Today I am reading the Isha Upanishad ..
I would like to know who wrote this little book …
Anyone know ?
The root of the word Ishvara comes from īś- (ईश, Ish) which means "capable of" and "owner, ruler, chief of". The word Isha (ईश) literally means "ruler, master, lord". The term vāsyam (वास्य) literally means "hidden in, covered with, enveloped by"…. the term "Isha" in the Upanishad is used interchangeably as "Lord" and "Self" (one's soul). Puqun Li translates the title of the Upanishad as "the ruler of the Self".
“Isha” is the ancient Sanskrit girl name which literally means plank, board, particular measure, a rod, pole or shaft of a carriage or plough. Isha also means the lord or ruler and the ruling goddess.
“Isa” is a classical Arabic عيسى name and a translation of Jesus.
In Hebrew the word “Ish” means man… איש
Jesus calls himself Bar - “Ish” … The Son of Man … bar’nasha in Aramaic … בר נשא
In Israel Jesus is called Yeshu ha Notzri (Jesus the Nazarene) … but Notzri also means branch, rod, pole, shaft, sapling
They Isha Upanishad is ancient … likely one of the earliest Upanishads, composed in the 1st half of 1st millennium BCE
The Isha Upanishad (Devanagari: ईशोपनिषद् IAST īśopaniṣad) is one of the shortest Upanishads, embedded as the final chapter (adhyāya) of the Shukla Yajurveda.
It is a Mukhya (primary, principal) Upanishad,… a brief poem, consisting of 17 or 18 verses.
It is a key scripture of the Vedanta sub-schools, and an influential Śruti to diverse schools of Hinduism. It is the 40th chapter of Yajurveda. The name of the text derives from its incipit, īśā vāsyam, "enveloped by the Lord", or "hidden in the Lord (Self)".
The text discusses the Atman (Soul, Self) theory of Hinduism, and is referenced by both Dvaita (dualism) and Advaita (non-dualism) sub-schools of Vedanta
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isha_Upanishad
OM!
That (the Invisible–Absolute) is whole; whole is this (the visible phenomenal); from the Invisible Whole comes forth the visible whole.
Though the visible whole has come out from that Invisible Whole, yet the Whole remains unaltered. OM! PEACE! PEACE! PEACE!
The indefinite term “That” is used in the Upanishads to designate the Invisible–Absolute, because no word or name can fully define It. A finite object, like a table or a tree, can be defined; but God, who is infinite and unbounded, cannot be expressed by finite language. Therefore the Rishis or Divine Seers, desirous not to limit the Unlimited, chose the indefinite term “That” to designate the Absolute. In the light of true wisdom the phenomenal and the Absolute are inseparable. All existence is in the Absolute; and whatever exists, must exist in It; hence all manifestation is merely a modification of the One Supreme Whole, and neither increases nor diminishes It. The Whole therefore remains unaltered.
Part I
All this, whatsoever exists in the universe, should be covered by the Lord.
Having renounced (the unreal), enjoy (the Real). Do not covet the wealth of any man. We cover all things with the Lord by perceiving the Divine Presence everywhere. When the consciousness is firmly fixed in God, the conception of diversity naturally drops away; because the One Cosmic Existence shines through all things. As we gain the light of wisdom, we cease to cling to the unrealities of this world and we find all our joy in the realm of Reality.
The word “enjoy” is also interpreted by the great commentator Sankaracharya as “protect,” because knowledge of our true Self is the greatest protector and sustainer. If we do not have this knowledge, we cannot be happy; because nothing on this external plane of phenomena is permanent or dependable. He who is rich in the knowledge of the Self does not covet external power or possession.
It goes on to say the following …
When a man sees God in all beings and all beings in God, and also God dwelling in his own Soul, how can he hate any living thing? Grief and delusion rest upon a belief in diversity, which leads to competition and all forms of selfishness. With the realization of oneness, the sense of diversity vanishes and the cause of misery is removed.
Source: http://www.yoga-age.com/upanishads/isha.html
The teaching of the Isha Upanishad reminds me of The Ethics of Baruch Spinoza, I wonder if Spinoza studied this ancient work… along with Albert Einstein and a few others.
The Isha Upanishad also reminds me of some of the sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas (The Secret Sayings of Jesus 30 AD)
These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
A few disjointed thoughts on this thought provoking post.
I've grown to become jaded at the way many writings claim to describe the indescribable. Especially when it comes to the speculation of God. I've often wondered why none consider the possibility that the force of forces is just as unaware of us as we are our own molecular structures.
I find it very convenient that many will on the one hand claim God is infallible and all that is good, then claim that evil is some blasphemy that God overlooks for now, but will deal with at some future unknown date.
I suspect that in many of these writings that purport that one can "know" is a trick to try and comfort seekers whose search has brought them to the brink of insanity in trying to know the unknowable.
Like we are vessels that are dipped into the ocean. We can only know the part that is contained or touches the outside of us. It's impossible for us to know the entire ocean.
I also question the idea of really knowing ourselves. It seems easiest to begin learning what we are not, but with the limitations inherent in duality to create reference points it automatically makes us the vessel I mention in the above section. How could we possibly know the totality of what we are? It seems to me at best that when we let go of what we aren't, we discover aspects that seemed impossible, yet that is a small discovery despite it seeming at times supernatural.
I believe that once one begins knowing oneself the honesty of such an encounter creates an agnostic outlook. That any such encounters of a sophist nature are quite limited in their range. That due to the intensity of such epiphany it can and often is mistaken as a divine encounter, which perhaps it is in its own right. Yet despite the intensity, the limitations themselves attest to an agnostic truth.
I used to ponder the idea that any force of power greater than ours and not understood could present itself as God, and most in its direct influence would most likely believe such a thing. I think if it's possible for God (this is assuming there is one central force creating and maintaining everything) to interact on a micro scale with us It would be very limited in scope of what It could do because of our own limitations (back to the vessel scenario).
To sum up my very long winded thoughts on this. I don't know what possible reference points one could possess that would enable them to know themself, nor what really surrounds them.
Thanks for an interesting post. I could have continued on with my jabbering, but it would have all still amounted to I don't believe we can know. At best we can be while knowing some of what we are not.
Well… it all depends on how you define”God” …. And how you define “self”… if you believe that “God” is just a concept of the infinite (per Spinoza, Einstein, Sagan and others) … then Everything is God… .. does everything include the Self ? Or does the Self exist outside of everything ??? We are a part of everything… are we not ??? how does the self then have any Boundary…. How will we ever know the “ Self” how will we ever know “God” the infinite Everything … it would mean to know everything. That will take an infinite number of lives. And we only have one … or do we have an infinite number of lives ? Who knows ? Certainly not me. But I am here, and I exist now, so I continue my search to understand the Self, and to understand God. … the Universe.
So you agree with me 🌓
Yes … it’s a life long search. I am not agnostic though … I want to learn. I’d like to be a Gnostic and know as much as possible.
"I've often wondered why none consider the possibility that the force of forces is just as unaware of us as we are our own molecular structures."
lol. In the Katha Upanishad (https://blurt.blog/blurtshorts/@rycharde/the-emerald-upanishad) there is a brief exchange where Yama admits that none of the higher beings really know what's going on!! Honestly! As you suspect, they know more of the landscape but the ultimate structure still eludes them.
As you also seem to hint, mystical experiences are not the same as the higher transcendental states. Indeed, the more visual mystical illusions can actually lock you into a belief system that would take ages to escape from. This is why Buddhism keeps urging the student to keep going - don't get stuck.
The language is written like a sign-post - nobody would, or should, mistake a roadsign for the location. Language is a collective venture, so if more people had more transcendental experiences so that they became part of our normal perceptions, then we'd have a more coherent language to express such states - or at least agree on the words.
If I had an Academy, the motto would be a toss up between "know thyself" and "abandon all beliefs" ;-) they amount to the same thing.
You may have noticed, I never use the word "God" - too much baggage and metaphysical sand-castling. Calling it "Brahma" is no better.
The only important things are the experiences - then you can articulate them.
"How do you know?" is always a good question ;-)
Your reply was well timed. I spent the evening taking my usual scattered approach to structuring my thoughts on a-gnostic approaches. Which led me among other places to the way words are often changed into having connotations far removed from their original meanings. Most often employed by those in power who seek to obfuscate the flaws in their claimed gnosis.
I get irritated in recent years by the growing number of people who will dismiss viewpoints contrary to their own by claiming the believe the science. As though true science itself isn't a form of being agnostic, dealing with hypothesis and likelihoods.
Of course the science cultists of today can often be found contradicting yesterdays proclamations of absolutes without causing them to even blink at such preposterous actions.
I find myself disliking the the ease with which those I call the perception masters have tainted words such as agnostic, ignorant, conspiracy theorist etc. Of course any embracing any of the above words in their genuine meaning is a threat to their need to be the experts who must be our masters for all to be right in the world. Those who embrace their own ignorance without fear may shed some of it. Then they would see more clearly the so called masters don't know shit and are conspiring for their gain at our loss.
Indeed it is. I've learned many things from asking this question, many times dispelling my own ignorance that caused me to defend positions that were incorrect. I've also cut through a lot of bull when as is often the case those who speak with certainties have no foundation for doing so.
I don't even like the word "agnostic", as it means without-knowledge, and hence implies that the opposite has knowledge, even when it fails to manifest any such thing.
Infidel is good, and Muslims have no trademark on the word, as it means non-believer or faithless. I'll post a video soon by someone who holds the same views ;-) need some sleep now.
IMO the biggest error made by most humans is to believe in belief - a worthless algorithm that closes many doors of perception.