[Advaita-l] Questions on the blessed Isa Upanishad

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, H S Chandramouli wrote:


> I am not sure if the **commentators**  referred to above refer to advaita
> Commentators or to non-advaita Commentators.

I was referring to both the authoritative bhashyakaras on Vajasaneyi
Samhita, Uvatacharya and Mahidharacharya and to Vedantic pravachana kartas
I have heard over the years.

I must clarify that neither I nor anyone mentioned above is saying that
the upanishad is enjoining karma.


> The Introduction to Isha Up in
> the Bhashya of  Sri Bhagavatpada is cited below which clearly states the
> Advaita position.
> 
> << ‘ईशा वास्यम्’ इत्यादयो मन्त्राः कर्मस्वविनियुक्ताः, तेषामकर्मशेषस्यात्मनो
> याथात्म्यप्रकाशकत्वात् । >>
> 
> Translation (Swami Gambhirananda)  << The (Vedic) mantras beginning with
> IshAvAsyam (‘ईशा वास्यम्’) have not been utilized in कर्म (karma) (rituals etc) ,

This is a simple statement of fact.  None of the Rks in the 40th adhyaya 
are used for karma as per Shatapatha Brahmana, Katyayana Shrautasutra or 
Paraskara Grhyasutra.

>for they serve to reveal the true nature of the Self, which is not an
> appendage to कर्म (karma) >>.

And this is the inference based on that fact.


> It is really a stretch to equate this ** relinquishing material** to the
> **tyAga** implied in the first verse of  Isa Up. The term may be the same,
> but the meanings are entirely different.
>


There are some faulty historical theories which unfortunately some people 
still believe that the Upanishads were either a new alien form of ideology 
or a revolution against the Vedas.  My point and I'm sorry if it 
wasn't clear, is that this idea of tyaga didn't come out of nowhere but 
it is a natural progression in Vedic thought. Vedanta can be classified
amongst "shramanic" schools but unlike e.g. Bauddhas or Jains, it did not 
break with the past.  The same Upanishad for instance goes on to say:

kurvanneveha karmANi jijIviShechchhataM samAH |

"By karma indeed, one should wish to live for a hundred years."

A hundred years stands for an ideal human lifespan.  It is not taught that 
karma will not be efficacious for such a purpose.  Rather it is asked 
_why_ should that be your goal.  It is reorientation not repudiation.

It is relevant for us because most of the readers of advaita-l (including 
both of us) are grhasthas.  If only sannyasis can practice Vedanta to the 
fullest, does that mean it is useless for us to learn it?  No because the 
Vedantic virtues have their basis in a dharmic way of thinking we should 
already be following.  By practising e.g. non-covetousness in minituare we 
can prepare ourselves for sannyasa where it will be practised in full.


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>