उपनिषद् · Mahā 2.64
॥
देवनागरी
विदेहमुक्तो नोदेति नास्तमेति न शाम्यति न सन्नासन्न दूरस्थो न चाहं न च नेतरः
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
videhamukto nodeti nāstameti na śāmyati na sannāsanna dūrastho na cāhaṃ na ca netaraḥ
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
विदेह-मुक्तः न उदेतिvideha-muktaḥ na udetithe bodilessly liberated does not rise; the one freed without a body does not appear
न अस्तम् एति न शाम्यतिna astam eti na śāmyatidoes not set, does not go out; neither goes down nor is quenched
न सन् न असन्na san na asanneither existent nor non-existent; neither being nor non-being
न दूर-स्थःna dūra-sthaḥnor distant; nor far removed
न च अहम्na ca ahamnor “I”; and not “I”
न च न इतरःna ca na itaraḥnor not-other; and not something different
अनुवाद
“The bodilessly liberated does not rise and does not set, is not quenched; he is neither existent nor non-existent, neither distant, nor ‘I’, nor other.”
संस्करण
c409b372948c · प्रकाशित 29 जुल॰ 2026, 6:29:20 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The description of bodiless freedom begins, and all of it consists of negations. So it will be until 2.68.
Why negations only? Because every positive word is drawn from experience, and experience is wholly of the realm where there is “here and there”, “earlier and later”, “I and another”. Not one of these divisions carries over.
The verbs of the first line are from the vocabulary of the luminaries: rises, sets, is quenched. Their negation means there is neither appearing nor departing there.
The hardest is the last: “neither I, nor other”. Even the “I” is negated.
This does not mean the person is destroyed; it means that the opposition “I — not-I”, without which our “I” cannot be thought, does not operate there. We can say “I” only in distinction from someone.
On this very ground Vaiṣṇava Vedānta refuses to read such verses as a denial of personhood as such. What is negated is the experience of separateness, not the being who had it. Otherwise it is unclear of whom the verse speaks.