LinuxPasar páginas
Upaniṣads · Sarasvatīrahasya 4.21
॥
Devanāgarī
आवृतौ तु विनष्टायां भेदे भातेऽपयाति तत् । तथा सर्गब्रह्मणोश्च भेदमावृत्य तिष्ठति
Transliteración (IAST)
āvṛtau tu vinaṣṭāyāṃ bhede bhāte'payāti tat | tathā sargabrahmaṇośca bhedamāvṛtya tiṣṭhati
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
आवृतौ तु विनष्टायांāvṛtau tu vinaṣṭāyāṃbut when the veil is destroyed
भेदे भाते अपयाति तत्bhede bhāte apayāti tatand difference has appeared, it [the living-being-ness] departs
तथा सर्ग-ब्रह्मणोः चtathā sarga-brahmaṇoḥ caso too, of creation and brahman
भेदम् आवृत्य तिष्ठतिbhedam āvṛtya tiṣṭhatiit stands, covering the difference
Traducción
But when the veil is destroyed and difference has appeared, it [the living-being-ness] departs; so too [the veil] stands covering the difference of creation and brahman.
Versión
631b7c483c93 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
Here is a passage worth examining with the utmost attention, for it says literally the opposite of what is usually drawn from it. It is said: āvṛtau tu vinaṣṭāyāṃ bhede bhāte apayāti tat, "when the veil is destroyed and difference has appeared, it departs." That is, upon the removal of the veil, difference appears, and it is the superimposed living-being-ness that departs.
We noted this when reading the eighteenth verse as a conclusion from the construction itself; here it is said in words. It is worth voicing what follows from this. If the veil covers difference, then removing the veil is the uncovering of difference, not merging.
The school reads this thus: the difference between witness and subtle body appears, and so the false identification falls away. This reading is correct; and the Vaiṣṇava side accepts it entirely. Her argument consists only in this: the same must be applied to the second veil as well — between creation and brahman.
If the removal of the first veil reveals that I am not the body, the removal of the second reveals that the world is not brahman; and in both cases what is revealed is difference, not identity. That is, by her reckoning, this school carries her own device only halfway: where difference is useful to her, she uncovers it; where it is disadvantageous, she declares it to disappear. And this, to my mind, is the most essential objection that can be made anywhere in this book.