Prajapati.’ ‘Vyuha’ means ‘remove to a distance thy rays.’ ‘Samuha,’ means ‘gather up, i.e., contract.’ ‘Tejah’ means. ‘burning light.’ I wish to behold by thy grace thy most glorious form. Moreover I do not entreat thee like a servant. I am he the Parasha within the solar orb. composed of Vyakritis as limbs or parts. ‘Purusha’ because he has the figure of a man or because he pervades the whole in the form of Prana and intelligence or because he occupies the city (of the Soul) i.e.,

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

Verses 15 – 18 have little connection with the previous verses. These are a dying man’s prayers, added at the end. The four last Mantras 15-18 do not give a description of the nature of the Knowledge of the Self. Pushan is vocation is vocative case. It means ‘O sun!’ The Sun nourishes the world. So He is called Pushan. Ekarshi means ‘O who travels alone’. Sohamasmi-here the identity of Jiva and Brahman is established. Purusha-because He pervades everything or He occupies the city of Brahman, i.e., body.

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 17   «   »

वायुरनिलममृतमथेदं भस्मान्तं शरीरम् ।

ओं । क्रतो स्मर कृतं स्मर क्रतो स्मर कृतं स्मर ॥ १७ ॥

vāyuranilamamṛtamathedaṃ bhasmāntaṃ śarīram |

oṃ | krato smara kṛtaṃ smara krato smara kṛtaṃ smara || 17 ||

17. (Let my) Prana melt into the all-pervading Air, the eternal Sutratman; and let this body he burnt by fire to ashes; Om. O mind, remember, remember my deeds; O mind, remember, remember my deeds.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

Now, as I am dying, let my Prana leave its confinement within this body and join the all-pervading godly form of Air, i.e., the Sutratman. The word ‘reach’ should be supplied to complete the sentence. The idea ‘Let my Linga Sarira or subtle body purified by knowledge and Karma ascend’ must be supplied in virtue of the fact of the speaker entreating a passage. Let this body given as an oblation to the fire be reduced to ashes. Om, according to the forms of worship being a pratika (substitute) of the nature of the True and called Agni is mentioned as the same as Brahman. ‘Krato,’ vocative case, meaning ‘O mind whose characteristic is volition,’ ‘Remember’ i.e., time has come for me to remember what I should. Remember all that I have till now thought of ‘O Agni, remember what I have done’ i.e., remember all Karma which I have done from childhood. The repetition of the same words ‘Krito Sinara’ &c., expresses solicitude.

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

The dying man, who has led a virtuous life, who has done holy works, by remembering his actions gets bliss in the next world. He says: ‘Let my Prana leave this body and join the all-pervading Sutratman.” Krato-vocative case-means ‘O mind!’ Uvata, in his commentary, holds that Agni, Fire, who has been worshipped in youth and manhood is here invoked in the form of mind or that Kratu means sacrificial Fire. Remember! Remember my deeds. Remember all Karmas which I have done from childhood.’ The repetition of the same words Krato smara denotes anxiety or uneasiness of mind.

 

Ishavasya Upanishad – Verse 18   «   »

अग्ने नय सुपथा राये अस्मान्विश्वानि देव वयुनानि विद्वान् ।

युयोध्यस्मज्जुहुराणमेनो भूयिष्ठां ते नम उक्तिं विधेम ॥ १८ ॥

agne naya supathā rāye asmānviśvāni deva vayunāni vidvān |

yuyodhyasmajjuhurāṇameno bhūyiṣṭhāṃ te nama uktiṃ vidhema || 18 ||

18. O Agni, lead us by the good path to the enjoyment of the fruits of our deeds, knowing O God, all our deeds. Remove the sin of deceit from within us. We offer thee many prostrations by word of mouth. (18).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

deity_Isha

Commentary by Sri Adi Sankaracharya – Translated in English

 

He requests passage again by another mantra. Naya means ‘lead.’ ‘Supatha’ means ‘by good path.’ The attribute in Supatha is used for the purpose of avoiding the southern route. The suppliant seems to say “I have been afflicted by going to and for, by the southern route by which one goes only to return. I therefore entreat you to take me by the good road through which there is no going and returning.” ‘Raye’ means ‘to wealth; i.e.. to the enjoyment of the fruits of our Karma.’ ‘Asman means ‘us,’ possessed of the fruits of the virtue aforesaid. ‘Visvani’ means ‘all.’ O God, ‘Vayunani’ means ‘deeds or knowledge.’ ‘Vidvan’ means ‘Knowing.’ Besides do this: ‘Yuyodhi’ means ‘destroy.’ ‘Asmat’ means ‘from us.’ ‘Juhuranam’ means ‘consisting in deceit.’ ‘Enah’ means ‘sin.’ ‘The meaning is:Thus purified they could attain what they wish for. “But we are now unable to do you active service. We have to content ourselves by offering you many prostrations.”

 

Now a doubt is raised by some about the construction of the latter halves of mantras 11 and 14. We shall therefore enter into a brief discussion to solve the doubt. What the question is due to shall first he stated. It is, why not understand the term Vidya in those passages in its primary sense of ‘the knowledge of the Paramatmam,’ and so Amritatvam? They argue thus: granted that the knowledge of the Paramatman and the performance of Karma are mutually antagonistic and cannot therefore co-exist, this antagonism is not perceivable; for agreement and antagonism rest alike on the authority of the Sastras. Just as the performance of Karma and the acquisition of Knowledge are matters exclusively based on the Sastras, so also must be the question of their agreement or opposition. Thus we find that the prohibitory injunction ‘Do not kill any liv ing thing is overridden by another Sastraic injunction ‘Kill a sheep in a sacrifice.’ The same may apply to Karma and Knowledge. If from the text “They are opposed and travel different roads. Knowledge and Karma.” it is urged that they cannot co-exist, we say that from the text “He who follows both Knowledge and Karma, etc,” there is no antagonism between them. We answer that cannot he; for. they are opposed to each other in regard to their causes, nature and results. But if it he urged that from the impossibility of Knowledge and Karma being opposed and not opposed to each other and from the injunction to combine them there is no antagonism between them, that is unsound; for their co-existence is impossible. If it he argued that they may gradually grow to coexist. it is untenable; for when Knowledge arises. Karma cannot exist in the individual to whom Knowledge adheres. It is well known that when one knows that fire is hot and bright, he cannot at the same time think that fire is neither hot nor bright; or even entertain a doubt as to whether fire is bright or hot; for, according to the text “When to the knower all living things become one with his own Atman, where is grief or perplexity to one who sees this unity,” grief or perplexity is out of the question. We have already said that where ignorance ceases, its result, Karma, also ceases. The immortality in ‘attains immortality’ (in the passage under contemplation) means relative immortality and not absolute immortality. If the word Vidya in those texts meant the knowledge of the Paramatman, then the entreaty to the Sun for allowing a passage would become inappropriate. We therefore conclude w ith observing that our interpretation, i.e., that the combination desired is of Karma with the worship of the deities and not with the Knowledge of the Paramatman, is the purport of the mantras as commented upon by us.

 

 

 

Here ends the Commentary of Sankara Bhavatpada on the Vajasaneya Samhitopanishad or Isavasyopanishad.

 

Om! Peace! Peace!! Peace!!!

 

Commentary by Swami Sivananda

 

He requests Agni to take him by a good path i.e., the northern route (Uttarayana-the Devayana) from which there is no return. This is the path of Archis (light). Naya-lead; Supatha- by a good path. Raye means ‘wealth’ i.e., spiritual bliss or bliss of the Self or Mukti. visvani-all; Deva-God; Vayunaani-thoughts, knowledge, efforts for salvation; Vidvan-knowing; Yuyodhi- destroy; Asmat-from us; Juhuranam-egrading, crooked; Enah-sin.