युयोध्य् अस्मज् जुहुराणम् एनो भूयिष्ठां ते नम उक्तिं विधेम ॥ १८ ॥
agne naya supathā rāye asmān viśvāni deva vayunāni vidvān .
yuyodhy asmaj juhurāṇam eno bhūyiṣṭhāṃ te nama uktiṃ vidhema .. 18 ..
Tap a word for its meaning
agne (O Fire). naya = lead, supathā = by a good path. This qualifying word excludes the southern path. (The devotee means)—“I am tired of the southern path characterised by birth and death, and therefore do I repeatedly ask you to lead (me) by the good path free from birth and death”. rāye = for wealth i.e. (here) for enjoying the fruit of karma. asmān = us, that are qualified for (the enjoyment of) the fruits of the prescribed practices. viśvāni = all. deva = O God, vayunāni=karma or meditation. vidvān=knowing. Further, yuyodhi i.e., separate or destroy. asmat=asmattah=from us. juhurāṇam=crooked or deceitful. ēnah=sin; so that becoming pure thereby we may obtain our wish. We are not, however, able now to serve you actively (as of old); we can but do obeisance again and again (bhūyiṣṭhām) to you.
* I read agre in place of agne.
Some entertain a doubt (as regards the antithesis between karma and true knowledge) hearing the statements (contained in verses 11 and 14)—“Overcoming death through avidyā, he attains immortality through vidyā” and “Overcoming death through the manifest, he attains immortality through the unmanifest”. We shall therefore briefly consider (the matter now) in order to clear (this doubt.) Now then, what is the reason for the doubt? The answer is—Why should not true knowledge itself be understood by vidyā in the above passage? and also (by amṛtatva true) immortality? Well, are not this knowledge of the supreme Self and karma mutually exclusive on account of the antithesis between them? True; but this antagonism is not known (through śāstra) for antagonism or the reverse should be based on śāstraic authority only. Just as the performance of karma and the practice of vidyā are known through śāstra alone, so also should their opposition or agreement be. As the śāstraic prohibition “No creature should be hurt” is annulled by śāstra itself in “In a sacrifice animals may be killed” so also should it be in the case of vidyā and avidyā as well as in the case of knowledge and karma. [ 1 ]
No; because the Veda says—“Distant are these.—opposed and leading in diverse ways—karma and knowledge” (Kaṭha Up. ii, 4). If it be said that owing to the statement in verse 11, there is (likewise) no antagonism between them, we reply ‘No’; because there can possibly be no option as regards opposition or agreement between true knowledge and avidyā . If it be rejoined that there is no antithesis at all, on the strength of the injunction (here in verse 11) regarding their combined practice, we repeat ‘No’; for the two cannot conceivably co-exist.
[ 1 ]: I omit samuchchayaḥ after vidyákarmaṇōṣcha.
If it be urged that vidyā and avidyā are to be pursued by the same (person) one after the other , we reply ‘No’; for when true knowledge comes to a person, nescience is inconceivable in him. Thus (for instance) if once a man experiences heat and light in fire, there cannot arise in him the ignorance—that fire is cold or devoid of light. Nor can there be doubt or delusion (in a knower) for verse 7 denies all possibility of them. Nescience being inconceivable,—we have said—its result —karma—is equally inconceivable. The immortality spoken of (here) is only relative. Further if vidyā in this passage referred to knowledge of the supreme Self, praying for an entrance would be inappropriate.* Thus we conclude by stating that the meaning of the verses in question is, as we have explained.