LinuxTurn pages
Upanishads · Śāṭyāyanīya 16
॥
Devanāgarī
ज्ञानयज्ञः स विज्ञेयः सर्वयज्ञोत्तमोत्तमः । ज्ञानदण्डा ज्ञानशिखा ज्ञानयज्ञोपवीतिनः
Transliteration (IAST)
jñānayajñaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sarvayajñottamottamaḥ | jñānadaṇḍā jñānaśikhā jñānayajñopavītinaḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
ज्ञान-यज्ञः सः विज्ञेयःjñāna-yajñaḥ saḥ vijñeyaḥthe sacrifice of knowledge is to be known
सर्व-यज्ञ-उत्तम-उत्तमःsarva-yajña-uttama-uttamaḥas the very best of all sacrifices
ज्ञान-दण्डाः ज्ञान-शिखाःjñāna-daṇḍāḥ jñāna-śikhāḥwith the staff of knowledge, the tuft of knowledge
ज्ञान-यज्ञ-उपवीतिनःjñāna-yajña-upavītinaḥwith the thread of the sacrifice of knowledge
Translation
"That should be known as the sacrifice of knowledge, the very best of all sacrifices; [they are] with the staff of knowledge, the tuft of knowledge, with the thread of the sacrifice of knowledge."
Version
2e01771763e3 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
A fifth sacrifice is named — jñāna-yajña, "the sacrifice of knowledge" — and it is declared the highest. This definition is worth comparing with the Gītā, where it is also found: śreyān dravya-mayād yajñāj jñāna-yajñaḥ parantapa (4.33), "the sacrifice of knowledge is better than a sacrifice of substance." There, as here, knowledge is preferred to material offering.
It is worth noting, however, that in the same chapter the Gītā places something else even above knowledge; and that it ends not with knowledge but with śaraṇam, "refuge" (18.66), was discussed when reading the tenth verse. Let us add the second half of this verse, which is more curious than the first. It is said: they have jñāna-daṇḍa, "the staff of knowledge," jñāna-śikhā, "the tuft of knowledge," jñāna-yogyopavīta, "the thread of knowledge."
That is, the outward marks are interpreted inwardly: the staff is knowledge, the tuft is knowledge, the thread is knowledge. This device we noted when reading the Varāha (5.58), where breath was interpreted as the absorbing of scripture; and it is, to my mind, the finest thing religious literature knows how to do with its own things. Let us add, however, what must be said about the danger of such interpretation, for it shows itself right away.
If the staff is knowledge, why a wooden one? This is precisely how those who cast off the marks reason; and this book, having said in the ninth verse that one who abandons the manifest falls, here at once gives an argument against itself. Its own answer, apparently, is the same as the Vaiṣṇava one: both together; and the next verse will say so directly.