LinuxTurn pages
Upanishads · Muktikā 2.32
॥
Devanāgarī
द्विविधचित्तनाशोऽस्ति सरूपोऽरूप एव च । जीवन्मुक्तः सरूपः स्यादरूपो देहमुक्तिगः
Transliteration (IAST)
dvividhacittanāśo'sti sarūpo'rūpa eva ca | jīvanmuktaḥ sarūpaḥ syādarūpo dehamuktigaḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
द्वि-विध-चित्त-नाशः अस्तिdvi-vidha-citta-nāśaḥ astitwofold is the destruction of mind
स-रूपः अ-रूपः एव चsa-rūpaḥ a-rūpaḥ eva cawith form and formless
जीवत्-मुक्तः स-रूपः स्यात्jīvat-muktaḥ sa-rūpaḥ syātfor the one liberated while alive — with form
अ-रूपः देह-मुक्ति-गःa-rūpaḥ deha-mukti-gaḥformless — for one going to bodiless liberation
Translation
«The destruction of mind is twofold: with form and formless. For the one liberated while alive it is with form; formless — for one going to bodiless liberation».
Version
b8b6d82f4153 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
A distinction is given that is worth stating, for it saves the preceding verses from absurdity. It is said: the destruction of mind is sa-rūpa, «with form», and a-rūpa, without form. The first — for the living: he keeps his form and continues to walk, speak, and act; what is destroyed is not consciousness but its bondage.
The second — for the one who has left the body. That is, all the earlier talk of «unconsciousness», by this distinction, does not refer to the living; and the living liberated one keeps everything but the tether. This detail, I think, is the best in this part of the chapter and removes the objection made when reading the twenty-eighth verse.
The Vaishnava side accepts this distinction and has its own the same; and its jīvan-mukta, spoken of at Varāha (4.21–4.30), are described exactly so: they live amid deeds, are equal in joy and sorrow, cool as in another's affair. Add what it adds to the second and where it parts ways. By its teaching, even after leaving the body the form does not vanish: one receives sārūpya, «oneness of form», spoken of at the first chapter (1.21).
That is, for it there is no arūpa at all: a material form is exchanged for an immaterial form, not for the absence of form. And its argument is the same as always: one cannot serve without a form, and service does not cease.