Explanation of two contradictory verses in the Isavasya upanishad

[Guest guest]

Hello all

 

I am confused with these two contradictory verses appearing in the

Isavasya upanishad. I have come across explanations but i have not

found them appealing. Kindly offer some interpretations?

 

isavasya upanishad verse 9

->Those who worship avidya go to pitch darkness, but to a greater

darkness than this go those who are devoted to Vidya ).

 

verse 11

->He who knows both vidya and avidya together, transcends mortality

through avidya and reaches immortality through vidya.

 

verse 12

->

To pitch darkness they go who worship the Unmanifested (Prakriti).

To a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to the

Manifested (Hiranyagarbha).

 

verse 14

->

He who knows both the Unmanifested and the destructible

(Hiranyagarbha) together, transcends death by the (worship of) the

destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the

Unmanifested.

 

Regards,

Saurav

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Saurav" <azygos678 wrote:

>

> Hello all

>

> I am confused with these two contradictory verses appearing in the

> Isavasya upanishad. I have come across explanations but i have not

> found them appealing. Kindly offer some interpretations?

>

> isavasya upanishad verse 9

> ->Those who worship avidya go to pitch darkness, but to a greater

> darkness than this go those who are devoted to Vidya ).

 

Tony: This seem to indicate that avidya speaks for itself but vidya

is still with attributes and isn't liberation.>

> verse 11

> ->He who knows both vidya and avidya together, transcends

mortality

> through avidya and reaches immortality through vidya.

 

Tony: This seems to mean knowing vidya and advidya together as being

both in illusion results in liberation.

>

> verse 12

> ->

> To pitch darkness they go who worship the Unmanifested (Prakriti).

> To a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to the

> Manifested (Hiranyagarbha).

 

Tony: This seem to mean, don't be attached to the unmanifest or

world of Devas and Heavens or to the material world either.

>

> verse 14

> ->

> He who knows both the Unmanifested and the destructible

> (Hiranyagarbha) together, transcends death by the (worship of) the

> destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the

> Unmanifested.

 

Tony: This seems to indicate that the reality of death can be known

by worship of the material ie. a Guru or Idol, and that immortality

can be known by worship of the unmanifested Brahman.

>

> Regards,

> Saurav

>

 

This is just my contribution....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Saurav:

 

Whenever we attempt to understand any Upanishad by just reading the

verses along with their English translation, we are more likely to get

confused. To understand and appreciate the subtle messages of the

Upanishads, we do require a good commentary with detailed explanations

of the implied meanings. Ideally, we should seek guidance from a

learned acharya with good scholarship in Sanskrit and the scriptures.

This is not always possible and consequently, we should refer to well

written books on each of the Upanishads. We are very fortunate that

several books are available on the Principal Upanishads and I recommend

the book by Dr. Radhakrishnan with the title, "The Principal

Upanishads," published by HarperCollins. Dr. Radhakrishnan explains

the verses under question extensively using Sankara's commentary. He

also appropriately cites relevant verses from other Upanishads for

clarifications and for insightful understanding.

 

In pages 573 to 577 of the Principal Upanishads, he provides detailed

explanation to the subject matter of 'avidya (ignorance) and vidya

(knowledge). The following are excerpts from his book for the verse #9.

 

-------------------------------

Verse 9:

andham tamah pravisanti ye 'vidyam upasate

tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayam ratah

 

Translation: Into blinding darkness enter those who worship ignorance

and those who delight in knowledge enter into still greater darkness,

as it were.

 

Sankaracharya interprets avidya to mean ceremonial piety and vidya as

knowledge of the deities. The former leads to the world of te manes and

the latter to the world of gods. (See B.U. IV. 4-10 and B.U. II 5.16)

Sankara feels thatt vidya cannot refer to the knowledge of Brahman for

it cannot lead to greater darkness. If we are lost in the world of

birth, becoming, we overlook our pure being. If we concentrate on the

latter, we wil also be onesided. We must look upon the Absolute as the

one and the many, as both the stable and the moving. It is both

immanent and transcendent.

 

The verse referrs also to the dichotomy of work and wisdom and

suggests thatt while those who are lost in works without the wisdom of

the spirit entterr into darkness, those who are exclusively devoted to

the pursuit of wisdom, to the neglect of works, enter into still

greater darkness. Selfish seekers of spiritual wisdom miss their aim."

--------------

 

This explanation for verse 9 will hopefully provide you the necessary

clues to get rid off the confusion. I also recommend you to refer to

the books on Upanishads published by Chinmaya Mission, Ramakrishna

Mission and several others for additional explanations.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Saurav" <azygos678 wrote:

>

> Hello all

>

> I am confused with these two contradictory verses appearing in the

> Isavasya upanishad. I have come across explanations but i have not

> found them appealing. Kindly offer some interpretations?

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Saurav:

>

> Whenever we attempt to understand any Upanishad by just reading

the

> verses along with their English translation, we are more likely to

get

> confused. To understand and appreciate the subtle messages of the

> Upanishads, we do require a good commentary with detailed

explanations

> of the implied meanings. Ideally, we should seek guidance from a

> learned acharya with good scholarship in Sanskrit and the

scriptures.

> This is not always possible and consequently, we should refer to

well

> written books on each of the Upanishads. We are very fortunate

that

> several books are available on the Principal Upanishads and I

recommend

> the book by Dr. Radhakrishnan with the title, "The Principal

> Upanishads," published by HarperCollins. Dr. Radhakrishnan

explains

> the verses under question extensively using Sankara's commentary.

He

> also appropriately cites relevant verses from other Upanishads

for

> clarifications and for insightful understanding.

>

> In pages 573 to 577 of the Principal Upanishads, he provides

detailed

> explanation to the subject matter of 'avidya (ignorance) and vidya

> (knowledge). The following are excerpts from his book for the

verse #9.

>

> -------------------------------

> Verse 9:

> andham tamah pravisanti ye 'vidyam upasate

> tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayam ratah

>

> Translation: Into blinding darkness enter those who worship

ignorance

> and those who delight in knowledge enter into still greater

darkness,

> as it were.

>

> Sankaracharya interprets avidya to mean ceremonial piety and vidya

as

> knowledge of the deities. The former leads to the world of te

manes and

> the latter to the world of gods. (See B.U. IV. 4-10 and B.U. II

5.16)

> Sankara feels thatt vidya cannot refer to the knowledge of Brahman

for

> it cannot lead to greater darkness. If we are lost in the world of

> birth, becoming, we overlook our pure being. If we concentrate on

the

> latter, we wil also be onesided. We must look upon the Absolute as

the

> one and the many, as both the stable and the moving. It is both

> immanent and transcendent.

>

> The verse referrs also to the dichotomy of work and wisdom and

> suggests thatt while those who are lost in works without the

wisdom of

> the spirit entterr into darkness, those who are exclusively

devoted to

> the pursuit of wisdom, to the neglect of works, enter into still

> greater darkness. Selfish seekers of spiritual wisdom miss their

aim."

> --------------

>

> This explanation for verse 9 will hopefully provide you the

necessary

> clues to get rid off the confusion. I also recommend you to refer

to

> the books on Upanishads published by Chinmaya Mission,

Ramakrishna

> Mission and several others for additional explanations.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, "Saurav" <azygos678@> wrote:

> >

> > Hello all

> >

> > I am confused with these two contradictory verses appearing in

the

> > Isavasya upanishad. I have come across explanations but i have

not

> > found them appealing. Kindly offer some interpretations?

> >

>

 

Namaste Sri Ram ji,

The quoted portion apparently from Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's work

however has one disagreement with the Shankara bhashyam. In the

last para above:

 

The verse referrs also to the dichotomy of work and wisdom and

> suggests thatt while those who are lost in works without the

wisdom of

> the spirit entterr into darkness, those who are exclusively

devoted to

> the pursuit of wisdom, to the neglect of works, enter into still

> greater darkness.

 

The words 'wisdom' and 'wisdom of the spirit' do not translate the

word 'devataa-jnanam' of the bhashyam accurately. This word of the

bhashyam means upasana which when done exclusively leads to deva

loka. Why is this wrong? Because, when one goes to deva loka one

will enjoy sense pleasures immensely and only return to this world

upon the cessation of the effect of punyam. And this cycle will

never end. When karma alone is done with the exclusion of upasana,

pitru loka is attained. The idea of the mantra in question is to

teach that karma and upasana are to be judiciously combined to offer

the dual fruit of, a. chitta shuddi and b. chitta ekaagrata. When a

person equipped with these two enters Atma vichara, enquiry upon the

Brahman, the endeavour is rendered easy.

 

The Acharya clarifies that the nindaa, censure, of karma or upasana

that is apparent in this mantra is done with the aim of enjoining

the combination of the one with the other. The Acharya hastens to

add that no injunction of the Veda is to be treated as not to be

practiced. This He says because, seeing this mantra one might

decide to give up vihita karma or would not take it up at all.

Again, one might decide to give up vihita upasana or would not take

it up at all. The Acharya adds that nor should these two be treated

as one is prinicipal and the other is auxiliary. Thus, the import

of the mantra is: Karma and Upasana are essentially to be practiced

by the one who is still in samsara.

 

Trust this gives a clear picture of the mantra. The other mantras

too could be seen in the light of the Bhashyam whose

indispensibility you, Sri Ram ji, have so nicely emphasised in the

preamble.

 

Warm regards to all,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Subraji

 

I always use a good commentary to understand the upanishads, usually

those from of Shankara, by the ramakrishna mission. However, i was

not satisfied with Sankara's translation of these two verses. Now,

without any disrespect to the great Shankara, i believe that in most

vedic texts, vidya usually refers to brahmavidya; and avidya to

ignorance.

 

In a commentary by Swami Ranganathananda [former president

Ramakrishna Mission] has explained this verse, to mean, that in

extols one to master both apara and para vidya; both materialistic

science and spiritual science. Even in the chandogya upanishad, it

is written, that apara vidya is essential to eradicate hunger and

disease. Thus, apara vidya, helps to avert disease and death, but

immortality can be acheived only by brahma gyana through para vidya.

 

Sri Aurobindo describes this verse to mean, that mere

bookish/theoretical knowledge without any realization of brahman is

utterly foolish, and an ignorant materialist is much better off than

such a person. Mere parroting of "all this is verily brahman",

without having a genuine desire to realize brahman , will lead you

nowhere.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Sri Saurav:

> >

> > Whenever we attempt to understand any Upanishad by just reading

> the

> > verses along with their English translation, we are more likely

to

> get

> > confused. To understand and appreciate the subtle messages of

the

> > Upanishads, we do require a good commentary with detailed

> explanations

> > of the implied meanings. Ideally, we should seek guidance from a

> > learned acharya with good scholarship in Sanskrit and the

> scriptures.

> > This is not always possible and consequently, we should refer to

> well

> > written books on each of the Upanishads. We are very fortunate

> that

> > several books are available on the Principal Upanishads and I

> recommend

> > the book by Dr. Radhakrishnan with the title, "The Principal

> > Upanishads," published by HarperCollins. Dr. Radhakrishnan

> explains

> > the verses under question extensively using Sankara's

commentary.

> He

> > also appropriately cites relevant verses from other Upanishads

> for

> > clarifications and for insightful understanding.

> >

> > In pages 573 to 577 of the Principal Upanishads, he provides

> detailed

> > explanation to the subject matter of 'avidya (ignorance) and

vidya

> > (knowledge). The following are excerpts from his book for the

> verse #9.

> >

> > -------------------------------

> > Verse 9:

> > andham tamah pravisanti ye 'vidyam upasate

> > tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayam ratah

> >

> > Translation: Into blinding darkness enter those who worship

> ignorance

> > and those who delight in knowledge enter into still greater

> darkness,

> > as it were.

> >

> > Sankaracharya interprets avidya to mean ceremonial piety and

vidya

> as

> > knowledge of the deities. The former leads to the world of te

> manes and

> > the latter to the world of gods. (See B.U. IV. 4-10 and B.U.

II

> 5.16)

> > Sankara feels thatt vidya cannot refer to the knowledge of

Brahman

> for

> > it cannot lead to greater darkness. If we are lost in the world

of

> > birth, becoming, we overlook our pure being. If we concentrate

on

> the

> > latter, we wil also be onesided. We must look upon the Absolute

as

> the

> > one and the many, as both the stable and the moving. It is both

> > immanent and transcendent.

> >

> > The verse referrs also to the dichotomy of work and wisdom and

> > suggests thatt while those who are lost in works without the

> wisdom of

> > the spirit entterr into darkness, those who are exclusively

> devoted to

> > the pursuit of wisdom, to the neglect of works, enter into still

> > greater darkness. Selfish seekers of spiritual wisdom miss

their

> aim."

> > --------------

> >

> > This explanation for verse 9 will hopefully provide you the

> necessary

> > clues to get rid off the confusion. I also recommend you to

refer

> to

> > the books on Upanishads published by Chinmaya Mission,

> Ramakrishna

> > Mission and several others for additional explanations.

> >

> > With my warmest regards,

> >

> > Ram Chandran

> >

> > advaitin, "Saurav" <azygos678@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hello all

> > >

> > > I am confused with these two contradictory verses appearing in

> the

> > > Isavasya upanishad. I have come across explanations but i have

> not

> > > found them appealing. Kindly offer some interpretations?

> > >

> >

>

> Namaste Sri Ram ji,

> The quoted portion apparently from Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's work

> however has one disagreement with the Shankara bhashyam. In the

> last para above:

>

> The verse referrs also to the dichotomy of work and wisdom and

> > suggests thatt while those who are lost in works without the

> wisdom of

> > the spirit entterr into darkness, those who are exclusively

> devoted to

> > the pursuit of wisdom, to the neglect of works, enter into still

> > greater darkness.

>

> The words 'wisdom' and 'wisdom of the spirit' do not translate the

> word 'devataa-jnanam' of the bhashyam accurately. This word of

the

> bhashyam means upasana which when done exclusively leads to deva

> loka. Why is this wrong? Because, when one goes to deva loka one

> will enjoy sense pleasures immensely and only return to this world

> upon the cessation of the effect of punyam. And this cycle will

> never end. When karma alone is done with the exclusion of upasana,

> pitru loka is attained. The idea of the mantra in question is to

> teach that karma and upasana are to be judiciously combined to

offer

> the dual fruit of, a. chitta shuddi and b. chitta ekaagrata. When

a

> person equipped with these two enters Atma vichara, enquiry upon

the

> Brahman, the endeavour is rendered easy.

>

> The Acharya clarifies that the nindaa, censure, of karma or

upasana

> that is apparent in this mantra is done with the aim of enjoining

> the combination of the one with the other. The Acharya hastens to

> add that no injunction of the Veda is to be treated as not to be

> practiced. This He says because, seeing this mantra one might

> decide to give up vihita karma or would not take it up at all.

> Again, one might decide to give up vihita upasana or would not

take

> it up at all. The Acharya adds that nor should these two be

treated

> as one is prinicipal and the other is auxiliary. Thus, the import

> of the mantra is: Karma and Upasana are essentially to be

practiced

> by the one who is still in samsara.

>

> Trust this gives a clear picture of the mantra. The other mantras

> too could be seen in the light of the Bhashyam whose

> indispensibility you, Sri Ram ji, have so nicely emphasised in the

> preamble.

>

> Warm regards to all,

> subbu

>

[Guest guest]

Saurav <azygos678 wrote: Namaskar Subraji

 

I always use a good commentary to understand the upanishads, usually

those from of Shankara, by the ramakrishna mission. However, i was

not satisfied with Sankara's translation of these two verses. In

Bhaghavn Ramana's simple, but very profound, terminologies, I understand the

phrases avidya and vidya to refer to deep sleep and waking states respectively.

Both constitute a swerving from one's natural state of turiya, which is not the

fourth, but the only real, enduring, state. Relating avidya to karma or vedic

ceremonies and vidya to the worship of deities, is only mere intellectual

philosophy.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Very interesting......equating avidya with deep sleep, and vidya to

waking state.....deep sleep is also blissful, the only difference it

shares with turiya is that, the former is a state of mass ignorance,

so when one wakes up, it is back to being what one was prior to deep

sleep.

Substituting these meanings to the verses, gives a rather simplistic

meaning to the verses.....that waking state is better than deep sleep

But the meanings have to be seen in the light of the next 4 verses

too, which include devotion to knowledge of prakriti as being less

ignorant than the ignorance in devotion to knowledge of the

hiranyagarbha.

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> Saurav <azygos678 wrote: Namaskar Subraji

>

> I always use a good commentary to understand the upanishads,

usually

> those from of Shankara, by the ramakrishna mission. However, i

was

> not satisfied with Sankara's translation of these two

verses. In Bhaghavn Ramana's simple, but very profound,

terminologies, I understand the phrases avidya and vidya to refer to

deep sleep and waking states respectively. Both constitute a

swerving from one's natural state of turiya, which is not the

fourth, but the only real, enduring, state. Relating avidya to karma

or vedic ceremonies and vidya to the worship of deities, is only

mere intellectual philosophy.

> Sankarraman

>

>

>

> New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC

and save big.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Achaya Shankara cannot give meanings as he wishes, though he is not below anyone

in creativity.

 

He has to go by the explanatory text given in the Brihadaranyaka UPanishad

too, just as he has done for the Sambhuthi Upasana.

 

Avidya + Vidya samuchaya is directly spoken in the text of the UPanishad and

hence he takes this recourse i think.

 

by the way, when there are so many good passages which directly give us Brahma

Vidya, and in such places he is simple scintillating; what if he takes a literal

route in a solitary place in Isa, that too complelled by the Mimasa

interpretative rules that an orthodox person cannot afford to disregard.

 

Starting from Swami Rangananthananda himself, many in the Ramakrshna order

have critisied Shankara for this commentary at this place; but i feel his

meaning is not something weary.

 

anyway, he is a Guru and we are the Sishyas, i dont think we can 'demand' him

to write that 'pleases' us - that is not "upadesa'.

 

regards,

Venkat

 

 

 

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

 

 

Saurav <azygos678 wrote: Namaskar Subraji

 

I always use a good commentary to understand the upanishads, usually

those from of Shankara, by the ramakrishna mission. However, i was

not satisfied with Sankara's translation of these two verses. In

Bhaghavn Ramana's simple, but very profound, terminologies, I understand the

phrases avidya and vidya to refer to deep sleep and waking states respectively.

Both constitute a swerving from one's natural state of turiya, which is not the

fourth, but the only real, enduring, state. Relating avidya to karma or vedic

ceremonies and vidya to the worship of deities, is only mere intellectual

philosophy.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks & Regards,

Venkat.

 

Sadgurubhyo Namah.

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

 

[Guest guest]

all,

i have a question that pertains to definition,,,,,

i was told by a friend about the meanings...[the time we spend

trying to under stand were all the old writes were leading to

to.]i ask should it be taken at face value? or.>should we contemplate

all ways debating what the old scribes and proficients were meaning?

what i ask my friend was.....if i spend all my time searching

will i miss the original point?

they told me......don't go more deeper than you are ready to

handle....take your time....

but i am a modern sort...and i am of generation x so where dose

this leave me,

reading books

and a rush to know it all.so back to my question., to all

our great friends here ...

How much is to much,were do you stop and just get it?

is their a thing as over ANlization of any thing?

and i ask was it truly written to be analyzed to death or just

merely appreciated from a glance?

if my question offends any one i offer my apology...

but i am a inquiring mind and i seriously want to know.

SINCERLY

JENNIFER/

 

venkata subramanian <venkat_advaita wrote:

Achaya Shankara cannot give meanings as he wishes, though he is not below

anyone in creativity.

 

He has to go by the explanatory text given in the Brihadaranyaka UPanishad

too, just as he has done for the Sambhuthi Upasana.

 

Avidya + Vidya samuchaya is directly spoken in the text of the UPanishad and

hence he takes this recourse i think.

 

by the way, when there are so many good passages which directly give us Brahma

Vidya, and in such places he is simple scintillating; what if he takes a literal

route in a solitary place in Isa, that too complelled by the Mimasa

interpretative rules that an orthodox person cannot afford to disregard.

 

Starting from Swami Rangananthananda himself, many in the Ramakrshna order

have critisied Shankara for this commentary at this place; but i feel his

meaning is not something weary.

 

anyway, he is a Guru and we are the Sishyas, i dont think we can 'demand' him

to write that 'pleases' us - that is not "upadesa'.

 

regards,

Venkat

 

 

 

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

 

 

Saurav <azygos678 wrote: Namaskar Subraji

 

I always use a good commentary to understand the upanishads, usually

those from of Shankara, by the ramakrishna mission. However, i was

not satisfied with Sankara's translation of these two verses. In

Bhaghavn Ramana's simple, but very profound, terminologies, I understand the

phrases avidya and vidya to refer to deep sleep and waking states respectively.

Both constitute a swerving from one's natural state of turiya, which is not the

fourth, but the only real, enduring, state. Relating avidya to karma or vedic

ceremonies and vidya to the worship of deities, is only mere intellectual

philosophy.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks & Regards,

Venkat.

 

Sadgurubhyo Namah.

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

Advaita vedanta Brahman

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low

rates.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srimathi Jennifer:

 

Your question, where do we draw the line depends on the type of

enquiry, the environmental situation of the enquirer in terms of

his/her spiritual maturity etc. The verse # 9 of the Isa Upanishad

(one of the several verses in discussion) provides the clue to your

question. An ignorant person will likely lives in darkness but if the

person without any focus blindly pursue for the knowledge, he/she

will likely end up in greater darkness. The message is very subtle -

The sages of the Upanishads understood that "the more we know, we

will find that more we don't know." This search is a trap without an

end game. The implicit message is that we should focus on practicing

what little we know instead of endlessly pursuing without practicing!

Where do we stop can be illustrated through this pole-vault jump. We

need the pole to jump over the 'pole' but while jumping, we should be

prepared to leave the pole while jumping. Knowledge is also a tool to

help us to liberate, but at the liberation, we do need to discard

that knowledge also just like the pole-valuter!

 

Honestly, where to draw the line is the most difficult task, and we

do need guidance and help. This may explain, why the Vedantic System

insisting on seeking a Guru (teacher) who will provide the stopping

rule. Now that I recognize that I should have stopped several minutes

back!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

-- In advaitin, jennifer spears <jenny44212001

wrote:

>

> How much is to much,were do you stop and just

get it?

> is their a thing as over ANlization of any thing?

> and i ask was it truly written to be analyzed to

death or just merely appreciated from a glance?

> if my question offends any one i offer my apology...

> but i am a inquiring mind and i seriously want to know.

> SINCERLY

> JENNIFER/

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Saurav" <azygos678 wrote:

>

> Namaskar Subraji

>

> I always use a good commentary to understand the upanishads,

usually

> those from of Shankara, by the ramakrishna mission. However, i was

> not satisfied with Sankara's translation of these two verses. Now,

> without any disrespect to the great Shankara, i believe that in

most

> vedic texts, vidya usually refers to brahmavidya; and avidya to

> ignorance.

>

> In a commentary by Swami Ranganathananda [former president

> Ramakrishna Mission] has explained this verse, to mean, that in

> extols one to master both apara and para vidya; both materialistic

> science and spiritual science. Even in the chandogya upanishad, it

> is written, that apara vidya is essential to eradicate hunger and

> disease. Thus, apara vidya, helps to avert disease and death, but

> immortality can be acheived only by brahma gyana through para

vidya.

>

> Sri Aurobindo describes this verse to mean, that mere

> bookish/theoretical knowledge without any realization of brahman

is

> utterly foolish, and an ignorant materialist is much better off

than

> such a person. Mere parroting of "all this is verily brahman",

> without having a genuine desire to realize brahman , will lead you

> nowhere.

>

> Regards,

> Saurav

 

Namaste Saurav,

 

Upon seeing this reaction of yours i looked into a 'Vedanta-koshaH',

a dictionary of Vedanta, prepared by a Pundit, Mahadaanapuram

Visvanatha Sitarama Gautama, First Edition 1993, available with the

author, at B-4, Jubilee Apartments, 48, Jubilee Road, West Mambalam,

Chennai 600 033. It is a work completely in Sanskrit, priced then at

Rs.60/. I shall reproduce below the portion for the word 'vidya':

(Translation mine):

By the word 'vidya', depending upon the context, the meaning- (a)

that which leads to Nirguna Brahma or (b)that which leads to the

Saguna Upaasya Brahma - has to be taken.

 

(I am skipping the portion that details the word Brahmavidya, as in

this respect you have no doubt about the meaning.)

 

Saguna-brahma-vidya :

Shaandilya-vidya, Upakosala-vidya, Vaishvaanara-vidya, Dahara-vidya,

Paryanka-vidya, etc.are some of the 'vidyas'maning saguna-upasanas,

which are found in the Chandogya, Bridhadaranyaka and Kaushitaki

Upanishads.

 

This Dictionary itself points out that in the very mantra no.9 of

the Isa Upanishad, the Acharya Shankara, in the bhashya points

out: 'Avidyaam = VidyaayaaH anyaa avidyaa = karma.' That is, for

the word 'avidyaam'of the mantra, the Acharya derives the most

natural meaning: that which is different from/other than vidyaa

(upasana) is 'avidyaa' which is karma.

End of quote from the Dictionary.

 

Thus, we find that contextually the word avidya means karma and

grammatically, when the compound word (samaasta-pada) 'avidya' is de-

compounded it offers, in one of the various ways this can be done,

the meaning 'that which is not vidya is avidya'. That which is not

upasana is karma. We have only these two here for discussion. The

Acharya's lengthy introduction to this mantra which gives ample

explanation about the opening mantra of the Upanishad and the next

and those that follow, puts this mantra in perspective. When this

is carefully read, there arises no confusion.

 

Incidentally, i am reminded of an incident, which is published and

was some time ago posted by me here, which would give some excellent

lessons on the proper attitude that a mumukshu who would like to

follow the glorious path shown by our Acharya Shankarabhagavatpujya

pada should cultivate, not to please others, but to open the gates

for the Acharya's Grace to flow into us unimpeded:

 

In a large gathering of Pundits assembled on the occasions of a Sri

Shankara Jayanti celebration, HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati

Mahaswamiji of Sringeri, asked one of them to expound a

particular topic in the Brahma Sutras. The Pandit did it admirably

but in the course of his exposition he added an argument of his own

to substantiate the proposition sought to be established in that

context.

 

HH: Is that argument found in the Bhashya of our Acharya?

 

Pundit: No.

HH: Then why did you advance it?

P: It is only an additional argument which will support and

strengthen the case.

HH: Evidently you think that our Acharya has failed to state it.

P: He might have included this also.

HH: Is it not really, 'He ought to have included this'?

P: I do not say so.

HH: Certainly not in so many words; but certainly you think that the

Bhashya will have looked better and more complete if this argument

had been included.

P: I thought so.

HH: That is, by advancing this argument you sought to improve the

Bhashya?

P: No, No. It would have been impertinent on my part if I had

sought to do anything of that sort.

HH: All the same, the idea was at the back of your mind quite

consciously; otherwise you would not have advanced a fresh

argument.

P: I am sorry I did so, if it gives rise to such animpression.

HH:Sorry or not, you have put forward that argument. We shall see

how far it is tenable.

 

The Jagadguru in a few minutes analysed that argument and

demonstrated that it was not only irrelevant and fallacious but was

itself destructive of the proposition to be laid down in the

context. The Pundit realized his mistake keenly.

 

P: I am very sorry that I advanced that argument. I see now that it

is quite untenable.

 

HH: Please do not think that my demonstration was intended to

extract from you an expression of regret or to show off my own

dialectical skill. My only object was to eradicate from your mind

the slightest suspicion that the All-knowing incarnate as our

Acharya could have erred in any particular or omitted to mention any

relevant matter. When we forget who He really was (is) there is

naturally a temptation to 'improve'on Him, for in our view He was

just a learned Pundit like ourselves.You must give up that idea

altogether.

 

End of the incident.

 

With warm regards,

subbu

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Shlokas numbered 9, 10 and 11 of Ishopanishad discuss the process

of experiencing the Ultimate Reality. But the language is

sufficiently complicated and paradoxical. Almost every exponent of

Indian philosophy has to contend with these three verses (and

anothr three following these) in his own way. Each one takes up the

explanations in a very elaborate style. Still the final result may

be only an obscure understanding for us. All the interpretations

depend upon what meaning you give to the words `Vidya' and `Avidya'.

The simple meanings of these words, namely, `Knowledge'

and `Ignorance' do not carry us far. We may save ourselves a lot of

bother by classifying the interpretations into three levels. As is

true of many discussions or questions in our scriptural texts, the

explanation of a difficult passage is amenable to different levels

of handling, depending on the level of evolution of the speaker or

the writer and the context in which the discussion takes place.

 

The following gives a sample of seven different interpretations that

have been given to the words `avidya' and `vidya' respectively by

commentators of Ishopanishad:

 

1. `Performance of rituals' and `Knowledge about rituals'

2. `Actions done specifically for results' and `Worship through

the knowledge about deities'

3. `Sense-organs of Action' and `Sense organs of perception and

cognition'

4. `Knowledge of the Universe through the six pramANas'

and `Knowledge of God through the feeling of doing and experiencing'

5. `Action' and `Meditation'

6. `Spiritual efforts towards enlightenment' and `Scholarliness

about Brahman'

7. `Consciousness of multiplicity' and `Consciousness of unity'.

 

The above is not an exhaustive list of all interpretations; it is

only a representative sample. Nos.1 and 2 above may be taken to be

at a simplistic level. Nos.3, 4 and 5 may be taken as representative

of a middle level of understanding. Nos. 6 and 7 are rather

sophisticated.

 

These different interpretations are mentioned here not for the

purpose of making a comparison and contrast. It is only to make the

point that one has to make one's own choice as suits one's

temperament, taste and evolution. Having made the choice then the

interpretation of the three verses will go somewhat as follows.

 

For instance the first interpretation says that performance of

rituals alone would not take one to salvation; it will take one only

down in the scale of evolution. But perhaps this is better than

having onloy a knowledge about rituals from books and not doing any

of them! Such knowledge without practice would only take one to

greater darkness! Ritualistic practice acc. to the Vedas takes one

to Heaven after death, but the practice of them with knowledge takes

one to immortalitywhich is higher than heavenly comforts and

happiness.

 

This way we have to understand each of the seven interpretations

above. Not all the different levels of interpretation appeal to the

same person. It does not matter. This is where the beauty of the

upanishads lies. There is no right or wrong interpretation.

 

Now let us get to the subject in depth. In Avidya there is no Light.

In Vidya there is no darkness. The first line of Ishopanishad,

*IshAvAsyam-idam sarvam* is of the form of Vidya. The first line of

the second verse, *kurvan-neveha karmANi*is of the form of Avidya

because there is no Light there. Avidya represents the organs of

Action. Following them exclusively will make you blind to the

supreme. Vidya represents the organs of perception. Following them

exclusively will make you lame. Avidya is Science. Vidya is

Religion. And we come to Einstein's famous statement: Science

without religion is blind; Religion without Science is lame. Avidya

is knowledge of the universe obtained through the senses. Depending

upon that exclusively will only increase our desires, effort and

Karma and end up in attachment and hate. Vidya is knowledge of God

thro. the organs of cognition. But real Godhead is beyond these

sense organs. The real knowledge will come only after the mind has

been purified by involvement in unselfish action or by the Grace of

the Guru. Action is Avidya. It takes you to what you don't have.

Worship is Vidya. It shows you what you already have. Ritualistic

action takes you only to the world of ancestors: *karmaNA pitR-

lokaH*. Worship unfolds for you the divine element in you *VidyayA

deva lokaH*. Seeing the universe is Avidya. Seeing the maker of the

universe is Vidya.

 

The sum and substance of these different interpretations is this.

Anything which is not an end in itself is avidyA. So Action by

itself, rituals by themselves, just a secular knowledge of the

universe, the efforts towards spiritual growth, etc. are all avidyA

compared to the ends to which they are directed. But the ends

themselves are not to be spoken of as great without the effort, or

means, or the appearance in the phenomenal world. Thus actions done

for specific resuls are not to be decried, because that may be the

only manner in which you can be of service to the rest of mankind.

Similarly scholarliness about Brahman may be good in itself , but

without the efforts for spirituality to be in that Brahma-bhAva the

knowledge is not worth it. Again, consciousness of unity, the

Awareness of the one omnipresent Divinity in all existences, animate

and inanimate, is certainly a great objective and is truly the end

of all spiritual effort, but the simultaneous consciousness of the

multiplicity which stares us in the face and which is the basis for

our own existence in this world, cannot be ignored. The very truth

that The Impersonal Divinity itself coexists with its own Personal

Aspect of multiplicity through which it manifests in this world,

tells us that we cannot throw away the multiplicity in our daily

life. To seek the One is not to deny the Many.

 

Thus it appears that the simultaneous interaction and symbiosis of

both AvidyA and VidyA as mentioned in the different interpretations

as well as in scores of others, is necessary for the spiritual

growth – and through it the living in this world of plurality – of

the personality. Just as SadhanA and JnAna have to complement each

other, AvidyA and VidyA have to complement each other in the

development of spiritual personality. Consciousness of multiplicity

alone would lead you only to darkness because you would be missing

the Reality. The Many, if it is divorced from the One, becomes the

obscuring veil of the One. On the other hand, consciousness of unity

alone would also lead you to darkness because you cannot live in

this world of multiplicity. You must be able to see the One in the

Many, work through the Many in full awareness of the Presence of the

One, knowing full well that the Many are only the manifestations of

the One. This also correlates with the meaning of Death, by Sage

Sanatsujata, who declared that the default from the Consciousness of

Unity is Death. So while working in the multiplicity of the world,

the consciousness of oneness must be a continuous undercurrent of

awareness. That is how one faces Death and attains Immortality.

 

Immediately after these three verses, the Upanishad goes on to give

another unit of three verses (12, 13 and 14) which also generate the

same variation in interpretations. The words *sambhUti* and

*asambhUti* are used, meaning, respectively, Birth and non-Birth,

or Becoming and non-Becoming. There are other meanings like, the

Relative and the absolute, the Body and the Spirit, evolution of the

ego and dissolution of the ego. The details of these

interpretations would take us into more technicalities.

 

Finally one word about the verb *vicacakshhire* in Shloka No.10. It

is a compound meaning of three verbs into one. It means `see,

experience and say'. So these wise men (dhIras) who are telling us

about these truths are saying it after experiencing it through their

vision. To that extent, it is first hand information for us!

 

Postscript: The above is an extract from Chapter 10 of my Book: The

Ten Commandments of Hinduism. This chapter is entitled: The first

and last word.

A summary of the above appears as an article of mine (with some

editorial corrections) in Wikepedia Encyclopaedia under the heading

*Isha Upanishad*

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk