उपनिषद् · Jābāladarśana 2.16
॥
देवनागरी
उच्चैर्जपश्च सर्वेषां यथोक्तफलदो भवेत् । नीचैःश्रोत्रेण चेन्मन्त्रः श्रुतश्चेन्निष्फलं भवेत्
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
uccairjapaśca sarveṣāṃ yathoktaphalado bhavet | nīcaiḥśrotreṇa cenmantraḥ śrutaścenniṣphalaṃ bhavet
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
उच्चैः जपः च सर्वेषांuccaiḥ japaḥ ca sarveṣāṃand loud repetition, for all
यथा-उक्त-फल-दः भवेत्yathā-ukta-phala-daḥ bhavetgives the fruit as stated
नीचैः-श्रोत्रेण चेत् मन्त्रःnīcaiḥ-śrotreṇa cet mantraḥif by a low ear the mantra
श्रुतः चेत् निष्फलं भवतिśrutaḥ cet niṣphalaṃ bhavatiis heard, it becomes fruitless
अनुवाद
"And loud repetition gives the fruit, as stated, for all; but if the mantra is heard by a low ear, it becomes fruitless."
संस्करण
4570a3fdc81c · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The line is obscure, and we must first say how it is read, and then why it cannot be accepted in either reading. The words nichaih-shrotrena can be understood two ways. Nichaih means both "low" (of sound — quietly) and "low" (of station, of birth). Accordingly it is read either "if the mantra is heard in an undertone" — that is, indistinctly — or "if the mantra is heard by the ear of a low-born person."
The first reading makes the line harmless and nearly meaningless: it then only repeats that mumbling will not do. The second reading fits the surrounding context — the word sarvesham, "for all," in the first half, to which an exception is opposed — and fits the fact that qualifications of this kind are common in codes of conduct. By it the sense comes out: loud repetition is fine, as long as it is not heard by the wrong person.
Let us say plainly: if the second reading is correct, it cannot be accepted, and we shall not soften this. A position by which a holy word is spoiled by being heard by the wrong person is, in substance, a notion of the sacred as a thing that can be soiled by touch. And it stands directly opposed to what the books that recognize the Name's power say of it.
The Vaishnava side answers here not with argument, but with testimony, and it is remarkably unanimous. The Bhagavatam: Ajamila, a fallen man, called out his son's name — and was released by the messengers of Yama, because the Name had sounded (6.1–2). No condition about whose mouth and whose ears there is; more than that, the whole point of the story is that the Name worked regardless of intention.
The Bhagavatam again: "even a dog-eater on whose lips is Your name is greater than a brahmin who has performed every sacrifice" (3.33.7). Haridasa Thakura, spoken of above, was born among Muslims — that is, by every codified reckoning, belonged to precisely those "low ears"; and he is set as foremost in the repetition of the Name. Chaitanya: yare dekha tare kaha krishna-upadesha, "whomever you see, speak to him the teaching of Krishna" (Madhya 7.128).
The conclusion is simple, and deserves stating without evasion. A word that is spoiled by its hearer is a weak word. A word that acts upon its hearer, whoever he may be, is a strong word. And a tradition promising the latter cannot at the same time qualify the former.