Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 223

NOVEMBER, 1933]
A CRITICAL STUDY OF ISOPAXIŞAD
211
(II, 4; vitlamohena mudhaḥ II, 6, the kâmakámin of Bhag. Gitá II, 70), who prefers enjoyment to spiritual welfare (preyas to śreyas, II, 2), and the mock-wisdom of philosophical materialism (II, 5-6). So also Maitråyaņa Up. (VIII, 9) calls avidydd or "falge learning" the doctrine imparted to the Asuras by Bphaspati (Sukra). Munclaka Up. understands by avidya (1, 2, 8-9) the aparii vidya of the Karmakanda (I, 1, 4-5), speaks with contempt of the pious vaidikas (1, 2, 1-10, source of Bhag. Gità II, 42 ff.), and denies brahmaloka to be acces. sible through karman (násty akytaḥ krtena, I, 2, 12)—which seems to be the very attitude declined in Isa Up. 2, Vidyd appears in Mundaka Up. as samyag-jñana (III, 1, 5). In Kena Up. also vidyd is atmavidyú (12), and this higher wisdom is expressly stated to be different from empirical knowledge (3 and 11).37
On this basis, then, we have the choice of understanding vidyd and avidya either as dtmavidyd and any other vidyd (orthodox or heterodox), or (viz., abrahmanavat, Anantacarya) as atmavidyd and karman. But, since in those texts vidyd, as contrasted with avidya, means always dtma- or brahma-vidyd only, we are Net at liberty to understand by it, as Sankara does, the polytheistic theology (devatavigayam jñanam) which he contrasts here as a higher science (vidya) with the sacrificial or lower science (avidyd) with which it is connected. For, the sacred text he refers to for it (viz., vidyaya tad drohanti vidyaya devalokab na tatra dakşind yanti | karmand pitslokah) does not support his view, because devaloka, as the terminus of the devayana, is in the older Upanişads the world" from which there is no return," as is clear from even the quotation itself; and we cannot help admitting that the conjunction impossible except for a fool, according to Sankara, of the knowledge of the Absolute with any other knowledge or with karmanS8 has actually been performed by the author of our Upanişad who was hardly a fool, though a strong advocate of that very theory of jñânakarmasamuccaya so passionately combated in the later Advaita. We may, however, concede to Sankara that a juxtaposition of what is phalavat and aphalavat (karman and vidya) is not likely in a passage like ours. But this leads us just to deny that the noun to be supplied for anyad in st. 10 is phalam. Phalam is unlikely also because of the forced construction it demands (ellipsis), avidd and vidyd, being not themselves phala or not phala but only productive or not productive of such. Curiously enough, this has been overlooked by all except Kûranarayana, a follower of Ramanuja, who supplies the word moksa-sadhanam which is, indeed, quite acceptable. One more supplement, viz., kevalam, for both vidyd and avidya, is employed by all commentators, and this is really indispensable for making sense of the triplet. Now, vidyd being atma- or brahmavidyd, avidyd must be either non-Vedântic philosophy or karman (with the science relating thereto); and, as liberation is in our Upanişad taught to result from vidyd and avidyd Combinod, this combination can with a champion for karman not well be one of brahmavidyâ and anviksiki, or the like, but only the well-known one of the jñana- and the karma-kânda. And so we may now explain the triplet as follows.
The Upanişad, as already stated, begins with a vigorous protest against naiskarmya. After dealing, as equally necessary, in stanzas 1 and 2 with the Way of Works and in 3 to 8 with the Way of Knowledge it takes up their mutual relation in the triplet on vidya and avidya. Those who neglect or reject vidya, it says, are condemned to darkness (low births), and those who pride themselves with vidyd, rejecting Action, are condemned to still greater darkness (9), because they are worse than the man who has no knowledge but does his duty,29
21 Kena Up. 3 and 12 seem to correct sa Up. by removing the instrumentals of st. 10 and the apparent obecurity of st. 11, but the third and fourth khanda of Kena Up. are undoubtedly prio, to Isa Up. The chronological relation of Kathaka and Mundaka to Ifa Up. is not clear (Dr. Belvalkar thinks they are later); Maitråyapa Up.is, of course, later.
28 Yad atmaikatvavijñanam tan na kenacit karmand jñanantarena vd hy amidhah samuccicirati.
39 The preference given here to the avidya-upasaka is in conformance with the polemical attitude taken from the outeet by our author.