Originally Posted by
chandu_69
Namaste Atanu,
I would not go the extent of challenging the doctrine of Shankaracharya.I didnt find Shankaracharya's treatise on the upanishad in question.The advaita link i quoted is from modern advaitans.
Namaste Chandu
The following is the translation of Shankara Bhasya of the 2nd verse of Isha Upanishad. (Tr. Mr. M. Hiriyanna).
2.
Always performing karma here,one should desire to live,for a hundred years. So long as thou (seekest to live) a mere man, no other ( path ) exists (where) activity does not taint thee.
Kurvanneva = Sblwa^ys performing. iha = {heve) karnidni = rites such as agnihotra. jijivishet = one should desire to live. satam=one hundred in number. sa7?ia/i= years. For thus much is known to be the maximum age of man- Since (this is) a (mere) iteration (of an empirically known fact) what should be taken as enjoined (here) is that, if one should desire to live a hundred years, he should live only performing karma, evam^m this manner. tva'yi=[iu regard to you), nare i.e. when you live content to be a mere man. itah i.e., from this present course of performing karma like agnihdtra. anyathd—& different course. 7ia asti=does not exist; in which course evil action does not stain; i.e., you do not get tainted by sin. Wherefore if one should desire for life one should live throughout performing karma such as agnihotra prescribed by the ^astra.
How is it to be understood that the former verse assigns to a sannydsin devotion to knowledge and the latter, only devotion to karma to one incapable of it (Self-realisation) ? We reply: Do you not remember the aforesaid antithesis between jnana and karma which remains unshakable as a mountain? Here also the same has been expressly stated in verses 1 and 2,:that he who seeks to live must perform karma and that he who does not,must give up all desire. The same conclusion may be arrived at) from the (following) directions to sannydsins "He should desire neither for life,nor for death ; he should enter a forest". This is the law." "He should not thence return". The difference in result between the two will also be pointed out ater on. (Another statement of the like import is) "These two paths only appeared in the beginning,the path of activity and (the path) of withdrawal." Of these two, renunciation is higher, cf. Taittirlya Aranyaka "Renunciation alone excelled". And Vyasa, the great Vedic teacher, after much reflection, taught his son definitely as follows, " The Vedas aim at inculcating these two paths,one termed the path of activity and the other, of renunciation." We shall indicate ( in the sequel ) the distinction between these two (paths).
And now the (next) verse is begun in dispraise of the ignorant.
--------------------------------
The understanding of Shankara that any wish other than the wish for Moksha is antithetical to Moksha is even today held high by all advaita followers. The logic of Shankara used to seem odd and jerky to me, till I understood that Brahman is That whose desires are all realised. Moreover, Shushupti also eludes in presence of desire.
So, Shankara held, either there is desire or there is knowledge of Self. In presence of any desire, Karma, as per dharmic prescription, is the only way to remain un-attached. This is what Shri Krishna also teaches when He says: Leave all Dharma and submit to me.
Note that karnidni is the doing as per nidhi.
Other understandings of the verse 2 now seem incomplete to me at least. This is the age old conflict between the believers of Karma Kanda and believers of Jnana Kanda.
Om Namah Shivaya
Bookmarks