LinuxTurn pages
Upanishads · Muktikā 2.68
॥
Devanāgarī
बद्धो हि वासनाबद्धो मोक्षः स्याद्वासनाक्षयः । वासनां सम्परित्यज्य मोक्षार्थित्वमपि त्यज
Transliteration (IAST)
baddho hi vāsanābaddho mokṣaḥ syādvāsanākṣayaḥ | vāsanāṃ samparityajya mokṣārthitvamapi tyaja
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
बद्धः हि वासना-बद्धःbaddhaḥ hi vāsanā-baddhaḥbound indeed is one bound by habit
मोक्षः स्यात् वासना-क्षयःmokṣaḥ syāt vāsanā-kṣayaḥliberation is the exhaustion of habit
वासनां सम्परित्यज्यvāsanāṃ samparityajyahaving fully abandoned habit
मोक्ष-अर्थित्वम् अपि त्यजmokṣa-arthitvam api tyajaabandon too the desire for liberation
Translation
«Bound indeed is one bound by habit; liberation is the exhaustion of habit. Having fully abandoned habit, abandon too the very desire for liberation».
Version
be06d8358b4f · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
Here is a forceful verse, and worth noting in it is the last half-line: mokṣārthitvam api tyaja, «abandon even the desire for liberation itself». That is, even the wish for freedom is cast off. This construction is consistent: if every desire binds, then the desire to be free binds too; and the book carries its own to the end, not stopping short of the uncomfortable.
This is worth crediting. The Vaishnava side holds this position as its own and states it more sharply than any; and its verse on this account was cited at Saubhāgyalakṣmī (1.11). Let it be repeated: Rūpa Gosvāmī says bhukti-mukti-spṛhā yāvat piśācī hṛdi vartate, «as long as the ghost of the desire for enjoyment and for liberation sits in the heart, there is no happiness of devotion».
That is, for him the thirst for liberation is named just such a hindrance as the thirst for enjoyment, and both — one and the same ghost. Add what it puts in place of what is abandoned, for one cannot abandon desire without another, having nothing else. Its position is this: what is abandoned is desire for oneself, not desire as such; and in place of «I wish to be free» rises «I wish to serve».
And this distinction, I think, is the only one under which the prescription given here becomes workable: to abandon all wanting is impossible, but to change its object — is possible.