उपनिषद् · Jābāladarśana 2.4
॥
देवनागरी
को वा मोक्षः कथं तेन संसारं प्रतिपन्नवान् । इत्यालोकनमर्थज्ञास्तपः शंसन्ति पण्डिताः
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
ko vā mokṣaḥ kathaṃ tena saṃsāraṃ pratipannavān | ityālokanamarthajñāstapaḥ śaṃsanti paṇḍitāḥ
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
कः वा मोक्षः कथं तेनkaḥ vā mokṣaḥ kathaṃ tenawhat indeed is liberation, and how by it
संसारं प्रतिपन्नवान्saṃsāraṃ pratipannavānhas he fallen into the cycle
इति आलोकनम् अर्थ-ज्ञाःiti ālokanam artha-jñāḥsuch contemplation, knowers of the essence
तपः शंसन्ति पण्डिताःtapaḥ śaṃsanti paṇḍitāḥthe learned proclaim as austerity
अनुवाद
"'What indeed is liberation? and how has he fallen into the cycle?' — such contemplation the learned, knowers of the essence, proclaim as austerity."
संस्करण
ec21c1f59994 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Here is a definition of austerity worth the whole second khanda: austerity is alokana, "contemplation," that is, the thinking-through of two questions. The change from the preceding line is complete. There austerity was the drying-out of the body; here it is the labor of the mind. And the second, in my view, is truer, for it is harder.
Fasting is hard for the body, but thinking is hard for the whole person, and hardest of all is thinking about what one does not wish to decide. Two questions are posed, and they deserve distinguishing. The first — ko va mokshah, "what is liberation." It is hard, but discussable: the whole book is devoted to it.
The second — katham samsaram pratipannavan, "how has he fallen into the cycle." This is the real one, and the book will not answer it. Let us say plainly that this is the hardest question in all of Indian theology, and it cannot be evaded. If the soul is by nature pure and free, how did it become bound? If ignorance bound it, whence the ignorance in one who is by nature knowing?
Different answers are given, and both principal ones must be named. The nondualist answer: there was no binding; it only seems so. The question "how did it become bound" is as improper as the question "at exactly what moment did the rope become a snake."
The Vaishnava answer is different, and is more honest in one respect and weaker in another. It says: bondage is anadi, "beginningless" — that is, no first moment of the fall can be pointed to, for it lies outside time; but the very turning-away can be described, and is called vimukha, "a turning of the face away." The soul turned away — not on a certain day, but as a state.
The weakness of this answer is that it does not explain why; and the Vaishnava teachers do not conceal this, saying that the cause of a free act cannot be derived from causes, or else it would not be free. Its strength is that it does not declare the captivity nonexistent. To one who is truly bound, the answer "it only seems to you" helps little.