Upanishads · Pañcabrahma 32
॥
Devanāgarī
तद्रूपेण सदा सत्यं भेदेनोक्तिर्मृषा खलु । तच्च कारणमेकं हि न भिन्नं नोभयात्मकम्
Transliteration (IAST)
tadrūpeṇa sadā satyaṃ bhedenoktirmṛṣā khalu | tacca kāraṇamekaṃ hi na bhinnaṃ nobhayātmakam
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
तत्-रूपेण सदा सत्यंtat-rūpeṇa sadā satyaṃin that form it is always true
भेदेन उक्तिः मृषा खलुbhedena uktiḥ mṛṣā khalua statement by difference is indeed false
तत् च कारणम् एकं हिtat ca kāraṇam ekaṃ hiand that cause is one
न भिन्नं न उभय-आत्मकम्na bhinnaṃ na ubhaya-ātmakamnot different, not twofold
Translation
"In that form it is always true; a statement by difference is indeed false. And that cause is one — not different, not twofold."
Version
f46f1b2a5f39 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
It is said bhedena uktir mṛṣā, "a statement by difference is false." Here it is worth pausing, for this assertion, taken fully, turns against itself. Let us examine it. It is asserted: every statement that distinguishes is false.
But this very assertion distinguishes: it separates the true from the false, the cause from the effect, the one from the many. Without distinguishing it could not have been stated. Hence it is false by its own rule.
This objection is old in Indian literature and is known as sva-vacana-virodha, "contradiction of one's own statement"; it is brought up every time a teaching denies what it itself makes use of. The opposing side answers as follows, and the answer is worth citing in full, so the dispute is stated honestly. It says: the teaching of the falsity of distinctions is itself a means, not a final truth. It works like a medicine that is expelled together with the illness; and Gauḍapāda directly compares it to the two sticks used to kindle fire, which are themselves burned up in it.
The answer is coherent. It is worth noting, however, what it costs: it removes the teaching from scrutiny. Any objection can be turned aside by saying that the objection is made at a level that is itself to be canceled.
The Vaiṣṇava side holds against this the rule discussed when reading the Gaṇapati (2.2): not to declare part of the book conditional. An interpretation that has nothing to cancel explains the book better than one that does.