INTRODUCTION
The Īśāvāsyopaniṣad—so called from its initial words—forms the concluding chapter of the saṃhitā of the śuklayajurveda. The name of saṃhitopaniṣad is also sometimes given to it, in order to distinguish it from the other Upanishads which generally find their place in the Brāhmaṇas. According to the commentary here translated, the eighteen verses of this Upanishad are to be understood as falling into four sections—
(i) Verse 1, which teaches that those who understand the Self and are fit for realising it should give up all worldly desires and devote themselves exclusively to attaining final release;
(ii) verse 2, which enjoins the performance of karma on such others as do not comprehend the Self and are consequently unable to realise it;
(iii) verses 3-8, which, having in view persons referred to in verse 1, describe the real nature of the Self and indicate the consequences of realising or not realising it;
and (iv) verses 9-18, which commend the simultaneous practice of karma and upāsanā, to persons referred to in verse 2.
In commenting on this Upanishad, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, now and again touches on the following point which is of much importance in understanding his view aright. The Veda inculcates, he says, two independent lines of conduct—one of karma or activity and the other of jñāna or withdrawal from the world. The first forms the subject-matter of the liturgical portion or the karmakāṇḍa and the second, of the Upanishads or the jñānakāṇḍa, of the Veda. The teaching of the jñānakāṇḍa is whole in itself, and should not be considered as subsidiary, in any way, to the teaching of the karmakāṇḍa. Nor should it be imagined that both these teachings can be concurrently followed by anybody, for there is a fundamental antithesis between them. The latter presupposes a belief in variety, as ordinarily experienced, while the former, denying all this variety, insists on the truth of only the unity underlying it. Thus the two paths of karma and jñāna are opposed to each other. Only we should remember that there is a sense in which the first may be looked upon as subsidiary to the second, for when the path of activity is followed without any selfish desire for rewards, it serves as a preparation for the path of withdrawal by producing that composure of mind without which man cannot seek the highest truth. In this nobler sense karma is reckoned as an ’extrinsic’ aid (bahiranga) to final release. But the ‘intrinsic’ aid (antaranga) is jñāna, and when a person once betakes himself to it, it logically follows that all karma loses its significance to him. As has been well put by the Vārtikakāra,
Satyantarangé vijñāne bahirangam na siddhyati
Saṃskārakam tu karma syāt jnânâttvajnânanin-butih
— Sambandha Vartika 368.
The verses beginning with Īśāvāsyam are not utilised in ritual 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.
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.
, 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” 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.
. 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 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.
.