isha upanishad commentary

[handy guy]

Isha upanishad, verses 7-9

"7) To the seer, all things have verily become the Self: what delusion, what sorrow, can there be for him who beholds that oneness?

8) It is He who pervades all—He who is bright and bodiless, without scar or sinews, pure and by evil unpierced; who is the Seer, omniscient, transcendent and uncreated. He has duly allotted to the eternal World—Creators their respective duties.

9) Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone."

Commentary on verse 9, found on web:

"The verse can be understood at various levels and it has multiple layers of meaning. This verse must be understood together with the subsequent two verses.

In one layer of interpretation, Avidya refers to Karma Anushtana- performance of one's duties, whereas Vidya refers to Devata Upasana- worship and meditation of the Devatas. Karma Anushtana is called 'Avidya' because Avidya is root of all actions. Hence, Karma Anushtana is called as 'Avidya Upasana'. It is to be noted that the usage of Upasana with the term Avidya shows that it is a positive term and does not refer to all actions. It specifically refers to practice of Dharma (righteous duties) that leads one to Pitr Loka (realm of ancestors) when done in Sakaama way and to purification of mind when done in nishkaama way. Similarly, Vidya Upasana refers to Devata Upasana, because Devatas preside over various aspects of Universe and hence denoted by the term Vidya. By Devata Upasana one attains Devaloka. The verse is saying, those who practice either Karma or Bhakti alone, they will attain limited fruit and will have to return to physical universe. Hence, they will still be inside Samsara and hence called as Darkness. The darkness appears to be more in case of practice of Devata Upasana alone is stated because, by practicing Devata Upasana and attaining Devaloka, one may come under false impression that he/she has attained Moksha and hence may become egoist or may become attached to realm of Devas. In that case his bondage will be far more. The gist of the verse is that for spiritual progress one must simultaneously, or successively practice both Karma and Bhakti.

In the second layer of interpretation, Avidya not only refers to just Karma, but to Devata Upasana as well. Because, from the stand point of Brahman, all attempts at human level is rooted in Avidya. Hence, the verse is saying, those who practice either Karma or Bhakti or both, as long as they have not realized Atman, they cannot attain Moksha and hence they will remain in Samsara, hence Darkness. On the other hand, those who practice Vidya alone, they will end up in darkness as well. This is so because, Vidya is understood here in the primary sense of Jnana and hence Vidya Upasana is a reference to Jnana Sadhana or Vichara marga (sravana, manana, etc.) that leads one to ultimate Atma-Jnana and Moksha. The verse is saying that those who try to practice Jnana Sadhana, without first attaining the required competencies like purification of mind, dispassion, etc., (which are got from practice of Dharma and Bhakti), they will only be groping in the dark. Because, without required competencies, Jnana Sadhana is useless for a person and he will end up falsely imagining himself as going nearer to Brahman, but in reality he will be groping in dark and hence he will be in a greater darkness.

I hope this was useful.

PS: On a personal note, I conduct an online Isha Upanishad classes through email/skype to help people understand this very important Upanishad and if anybody is interested, they can drop in an email- [email protected] Details- Learn Isha Upanishad Online"

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by handy guy

Isha upanishad, verses 7-9

"7) To the seer, all things have verily become the Self: what delusion, what sorrow, can there be for him who beholds that oneness?

8) It is He who pervades all—He who is bright and bodiless, without scar or sinews, pure and by evil unpierced; who is the Seer, omniscient, transcendent and uncreated. He has duly allotted to the eternal World—Creators their respective duties.

9) Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone."

Commentary on verse 9, found on web:

"The verse can be understood at various levels and it has multiple layers of meaning. This verse must be understood together with the subsequent two verses.

In one layer of interpretation, Avidya refers to Karma Anushtana- performance of one's duties, whereas Vidya refers to Devata Upasana- worship and meditation of the Devatas. Karma Anushtana is called 'Avidya' because Avidya is root of all actions. Hence, Karma Anushtana is called as 'Avidya Upasana'. It is to be noted that the usage of Upasana with the term Avidya shows that it is a positive term and does not refer to all actions. It specifically refers to practice of Dharma (righteous duties) that leads one to Pitr Loka (realm of ancestors) when done in Sakaama way and to purification of mind when done in nishkaama way. Similarly, Vidya Upasana refers to Devata Upasana, because Devatas preside over various aspects of Universe and hence denoted by the term Vidya. By Devata Upasana one attains Devaloka. The verse is saying, those who practice either Karma or Bhakti alone, they will attain limited fruit and will have to return to physical universe. Hence, they will still be inside Samsara and hence called as Darkness. The darkness appears to be more in case of practice of Devata Upasana alone is stated because, by practicing Devata Upasana and attaining Devaloka, one may come under false impression that he/she has attained Moksha and hence may become egoist or may become attached to realm of Devas. In that case his bondage will be far more. The gist of the verse is that for spiritual progress one must simultaneously, or successively practice both Karma and Bhakti.

In the second layer of interpretation, Avidya not only refers to just Karma, but to Devata Upasana as well. Because, from the stand point of Brahman, all attempts at human level is rooted in Avidya. Hence, the verse is saying, those who practice either Karma or Bhakti or both, as long as they have not realized Atman, they cannot attain Moksha and hence they will remain in Samsara, hence Darkness. On the other hand, those who practice Vidya alone, they will end up in darkness as well. This is so because, Vidya is understood here in the primary sense of Jnana and hence Vidya Upasana is a reference to Jnana Sadhana or Vichara marga (sravana, manana, etc.) that leads one to ultimate Atma-Jnana and Moksha. The verse is saying that those who try to practice Jnana Sadhana, without first attaining the required competencies like purification of mind, dispassion, etc., (which are got from practice of Dharma and Bhakti), they will only be groping in the dark. Because, without required competencies, Jnana Sadhana is useless for a person and he will end up falsely imagining himself as going nearer to Brahman, but in reality he will be groping in dark and hence he will be in a greater darkness.

I hope this was useful.

PS: On a personal note, I conduct an online Isha Upanishad classes through email/skype to help people understand this very important Upanishad and if anybody is interested, they can drop in an email- [email protected] Details- Learn Isha Upanishad Online"

Namaste.

This is very nice, however, there is a big difference between Apara Bhakti and Para Bhakti.

So, I make reference to your bolded part.

The truth is, that some will still engage in "ritual worship" (as Tantrikas do) and some will still worship a Deity and don't care if another (no matter HOW 'illuminated/educated') say they are being "ignorant" because it still becomes a case of "what would THEY know?" and so, the ONLY...ONLY way any of this can be validated, is who gets to ACTUALLY "come back" and who gets moksha...totally irrespective of what anybody or any book says, that is, if one is listening to their "inner guru" at the expense of basically everything else.

For example, I can compare that, which is stated in the Isopanishad (Isha Upanishad), with the Dakshinamurthy Stotram - also written by an 'Enlightened Saint' who says something contrary...so which "Enlightened Saint" does one believe in or follow?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/dast/dast13.htm

Devotion to Ishvara:

Devotion to Isvara in the Microcosm leads to unity with the Macrocosm.

6. By contemplating Mahesvara (dwelling) in the microcosm (vyashti), the devotee will become co-extensive with the macrocosm. This the Sruti has declared ten times in the words "he unites with Atman."

Having first enumerated the five kosas (sheaths) of the individual, the Taittiriya-Upanishad (2–8) declares five times that the devotee attains unity with Brahman, dwelling in the anandamaya kosa as the basis of all, in the words " He unites with annamaya Atman; he unites with pranamaya Atman; he unites with manomaya Atman; he unites with vijnanamaya Atman; he unites with anandamaya Atman." Again, later on, the Upanishad speaks of the five kosas in the macrocosm, and at the end (3–10) declares five times, as shown above, that the devotee attains unity with Brahman.

Now, how else can the Bhakta attain "unity with Ishvara" unless that involves a knowledge of the Deity through ritual?

If the practice is seen as a 'means unto an end" and not the "end in itself", I personally cannot see where and why the Advaitins would have a problem with others 'worshiping God' because it is only 'Oneness' manifesting as a 'God worshiper' isn't it?

Samadhi/Moksha is a personal thing and if one can attain it through ritual, through the knowledge or worship of a Deity, so be it!

If others (even Enlightened Masters) say that one cannot attain Samadhi that way, that is still only their "spiritually educated OPINION" because there will be other Enlightened Masters contradicting them and in the end, Viveka must be used to ascertain what applies on a very deep, personal and individual basis...which others wouldn't have a clue about and who will generally tend to berate things they do not understand.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[handy guy]

well, to me the various Upanishads as revealed scripture do have a clue...although various interpretations in certain context may be problematic. Btw. is there not the argument going around about certain "non-dualists" also not having a clue? (or could some of them have a clue after all by making parallel type arguments with your points but in a different context?)

Om Shanti...

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by handy guy

well, to me the various Upanishads as revealed scripture do have a clue...although various interpretations in certain context may be problematic. Btw. is there not the argument going around about certain "non-dualists" also not having a clue? (or could some of them have a clue after all by making parallel type arguments with your points but in a different context?)

Om Shanti...

Namaste.

It is that age-old division between each of the sampradayas, based on the fine line drawn between Sruti and Smriti...between Smartism and Samkhya philosophy and the Shastra Pramana.

The saints and sages of old have been taking pot-shots at each other through the 'revealed scriptures' since time immemorial.

I shall put it in a different context, okay?

I am a Shiva Bhakta...I do puja...outward and inward and I see Shiva not ONLY as a mythological figure, but ALSO as the Source of Consciousness itself.

Now, there are millions of Advaitins out there who will say that "this is duality and if you exist in the duality by worshiping a Deity...you are blind, ignorant, stupid etc"

Now, there are also millions of Bhaktas out there who will say "why all the name-calling? that clearly shows what level YOU are on, doesn't it? so, I will not listen to you and thus develop a judgmental attitude".

So, in the end, one must be true to THEMSELVES, no matter what that entails and how much they get persecuted FOR it...even if the whole WORLD says they are "blind" or "ignorant" or "not qualified for Moksha" or whatever...because I only have to say "well, be that as it may, I have God on my side, so what you gonna do?"

Aum Namah Shivaya

[handy guy]

Then and of course you probably know that the major sub-sects of Saivism do not agree with each other either on several of what could be called important points?

Anyway, I'd say all we can do is go on- (use what is helpful) and try not to leave stones in each other paths while we are on our own...which as I understand it is a major precept of Hinduism in general and also specifically as the case may be.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by handy guy

Then and of course you probably know that the major sects of Saivism do not agree with each other on several points...?

Anyway, I'd say all we can do is go on- (use what is helpful) and try not to leave stones in each other paths while we are on our own...which as I understand it is a major precept of Hinduism in general and also specifically as the case may be.

Exactly! EXACTLY!

I am definitely a Saivite, yet I have been trying to 'pigeonhole' myself into a Saiva Sampradaya for YEARS without any real success.

I guess that I am the 'closest' to Saiva Siddhanta or Pashupata Saivism, but neither of those really cut it...the Kaula/Nath tradition comes close too, but NOPE...and the Trika school (Kashmir Saivism) has a lot of concepts I 'agree with' but there's a big "nope" there too...and I am like "what the?"

Through MUCH introspection, meditation etc the only Saiva teachers I could actually identify with in any way, shape or form were Lakulisha and Matsyendranath...who were the progenitors of basically EVERY school of Saivism out there and I identified with the whole universal concept of Shiva BEFORE the schools were even created and started disagreeing with each other.

My consciousness is still stuck in the 11th and 12th century...even before Abhinavagupta...and at a time when Vishistadvaita was not the sole property of Vaishnavas (courtesy of Ramanuja and Madhava) but was ALSO a Shaivite philosophy, started by Sambandhar, Basavanna, Lakulisha et al.

Of course, I am not here to put any stones in the way of others, but unless you don't want any of your threads replied to (like the one on the Chandogya Upanishad), I thought I would chime in regardless...especially when I read a quote like this:

Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone."

Which was probably written by a Brahmin to segregate the "untouchable caste" even more, because that is what they mostly do...and the higher castes throwing stones at all the lower ones IS what Hindus do!

Aum Namah Shivaya

[handy guy]

why make projections about the motives of others that you can never be sure about, just as you more or less say about others making projections about your motives which they can never be sure about?

If I "translate" (so to speak) that particular line of verse from the Isha upanishad by comparing it to certain teachings of Raja yoga that also speak of Karma and Bhakti yoga working together then it doesn't get under my skin.

Anyway chime in anytime, and thanks for sharing!

Btw. I'd say that quote from the Chandogya upanishad is non-sectarian or not playing any favorites, for the first Prana springing forth from the Self is never so, reply or no reply's.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by handy guy

why make projections about the motives of others that you can never be sure about, just as you more or less say about others making projections about your motives which they can never be sure about?

If I "translate" (so to speak) that particular line of verse from the Isha upanishad by comparing it to certain teachings of Raja yoga that also speak of Karma and Bhakti yoga working together then it doesn't get under my skin.

Anyway chime in anytime, and thanks for sharing!

Btw. I'd say that quote from the Chandogya upanishad is non-sectarian or not playing any favorites, for the first Prana springing forth from the Self is never so, reply or no reply's.

Namaste.

It is a habit of mine, that when I see enough correlation, I attribute it to causation - even though it may not be.

You are correct though, what others say/do is none of my personal concern, just as what I say/do is not another's personal concern either!

I am going out on a limb here...

Let's say (as a hypothetical only) that a person is a quadriplegic...broken neck and all, has an intense love for God, but cannot do any 'karma yoga' due TO karma itself - can that person still obtain Moksha?

Let's go out on another limb here...

Let's say that a person is totally insane...not 'ignorant', not 'in darkness' but totally insane (according to doctors, society etc)...they have a completely different 'reality' to 'everybody else'...but seeing as how all 'perceived reality' is Maya anyway...who is to say who is the "insane one"?

Also, does what another thinks of us really matter if it is not personally true for US, but personally true for THEM? who is right or wrong about the behaviour and motives of another...the person who 'behaves' or the person who 'witnesses the behaviour?"

However, all of this is pointing to the fact that I just need to 'go within' more, because there is nothing left "outside myself" which could ever possibly benefit me in any way, shape or form...so, if "outside myself" says that what I am doing is wrong/delusional, that should not even matter, because everything 'outside myself' is not real anyway! It is so personally biased and skewed as to border on the ridiculous.

Aum Batuk Bhairavaye Namah

[handy guy]

Does Maya, karma and ego serve a purpose? And if they do then how could they to be dismissed out of hand? For me the answer is that they can't.

As for the disabled and so called insane person, they too are in the hands of Spirit or the ways of Spirit that are wiser than men; btw, if the universe or power behind or within the universe is not ultimately based on justice then we can all kiss our asses goodbye. (as for me I know Shakti is just and much more!)

[handy guy]

a partial quote/definition regarding "Maya" from the lexicon of "Dancing with Siva":

"...In Sankara's Vedantic interpretation, maya is taken as pure illusion or unreality. In Saivism it is one of the three bonds (pasa) that limit the soul and thereby facilitate its evolution. For Saivites and most other non-dualists, it is understood not as illusion but as relative reality, in contrast to the unchanging Absolute Reality. In the Saiva Siddhanta system there are three main divisions of maya, the pure, the pure-impure and the impure realms. Pure or suddha maya consists of the first five tattvas - Siva tattva, Sakti tattva, Sadasiva tattva, Isvara tattva and Suddhavidya tattva. The pure-impure realm consists of the next seven tattvas. The impure realm consists of the maya tattva and all of its evolutes..."

Btw. I don't follow with Sankara's interpretation.