IshaVasya Upanishad Mantra #9 – Part b

||AUM shree gurubhyo namaha harihi AUM||

उपनिषत् upaniṣat
अन्धन्तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्याम्उपासते ।
ततो भूय इव ते तमो य उ विद्यायाँ रताः ॥ ९ ॥
andhantamaḥ praviśanti yē’vidyām upāsatē |
tatō bhūya iva tē tamō ya u vidyāyām̐ ratāḥ || 9 ||

Those (ये yē) that practice (उपासते upāsatē) wrong-knowledge (अविद्याम्‌ avidyām), they will enter (प्रविशन्ति praviśanti) andhan-tamas (अन्धन्तमः andhantamaḥ). Those that are immersed in what they believe to be knowledge (विद्यायाँ रताः vidyāyām̐ ratāḥ), indeed their andhan-tamas (तमो य उ tamō ya u) will be even greater. (ततो भूय इव ते tatō bhūya iva tē).

This mantra gives more importance to the rejection of avidyā as compared to merely following vidyā. The reason being the latter could be merely faith-based whereas the former is necessarily knowledge-based. Mere belief that ‘what I have now is tattva-jāna’ can also be called as āgraha i.e., adamancy in a certain school of thought. Such adamancy is like a disease. It only breeds wrong knowledge. A person with such adamancy won’t be able to recognize the defect in anyathā-jāna nor he has the ability to recognize the merit behind the tattva-jāna.

He merely has a set of imaginations that he thinks is tattva-jāna and has ‘rati’ in it. But the function of shāstra is quite different. shāstra is instrumental for tattva-jāna and it is not for ‘rati’ in a school of thought. When shāstra establishes knowledge, it does so after recognizing and rejecting all poorva-paksha to that knowledge. Thus, yathāvat-jāna is shāstra-janya.

Let us remind ourselves that any natural law that is observed in this world is also made by God. Parabrahman is sarveshwara-tattva. If God is said to follow a rule that he did not make, then that philosophy is incomplete, because the question ‘who made that law?’ would remain unanswered. Then another question also arises, ‘who makes God obey that law?’ Whoever made that law, and made this God obey it, should be called Ultimate God, and what we have been calling as God, is no god, he is just a cparatantra like anyone else who follows rules. That is the reason.

If something is observed to be truly happening in this world, then, it simply means it was truly happening because of Parabrahman.

न ऋते त्वत् क्रियते किञ्चनारे महामर्कं मघवन् चित्रमर्च

na ṛtē tvat kriyatē kincanārē mahāmarkam maghavan citramarca —rigvēda

Vēda points out that nothing happens in this world without the Will of God. Another implication of this upanishadic teaching is that there cannot be many philosophies that are all correct.

One has to be understood vis-à-vis all others. This is the reason why, compromise in religion is very much possible, but there is no such thing as compromise in knowledge, i.e., philosophy. People often get these two mixed up and fight about the superiority of their own religion vs some other religion!

Varieties in knowledge are possible, but only in the case of wrong knowledge. True knowledge always, always comes in a single variety.

व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिरेकेह कुरुनन्दन |
बहुशाखा हि अनन्ताश्च बुद्धयो अव्यवसायिनां ||
vyavasāyātmikā buddhirēkēha kurunandana |
bahuśākhā hi anantāśca buddhayō avyavasāyināṁ
so teaches śrīkrishṇa in the geetā

If one person is blindly following what was told to him by his elders as his religion, and another person is following what was told to him by his elders as his religion. Now, between the two, who is better? Neither one of them is better. It is so because wrong criteria are being used for that determination. Not knowing this, people often fight over their faiths. It is like fighting over “my typhoid is better than your malaria”, kind of argument. Owing to lack of study of शास्त्र śāstra, people do not compromise in faith, hence all the religious fights all over the world. Again, due to lack of study of शास्त्र śāstra, people think we should never question what our elders have taught because they all have taught the right thing.

There is no compromise in knowledge (i.e, philosophy) but religion is all-compromising. Religion that is practiced as practical philosophy is what we really need. Just because a certain idea has been there for a long time, it does not mean it is the right idea. For many centuries, humans were teaching “the earth is flat” and it had a long tradition too. Some scientists even had to give up their lives just to correct that wrong knowledge. Didn’t we all give up on that wrong knowledge eventually? A religion practiced on mere blind faith which is bereft of knowledge is quite dangerous. Each follower keeps himself busy predicting doom for others, as though, he is in charge of giving mōksha to others, while the truth of the matter is that he himself is in bondage, to begin with.

People with a religious fervor who are confused between religion and philosophy, often confuse people by saying the other way. “My religion is better than yours”. If you do not believe in Jesus you are doomed, if you don’t believe in Allah you are doomed, if you think Śiva is superior to viṣṇuḥ then you are doomed, if you think viṣṇuḥ is superior to Śiva then you are doomed, etc. Sounds familiar? If mere faith in teachers, mere faith in gods, mere faith in personalities, etc create such confusions, ब्रह्मविद्या brahmavidyā that comes out as a result of Brahma-jignyāsā is the only cure and medicine for all such bane.

Does it mean we should never trust any teacher? No, it does not mean that either. It is okay to start anywhere in one’s pursuit for knowledge, if one is ready to recognize and give up on any item of wrong knowledge irrespective of how that wrong knowledge was received. We should not forget that true knowledge cannot have inconsistencies in it. It is only wrong knowledge that has very many inconsistencies in it. So, those philosophies which have very many varieties of teachings for questions such as – एकजीववाद ēkajīvavāda i.e., is there only one जीवात्मन् jīvātman? or बहुजीववाद bahujīvavāda i.e., are there many jīvātmans? When one starts to see a variety of teachings such as: Yes, no, may-be, it is inexplicable, it is a misrepresentation of our school, everyone should abandon the question itself, the question along with its answers will all be sublated one day, we don’t care, etc etc., when you start seeing these many varieties in teachings, then you know very well that such teachings cannot be part of right-knowledge at all. Such answers all can only be part of wrong knowledge. Did श्रीवेदव्यास śrīvēdavyāsa teach us these many varieties of answers? If so, where? Not following श्रीवेदव्यास śrīvēdavyāsa has been a major problem amongst variety makers in their so-called schools of thought. It is बादरायण-दर्शन bādarāyaṇa-darśana that goes by the name of वेदान्त vēdanta. When that bādarāyaṇa himself is not followed, does it really matter whom they actually followed?

The readers should put all these considerations under their contemplation (manana) and understand the significance of the strict adherence to Srī Vēdavyāsa that is clearly needed while understanding Vedanta.