उपनिषद् · Kaṭharudra 32
॥
देवनागरी
निर्विशेषे परानन्दे कथं शब्दः प्रवर्तते । तस्मादेतन्मनः सूक्ष्मं व्यावृतं सर्वगोचरम्
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
nirviśeṣe parānande kathaṃ śabdaḥ pravartate | tasmādetanmanaḥ sūkṣmaṃ vyāvṛtaṃ sarvagocaram
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
निर्विशेषे पर-आनन्देnirviśeṣe para-ānandein the undifferentiated supreme bliss
कथं शब्दः प्रवर्ततेkathaṃ śabdaḥ pravartatehow would a word begin to act?
तस्मात् एतत् मनः सूक्ष्मंtasmāt etat manaḥ sūkṣmaṃtherefore this subtle mind
व्यावृतं सर्व-गोचरम्vyāvṛtaṃ sarva-gocaramturned away, having everything as its object
अनुवाद
In the undifferentiated supreme bliss, how would a word begin to act? Therefore this subtle mind, turned away, having everything as its object …
संस्करण
095ef328ffcc · प्रकाशित 7 अग॰ 2026, 1:56:05 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The argument is carried to its end: in nirviśeṣa, "the devoid of particulars," a word has nothing to catch hold of, and hence is silent. This can be answered briefly, and the answer is an old one in these disputes. The assertion "He is devoid of particulars" is itself an assertion about a particular. To say "He has no properties" is to ascribe to Him a property — propertylessness; and here the word works perfectly well, contrary to what has just been declared.
Advaitic teachers saw this difficulty and answered it thus: such sayings do not describe, but negate — they do not ascribe a property, but remove ascribed ones. This is a reasonable answer; but then nothing positive follows from them, and one cannot say that "in fact He is qualityless," for that too is a description. The Vaiṣṇava side here holds to what this very book says in its other verses. It has called Him sākṣī, "witness" (8, 21), pratiṣṭhā, "support" (8), vimala-ākṛti, "of pure form" (8), sad-rūpa, "of true form" (27); all of these are words that work by the rule of the thirty-first line, that is, have a ground. If there were no grounds, they could not be uttered; yet they are uttered, and by the same hand.
One more thing: where the book says "the word does not work," it is right about the words of our experience; but where it itself calls Him witness and support, it uses words obtained from revelation. The difference is in the source, not in the capacity of the word: with our own words one cannot speak of Him; with His words, one can.