अथ खलु सौम्य कुटीचको बहूदको हंसः परमहंस इत्येते परिव्राजकाश्चतुर्विधा भवन्ति । सर्व एते विष्णुलिङ्गिनः शिखिनोपवीतिनः शुद्धचित्ता आत्मानमात्मना ब्रह्म भावयन्तः शुद्धचिद्रूपोपासनरता जपयमवन्तो नियमवन्तः सुशीलिनः पुण्यश्लोका भवन्ति । तदेतदृचाभ्युक्तम्
atha khalu saumya kuṭīcako bahūdako haṃsaḥ paramahaṃsa ityete parivrājakāścaturvidhā bhavanti | sarva ete viṣṇuliṅginaḥ śikhinopavītinaḥ śuddhacittā ātmānamātmanā brahma bhāvayantaḥ śuddhacidrūpopāsanaratā japayamavanto niyamavantaḥ suśīlinaḥ puṇyaślokā bhavanti | tadetadṛcābhyuktam
"So then, my dear: kuṭīcaka, bahūdaka, haṃsa, and paramahaṃsa — these are the four kinds of wanderers. All of them bear the mark of Viṣṇu, with the tuft and the sacred thread, of pure consciousness, conceiving the self as brahman by the self, devoted to the worship of the form of pure consciousness, possessed of repetition, restraints, and observances, well-mannered and glorious. And of this it is said in a verse."
661faa6525e9 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The four classes of wanderers are listed, and they were discussed when reading the Yājñavalkya (p11); let us repeat briefly. Kuṭīcaka — "one who makes a hut": lives with the household of his son, eats in one home. Bahūdaka — "of much water": walks, taking alms in seven houses.
Haṃsa — "swan": does not stay anywhere except during the rainy season. Paramahaṃsa — "supreme swan": has neither place nor rule. This order is an order of increasing freedom from the code.
And here is the chief reason this passage is worth examining: it is said that all four — sarva ete viṣṇu-lingināḥ śikhinopavitinaḥ, "all of them bear the mark of Viṣṇu, with the tuft and the thread." All four, including the paramahaṃsa. This detail is a direct dispute, and it is worth voicing.
By the code of the non-dual school, the paramahaṃsa casts off both the tuft and the thread and the staff: he is beyond all distinction, and the thread and the tuft are marks of caste. Here the opposite is said: even the highest class retains them. The argument behind this is the very one we examined when reading the ninth verse: a sign is an acknowledgment of belonging, and one who removes it removes not caste but the master's name.
Let us add what is retained here from the opposing language: for it says ātmānam ātmanā brahma bhāvayantaḥ, "conceiving the self as brahman by the self." That is, the book holds both the Vaiṣṇava code and the non-dual formula; and this union, to my mind, shows not confusion but the usage of a time when some words were shared and the distinction was drawn by practice.