Vedāntic Commentaries on the Īśā-upanisad

Između mnogih komentara uz kratku, ali vrlo slavnu Īśā-upanisad ovaj rad izabire komentare Sankare, Venkatanāthe i Madhve kao najtipičnije izraze monističkoga pristupa (advaita), pristupa diferenciranoga monizma (visistadvaita) i dualističkoga pristupa tumačenju upanisadske objave (sruti). Rad se usredotočuje na ono što je najznačajnije za svaku od triju škola te na ono u čemu se tri glasovita komentatora najmanje slažu. Sankari je potrebno razlikovati više i niže znanje, odnosno viši i niži brahman da bi pomirio različite izričaje u upanisadi sa svojim monističkim nazorom, pripisujući ono što se s njime ne slaže razini nižega znanja ili znanja o nižem brahmanu. S druge strane Venkatanātha, koji priznaje različitost duše od Boga i stvarnost svijeta, može izravnije, s manje teoretičarskoga razlikovnog aparata tumačiti riječi upanisadi. To vrijedi i za Madhvu, no on često iznosi svoje teološke nazore koji ne proizlaze iz riječi Īśā-upanisadi.Among the many commentaries on the brief but renowned Īśā-upanisad, the author of this article has decided upon the commentaries of Sankara, Venkatanatha and Madhva as representing, respectively, the most characteristic expression of the monistic approach (advaita), the approach of differentiated monism (visistadvaita), and the dualistic approach to the interpretation of upaniùadic revelation (sruti). This work focuses upon what is most relevant in each of the above schools and upon the most important distinctions between these three renowned schools. Sankara is compelled to differentiate higher and lower knowledge, i.e. higher and lower “brahman”, in order to reconcile various utterances in the upaniùads with their monistic view. Whatsoever is not in agreement with this view is ascribed to the level of lower knowledge, i.e. to the level of the lower “brahman”. On the other hand Venkatanatha, who acknowledges the distinction between the soul and God and the reality of the world, can interpret the upaniùadic utterances more straightforwardly, without the excessive usage of theoretical devices. The same can be said for Madhva, even though he often brings forward theological views which do not have their source in the words of the Īśā-upanisad