Upanishads · Varāha 2.21
॥
Devanāgarī
चिन्मात्रं सर्वगं नित्यं सम्पूर्णं सुखमद्वयम् । साक्षाद्ब्रह्मैव नान्योऽस्तीत्येवं ब्रह्मविदां स्थितिः
Transliteration (IAST)
cinmātraṃ sarvagaṃ nityaṃ sampūrṇaṃ sukhamadvayam | sākṣādbrahmaiva nānyo'stītyevaṃ brahmavidāṃ sthitiḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
चित्-मात्रं सर्व-गं नित्यंcit-mātraṃ sarva-gaṃ nityaṃconsciousness alone, all-pervading, eternal
सम्पूर्णं सुखम् अ-द्वयम्sampūrṇaṃ sukham a-dvayamfull, blissful, non-dual
साक्षात् ब्रह्म एवsākṣāt brahma evadirectly, brahman itself
न अन्यः अस्तिna anyaḥ astiand there is no other
इति एवं ब्रह्म-विदां स्थितिःiti evaṃ brahma-vidāṃ sthitiḥthus is the state of the knowers of brahman
Translation
"'Consciousness alone, all-pervading, eternal, full, blissful, non-dual — directly brahman itself, and there is no other' — such is the state of the knowers of brahman."
Version
3d68ac059ec0 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
Worth noting is that the verse ends with the word sthiti, "state," not "truth." That is, it does not say "it is thus," but "such is the state of the knowers of brahman." We noted this difference when reading the Yajnavalkya (23), where a verse on universal consciousness ended in the imperative bhavaya, "reflect"; and it was said there that a description does not occur in the imperative mood.
Here the same is done differently: what is said is referred to the state of the contemplator, not to the object. This nuance deserves holding onto, for it runs through all similar lines. A person in deep concentration truly does not differentiate; and to describe his state with the words "there is no other" is accurate.
But from his not differentiating, it does not follow that there are no differences; just as from a sleeper's not seeing the room, it does not follow that the room does not exist. The Vaishnava side stands on exactly this: it does not deny the state and does not dispute the description; it disputes the inference from the state to the structure of the world. Let us add what it points to as a check on this. The state passes; the person emerges from it — and finds the world in place, and himself as before.
Were the inference correct, there would be no one to emerge, and nowhere to emerge into.