LinuxPasar páginas
Upaniṣads · Saubhāgyalakṣmī 2.13
॥
Devanāgarī
अहंभावं परित्यज्य जगद्भावमनीदृशम् । निर्विकल्पे स्थितो विद्वान्भूयो नाप्यनुशोचति
Transliteración (IAST)
ahaṃbhāvaṃ parityajya jagadbhāvamanīdṛśam | nirvikalpe sthito vidvānbhūyo nāpyanuśocati
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
अहं-भावं परित्यज्यahaṃ-bhāvaṃ parityajyahaving abandoned the state of "I"
जगत्-भावम् अनीदृशम्jagat-bhāvam anīdṛśamand the state of the world, unlike it
निर्विकल्पे स्थितः विद्वान्nirvikalpe sthitaḥ vidvānestablished in the unqualified, the knower
भूयः न अपि अनुशोचतिbhūyaḥ na api anuśocatigrieves no more
Traducción
"Having abandoned the state of 'I' and the state of the world unlike it — the knower, established in the unqualified, grieves no more."
Versión
84c3ead4be4f · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
It is worth noting the last word: na anuśocati, "grieves no more." The verb anu-śoc is the very one with which the Gītā's instruction begins: aśocyān anvaśocas tvam, "you grieve over what should not be grieved over" (2.11). That is, the goal is defined here the same way as there: to cease grieving.
It is worth comparing, however, by what means grief is removed in the two places, for the distinction is decisive here. Here — by abandoning both "I" and the world: one ceases to grieve because there is no one and nothing to grieve over. In the Gītā — by showing that the soul is not born and does not die, and that the rest is the fulfillment of duty; and further, by giving an object: mām ekaṃ śaraṇaṃ vraja.
That is, in one case grief departs with emptying, in the other with filling. Let us add what the Vaiṣṇava side says about grief itself, for its position here is peculiar. It does not consider all grief an evil: grief over separation from Him is counted by it as a supreme state and is called viraha.
That is, its goal is not griefless-ness, but a change in what is grieved over; and so its accomplished ones are described as weeping, whereas the one here does not grieve at all. This distinction, to my mind, is the clearest of all we have discussed: one teaching wants it not to hurt, the other wants it to hurt over what is worth hurting over.