Verse 1

The verses beginning with Īśāvāsyam are not utilised in ritual [ 1 ] , since they explain the true nature of the Self which is not subsidiary to karma. The true nature of the Self, as will presently be indicated, is purity, taintlessness, oneness, permanence, bodilessness, omnipresence and so forth, which being inconsistent with karma, it is only right that these (verses) are not used in ritual. The Self whose essence is thus described, moreover, cannot be produced, modified, acquired or purified; nor is it of the character of an agent or an enjoyer; in which case it would be subsidiary to karma. (And its existence cannot be called in question) inasmuch as all the Upanishads purport only to unfold its nature. The Bhagavadgītā and the Mōkshadharma (in the Mahābhārata) have also the same aim. (It has therefore to be presumed that) karma is prescribed taking (for granted) that, as recognised by the intelligence of the average man, plurality, agency, enjoyment and so forth, as also impurity and sinfulness, are of the Self. Those that know who are eligible (for ritual) state that karma is prescribed only for him who is desirous of its fruit—whether that fruit be visible (i.e. attainable in this life) as spiritual lustre or invisible (i.e. attainable only in another life) as Svarga—and thinks “I am a twice-born, free from blindness, dwarfishness and the like marks of disqualification” [ 3 ] . Therefore the following verses, removing this original nescience concerning the Self, from an explanation of its real nature, produce a knowledge of unity which is the means of eradicating sorrow, delusion and other similar features of mundane existence. We shall briefly comment on these verses, having thus indicated the persons entitled to study them, the subject-matter, aim and their inter-relation [ 4 ] .

[ 1 ]: The doubt whether these verses are to be used in ritual arises because this Upanishad forms part of a saṃhitā and the verses in the saṃhitā portion of the Veda are generally so employed. If these verses are at all to be utilised in ritual there should be an express statement to that effect in the Veda or there should at least be an indirect guidance afforded by their contents. We find no such express statement, and the subject matter, so far from being connected with karma, is directly antagonistic to it. Further it is usual to classify whatever is subsidiary or supplementary to ritual in four ways as follows—that which is produced as e.g. a sacrificial cake which is newly made out of flour, that which is modified, as e.g. soma juice which is extracted from soma leaves, that which is acquired as e. g. a mantra which is learnt by rote before being used in ritual and, lastly, that which is purified, as e. g. unhusked rice which is utilised after being ceremonially sanctified. The Self cannot be brought under any of these classes. It is neither an effect, nor a modification. It is not external to us to be obtained anew; nor is it impure to require any purification. The only other way of connecting the Self with karma is to make it an agent or an enjoyer. Neither of these, however, can the Self be, as will hereafter be explained in the commentary. Hence the denial of all relationship between the Self and karma.

[ 2 ]: Compare– Samam Sarvèshu bhūteṣu tishthantam parameśvaram vinaśyatsvavinaśyantam yah paśyati sa paśyati —Bh: Gita xiii 27. Eka èva hi bhūtātmā bhūte bhūte vyavasthitah. ekadhā bahudhā chaiva dṛśyate jalachandravat. Mahābhārata—Mokshadharma.

[ 3 ]: Desire, which is either for attaining happiness or for avoiding misery necessarily implies nescience. For the Self being in reality bliss itself, untouched by sorrow, cannot by its nature, be affected by any desire. Similarly, believing that the Self is fit for performing karma because its bodily adjuncts with which it is empirically connected are fit for it is also an indication of nescience.

[ 4 ]: In the beginning of a commentary it is customary to point out specifically the qualifications of persons entitled to study the treatise, its subject-matter, the aim of its teaching and their inter-relation, especially that between the last two. Deficiency in respect of any of these which are termed the anubandhacatuṣṭayam is understood to indicate the unworthiness of the treatise to be commented upon.

He who rules is (termed) Ît. īśā (means), ‘by the Lord’. The Lord is the Ruler and the real Self of every creature [ 1 ] . By such a Lord, identical with oneself, is to be overspread i.e., covered. What? idam sarvam=(all this). yat kincha =whatsoever. jagatyām=on earth. jagat=all that (moves). By one’s own Self,—the Lord, the supreme Self—which is the sole reality, all these unreal (things), both movable and immovable, have to be covered over, (perceiving) thus—‘I am the inner Self of all’. [ 2 ] Just as adventitious bad odour in a piece of sandal, arising from moisture, is overcome by true fragrance when the (sandal) piece is rubbed [ 3 ] , so indeed, will all the congenital variety of the world, such as being an agent or an enjoyer, superimposed on the Self, disappear at the perception (everywhere) of the (one) really existent Self. Since jagatyām is (here used) in an indicatory sense, all kinds of effects differentiated as name, form and action (are to be understood as connoted by it). What a person, that is so full of the conception that the Lord is the Self of all, ought to do is to renounce the three-fold desire for offspring etc., and not (be engaged in) karma. In tena tyaktena, tyakta means renunciation (being used as an abstract noun). (It is not to be taken here as a past participle in the sense of ‘given up’ because) a son or a servant (for example) who has been abandoned or is dead, cannot save one since all connection is severed between them. Therefore (the word) can only mean ‘renunciation’.

[ 1 ]: The difference between the controller and the controlled is not to be understood as real. It is merely apparent and is based on an illusion. In the same sense, we may, for example, say that a person standing before a number of mirrors controls the several reflected images of himself.

[ 2 ]: The sense is that one should realise that all is Self and that there is no variety in the Universe. This is the chief teaching of the present Upanishad and corresponds, in its significance, to the well-known tattvamasi of the Chāndogyopaniṣad.

[ 3 ]: The object of this illustration is to suggest that when conviction regarding the unity of all existence does not spring directly from faith in the teaching, reasoning or enquiry will generally lead to it.

bhuñjīthāḥ=do save [ 4 ] . Having thus renounced desires, be not greedy (mā gridhah) i. e., do not long for wealth. kasya svit=(of anybody). (The meaning is)—Do not long for the wealth of anybody—i.e., yourself or another. (In this interpretation) svit is a mere expletive. Or (we may say as follows)—Be not greedy. Why? (The answer is)—kasya svit dhanam=Whose is wealth?—implying a denial. If wealth could belong to anybody it might be sought; (but) everything having disappeared through the discovery of the Lord (everywhere), all this is of the Self, and all this is the Self. Thus it means—‘Do not seek an unreality.’ [ 5 ]

Thus the purport of the text is that after renouncing the three-fold desire for offspring etc., the knower of Self should save himself by devotion to true knowledge. And to the rest who not being knowers of Self, are unable to realise it, the (next) verse states as follows—

[ 4 ]: This statement is not to be understood literally for the Self does not, in reality, require to be saved. It is only intended to extol renunciation by ascribing final release to its influence.

[ 5 ]: The third pada of this verse enjoins renunciation on such as can discriminate between what is Self and what is not. Such withdrawal from the world is the only course for Self-realisation. By removing the ordinary distractions of life it renders easy the attainment of final release. The fourth pada prescribes a rule of conduct and prohibits the acquisition by such persons of wealth of any description beyond what is necessary for bare maintenance.