Upaniṣads · Pañcabrahma 30
॥
Devanāgarī
एकेन लोहमणिना सर्वं लोहमयं यथा । विज्ञातं स्यादथैकेन नखानां कृन्तनेन च
Transliteración (IAST)
ekena lohamaṇinā sarvaṃ lohamayaṃ yathā | vijñātaṃ syādathaikena nakhānāṃ kṛntanena ca
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
एकेन लोह-मणिनाekena loha-maṇināby one piece of gold
सर्वं लोह-मयं यथाsarvaṃ loha-mayaṃ yathāeverything made of gold, as
विज्ञातं स्यात् अथ एकेनvijñātaṃ syāt atha ekenawould be known; and by one
नखानां कृन्तनेन चnakhānāṃ kṛntanena capair of nail-scissors
Traducción
"As by one piece of gold everything made of gold would be known; and by one pair of nail-scissors …"
Versión
1915d002d1ce · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
The second and third comparisons of the Chāndogya are cited: gold and iron. In the original the second reads: "as by one gold ornament all that is made of gold is known" (6.1.5); the third: "as by one pair of iron nail-scissors all that is made of iron is known" (6.1.6). It is worth noting that there are three comparisons, and they do not repeat one another needlessly.
Clay is a soft substance, molded; gold is precious, forged; iron is coarse, made into tools. That is, three classes of substance are taken: the cheap, the costly, and the workaday. This repetition is a device of persuasion: what holds true for three such different cases is taken to hold true in general.
The Vaiṣṇava side makes here too a remark worth citing. In all three examples the subject is the inanimate: clay, gold, iron. None of them knows, wills, or remembers.
And on three examples of the inanimate a conclusion is built about the animate: about the soul and about God. We cited this objection when reading the Jābāla-darśana (6.13), where the image of space in a pot was examined; and it is the same here. Let us add just one thing. A pot can be kneaded back into a lump, and nothing is lost: the pot knew nothing and was attached to nothing. But if this were done to one who knows and loves, there would be a loss — and the loss of precisely that for whose sake the conversation is being conducted.
Hence these comparisons prove exactly what they are fit to prove: that the effect is not a different substance. They cannot be stretched further, and the rule of "one part" was discussed when reading the Mahāvākya (p11).