तस्मान्मुमुक्षिभिर्नैव मतिर्जीवेशवादयोः । कार्या किन्तु ब्रह्मतत्त्वं निश्चलेन विचार्यताम् ॥ 56। अद्वितीयब्रह्मतत्त्वं न जानन्ति यथा तथा । भ्रान्ता एवाखिलास्तेषां क्व मुक्तिः क्वेह वा सुखम्
tasmānmumukṣibhirnaiva matirjīveśavādayoḥ | kāryā kintu brahmatattvaṃ niścalena vicāryatām || 56| advitīyabrahmatattvaṃ na jānanti yathā tathā | bhrāntā evākhilāsteṣāṃ kva muktiḥ kveha vā sukham
"Therefore, those seeking liberation should not devote their understanding to discourses on the living being and the lord, but should unwaveringly examine the truth of brahman. Since they do not know the non-dual truth of brahman, all are deluded; where, for them, is liberation, where here is happiness?"
72ff57b38723 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
The verse rejects both teachings: on the living being, and on the Lord; and commands examining the nondual alone. Worth noting is that this is the most decisive passage in the whole book, and we do not soften it. Let us say, however, what deserves saying of its place in the book.
It stands between the verse bidding one reflect on Him and speak of Him with others (2.46), and the verses where the book will again turn to Vishnu. That is, before us is an insertion from another work, and of how the later compilations were assembled, discussed when reading verse forty-seven. Let us add an examination of the argument, for one is present here.
The argument is this: those disputing about soul and God do not know the nondual, and hence all are deluded. The objection is simple: this very argument is itself a teaching, and one disputing with the other two; and the one stating it is a third disputant. That is, the line commanding one not to devote understanding to teachings is itself a teaching, to which one is invited to devote understanding.
The Vaishnava side sets against such a move what was discussed when reading the Panchabrahma (32): sva-vachana-virodha, "contradiction of one's own statement." Let us add what it says of the distinction between soul and God itself. For it, this is not "a teaching among teachings," but a condition of conversation: as long as there is one asking and one answering, the distinction has already been made; and it can only be cancelled by falling silent.