LinuxTurn pages
Upanishads · Muktikā 2.28
॥
Devanāgarī
असङ्गव्यवहारत्वाद्भवभावनवर्जनात् । शरीरनाशदर्शित्वाद्वासना न प्रवर्तते । वासनासम्परित्यागाच्चितं गच्छत्यचित्तताम्
Transliteration (IAST)
asaṅgavyavahāratvādbhavabhāvanavarjanāt | śarīranāśadarśitvādvāsanā na pravartate | vāsanāsamparityāgāccitaṃ gacchatyacittatām
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
अ-सङ्ग-व्यवहारत्वात्a-saṅga-vyavahāratvātfrom unattached dealing in affairs
भव-भावन-वर्जनात्bhava-bhāvana-varjanātfrom abandoning the notion of existence
शरीर-नाश-दर्शित्वात्śarīra-nāśa-darśitvātfrom seeing the destruction of the body
वासना न प्रवर्ततेvāsanā na pravartatehabit does not move
वासना-सम्परित्यागात्vāsanā-samparityāgātfrom full abandonment of habit
चित्तं गच्छति अ-चित्तताम्cittaṃ gacchati a-cittatāmmind comes to unconsciousness
Translation
«From unattached dealing in affairs, from abandoning the notion of existence, from seeing the destruction of the body, habit does not move; and from full abandonment of habit, mind comes to unconsciousness».
Version
b2608a63c5f3 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
Three means are named, and worth noting are the second and third, for they are of a different order. Asaṅga-vyavahāratva, «unattached dealing in affairs», is the very thing examined at the twenty-third verse: doing without being colored. Śarīra-nāśa-darśitva, «seeing the destruction of the body», is the remembrance of death, spoken of at many books.
And the middle one — bhāva-bhāvana-varjana, «abandoning the notion of existence» — is already something else: not a relation to deeds and not remembrance of the end, but the refusal to hold the world as real. Add what all this leads to: cittaṃ gacchaty acittatām, «mind comes to unconsciousness». Here the Vaishnava side objects, and its objection is the very one carried through this entire collection; let it be repeated once more, briefly.
The word acittatā, «unconsciousness», is a negation of consciousness; and an ultimate so named is indistinguishable from a swoon — neither from within nor from without. Its argument was cited at Varāha (4.14) and Saubhāgyalakṣmī (3.8): if the ultimate is likened to the unconscious, the ultimate has been chosen wrongly, for the measure of fullness is not silence but content. Add what this very book gives against such a reading: in its first chapter (1.50) it was said sa mām eti, «he comes to me»; and one does not come to someone unconsciously.