उपनिषद् · Jābāladarśana 1.8
॥
देवनागरी
आत्मा सर्वगतोऽच्छेद्यो न ग्राह्य इति मे मतिः । स चाहिंसा वरा प्रोक्ता मुने वेदान्तवेदिभिः
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
ātmā sarvagato'cchedyo na grāhya iti me matiḥ | sa cāhiṃsā varā proktā mune vedāntavedibhiḥ
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
आत्मा सर्व-गतः अ-च्छेद्यःātmā sarva-gataḥ a-cchedyaḥthe self is all-pervading, indivisible
न ग्राह्यः इति मे मतिःna grāhyaḥ iti me matiḥungraspable — such is my understanding
सा च अहिंसा वरा प्रोक्ताsā ca ahiṃsā varā proktāand this is called the highest non-harming
मुने वेदान्त-वेदिभिःmune vedānta-vedibhiḥO sage, by knowers of Vedanta
अनुवाद
"The self is all-pervading, indivisible, ungraspable — such is my understanding; and this, O sage, is called by knowers of Vedanta the highest non-harming."
संस्करण
4bf9d59688e3 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Here the book makes a turn it will repeat throughout this whole section, and its mechanism deserves examination at once. It is said: the highest non-harming consists in the knowledge that the self is indivisible. Since no one can be divided, there is, strictly speaking, no one to harm.
This device is called, in Indian literature, raising an ordinary rule to its ground; and it will be applied further on to truthfulness, to not taking what is another's, and to all the other yamas. The ground is taken from the Gita, almost word for word: "It is not divided by weapons, not burned by fire" — nainam chhindanti shastrani (2.23), and achhedyo'yam adahyo'yam (2.24). But the danger of this move must also be spoken of, for it is no trifling one, and this very Gita takes precaution against it.
If from the indivisibility of the self one concludes that harm makes no difference, one has a justification for anything at all. This argument has been made in history more than once, and made in just this way: bodies perish, souls are eternal, therefore to kill is no sin. The Gita guards against this conclusion by setting beside this argument another — duty: Arjuna is told not "kill, for no one truly perishes," but "perform your own task, fight, because this is your duty as a warrior, and to shrink from it is sin" (2.31–33). Without the second argument, the first becomes dangerous.
The Vaishnava side insists on this and holds a firm rule: abstract knowledge does not annul the commandment. As long as a person eats, sleeps, and takes offense, he lives in a body; and to reason about the indivisibility of the self while offending the living is to use a lofty teaching as a cover.