/lit/ - Literature

>>18443536
No problem anon, best of luck. If you read all three of those intro texts, which can be done in a day or two, you will have an easier time with his commentaries.

Here is an explanation of the first page of his Isa commentary btw, just as an example of how it makes sense

>The (Vedic) mantras (verse) beginning with Isavasyam have not been utilised in karma (rituals etc) for they serve to reveal the true nature of the Self, which is not an appendage to karma.
Here, he is saying that unlike the Vedic passages explaining how to perform Vedic rituals, the Upanishads (in this case the Isa) don't have any connection with karma, but they simply reveal the true nature of the Atman (Self).

>The real nature of the Self consists in Its purity, sinlessness, oneness, eternity, incorporeity, omnipresence, etc. which will be indicated later one (Is. 8).
He is is saying the real nature of the Atman, which the Upanishad and other Upanishads reveal, is exactly as how he describes it

>As that (nature) would conflict with karma, it is but natural that the verses are not applied to karma; for neither is the Self in Its real nature, as defined, a thing to be created, transformed, achieved, or purified, nor is It of the nature of an agent or enjoyer, whereby It could become a factor in karma.
Here he says that since the Atman (Self) is pure, sinless, eternal, omnipresent, the verses that reveal the nature of the Atman have no connection with karma, because karma and ceremonies presupposes a multiplicity of actors engaging in actions using means to pursue ends and receiving the resulting fruits thereof, but the omnipresent Self that isn't an agent doesn't engage in action and thus has no connection with karma that is acquired from actions and rituals

>Moreover, all the Upanishads exhaust themselves simply by determining the true nature of the Self...
this part is obivous

>Accordingly, all karmas have been enjoined by assuming such qualities for the Self as multiplicity, agentship, enjoyership, etc and impurity, sinfulness, etc which common sense takes for granted
here he says that the Vedic passages enjoining the performance of Vedic rites (spoken of figuratively by that which they produce, i.e. karma) is for people who are not ready for knowledge of the true nature of the Self, and who following common sense take their self to be an agent that enjoys and sins amidst a multiplicity of actions, means and ends, so because of this they take the Vedic passages dealing with rites+karma as applying to themselves because they don't know the omnipresent sinless Self which the passages are inapplicable to

and so on