The Isha Upanishad presents a unique and balanced vision of life, reconciling apparent opposites such as action and renunciation, unity and multiplicity, and knowledge and ignorance. It teaches that the world is not to be rejected but understood as a manifestation of the divine, and that true realization lies in harmonizing both worldly engagement and spiritual insight.
Editorial Note:
The Isha Upanishad is one of the shortest yet most philosophically complete
texts in the Upanishadic tradition. It is embedded in the 40th chapter of the
Shukla Yajurveda Samhita, making it a Samhita Upanishad, unlike many
others that belong to the Aranyaka or Brahmana layers.
Two principal recensions of this Upanishad are known: the Kanva Shaka, which
contains 18 verses, and the Madhyandina Shaka, which contains 17 verses.
This edition follows the Kanva recension, consisting of a single chapter
with verses 1 to 18.
Central Principle
The defining feature of this Upanishad is its uncompromising reconciliation of
uncompromising extremes. It does not reject the world in favor of
renunciation, nor does it accept action without spiritual insight. Instead, it
integrates both.
Later philosophical traditions often emphasized one side of this polarity:
World vs God
Enjoyment vs Renunciation
Action vs Quietism
Multiplicity vs Unity
Ignorance vs Knowledge
In many cases, this led to the elevation of renunciation and knowledge while
reducing the world and action to secondary or even illusory status, culminating
in doctrines that viewed worldly existence as a burden to be escaped.
The Isha Upanishad takes a radically different approach. It resolves this
tension not by rejecting one side, but by holding both together in a higher
unity.
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad consists of one chapter with 18 verses, but its philosophical
content can be understood in thematic groupings:
Verses 1–2 - Unity and Action Declares that the entire universe is pervaded by the Divine and teaches that
one should live actively while maintaining inner detachment.
Verses 3–8 - Nature of the Self Describes the Self (Atman) as unmoving yet faster than the mind, far yet near,
within all and beyond all.
Verses 9–14 - Knowledge and Ignorance Explains that both ignorance (worldly knowledge) and knowledge (spiritual
insight) must be understood together, not in isolation.
Verses 15–18 - Realization and Prayer Concludes with a prayer for the removal of ignorance and realization of the
ultimate truth.
Flow of Ideas
The philosophical progression of the text is clear and compact:
Divine Immanence - Everything is pervaded by the Divine.
Balanced Living - Act in the world without attachment.
Understanding Dualities - Go beyond opposites like knowledge and
ignorance.
Final Realization - Seek direct experience of truth.
Core Philosophical Themes
Unity of Existence - All is enveloped by the Divine (Isha).
Renunciation in Action - True renunciation is inward, not withdrawal.
Integration of Opposites - Life’s contradictions are resolved, not denied.
Knowledge with Ignorance - Both are necessary for complete understanding.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Isha Upanishad teaches that the whole world is filled with the presence of
the Divine.
It says that we should not run away from life. Instead, we should live, work,
and act in the world, but without being attached to results or possessions.
The text explains that many people choose one side — either complete
renunciation or complete involvement in the world. But this Upanishad shows that
both can go together.
It also teaches that knowledge alone is not enough, and ignorance alone is not
enough. A complete understanding comes from seeing how both fit into a larger
truth.
In the end, it guides the seeker toward realizing that the same divine reality
exists within everything and everyone.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by M. Hiriyanna (1911).
तेन॑ त्य॒क्तेन॑ भुञ्जीथा॒ मा गृ॑धः॒ कस्य॑ स्वि॒द्धन॑म् ॥१॥
īśā vāsyam idaṃ sarvaṃ yat kiñca jagatyāṃ jagat |
tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā mā gṛdhaḥ kasya sviddhanam || 1 ||
In the Lord is to be veiled all this—whatsoever moves on earth. Through such renunciation do thou save (thyself); be not greedy, for whose is wealth?
Shankara
Commentary
He who rules is (termed) Īt. Īśā (means), ‘by the Lord’. The Lord is the Ruler and the real Self of every creature[1]. By such a Lord, identical with oneself, is to be overspread i.e, covered. What? idam sarvam = (all this), yat kincha = whatsoever. jagatyām= on earth. jagat = all that (moves). By one’s own Self,—the Lord, the supreme Self—which is the sole reality, all these unreal (things), both movable and immovable, have to be covered over, (perceiving) thus—‘I am the inner Self of all’.[2] Just as adventitious bad odour in a piece of sandal, arising from moisture, is overcome by true fragrance when the (sandal) piece is rubbed[3], so indeed, will all the congenital variety of the world, such as being an agent or an enjoyer, superimposed on the Self, disappear at the perception (everywhere) of the (one) really existent Self. Since jagatyām is (here used) in an indicatory sense, all kinds of effects differentiated as name, form and action (are to be understood as connoted by it). What a person, that is so full of the conception that the Lord is the Self of all, ought to do is to renounce the three-fold desire for offspring etc., and not (be engaged in) karma. In tena tyaktena, tyakta means renunciation (being used as an abstract noun). (It is not to betaken here as a past participle in the sense of ‘given up’ because) a son or a servant (for example) who has been abandoned or is dead, cannot save one since all connection is severed between them. Therefore (the word) can only mean ‘renunciation’. bhuñjīthāḥ =do save[4]. Having thus renounced desires, be not greedy (mā gṛdhaḥ) i.e., do not long for wealth, kasya svit = (of anybody). (The meaning is)—Do not long for the wealth of anybody—i.e., yourself or another. (In this interpretation) svit is a mere expletive. Or (we may say as follows)—Be not greedy. Why? (The answer is )—kasya svit dhanam= Whose is wealth?—implying a denial. If wealth could belong to anybody it might be sought; (but) everything having disappeared through the discovery of the Lord (everywhere), all this is of the Self, and all this is the Self. Thus it means—Do not seek an unreality.’[5]
Footnotes
The difference between the controller and the controlled is not to be understood as real. I t is merely apparent and is based on an illusion. In the same sense, we may, for example, say that a person standing before a number of mirrors controls the several reflected images of himself.
The sense is that one should realise that all is Self and that there is no variety in the Universe. This is the chief teaching of the present Upanishad and corresponds, in its significance, to the well-known tattvamasi of the Chāndogyopaniṣad.
The object of this illustration is to suggest that when conviction regarding the unity of all existence does not spring directly from faith in the teaching, reasoning or enquiry will generally lead to it.
This statement is not to be understood literally for the Self does not, in reality, require to be saved. It is only intended to extol renunciation by ascribing final release to its influence.
The third pāda of this verse enjoins renunciation on such as can discriminate between what is Self and what is not. Such withdrawal from the world is the only course for Self-realisation. By removing the ordinary distractions of life it renders easy the attainment of final release. The fourth pāda prescribes a rule of conduct and prohibits the acquisition by such persons of wealth of any description beyond what is necessary for bare maintenance.
Max Müller
1. ALL this, whatsoever moves on earth, is to be hidden in the Lord (the Self). When thou hast surrendered all this, then thou mayest enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any man!
ए॒वं त्वयि॒ नान्यथे॒तो॑ऽस्ति॒ न कर्म॑ लिप्यते॒ नरे॑ ॥२॥
kurvann eveha karmāṇi jijīviṣecchataṃ samāḥ |
evaṃ tvayi nānyatheto'sti na karma lipyate nare || 2 ||
Always performing karma here, one should desire to live, for a hundred years. So long as thou (seekest to live) a mere man, no other (path) exists (where) activity does not taint thee.
Shankara
Commentary
Kurvanneva= always performing. iha =(here) karmāni = rites such as agnihotra. jijīviṣet =one should desire to live. śatam =one hundred in number. samāḥ= years. For thus much is known to be the maximum age of man. Since (this is) a (mere) iteration (of an empirically known fact) what should be taken as enjoined (here) is that, if one should desire to live a hundred years, he should live only performing karma. evam= in this manner. in regard to you), nare i.e. when you live content to be a mere man. itaḥ i.e., from this present course of performing karma like agnihotra. different course, na asti =does not exist; in which course evil action does not stain; i.e., you do not get tainted by sin. Wherefore if one should desire for life Tone should live) throughout performing karma such as agnihotra prescribed by the śāstra. How is it to be understood that the former verse assigns to a sannyāsin devotion to knowledge and the latter, only devotion to karma to one incapable of it (Self-realisation)? We reply—Do you not remember the aforesaid antithesis between jñāna and karma which remains unshakable as a mountain? Here also the same has been expressly stated in verses 1 and 2,—(that he who seeks to live must perform karma and that he who does not, must give up all desire. The same conclusion may be arrived at) from the (following) directions to sannyāsins—“He should desire neither for life, nor for death; he should enter a forest. This is the law.” “He should not thence return”. The difference in result between the two will also be pointed out later on. (Another statement of the like import is) “These two paths only appeared in the beginning—the path of activity and (the path) of withdrawal.” Of these two, renunciation is higher, cf. Taittirīya Āraṇyaka “Renunciation alone excelled”. And Vyāsa, the great Vedic teacher, after much reflection, taught his son definitely as follows—“The Vedas aim at inculcating these two paths—one termed the path of activity and the other, of renunciation.”
Max Müller
2. Though a man may wish to live a hundred years, performing works, it will be thus with him; but not in any other way
तास्ते प्रेत्या॒भिग॑च्छन्ति॒ ये के चा॑त्म॒हनो॒ जनाः॑ ॥३॥
asuryā nāma te lokā andhena tamasāvṛtāḥ |
tāṃste pretyābhigacchanti ye ke cātmahano janāḥ || 3 ||
Malignant are those worlds and enveloped in blinding darkness, into which pass, after death, whatsoever people slay the Self.
Shankara
Commentary
From the standpoint of Unity in the form of the supreme Self, even devas are (reckoned) as asuras. asuryāḥ=belonging to demons, nāma is a mere expletive here. te=(those), lokāḥ=births (or lives), because therein the fruits of karma are perceived or enjoyed. andhena=of blinding nature. tamasā=by nescience. āvritāḥ=enveloped. tān=(those) viz. existences down to the immovable, pretya=having left this body. abhigacchanti=(attain) according to their past deeds and according to their devotional practices, ye ke whosoever. ātmahanaḥ=those who slay the Self. Who are they? People that are ignorant[1]. How can they slay the eternal Self? Through their failing of ignorance they veil (i.e. forget) the ever present Self. The sign of (a belief in) its existence is the consciousness of its undecaying immortal nature. This becomes veiled (ie. forgotten), as if the Self has been slain, and the ordinary ignorant people are termed ‘slayers of Self’[2]. By reason of this sin of slaying the Self, they transmigrate. Now is explained of what nature this Self is, by slaying which the ignorant transmigrate and, as distinguished from them, the learned, by not slaying it, attain final release—
Footnotes
I read “ke te? Ye janā avidvāṃsaḥ”.
Ascribing impurity etc. to the Self is considered as equivalent to killing it; just as imputing a false and serious charge against a virtuous man is, in ordinary parlance, spoken of as “murder without a weapon.”—aśastravadha
Max Müller
3. There are the worlds of the Asuras [1] covered with blind darkness. Those who have destroyed their self (who perform works, without having arrived at a knowledge of the true Self ), go after death to those worlds.
taddhāvato'nyānatyeti tiṣṭhat tasminn apo mātariśvā dadhāti || 4 ||
Unmoving, one, (and speedier than the mind; the senses reach it never; (for) it (Self) goes before. Standing, it outstrips others that run. In virtue of it, does mātarisvā allot functions (severally to all).
Shankara
Commentary
Anejat=not shaking, from the root to shake. Shaking is moving, i.e., lapsing from its real state. (The Self is) free from it, i.e., is always of the same form. It is also one in all beings. manaso javīyaḥ= speedier than the mind which is characterised by desire &c. Wherefore these conflicting statements—that it is at once assuredly motionless and speedier than the mind? This is not wrong, for it can be justified (on the basis of the Self) being conditioned or unconditioned. In its original unconditioned form it is stated to be unmoving and one. (It is also possible to predicate motion of the Self) because it reflects (the features of) its conditioning mind which is the internal sense charaterised by desire and doubt. Since the mind, though residing here within the body can, in an instant, conceive of the distant Brahmaloka and the like, it is ordinarily taken as possessing great speed. When such mind, for instance reaches (in thought) Brahmaloka, with rapidity, the Self appears to have reached there already. Therefore it is said here 'speedier than the mind’. devāḥ=senses such as the eye—so called because they illuminate. enat =this entity of the Self. na-āpnuvan=did not reach, the mind being speedier than they. Since mental operation (always) intervenes, not even the semblance of the Self becomes perceivable by the Senses.[1] (And it is beyond the mind itself) because the Self is always in advance (of it) being all-pervading like space. (Now the verse) states that the Self, always[2] free from all features of transmigration, in its own unconditioned form and being altogether changeless, appears to the undiscriminating ignorant, as experiencing all the several modes of life due to limiting adjuncts and also as being many, i.e., one in each body. tat=(that). dhāvataḥ=speedily going. anyān=mind, the organs of speech &c., which are all other than the Self. atyeti =seems to outstrip. The text itself indicates the sense of iva (seems) by tiṣṭhat which means ‘itself remaining immutable.’ tasmin i.e. in virtue of the existence of the Self which is of the nature of eternal sentiency. Mātariśvā=He who moves (śvayati) in the heavens (mātari); the Wind, the active principle in all creatures; on which are dependent all the aggregates of causes and effects and into which they are woven like warp and woof and which is also termed ‘the connecting thread’ and is the support of the whole universe. Such is mātariśvā. apaḥ=functions[3] of things, such as flaming and burning of Fire, shining of the Sun, raining of the Cloud and so on. dadhāti=allots[4]; or the word may mean ‘directs’ agreeably to texts like “Through fear of Him the wind blows &c.” (Taitirriya Upanishad:- II, viii, 1). The idea is that all changes of the nature of cause and effect take place only when the Self, the eternal sentiency and substrate of all, exists. Not weary of repeating, the Veda states once again what has already been said in the previous verse—
Footnotes
The action of the senses presupposes the operation of the mind. The Self being beyond mind, is necessarily beyond the senses as well.
I read sarvadāpi instead of sarvavyāpi.
Apaḥ in a secondary sense means ‘Sacrificial acts’ for most of them are performed with water, ghee and such other liquids. Hence, in what may be called a ‘tertiary sense’ the term may be taken to denote all kinds of activity.
This implies an argument for the existence of an all-controlling Lord of the Universe.
Max Müller
4. That one (the Self), though never stirring, is swifter than thought. The Devas (senses) never reached it, it walked [1] before them. Though standing still, it overtakes the others who are running. Mâtarisvan (the wind, the moving spirit) bestows powers [2] on it.
tad antar asya sarvasya tad u sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ || 5 ||
It moves and it moves not; it is far and it is near. It is inside all this; it is also outside all this.
Shankara
Commentary
Tad=the Self in question. ejati=moves. The same does not move (na ejati) i.e., in itself. In other words, being in truth motionless, it (only) appears to move. Moreover, it, tat=it, dūre=(at a distance). It is distant, as it were, because the ignorant cannot get at it even in a thousand million years. tat u=(it is also); antike=near. Absolutely so, to the wise for it is their very Self. It is not merely far and near; it is (also) antaḥ i.e. inside of all this. Compare—‘Which Self is inmost of all’—(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III, iv, 1). asya savasya =(of this all) i.e., the universe consisting of name, form and action. It is outside all this, being pervasive; inside, being supremely subtle like space. (We should also remember) that it is without interstices from the teaching contained in passages like “wholly solid sentiency &c.’—(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV, v, 13)
Max Müller
5. It stirs and it stirs not; it is far, and likewise near [1]. It is inside of all this, and it is outside of all this.
स॒र्व॒भू॒तेषु॑ चा॒त्मानं॒ ततो॒ न वि जु॑गुप्सते ॥६॥
yas tu sarvāṇi bhūtāny ātmany evānupaśyati |
sarvabhūteṣu cātmānaṃ tato na vijugupsate || 6 ||
And he who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings has no aversion thence.
Shankara
Commentary
Yaḥ tu i.e., a sannyāsin desiring final release. sarvāṇi bhūtāni= all beings (i.e., existences) from prakṛti down to the immovable, ātmani eva anupaśyati =(discovers in himself) i.e., does not understand as other than his own Self, sarva bhūteṣu cha i.e. and in the same (beings), ātmānam = (himself) i.e., his own Self as the Self of all those beings as well. (The reference here is to him) who beholds himself, the same in all beings thus—‘Just as I, the cogniser of all notions, the perceiver, one and devoid of all attributes, am the Self of this my body, the aggregate of causes and effects, so also am I in the same form, the Self of all beings from prakṛti down to the immovable. tataḥ = through such perception, na vijugupsate = does not feel repelled. This is an iteration of what is (empirically) known. All aversion is from evil things other than one’s own self, and if one recognises (everywhere) only the Self, absolutely pure and continuous, it is clear that (for such an one) there is nothing to excite repulsion. Hence the statement—‘He has no aversion thence’. Another verse also expresses the same idea—
Max Müller
6. And he who beholds all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from it [1].
tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka ekatvam anupaśyataḥ || 7 ||
When to a knower discovering unity, all beings become his very Self, what delusion then (to him) and what sorrow?
Shankara
Commentary
Yasmin=when or in which Self, sarvāṇi bhūtāni= the same (already mentioned) beings of all kinds, ātma eva abhūt= became one’s own self, through right perception, vijānataḥ = (to the knower) of Reality. tatra= then or in such Self, ko mohaḥ kaṣṣokaḥ = (what delusion and what sorrow?). Sorrow and delusion are for one that does not understand the source of desire and activity but not to one that realises the unity of Self, pure and resembling space. The third pāda by calling in question and denying the possibility of sorrow and delusion which are the result of nescience, indicates (so far as the knower is concerned) the absolute cessation of worldly existence together with its cause. The following verse (now) states of what description the Self—spoken of in the foregoing verses—in its nature, is—
Max Müller
7. When to a man who understands, the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?
He (the self) is all pervading, bright, incorporeal, scatheless and veinless, pure, untouched by sin; a seer, all-knowing, superposed and self-begotten. (It is He that) has duly allotted to the eternal creators their (various) duties.
Shankara
Commentary
Saḥ=the aforesaid Self. paryagāt =went round; i.e. he is pervading like space. śukram=white, i.e. radiant, bright. akāyam=bodiless i.e. without the subtle body, avraṇam=not to be wounded, snāva=vein; therefore asnāviram means ‘veinless’. The last two (epithets) deny the gross body; ś uddham = without the stain of nescience. This denies the causal body, apāpaviddham=by evil (which term is meant to include) both merits and demerits[1]. The words beginning with sukram are to be changed to the masculine form, because the verse starts with saḥ (a masculine form) and ends likewise with kaviḥ and (which also are masculine in form). kaviḥ=seeing what is past[2], i.e. witness of all, according to the text—“There is no seer other than He” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III, vii, 23), manīṣī =the controller of the mind i.e., the all-knowing Lord. paribhūḥ means ‘who is above (pari = upari) everything’. svayambhūh = self-begotten. This signifies that what is above everything as well as what is everything are both the Self. Such a Lord, always free, being all-knowing, has allotted duties (arthān) according to past deeds which are instrumental in yielding fruit (in this life) i.e. has appropriately distributed (them). Yāthātathyataḥ, being derived from yathātathā, means ‘according to facts’. ś āśvatībhyaḥ= permanent; Samābhyaḥ i.e. among Creators going by the name of ‘Time’[3]
Footnotes
According to the view of Śaṅkarāchārya, it should be remembered, good and evil become reduced to the same level in the eyes of a knower of the Self, for both alike lead to a succession of births, although the one be of a higher kind than the other.
This word literally means ‘one that can see what is past’. Here it is to be understood in a secondary sense, the past indicatin all time—the present as well as the future. Hence it means “witness of all”.
For this sense of Samvatsara see Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I, v, 14 and Prashna Upanishad i. 9. Like everything else Time also is born of the Creator. Hence ‘Time’ is ‘Creator’ taking the effect for the cause.
Max Müller
8. He [1] (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.
Into blinding darkness pass they who adhere to karma and into still greater darkness, as it were, they who delight in meditation.
Shankara
Commentary
andham tamaḥ = blinding darkness, praviśanti =(they pass). Who? ye avidyām upāsate = yjey who practise karma. avidyā is what is other than knowledge i.e. karma, because karma is opposed to knowledge. upāsate =devoutly practise i.e. perform only karma such as agnihotra. tataḥ i.e. than such blinding darkness. bhūya-iva= greater, as it were.[1] te tamaḥ i.e. they pass into darkness. Who? ye-u = those who, on the other hand; vidyāyām =in meditating on deities; ratāḥ take delight i.e. who engage themselves in it to the exclusion of karma. Now follows a statement of the distinction between the respective fruits of meditation and karma, as an argument for their simultaneous practice. Otherwise, if of the two thus proximately stated, one only is known to bear fruit and not the other, the relation between them would be (according to rules of interpretation, not one of co-ordination but) only that of subordination[2].
Footnotes
I read bahutaram iva.
I read aṅgāṅgitaiva syāt.
Max Müller
9. All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness
इति॑ शुश्रुम॒ धीरा॑णां॒ ये न॒स्तद्वि॑चचक्षि॒रे ॥१०॥॥
anyad evāhur vidyayān yad āhur avidyayā |
iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṃ ye nas tad vicacakṣire || 10 ||
Distinct, they say, is (the fruit borne) by meditation and distinct again, they say, is (that borne) by karma. Thus have we heard from sages who taught us that.
Shankara
Commentary
anyat-eva= quite distinct. Vidyayā =(by meditation) i.e. the fruit borne by meditation is distinct. āhuḥ= they say; (the second pāda) means “karma yields a distinct fruit altogether”; as recorded in “The world of manes through karma; the world of gods through meditation”. iti =thus. śuśruma =we have heard, dhīrānām i.e. (the saying) of the wise, ye—i.e., which teachers. naḥ= to us. tat i.e. karma and meditation. vicacakṣire =explained well. The purport is that this their teaching has been handed down by tradition, Since it is so,
Max Müller
10. One thing, they say, is obtained from real knowledge; another, they say, from what is not knowledge. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this [1].
Whoever understands meditation and karma as going together, (he) overcoming death through karma, attains immortality through meditation.
Shankara
Commentary
The first pāda means ‘meditating on deities and karma’. yah= (whoever.) ta = etat =this. ubhayam =(two) saha—i.e. to be practised by the same person. veda =(understands). (The second half of the verse) states that only a person, practising both together, will in due course, achieve the chief end[1] avidyayā= by karma like agnihotra. mṛtyum—by this word are here meant usual activity and knowledge. having overcome those two. vidyayā= by meditation on deities. amṛtam= (immortality); godhead. aśnute =attains. Becoming one with the deity (meditated upon) is termed ‘immortality’ here. Now with a view to inculcate their simultaneous practice, follows the condemnation of the separate meditation on the manifest and on the unmanifest—
Footnotes
I read Samucchayakāriṇa eva ekapuruṣārthasaṃbandhaḥ.
Max Müller
11. He who knows at the same time both knowledge and not-knowledge, overcomes death through not-knowledge, and obtains immortality through knowledge.
tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u sambhūtyāṃ ratāḥ || 12 ||
Into blinding darkness pass they who are devoted to the unmanifest, and into still greater darkness, as it were, they who delight in the manifest.
Shankara
Commentary
Saṃbhavanam means birth. That which is born and is an effect is sambhūti. asambhūti is what is other than sambhūti i.e., prakṛti, the undifferentiated cause whose essence is nescience and which is the source of all activity and desire. They who devote themselves to such Cause enter (as may be expected) darkness which is correspondingly blind in its nature. Sambhūtyām i.e., in the phenomenal Brahman known as Hiraṇyagarbha. They who delight only in Him enter darkness which is, as it were, more blinding still. Now follows as an argument for their simultaneous practice, a statement of the distinction between the respective fruits of the two kinds of meditation—
Max Müller
12. All who worship what is not the true cause, enter into blind darkness
इति॑ शुश्रुम॒ धीरा॑णां॒ ये न॒स्तद्वि॑चचक्षि॒रे ॥१३॥
anyad evāhuḥ saṃbhavād anyad āhur asaṃbhavāt |
iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṃ ye nas tad vicacakṣire || 13 ||
Distinct, they say, is (what results) from the manifest and distinct again, they say, is (what results) from the unmanifest. Thus have we heard from the sages who taught us that.
Shankara
Commentary
anyat-eva= altogether distinct. āhuḥ =(they say). Sambhavāt =from that which has birth i.e., from meditating on the phenomenal Brahman, supernatural power such as assuming, at will, extreme subtlety is said to result. Similarly, they say that there is a (distinctive) fruit from meditating on the unmanifest,—that, alluded to in pāda 1 of verse 12 and which is known as “absorption into primal cause”[1] to those versed in the Purāṇas. iti =thus. śuśruma-dhīrāṇām—i.e., we have heard the saying of the wise. The last pāda means “who explained to us the results of meditating on the manifest and the unmanifest”. Since this is so, it is but right that meditation on both the effect and the cause should be practised together; a further reason being the achievement (through such meditation) of the chief end.[2]
Footnotes
This state may be sought on account of the absence of the ordinary excitements of life in it as in sleep.
I read yukta eva and ekapuruṣārthatvāccha.
Max Müller
13. One thing, they say, is obtained from (knowledge of) the cause; another, they say, from (knowledge of) what is not the cause. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.
Whoever understands the manifest and the unmanifest as going together, (he), by overcoming death through the manifest, attains immortality through the unmanifest
Shankara
Commentary
The first half of the verse means “He who understands that meditation on the manifest and the unmanifest should be practised together”, here means an “effect”—that whose character is transitoriness; the abstract being put for the concrete, vināśena means “by meditating on such (Brahman)”. mṛtyum =death all kinds of deficiency arising from limited power, demerit, covetousness and soon. tīrtvā =(having overcome); for great supernatural power is attained by the contemplation of Hiraṇyagarbba. Having thus overcome death or limitation of power &c., asambhūtya i.e., by meditating on the unmanifest. amṛtam i.e. absorption into the First Cause. aśnute (attains). It should be noted that sambhūti in the first pāda is mentioned without the (initial) a (and is to be taken as equivalent to asambhūti) agreeably to the statement that the result is absorption into the First Cause. The result derivable, according to śāstra, through worldly and divine ‘wealth’[1] extends up to absorption into the First Cause. Thus far is metempsychosis. Higher than that, is the realisation of the unity of Self spoken of in verse 9—the result of renouncing all desires and devoting oneself (exclusively) to true knowledge. Thus the twofold teaching of the Veda, as relating to worldly activity and to withdrawal from it, has been explained here. And the (Śatapatha) Brāhmaṇa up to (the chapters on) Pravargya (purificatory ceremonies described in Khanda xiv chapters 1—3 ) concerns itself with elucidating, in full, the Vedic teaching relating to the path of activity, consisting of injunctions and prohibitions. The succeeding portion, viz., the Brhadāraṇyaka, explains the path of withdrawal from the world. In verse 11 it has been stated[2] that he who desires to live performing karma (in its entirety) from conception to death, and along with it, practises meditation on the lower (phenomenal) Brahman will attain immortality. It is now pointed out by what course, one so qualified becomes immortal. (We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad V, v, 2) “That is what is Truth; it is the Sun, the Person in this disc, as also the Person in the right eye”. The worshipper of this two-fold Brahman—Truth—who has also been performing karma as prescribed, addresses thus, when the end is come, Brahman who is Truth, beseeching Him for entrance—
Footnotes
Worldly wealth or means comprising cattle, land, money &c., all required for performing karma. ‘Divine wealth’ is knowledge of deities.
taduktam iti, tam pratyuktam mantreṇa vidyāṃcāvidyāṃcetyādinā.-—Ānandagici. One Ms., reads tampratyetaduktam in place of taduktam.
Max Müller
14. He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction (the perishable body), overcomes death by destruction (the perishable body), and obtains immortality through (knowledge of ) the true cause.
tat tvaṃ pūṣann apāvṛṇu satyadharmāya dṛṣṭaye || 15 ||
Truths face is covered with a golden lid; remove that, O Pūṣan, that I, Truth’s devotee, may see It.
Shankara
Commentary
Hiranmayam =seeming golden, resplendent tena =by such. pātrena =lid, as it were, satyasya i.e., of the Brahman residing in the Solar disc, apihitam =covered. mukham= entrance. tat= (that); tvam =(you); he-pūṣan =O Sun, apāvṛṇu =remove. satyadharmāya i.e., to me who am through meditation on you who are Truth. Or this expression may mean “one that practises true piety” Dṛṣṭaye i.e., for reaching you whose essence is Truth.
Max Müller
15. The door of the True is covered with a golden disk [1]. Open that, O Pûshan, that we may see the nature of the True [2].
yat te rūpaṃ kalyāṇatamaṃ tat te paśyāmi yo'sāv asau puruṣaḥ so'ham asmi || 16 ||
O Pūṣan, sole traveller, Yama, Sun, child of Prajāpati, recall thy rays; withdraw thy light that I may behold thee of loveliest form. Whosoever that Person is, that also am I.
Shankara
Commentary
Pūṣan=the sun, so called because he protects the world. Ekarṣe, because he traverses (the sky) alone. Yama, Death, because he controls all. Sūrya, because he sucks up rays, life and water. Prājāpatya, because he is the son of Prajāpati, the Creator. vyūha =remove, raśmīn i.e. your rays. samūha= unite i.e. withdraw. your light, yat-te =what is yours. rūpam =form, kalyāṇatamam = loveliest, tat-te =that of yours paśyāmi i.e. I may see by your grace. Further I am not entreating you as a servant, because whoever is the Person in the Solar disc, composed of vyāhṛtis,[1] the same am I. He is known as purusha (person) because He is of the form of a person, or because this world is full of Him in His modes of activity and thought or, again, because He lies in the citadel of the body.
Footnotes
Vyāhṛti is literally ‘utterance’ and is the term used to denote the three sacred syllables bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, suvaḥ. See Brihadaranyaka Upanishad V, v, 3.
Max Müller
16. O Pûshan, only seer, Yama (judge), Sûrya (sun), son of Pragâpati, spread thy rays and gather them! The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is (viz. the person in the sun) [1].
(May) this life (merge in) the immortal breath! And (may) this body end in ashes! Om! mind, remember, remember thy deeds; mind, remember, remember thy deeds!
Shankara
Commentary
Now that I am dying, may my life (Vāyu) abandoning the bodily adjunct assume the godly, in the immortal breath of the universal Self, the ‘connecting thread’ of all. pratipadyatām (“may reach”) is to be understood. The meaning, agreeably to the prayer for entrance, is “May this subtle body purified by meditation and karma advance”. atha =(and). idam =(this), śarīram =(body), hutam =(burnt) in fire. bhasmāntam i.e., may it end in ashes. Om—thus is addressed Brahman—as identical with what is known as Agni the essence of Truth—following the mode of meditating on Him-through this symbol, krato i.e., O mind, so called because it desires, smara i.e., remember what has to be remembered, for the time for it is now come. Therefore remember what has till now been meditated upon. Remember also whatever karma you have done till now[1] —since boyhood. The repetition of the third pāda indicates-earnestness. By another verse also, entrance is prayed for—
Footnotes
I read agre in place of agne.
Max Müller
17. Breath [1] to air, and to the immortal! Then this my body ends in ashes. Om! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds [2]!
agne naya supathā rāye asmān viśvāni deva vayunāni vidvān |
yuyodhy asmaj juhurāṇam eno bhūyiṣṭhāṃ te nama uktiṃ vidhema || 18 ||
O God Agni, lead us on to prosperity by a good path, judging all our deeds. Take away ugly sin from us. We shall say many prayers unto thee.
Shankara
Commentary
Agne =(O Fire), naya =lead, supathā =by a good path. This qualifying word excludes the southern path. (The devotee means)—“I am tired of the southern path characterised by birth and death, and therefore do I repeatedly ask you to lead (me) by the good path free from birth and death”. rāye =for wealth i.e. (here) for enjoying the fruit of karma. asmān =us, that are qualified for (the enjoyment of) the fruits of the prescribed practices. viśvāni =all. deva =O God, vayunāni=karma or meditation. vidvān =knowing. Further, yuyodhi i.e., separate or destroy. asmat=asmattaḥ =from us. juhurāṇam =crooked or deceitful. enaḥ= sin; so that becoming pure thereby we may obtain our wish. We are not, however, able now to serve you actively (as of old); we can but do obeisance again and again (bhūyiṣṭhām) to you. Some entertain a doubt (as regards the antithesis between karma and true knowledge) hearing the statements (contained in verses 11 and 14—“Overcoming death through avidyā, he attains immortality through vidyā” and “Overcoming death through the manifest, he attains immortality through the unmanifest”. We shall therefore briefly consider (the matter now) in order to clear (this doubt.) Now then, what is the reason for the doubt? The answer is—Why should not true knowledge itself be understood by vidyā in the above passage? and also (by amṛtatva true) immortality? Well, are not this knowledge of the supreme Self and karma mutually exclusive on account of the antithesis between them? True; but this antagonism is not known (through śāstra) for antagonism or the reverse should be based on śāstraic authority only. Just as the performance of karma and the practice of Vidyā are known through śāstra alone, so also should their opposition or agreement be. As the śāstraic prohibition “No creature should be hurt” is annulled by śātra itself in “In a sacrifice animals may be killed” so also should it be in the case of vidyā and avidyā as well as in the case of knowledge and karma.[1] No; because the Veda says—“Distant are these.—opposed and leading in diverse ways—karma and knowledge” (Katha Upanishad ii, 4)- If it be said that owing to the statement in verse 11, there is (likewise) no antagonism between them, we reply ‘No’; because[2] there can possibly be no option as regards opposition or agreement between true knowledge and avidyā[3]. If it be rejoined that there is no antithesis at all, on the strength of the injunction (here in verse 11) regarding their combined practice, we repeat ‘No’; for the two cannot conceivably co-exist. If it be urged that vidyā and avidyā are to be pursued by the same (person) one after the other[4], we reply ‘No’; for when true knowledge comes to a person, nescience is inconceivable in him. Thus (for instance) if once a man experiences heat and light in fire, there cannot arise in him the ignorance—that fire is cold or devoid of light. Nor can there be doubt or delusion (in a knower) for verse 7 denies all possibility of them. Nescience being inconceivable,—we have said—its result[5]—karma—is equally inconceivable. The immortality spoken of (here) is only relative. Further if vidyā in this passage referred to knowledge of the supreme Self, praying for an entrance would be inappropriate.[6] Thus we conclude by stating that the meaning of the verses in question is, as we have explained.
Footnotes
I omit samucchayaḥ after vidyākarmaṇaśca.
I omit hetusvarūpaphalavirodhāt. I also put a full stop after vikalpāsambhavāt.
Option is conceivable in the case of karma. Thus one śākha of the Veda prescribes “udite-juhoti”; another, “anudite-juhoti.”. Here it may be understood that the Veda gives one, option to offer oblations either after sunrise or before. But the same rule cannot apply to vidyā and avidyā, on the strength of the two texts in question. In this case, only one of the statements can hold good and the other, instead of being taken literally, has to be interpreted in such a manner that it will not clash with the first. Reason has to decide which statement is to be understood literally and which not.
If it is meant that karma precedes knowledge, there is no difficulty in agreeing with the opponent, for it is recognised that karma prepares man for true knowledge. But if karma is to succeed knowledge, the statement of the opponent cannot be admitted.
The opponent may argue at this stage that the antithesis hithereto spoken of is between vidyā and avidyā and not between karma and vidyā. This argument is met by stating that dissociating avidyā from a knower is perforce dissociating karma also from him.
This is said in reference to the Vedic text. “na tasya prānā utkrāmanti” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad v, 6), which declares that final release is attained by a knower, where he is, and not by his going elsewhere.
Max Müller
18. Agni, lead us on to wealth (beatitude) by a good path, thou, O God, who knowest all things! Keep far from us crooked evil, and we shall offer thee the fullest praise! (Rv. I, 189, 1.