12 To blinding darkness go the men who make a cult of Nescience. The devotees of Science enter darkness that is darker still. 13 Different is the fruit, they say, of Science and of Nescience. Thus from the sages have we heard who have declared this lore to us. 14 The man who knoweth well these two, Science and Nescience, combined, O'ercoming death by Nescience by Science gaineth endless life. 15 My breath reach everlasting Air! In ashes let my body end. OM! Mind, remember thou; remember thou my sphere; remember thou my deeds. Hiranyagarbha. The combination of the two cults is now expressly enjoined, since the fruits can be obtained only by one and the same person successively, and not by different persons practising each cult independently. Passing death: that is, overcoming death in the shape of the absence of supernatural powers and of vice and desire by means of the faculties obtained by the worship of Hiranyagarbha (verse 10). Sambhati: here again meaning Asambhuti or Undeveloped Nature. Endless life: that is, conditioned or limited immortality by absorption into Prakriti. 12 Nescience: Avidya, the opposite of Vidya or true Science; including ignorance of the real nature of the Atmi and belief in the phenomenal and transient objective world. See Professor Max Müller's Three Lectures on the Vedanta Philosophy, pp. 97-100. Here the word is used as equivalent to Karma (verse 2), one of its results, the constant performers of which, exclusively, fall into darkness which prevents their knowing the truth. Science: Vidyi; meaning, here, only knowledge of the Devatas or Deities, not of the Paramîtmi or Supreme Self. This Science, alone, is insufficient. 13 Different is the fruit: Science (knowledge of the Deities) leads a man after death to the Devaloka, the world of the Devas or Gods. Nescience, that is, Karma. leads to the Pitṛiloka, the world of the Fathers, Manes or Ancestral Spirits. 14 The person who practises the sacred rites and conjointly cultivates the Science of the Deities successively attains the fruits of both, obtaining, in the end, the union with the Gods called immortality in a limited sense. 15 This and the two succeeding verses are addressed to Brahma, the True, typised by Fire, and designated Oм the Sacred Symbol of the Deity. The Solar Fire, the Supreme Dity, and the Self manifested in the Mind are here addressed in identity by the dying devotee, meditating upon the Supreme Light in the Sun as no other than his own Inner Light. The meaning of this verse is:-May my breath-the life-principle in me (called the linyasurtra, and consisting of the five organs of action, the five organs of sense, the five Airs, the Mind and the Intellect), leaving its bod ly limitation, reach, or be united with, the immortal Hiranyagarbha or Sitrâtman. the Soul-thread, the Divine, all-pervading, Cosmic Life; and may this gross body consumed on the funeral pile end in ashes. My sphere: klibe, which is not in the Kanva text, is explained by the Commentators as 'the region allotted to, or intended (ka'pita) for, me'. 16 By goodly path lead us to riches, Agni, thou God who kuowest all our works and wisdom. Remove the sin that makes us stray and wander: most ample adoration will we bring thee. 17 The Real's face is hidden by a vessel formed of golden light. The Spirit yonder in the Sun, the Spirit dwelling there am I, OM! Heaven! Brahma! 16 This verse, repeated from V. 36, and taken from R. V. I. 89. 6, is a continuation of the dying devotee's prayer. Goodly path: not by the path that leads to the abode of the Manes and subsequent transmigration, but by the fair road travelled by the Gods, on which there is no returning. To riches that is, according to the Commentators, enjoyment of the reward of our Karma. : 17 The Real's face: the face or real form of that True Being-Brahmathe indwelling Spirit of all beings, animate or inanimate,—the Inward Ruler (antaryâmin), the Purusha who dwells in the Sun yonder and in the body. In the Kanva recension a verse numbered 16 follows: O Nourisher, Sole Mover (or Sole Seer), Yama (Controller), O Sun, Prajapati's Son, remove thy rays and draw together or contract thy burning energy, so that I may behold thy most blessed Form. That Spirit (Purusha) who dwelleth in the Sun yonder, I am He (the immaterial eternal Soul). Thy most blessed Form' implies that True Spiritual Light which is, as it were, veiled by the golden orb of physical material light which typifies it. In both recensions, Madhyandina and Kânva, the order of verses 1-8 is the same. In the Kanva recension verse 9 corresponds with 12 of the Mâdhyandina; 10 with 13; 11 with 14; 12 with 9; 13 with 10; 14 with 11; 15 (varied) with 17; 16 has no corresponding verse; 17 with 15; 18 with 16. This Upanishad of the Vajasaneya Samhita, called also the Îṣavâsyam from its initial words, Îsadhyaya, and Îsopanishad, Îşi Book and Își Upanishad, has been translated by Sir William Jones (Posthumous Works); by Raja Ram Mohan Roy'; by Dr. Röer in Vol. XV. of the Bibliotheca Indica; by Professor Max Müller in Vol, I. of the Sacred Books of the East, and recently, together with the Commentary of Sri Sankara, by S. Sitarama Sastri, B. A (published by V. C. Seshachari, B. A., B. L., through G. A. Natesan & Co., Madras), I am indebted to my old pupil and valued friend Babu Pramada Dasa Mitra of Benares, completer of Dr. Ballantyne's translation of the Sihitya-darpana and author of an admirable English version of the BhagavadGita, for kind revision of my translation of, and notes on, this Upanishad, and for many corrections and improvements therein. The following Excursus from this scholar's pen, mainly in defence and justification of the Commentator Sri Sankara, is, I think, a valuable addition to my annotations. "Simple in language as this Upanishad is, it presents difficulties in the shape of apparently conflicting sentiments which it has taxed the ingenuity of ancient and modern commentators to reconcile; yet a doubt sometimes arises whether the real sense has been actually discovered. "This translation is generally in accordance with the Commentary of 8rf Sankaracharya who is followed by the great majority of commentators and is recognized as the greatest authority on the Vedanta Philosophy as expounded in its prasthana-traya or triple course, viz. the Upanishads, the Vedanta Sutras, and the Bhagavad-Gitâ. "The chief paradox is contained in verse 12 which declares that ignorance (avidya) leads to blind darkness, and knowledge (vidyâ) to darkness blinder still.* Şikara explains vidya to mean knowledge of the inferior Deities and not the knowledge of the Supreme Brahma. For, according to him, the true knowledge of the Supreme Brahma being the highest object of all religious duties and the sole end of the Upanishads, it cannot be said, under any circumstances, to result in darkness. Whilst a knowledge of the Divinities and certain forms of their worship, also termed vidyâ in the Upanishads, may bring a man into darkness or an unhappy region if he neglects the duties ordained by the Sruti and Smriti. Sri Sankara, in all his Vedantic Commentaries, has urged repeatedly and forcibly that true knowledge of Brahma cannot be combined with Karma, for it removes the notion of duality and fills the devotee's mind with an ever-abiding consciousness of the Eternal Spirit, the Sole Reality. His mental and bodily acts are almost automatical, not being caused by any strong desire or passion. They are results of the residual avidya the source of his present and last birth. Exception is made only in the case of Divine Incarnations and those who work solely for the good of the world without any selfish motive or passion. : "The fourth Chapter of the third Book of the Vedanta-Sutras opens with the Sûtra: "The end of man (is attained) by this (the independent knowledge of the Self ordained in the Vedanta): such being the word of the Veda. So says Badarayana. In refuting the opponent's arguments Sri Bankara explains that verse 2 of this Upanishad refers to men in general and not specially to one who knows Brahma (III. 4. 13), and that even if it be conceded by virtue of the context that it refers to such a person it implies only a permission and not an injunction to perform works, for the purpose of praising knowledge, as is shown by the words na karma lipyate nare, work does not taint the man'. That is to say, even if a man who knows Brahma performs work as long as he lives it has no tainting effect upon him such is the power of knowledge (III. 4 14). This discussion about the connection of work with wisdom is concluded by explanations summed up in the following words :- Knowledge, when produced, does not require anything else for the attainment of its fruit (salvation): but for its production it does require (the help of sacrifices, etc). So says the Suti: Him (the Supreme Spirit) do the Brahmans desire to know by study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gift, by austerities, and by fasting (Com. on Vedanta S III. 4 26). 'Thefore, thus knowing, serene and self-subdued, retiring (from the world), enduring (every pain and self concentrated, one sees the Self in his own self' (Brih. Up. VI. 4 23). Whereas the qualifications serenity, etc. are directly connected with knowledge as is implied in the epithet eram vit, thus knowing,' they are the intimate or immediate (pratyâsanna) means of gaining knowledge; whilst sacrifice. etc., being con. nected with the desire of knowledge, are its outward and remote means. Such is their distinction.' (Com. Ved. S. III. 4. 27 ) "It will be seen from the above that there is no inconsistency, as Professor Max Müller (Sacred Books of the East, Vol. I. p. 319) supposes, in the This verse occurs also in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (IV. 40, 10). where vidyâ is explained as that portion of the Veda which treats of Karma only. + Vachaspati Misra says: "One only doing, etc,, verse 2, refers to a person who has no knowledge. Even if it should refer to one who knows there would be no contradiction, glorification of knowledge being intend. ed,'-Bhâmatí. a gloss on Sankara, p. 675. S. 13. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV. 4. 22. Fasting (anâṣaka) is explained as moral fasting, abstaining from sensual gratifications. explanations given by Sri Sankara of verse 2 in his Commentaries on this Upanishad and the Vedauta-Sûtras. The Professor rightly remarks: ‘Our Upanishad seems to have dreaded libertinism, knowledge without works, more even than ritualism, works without knowledge, and its true object was to show that orthodoxy and sacrifice, though useless in themselves, must always form the preparation for higher enlightenment.' It would seem that it did not strike the Professor that Sri Sankara's contention is not that work should not precede the highest knowledge, but that when it has been attained, there is no necessity for going back to the preparatory stage, seeing that the goal has already been reached for which the preparation was previously undergone. It cannot be too carefully borne in mind that this knowledge to which the great Sanuyasî attaches so much value is not a verbal or even a speculative knowledge of the Supreme Brahma, which, as the Professor justly fears, may lead to libertinism. Far from being the highest knowledge as understood by Sri Sankara, the latter knowledge may indeed be lower than that of the Gods who are manifestations of Brahma as Wind, Fire, Sun, etc. Brahma so manifested is worshipped in verses 15-17 of our Upanishad. So Sankarananda, the preceptor of Sayanâcharya, following as he does Sri Sankara, adds an alternative explanation of vidyâ in verse 12, viz. a knowledge of Brahma that lies only on the lip or in the mouth (mukhato Brahmavâdino vâ), and not in the actual realization of Brahma, shown in a life altogether free from desires and affections, doubts and fears, grief and delusion (see verse 7). Certainly it would be a contradiction to counect such knowledge with libertinism, and so after all Sri Sankara must be pronounced to be right. It may not be out of place to remark here that Sri Sankara's view of the relation of wisdom to work acords also with the teaching of the BhagavadGitâ which sets forth so prominently the importance of duty done unselfishly, without expectation of reward. The Gita says: But the man who delighteth in Spirit (the Inner Self), is satisfied in Spirit, and is contented in Spirit alone, he (indeed) hath no work to do.' III. 17. "I feel tempted to give here an interpretation of verse 12, being the expansion of an idea hinted at by a Pandit. It is not, however, found in any of the published Commentaries. It removes the apparent contradiction of the verse, and at the same time restores the force of iva rendered meaning less in all the other interpretations, and gives to vidyd its highest sense :— "Those who are devoted to knowledge (the highest knowledge of Brahma) enter into darkness, as if blinder still, i. e. a darkness devoid of all forms and colours-of all this phenomenal world-darkness indeed as being beyond the light of the sun, the moon, the stars, fire and lightning, for the Sruti says: There the Sun shines not, nor the Moon, nor the Stars, nor do these lightnings shine, far less does fire (Katha Up. 5. 15). Sri Sankara in his Anandalahari, a hymn to the Primeval Power or Sakti, sings: 'I adore the Supreme Sambhu, seated in the lotus, named Âjni-chakra, between the eyebrows (termed Avimukta or Kâşî in the Jâvâla Upanishad), bearing the brilliance of a hundred millions of suns and moons, united on one side with the Supreme Intelligence (Para Chit, the power of universal consciousness); whom to worship with devotion, man dwelleth in the lightless house of his own Light, unapproached by the Sun and Moon and fire'. The BhagavadGita also gives expression to a similar idea when it says: "What is night to all creation-therein waketh the self-concentrated' (II. 69). Milton's 'Dark with excessive light' might perhaps be explained in a like spiritual sense. "Lastly in favour of Sri Sankara it may be observed that he avoids the tantology which other Commentators make of verses 9-11 by explaining Sambhuti and Asambhûti in the same sense almost as vidya and avidya." |