उपनिषद् · Jābāladarśana 6.51
॥
देवनागरी
रागाद्यसंभवे प्राज्ञ पुण्यपापविमर्दनम् । तयोर्नाशे शरीरेण न पुनः सम्प्रयुज्यते
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
rāgādyasaṃbhave prājña puṇyapāpavimardanam | tayornāśe śarīreṇa na punaḥ samprayujyate
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
राग-आदि-अ-संभवे प्राज्ञrāga-ādi-a-saṃbhave prājñawhen passion and the rest are impossible, O wise one
पुण्य-पाप-विमर्दनम्puṇya-pāpa-vimardanamthe destruction of merit and sin
तयोः नाशे शरीरेणtayoḥ nāśe śarīreṇaat their destruction, with the body
न पुनः सम्प्रयुज्यतेna punaḥ samprayujyateone is not joined again
अनुवाद
"When passion and the rest are impossible, O wise one, — the destruction of merit and sin; and at their destruction, one is not joined again with a body."
संस्करण
56e76a157b26 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The khanda ends, and its last line names what forms the very essence of all these teachings: punya-papa-vimardanam, "the destruction of merit and sin." Worth noting is that both are destroyed. Not only sin, but merit too.
This position is universal in Indian books, and unexpected to an outside ear. Merit, punya, is good — why destroy it? The answer is: merit binds just as sin does, only more pleasantly. Sin leads to a bad birth, merit to a good one; but both are a birth, that is, a return.
The image used to explain this deserves citing: golden shackles are shackles just as much as iron ones. The Vaishnava side accepts this position and states it in almost the same words. The Gita: "the joined, having abandoned the fruit of action, attains perfect peace; but the unjoined, impelled by desire, attached to the fruit, — is bound" (5.12).
It adds, however, a distinction without which the matter turns comfortless. There is a deed done for the sake of fruit, and there is one done mad-arpanam, "as an offering to Me" (Gita 9.27). The first binds even by its merit; the second does not bind at all, for its fruit is given away.
This distinction relieves the awkwardness every teaching on the destruction of merit falls into. Otherwise it would follow that doing good is harmful; but here it follows that what is harmful is appropriating the good to oneself, while the good itself remains good. The last words — "is not joined again with a body" — are the usual formula of non-return, already discussed. It is worth noting only that here too non-return is described negatively: it is said what will not happen, and not said what will.