Linuxपन्ने पलटें
उपनिषद् · Hayagrīva 1.1
॥
देवनागरी
विश्वोत्तीर्णस्वरूपाय चिन्मयानन्दरूपिणे । तुभ्यं नमो हयग्रीव विद्याराजाय स्वाहा स्वाहा नमः
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
viśvottīrṇasvarūpāya cinmayānandarūpiṇe | tubhyaṃ namo hayagrīva vidyārājāya svāhā svāhā namaḥ
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
विश्व-उत्तीर्ण-स्वरूपायviśva-uttīrṇa-svarūpāyato Him whose being is beyond the world
चित्-मय-आनन्द-रूपिणेcit-maya-ānanda-rūpiṇehaving the form of consciousness and bliss
तुभ्यं नमः हयग्रीवtubhyaṃ namaḥ hayagrīvato You, homage, Hayagrīva
विद्या-राजाय स्वाहा स्वाहा नमःvidyā-rājāya svāhā svāhā namaḥto the king of knowledge, svāhā, svāhā, homage
अनुवाद
«To Him whose being is beyond the world, who has the form of consciousness and bliss — to You, homage, Hayagrīva, king of knowledge: svāhā, svāhā, homage».
संस्करण
6bc59434db7e · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Note the first word: viśva-uttīrṇa, “gone beyond the world,” from ut-tṛ, “to cross over, to go beyond.” That is, it is said of Him that He is outside the world; and this word is technical in Vaiṣṇava literature. Add, too, the second: cinmaya-ānanda-rūpiṇe, “having the form of consciousness and bliss.”
This expression deserves examination, for in it a single word settles a dispute. Non-dual doctrine says: the Highest is consciousness and bliss — that is, they are His very being, and He has no form. Here it says rūpin, “having a form”; and this suffix denotes possession, not identity.
That is, the Highest is not bliss in general, but He whose form consists of bliss. This distinction is fundamental in Vaiṣṇava teaching and is stated through sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha: He has a body of being, consciousness, and bliss (Brahma-saṃhitā 5.1). Let us briefly repeat the argument cited reading the Gopāla-tāpanī: if a form consists of matter, it limits; if it consists of consciousness, it does not limit.
Hence the objection “form is incompatible with infinitude” misses its mark: it is true of a material form and false of this one. Add, too, the word vidyā-rāja, “king of knowledge”: not “one who knows,” but the one to whom knowledge is subject; and hence He is addressed not as a model of learning, but as its master.