Isha Upanishad 48

48

kathaṃ punarevamavagabhyate na tu sarveṣām iti /
ucyate--akāminaḥ sādhyasādhanabhedopamardena 'yasmin sarvāṇi bhūtānyātmaivābhūddhijānataḥ /
tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka ekatvamanupaśyataḥ ' iti yadātmaikatvavijñānam[uktam ṭatanna kenacitkarmaṇā jñānāntareṇa vā hyamūḍhaḥ samuccicīṣati /
iha tu samuccicīṣayā avidvadādinindā kriyate /
tatra ca yasya yena samuccayaḥ sambhavati nyāyataḥ śāstrato vā tadihocyate yaddaivaṃ vittaṃ devatāviṣayaṃ jñānaṃ karmasambandhitvenopanyastaṃ na paramātmajñānam /
"vidyayā devalokaḥ"(bṛ.u.1 / 5 / 16) iti pṛthakphalaśravaṇāt /
tayorjñānakarmaṇoriha ekaikānuṣṭhānanindā samuccicīṣayā na nindāparaiva ekaikasya pṛthakphalaśravaṇāt"vidyayā tadārohanti" "vidyayā devalokaḥ"(bṛ.u.1 / 5 / 16) "na tatra dakṣiṇā yanti" "karmaṇā pitṛlokaḥ"(bṛ.u.1 / 8 / 16) iti /
na hi śāstravihitaṃ kiñcidakartavyatāmiyāt /

Of these two, they praviśanti, enter; into andhaṁ tamaḥ, blinding darkness, characterised by absence of perception. Who? Ye avidyām, those who (worship) avidyā. Avidyā is different from vidyā, i.e. it is karma, since karma is opposed to vidyā; (they) upāsate, worship; that avidyā in the form of Agnihotra etc., alone. The import is that they perform this whole-heartedly. Tataḥ, than that darkness, characterised as blindness; bhūyaḥ iva tamaḥ, into greater darkness; te, they; enter. Who? Ye, they, who giving up rites; vidyāyām u ratāḥ, are engaged only in vidyā, are always bent on the meditation on (and worship of) gods.

With regard to that matter, again, the separate secondary results of meditation and rites are advanced as reasons for the combination of the two, as otherwise, if one of these two closely associated factors bore fruit, while the other did not, they would be related as the part and the whole, (which is absurd).footnote{Vidyā and karma are very often enjoined to be performed separately by men of different tendencies; and separate results are enjoined for them. This would not have been so, if either formed part of the other.}

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.