Isha Upanishad 37

37

imamevārthamanyo 'pi mantra āha--

Another verse also expresses the same purport:

Yasmin vijānataḥ, when to the man who has realised, (Or—in the aforesaid Self of the man of realisation in which); sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all those beings; atma eva abhūt, have become the Self alone—as a result of the realisation of the supreme Self; tatra, at that time (or to that Self); kaḥ mohaḥ, kaḥ śokaḥ, what delusion and what sorrow can there be? Sorrow and delusion happen to the ignorant man who does not perceive the seed of desire and actions, but not anupaśyataḥ ekatvam, to the man who realises the oneness, of the Self which is pure like space. The impossibility of grief and delusion, the effects of ignorance, having been indicated through the question, "what delusion and what sorrow can there be?", the total eradication of worldly existence, with its cause, has been shown ipso facto.

This verse indicates what the Self, that was spoken of in the previous verses, really is in Its own nature:

Saḥ, He the aforesaid Self; paryagāt, is all-pervasive, like space—(the word) being derived from pari, on all sides, and agāt, went. He is śukram, pure, bright, resplendent, akāyam, bodiless, i.e. without the subtle body; avraṇam, without wound, scatheless; asnāviram, without sinews—one in whom there is no sinew. By the two expressions, "without wound" and "without sinews", the gross body is negated. Śuddham, taintless, devoid of the dirt of ignorance; thereby is negated the causal body. Apāpaviddham, untouched by sin in the form of merit and demerit etc.footnote{The idea is that the Self transcends morality, though a man of knowledge never acts immorally, his past training being a sufficient guarantee against this.} The expressions beginning with śukram are to be converted into masculine because the introduction is made with saḥ paryagāt and the conclusion with kaviḥ manīṣī in the masculine form. Kaviḥ (omniscient) means the seer of the krānta, past,footnote{By implication, past, present, and future.} i.e. seer of all, as the Vedic text says, "There is no other seer but this" (Bṛ. III. viii. 11). Manīṣī means the ruler of the mind, i.e. omniscient God. Paribhūḥ is one who exists above all (transcendent). Svayambhūḥ means he who exists by himself. He, the all, becomes by Himself all, viz all that is transcended as well as all that is transcendental; and hence He is self-existent. He, the ever-free (all-powerful) Lord, because of His omniscience, yāthātathyataḥ, duly, as it should be, in consonance with actual result and endeavour; arthān, the duties; vyadadhāt, has allotted, i.e. distributed in the proper way (according to individual competence); śāśvatībhyaḥ samābhyaḥ, to the eternal years, to the Prajāpatis (creators) called the years.

Here the first purport of the Vedas is devotedness to knowledge after renouncing all desires; and this idea has been expressed by the first verse thus: "All this should be covered by the Lord. . . . Do not covet anybody's wealth." And the second purport of the Vedas is that, in case this devotedness to knowledge is impossible for the man of ignorance, there should be continuance in the path of duty, which fact is stated in the second verse thus: "By doing karmas, indeed, should one wish to live." This division of paths of life, as shown in these verses, has also been indicated in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. Thus from the text, "He desired, 'Let me have a wife'," etc. (Bṛ. I. iv. 17), it can be clearly understood that works are meant for a man who is ignorant and hankers after results. And from the sentence, "The mind is his soul, and speech his wife," etc. (ibid. I. iv. 17), it can be clearly understood that ignorance and desires are the characteristics of a man devoted to work. So the result of this work is the creation of seven kinds of fruitsfootnote{Bṛ. I. v. 1-3. (1) The common human food; (2-3) huta and prahuta or Darśa and Pūrṇamāsa, which are foods for gods; (4-6) mind, speech, and vital force, which are foods for the soul; (7) milk, which is food for animals.} and continuance in a state of identification with them under the idea that they are the Self. And by the text, "What shall we achieve through children, we to whom the Self which we have attained is the goal?" etc. (Bṛ. IV. iv. 22), it has been shown that for those who have realised the Self by renouncing the threefold desire for wife etc. (i.e. for son, wealth, and heavens), there can only be continuance in the Self Itself, as opposed to the continuance in the path of karma. After the condemnation of the ignorant man by the verse, "Those worlds of the devils" etc. (Īś. 3), the true nature of the Self has been revealed by the verses ending with, "He is all-pervasive," etc. (Īś. 8), to those men of renunciation who are steadfast in knowledge, so as to show that they alone are qualified for this and not those who have desires. So also in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (VI. 21) this has been separately spoken of thus: "To those (men of complete renunciation) who had gone beyond all (the four) stages of life,footnote{The student, the householder, the man who has repaired to the forest, and the formal anchorite, as distinguished from the man who renounces either after or for the sake of God-realisation.} he spoke this holiest of things which is fully adored by the seers as a class." But the present verse is meant for those men of activity who have desires and want to live by doing karma.

Objection: How is it, again, known that it is not meant for all?

The answer is: None but a fool will wish to combine with any work, or with any other knowledge (i.e. meditation), that knowledge of the oneness of the Self that has been imparted to the passionless man after the eradication of the distinction of all ends and means, by the text, "When to the man of realisation all beings become the very Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can there be for such a seer of oneness?" (Īś. 7). But the condemnation of the ignorant etc. is done here with a view to achieving a combination (of vidyā, i.e. worship or meditation, and karma). And as to that, not the knowledge of the supreme Self, but the thing—viz the divine possession (i.e. the meditation on the gods)—that can possibly be combined with the other factor (viz karma), has been spoken of here as the associate of karma, since for this vidyā (meditation or worship) a result, different from the knowledge of Brahman has been declared thus: "Through vidyā is attained the world of the gods" (Bṛ. I. v. 16). The denunciation of the separate pursuit of either of these two—vidyā and karma—is not merely for the sake of denunciation, but for the sake of bringing them together, for a distinct result is declared for each by the Vedic texts: "They ascend to this through vidyā"; "The world of gods (is attained) through vidyā" (Bṛ. I. v. 16); "The people following the Southern Path do not reach there"; "The world of the Manes through rites" (Bṛ. I. v. 16); and this is so because nothing enjoined by the scriptures can be unworthy of performance.

Another verse also expresses the same purport: