Upanishads · Varāha 2.11
॥
Devanāgarī
स्वपूर्णात्मातिरेकेण जगज्जीवेश्वरादयः । न सन्ति नास्ति माया च तेभ्यश्चाहं विलक्षणः
Transliteration (IAST)
svapūrṇātmātirekeṇa jagajjīveśvarādayaḥ | na santi nāsti māyā ca tebhyaścāhaṃ vilakṣaṇaḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
स्व-पूर्ण-आत्म-अतिरेकेणsva-pūrṇa-ātma-atirekeṇabesides one's own full self
जगत्-जीव-ईश्वर-आदयःjagat-jīva-īśvara-ādayaḥthe world, living beings, the Lord, and the rest
न सन्तिna santido not exist
न अस्ति माया चna asti māyā caand there is no maya
तेभ्यः च अहं विलक्षणःtebhyaḥ ca ahaṃ vilakṣaṇaḥand from them I am distinct
Translation
"Besides one's own full self, the world, living beings, the Lord, and the rest do not exist, and there is no maya; and from them I am distinct."
Version
7f0dfa39ddcc · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
Here is a line where nondualist teaching is stated with full decisiveness: there is neither world, nor souls, nor Lord. It deserves careful examination, for it contains a contradiction within itself. It is said: they do not exist; and right there — tebhyash chaham vilakshanah, "and from them I am distinct."
But one can only be distinct from something that exists. To say "it does not exist, and I am distinct from it" is to say two things, the second of which cancels the first. This objection is no quibble: it is the same argument made when reading the Panchabrahma (32), where the statement "a statement of difference is false" was itself a differentiation.
Let us add a second point relevant to this line. In the list of the nonexistent stands ishvara, "the Lord" — that is, the very One who utters this line. For, by the book, it is the boar-formed Lord who speaks it; and He says the Lord does not exist.
The contradiction here is complete, and can only be explained by supposing the verse is taken from another work and inserted here without reconciliation; such insertions are common in later Upanishads. The Vaishnava side, in such cases, holds to a rule discussed when reading the Ganapati (2.2): not to declare part of a book conditional, but to seek a reading under which both halves hold. Here no such reading exists, and we do not conceal this: this line and the one where the boar calls himself Vishnu (2.8) cannot be reconciled in any way.