Upaniṣads · Bhasmajābāla 2.66
॥
Devanāgarī
चतुर्जालं ब्रह्मकोशम् । यन्मृत्युर्नावपश्यति । यं ब्रह्मा नावपश्यति । यं विष्णुर्नावपश्यति । यमिन्द्राग्नी नावपश्येताम् । यं वरुणादयो नावपश्यन्ति
Transliteración (IAST)
caturjālaṃ brahmakośam | yanmṛtyurnāvapaśyati | yaṃ brahmā nāvapaśyati | yaṃ viṣṇurnāvapaśyati | yamindrāgnī nāvapaśyetām | yaṃ varuṇādayo nāvapaśyanti
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
चतुर्-जालं ब्रह्म-कोशम्catur-jālaṃ brahma-kośamthe fourfold net, the treasury of Brahman
यत् मृत्युः न अवपश्यतिyat mṛtyuḥ na avapaśyatiwhich death does not see
यं ब्रह्मा न अवपश्यतिyaṃ brahmā na avapaśyatiwhich Brahmā does not see
यं विष्णुः न अवपश्यतिyaṃ viṣṇuḥ na avapaśyatiwhich Viṣṇu does not see
यं वरुण-आदयः न अवपश्यन्तिyaṃ varuṇa-ādayaḥ na avapaśyantiwhich Varuṇa and the rest do not see
Traducción
«The fourfold net, the treasury of Brahman, which death does not see, which Brahmā does not see, which Viṣṇu does not see, which Indra and Agni did not see, which Varuṇa and the rest do not see».
Versión
fe5f06c86130 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
Those who do not see are listed: death, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Indra, Agni, Varuṇa. This device is ancient in the upaniṣads, and its original meaning deserves being restored, for here it is used differently. In the Kena-upaniṣad it is told how the gods, grown proud of a victory, were confronted by an unknown yakṣa. Agni could not burn a blade of straw, Vāyu could not move it, Indra approached — and the yakṣa vanished; and only then were they told by whose power they had won (Kena 3).
The meaning there is clear and establishes no superiority of one god over another: it is that the highest is not an object for any faculty. «There the eye does not go, nor speech, nor mind» (Kena 1.3) — and the gods are listed not as rivals but as the finest of the seeing, on whom it is shown that even the finest sight is not enough. Here the same device is used with a name added, and this addition shifts the tone. It is one thing to say «no sight sees this, not even a god's»; it is another to name a neighboring god by name in a list of the incapable.
To my mind, it is worth reading this in the first sense, and here is why. In the same list stand Brahmā, Indra, Agni, Varuṇa, and death itself — that is, everything by which anything at all is perceived is listed; and the purpose of the list is to exhaust the faculties, not to rank the gods by precedence. The Vaishnava side answers such passages with the same argument it uses for the rest: it is useless to argue over who fails to see what in whose books; one must look at what is said of whom on the substance of the matter, and where the subject is described, rather than merely placed in a list, it is there that it carries weight.