LinuxTurn pages
Upanishads · Sarasvatīrahasya 4.24
॥
Devanāgarī
आद्यत्रयं ब्रह्मरूपं जगद्रूपं ततो द्वयम् । अपेक्ष्य नामरूपद्वे सच्चिदानन्दतत्परः
Transliteration (IAST)
ādyatrayaṃ brahmarūpaṃ jagadrūpaṃ tato dvayam | apekṣya nāmarūpadve saccidānandatatparaḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
आद्य-त्रयं ब्रह्म-रूपंādya-trayaṃ brahma-rūpaṃthe first three are the form of brahman
जगत्-रूपं ततः द्वयम्jagat-rūpaṃ tataḥ dvayamand then the two are the form of the world
अपेक्ष्य नाम-रूप-द्वेapekṣya nāma-rūpa-dvehaving set aside name and form, these two
सत्-चित्-आनन्द-तत्-परःsat-cit-ānanda-tat-paraḥlet one be devoted to being, consciousness, and bliss
Translation
The first three are the form of brahman, and the next two are the form of the world; having set aside these two, name and form, let one be devoted to being, consciousness, and bliss.
Version
721696028fe5 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
The conclusion is drawn, and here the Vaiṣṇava side objects; it is worth examining the objection in order, for it is, to my mind, the chief one in the whole book. It is said: name and form are worldly; cast them aside, and being, consciousness, and bliss remain. The construction is coherent; and everything in it is correct but one step.
It is true that the name and form of a pot are worldly: the pot has no name of its own, and its form is made by the potter. But it does not follow from this that every name and every form are worldly. The Vaiṣṇava position was cited more than once and is stated thus: for Him, name and form are not superimposed but His own; and the suffix rūpin, denoting possession, was discussed when reading the Hayagrīva (1.1).
The Brahma-saṃhitā (5.1) says: sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, "having a body of being, consciousness, and bliss"; that is, the very three portions one is here told to keep there constitute His very form. Read this way, "cast aside name and form" applies to the name and form of things, not to His name; and one who casts aside every name along with pot-names casts aside also that by which He is called. Let us add what follows from this practically, for here lies the whole difference of the two practices.
If a name is worldly, repetition of the name is a lower occupation, and the highest one does without it. If the name is His own, repetition is a touch; and that the name and the named are not distinguished in the calling was discussed when reading the Hayagrīva (2.p4).