LinuxPasar páginas
Upaniṣads · Sarasvatīrahasya 4.15
॥
Devanāgarī
सा माया स्ववशोपाधिः सर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्य हि । वश्यमायत्वमेकत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं च तस्य तु
Transliteración (IAST)
sā māyā svavaśopādhiḥ sarvajñasyeśvarasya hi | vaśyamāyatvamekatvaṃ sarvajñatvaṃ ca tasya tu
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
सा माया स्व-वश-उपाधिःsā māyā sva-vaśa-upādhiḥthat māyā is the subordinate limiting adjunct
सर्व-ज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्य हिsarva-jñasya īśvarasya hiof the all-knowing Lord
वश्य-मायात्वम् एकत्वंvaśya-māyātvam ekatvaṃmastery over māyā, unity
सर्व-ज्ञत्वं च तस्य तुsarva-jñatvaṃ ca tasya tuand omniscience are his
Traducción
That māyā is the subordinate limiting adjunct of the all-knowing Lord; and mastery over māyā, unity, and omniscience are His.
Versión
5d4839bf6c49 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
It is worth noting the phrase sva-vaśa-upādhi, "a subordinate limiting adjunct," and vaśya-māyātva, "mastery over māyā." That is, the Lord has māyā under his power, while the soul is under māyā's power; and this is a common distinction in Śaiva and Vedāntic books. The definition is good, and the Vaiṣṇava side accepts it almost entirely; her own is stated in the Gītā: māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyān māyinaṃ tu maheśvaram, "know māyā as nature, and the master of māyā as the great Lord" (Śvetāśvatara 4.10).
And there too the Gītā says: daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī mama māyā duratyayā; mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṃ taranti te, "this divine māyā of Mine, consisting of the guṇas, is hard to overcome; but those who take refuge in Me alone cross over this māyā" (7.14). It is worth noting what this verse says and how it opposes the present exposition. There māyā is called mama, "Mine"; that is, it belongs to Him, rather than defining Him.
Here, however, it is called upādhi, "a defining adjunct" — that is, that by which He is defined as the Lord; and without it He would not be the Lord. The distinction here is decisive: in one case the Lord is the owner of māyā, in the other He is a consequence of her presence. And the whole dispute between the two schools can be reduced to this one question: does He exist prior to māyā?