Isha Upanishad 17

17

imau dvāveva panthānāvanuniṣkrāntatarau bhavataḥ kriyāpathaścaiva purastātsaṃnyāsaścottareṇa /
nivṛttimārgeṇa eṣaṇātrayasya tyāgaḥ /
tayoḥ saṃnyāsapatha evātirecayati /
"nyāsa evātyarecayat"iti ca taittirīyake /

So far as the knower of the supreme Self is concerned, the purport of the Vedic text (i.e. of the first verse) is this, that the Self is to be saved through firm devotedness to the knowledge of the Self after the renunciation of the threefold desire for sons etc. As for the other person who is unable to cognise the Self because of his mental preoccupation with the non-Self, the Vedic text (i.e. the second verse) imparts this instruction:

Kurvan eva iha, verily by doing here—only by accomplishing; karmāṇi, karmas—Agnihotra (sacrifice) etc.; jijīviṣet, one should wish to live; śataṁ samāḥ, a hundred years. That much has been ascertained to be the longest span of human life. So through a restatement of that well-known fact, it is being enjoined that if one would desire to live a hundred years, one should do so by performing karma only. Evam tvayi, for you, such as you—as you have this kind of hankering for life; nare, for a man—for one identifying oneself only with one's human personality; itaḥ, other than this—than the present mode of life, viz of performing rituals like Agnihotra etc.; na asti, there is not, any other mode by which method, karma na lipyate, bad karma may not cling, i.e. one may not get attached to karma. Therefore, one should desire to live by doing only such karmas as Agnihotra etc., which are enjoined by scriptures.

Objection: But how is it known that the previous verse teaches the pursuit of knowledge for the man of renunciation, and the second one (teaches the path of) karma for one who is unable to renounce?

The answer is: Do you not remember what was pointed out (in the introduction) that the antithesis between knowledge and karma is irremovable like a mountain? Here also it has been said: “He who would desire to live should do so by performing work”; as also “All this should be covered by the Lord; protect (the Self) through that detachment; do not covet anybody’s wealth.” Moreover, the Vedic conclusion is this: “One should not hanker after life or death, and should repair to the forest.” Renunciation has been ordained by saying, “He shall not return from there” (Sannyāsa). And the difference between the results of these two (paths) will be spoken of (in verses 7 and 18) seriatim. Following on the creation of the cosmos, these two paths did emerge out: the path of karma being the earlier one; and the other being renunciation, consisting in the giving up of the three kinds of desire (for son etc.), in accordance with the latter path of detachment. Of these, the path of renunciation is the more excellent. And in the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka it is said, “Renunciation did, indeed, excel”. “These then are the two paths on which the Vedas are established: the one consists of duty characterised by attachment, and the other is clearly marked out by detachment" (Mbh. Śāntiparva, 241.6)—this and similar ideas have been declared, after much deliberation, as his firm conviction to his son (Śuka) by Vyāsa, the teacher of the Vedas. The distinction between the two we shall show hereafter.

The answer is: Do you not remember what was pointed out (in the introduction) that the antithesis between knowledge and karma is irremovable like a mountain? Here also it has been said: “He who would desire to live should do so by performing work”; as also “All this should be covered by the Lord; protect (the Self) through that detachment; do not covet anybody’s wealth.” Moreover, the Vedic conclusion is this: “One should not hanker after life or death, and should repair to the forest.” Renunciation has been ordained by saying, “He shall not return from there” (Sannyāsa). And the difference between the results of these two (paths) will be spoken of (in verses 7 and 18) seriatim. Following on the creation of the cosmos, these two paths did emerge out: the path of karma being the earlier one; and the other being renunciation, consisting in the giving up of the three kinds of desire (for son etc.), in accordance with the latter path of detachment. Of these, the path of renunciation is the more excellent. And in the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka it is said, “Renunciation did, indeed, excel”. “These then are the two paths on which the Vedas are established: the one consists of duty characterised by attachment, and the other is clearly marked out by detachment" (Mbh. Śāntiparva, 241.6)—this and similar ideas have been declared, after much deliberation, as his firm conviction to his son (Śuka) by Vyāsa, the teacher of the Vedas. The distinction between the two we shall show hereafter.