"The chief paradox is contained in verse 12 which declares that ignorance (avidyâ) leads to blind darkness, and knowledge (vidya) to darkness blinder still. Si Skara 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 avidyâ 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 Bâdarayana. In refuting the opponent's arguments Sri Sankara 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 Sruti : 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' (Bṛih. Up. VI. 4 23). Whereas the qualifications serenity, etc are directly connected with knowledge as is implied in the epithet evam-vit, 'thus knowing,' they are the intimate or immediate (pratyasanna) means of gaining knowledge; whilst sacrifice, etc., being connected 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. + Váchaspati 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 intended.'-Bhâmatî, a gloss on Sankara, p. 675. S. 13. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV. 4. 22. Fasting (anâşaka) 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 Vedanta-Sutras. The Professor rightly remarks: 'Our Upanishad seems to have dreaded libertinism, kuowledge 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 Sanuyâsî 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 Sayanâchârya, 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 Brahmavadino 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 connect such knowledge with libertinism, and so after all Șrî Şankara 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 accords 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 vidya 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 beyon? 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 Auandalahari, a hymn to the Primeval Power or Şakti, sings: I adore the Supreme Şambhu, seated in the lotus, named Âjña-chakra, between the eyebrows (termed Avimukta or Kâsî 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 BhagavadGîtâ 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 tautology which other Commentators make of verses 9-11 by explaining Sambhuti and Asambhûti in the same sense almost as vidyâ and avidyâ.” |