Upaniṣads · Mahāvākya p16
॥
Devanāgarī
धाता पुरस्ताद्यमुदाजहार । शक्रः प्रविद्वान्प्रदिशश्चतस्रः
Transliteración (IAST)
dhātā purastādyamudājahāra | śakraḥ pravidvānpradiśaścatasraḥ
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
धाता पुरस्तात् यम् उदाजहारdhātā purastāt yam udājahārawhom the Creator first proclaimed
शक्रः प्र-विद्वान् प्रदिशः चतस्रःśakraḥ pra-vidvān pradiśaḥ catasraḥŚakra, having known, [declared] in the four directions
Traducción
«Whom the Creator first proclaimed; Śakra, having known, [declared] in the four directions.»
Versión
c75e92940d22 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
This line is taken, with alterations, from the Śvetāśvatara (3.4), and speaks of transmission: the Creator proclaimed, Indra came to know and declared it in the four directions. Note the structure: knowledge moves from above downward and outward. This order is the usual description of succession in Indian books, and we examined it reading the Jābāla-darśana (7.9). The Gītā states the same at the start of its fourth chapter: “I told this imperishable yoga to Vivasvān; Vivasvān told it to Manu; Manu told Ikṣvāku” (4.1).
Let us add here what we have not noted before, and what matters in these genealogies. In all of them, knowledge is transmitted to persons, not to classes or institutions. Names are given: Vivasvān, Manu, Ikṣvāku; here, Dhātṛ and Śakra.
The consequence of this is not small. A teaching transmitted from person to person breaks off if there is no one to transmit it to; and the Gītā says plainly that exactly this happened: “over the long course of time this yoga was lost here” (4.2). This admission deserves note as a rare one. Traditions usually assert their own continuity; here it is stated directly that it was broken.
The Vaiṣṇava side accepts this admission and uses it to explain the need for new appearances: where the chain has snapped, it is retied, and hence its own reckoning includes a sampradāya, “succession,” with an indication of by whom exactly it was restored. Let us add what follows from this in practice. A tradition should be tested not by whether it calls itself ancient — all of them do — but by whether it can name names.