LinuxPasar páginas
Upaniṣads · Muktikā 2.53
॥
Devanāgarī
ब्रह्माकारमनोवृत्तिप्रवाहोऽहंकृतं विना । सम्प्रज्ञातसमाधिः स्याद्ध्यानाभ्यासप्रकर्षतः
Transliteración (IAST)
brahmākāramanovṛttipravāho'haṃkṛtaṃ vinā | samprajñātasamādhiḥ syāddhyānābhyāsaprakarṣataḥ
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
ब्रह्म-आकार-मनः-वृत्ति-brahma-ākāra-manaḥ-vṛtti-the stream of the mind's movement
प्रवाहः अहंकृतं विनाpravāhaḥ ahaṃkṛtaṃ vinātaking the form of brahman, without egoism
सम्प्रज्ञात-समाधिः स्यात्samprajñāta-samādhiḥ syātis samādhi with cognition
ध्यान-अभ्यास-प्रकर्षतःdhyāna-abhyāsa-prakarṣataḥfrom excellence in the practice of contemplation
Traducción
«A stream of the mind's movement, taking the form of brahman, without egoism — that is samādhi with cognition, from excellence in the practice of contemplation».
Versión
60c789e6b2ee · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
A definition of samprajñāta-samādhi, «concentration with cognition», is given, and it is exact; worth examining it. It says: this is a pravāha, «stream», of the mind's movements, taking the form of brahman, and moreover ahaṃkṛtaṃ vinā, «without egoism». Worth noting both words.
Stream: that is, the mind's movement is not stopped, but flows; and flows evenly, like oil, of which it was spoken at Varāha (5.69). Without egoism: that is, what is taken away is not the movement, but the claiming of it as one's own. This definition, I think, is the best of all given for samādhi in these books, and it removes the objection made when reading Saubhāgyalakṣmī (2.17), where four neighboring verses gave four different definitions.
The Vaishnava side accepts this definition entirely and has its own the same; and it was said at Jābāla-darśana (1.5) that its samādhi is a mind unceasingly occupied with the Lord. Add what it adds to this, its one and only correction. It is said «taking the form of brahman»; it reads «the form of him» — and it was said at Varāha (5.32) that concentration requires an object, and a state cannot be an object.
That is, the dispute is not over the structure of samādhi, but only over whose form the stream takes.