उपनिषद् · Rudrākṣajābāla 2.9
॥
देवनागरी
महती ज्ञानसम्पत्तिः शुचिर्धारणतः सदा । अष्टवक्त्रं तु रुद्राक्षमष्टमात्राधिदैवतम्
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
mahatī jñānasampattiḥ śucirdhāraṇataḥ sadā | aṣṭavaktraṃ tu rudrākṣamaṣṭamātrādhidaivatam
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
महती ज्ञान-सम्पत्तिःmahatī jñāna-sampattiḥgreat is the wealth of knowledge
शुचिः धारणतः सदाśuciḥ dhāraṇataḥ sadāpure from wearing, always
अष्ट-वक्त्रं तु रुद्राक्षम्aṣṭa-vaktraṃ tu rudrākṣambut the eight-faced rudrākṣa
अष्ट-मात्रा-अधिदैवतम्aṣṭa-mātrā-adhidaivatamhas the eight mothers as presiding deities
अनुवाद
Great is the wealth of knowledge; pure from wearing, always. The eight-faced rudrākṣa has the eight mothers as presiding deities.
संस्करण
7554b762b09d · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Śuciḥ, "pure," is promised, and sadā, "always," at that. The word śuci means "pure" chiefly in the ritual sense — fit to take part in a sacred rite; and the promise of constant purity means that the wearer does not fall out of this state. It is worth pausing here, for the notion of purity in Indian books is twofold, and much depends on how it is understood.
Ritual purity is a state that is lost and restored: touch something, and you are defiled; wash, and you are pure. Moral purity is lost differently and restored differently; one cannot wash off falsehood. The promise of constant purity, if understood ritually, is, in effect, the abolition of a whole system: if the wearer is always pure, he has no need to watch over contacts and ablutions.
The Vaiṣṇava side reasons exactly so, but grounds it differently — not in the property of an object, but in participation. The Bhāgavatam says: yan-nāmadheya-śravaṇānukīrtanād... śvado'pi sadyaḥ savanāya kalpate, "by hearing and uttering whose name, even an outcaste who eats dogs at once becomes fit" for sacrifice (3.33.6). The phrase savanāya kalpate, "becomes fit for the rite," is exactly the same ritual concept; and it is said to be attained by the word, not by birth and not by washing.
The difference between the two grounds deserves being held on to. Here purity is attributed to a thing on the body; there, to a name on the lips. The first can be put on anyone, even a corpse; the second requires that the person himself utter it.