Commentary on the Isavasya Upanishad - 8. Swami Krishnananda.

================================================================

Monday, 28 Aug 2023. 08:00.

Mantras-9, 10,  11.

Post-8.

================================================================

andham tamah pravisanti yo'vidyam upasate,

tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayagm ratah (9)

anyad evahur vidyaya anyad ahur avidyaya,

iti susruma dhiranam ye nas tad vica-cakasire (1O)

vidyam cavidyam ca yas tad vedobhayam saha,

avidyaya mrtyum tirtva vidyaya-amrtam asnute (11

===============================================================

These mantras have to be understood properly. It is difficult to understand the real import of these mantras. Commentators give all kinds of possible meanings, and each commentator expounds the meaning from his own point of view. For, the mantras lend themselves to all those meanings and interpretations.

From the view point of Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya, the Mimamsakas, the Naiyayikas, and the Bhakti school there are various interpretations, each from the point of view of its own philosophy. Hence, there are different interpretations for the same words. The terms vidya and avidya have been variously interpreted. Sanskrit grammar, Vedanta, kārikās or commentaries, etc., again have got their own interpretations for these words. But all are agreed that vidya and avidyaupasana should not be done separately, but together, and each in equal measure to the other i.e., well-balanced. The great acaryas state that knowledge of an object and the object of knowledge are different. They are never identical. This is their estsblished view. And this is accepted by all. They say that vidya and avidya have different meanings. The latter, avidya is useful in the world of actions performed under motivation and which, therefore, bear fruits. Motivated action seems permissible for they are causes for the effects in end. But, if this meaning is followed up, we would arrive at a wrong interpretation in the context of the rest of the mantram. The mantram states that we should equalise jnana and ajnana and should not adhere to either the one or the other alone. How is this to be done? The meaning is very deep indeed. The whole purport of the verse depends on these two words with their literal meanings and their real import in the context.

The acaryas' final conclusion is that knowledge of Isvara cannot be obtained by karma alone nor by knowledge alone, avidyā referring to karma and vidya to knowledge. Avidyā or karma will yield fruits which have a beginning and an end. And so, attainment of Godhead is not possible, and in order to enjoy the fruits of karma several births have to be taken. This is falling into utter darkness, which in other words is samsara. This is the established conclusion in the ultimate analysis. But what is its real meaning? The verse further states that if upasana, devotion, is offered only to avidya, you will enter into darkness; and if you do upāsana of vidya alone, it is still worse, for you again enter into greater darkness. He who understands the correct meaning of vidya and avidya and thereby brings about a balance between them and does upāsana on this balanced understanding, such a man crossing the world of death, attains immortality. This is stated in mantram eleven.

But, what is the correct meaning of these two words? No one can establish the meaning with any finality. Some acaryas say that knowledge and the object of knowledge are not one and the same thing. Our knowledge of this table is not the table. These two are not identical. Likewise, knowledge of Isvara is not therefore Isvara. Our knowledge that it is a table does not mean that we have become the table. So, to have knowledge of Isvara is not to become Isvara. This view is accepted by all commentators. Scholarly knowledge alone, it should be admitted, cannot bring about the knowledge of the Self. To pundits, karma being taken as avidya, these scholars well versed in the scriptures, will not even speak about it, leave alone engaging in karma. If vidya and avidya are combined in this negative way excluding karma, it will defeat its purpose—this is the view of the acryas. The Mumasakas' view is that through karma, Isvarasaksakara or attaining to Godhead is possible. But Isvara is not an object of knowledge and He cannot come under any visayakaravrtti i.e. modification of the mind in the form of an object, projected outside of Him. And karma has Godhead as an object, external to it. So this view in combining vidya and avidya is not satisfactory.

*****

To be continued

================================================================