उपनिषद् · Tārasāra 1.11
॥
देवनागरी
एतद्वै नारायणस्याष्टाक्षरं वेद परमपुरुषो भवति
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
etadvai nārāyaṇasyāṣṭākṣaraṃ veda paramapuruṣo bhavati
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
एतत् वै नारायणस्य अष्ट-अक्षरंetat vai nārāyaṇasya aṣṭa-akṣaraṃthis indeed is Nārāyaṇa's eight-syllabled [mantra]
वेद परम-पुरुषः भवतिveda parama-puruṣaḥ bhavatiwhoever knows [it] becomes the supreme Man
अनुवाद
«This indeed is Nārāyaṇa's eight-syllabled [mantra]; whoever knows [it] becomes the supreme Man».
संस्करण
9d5fe696a9e3 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The first pāda ends, and in it the promise parama-puruṣo bhavati, "becomes the supreme Man," deserves noting. This is a startling turn of phrase, and it must be examined honestly, for the Vaiṣṇava side does not accept its literal reading. Literally it comes out that the knower becomes the supreme Man, that is, the very One to whom the mantra is addressed.
This cannot be read so, for a simple reason: the mantra is homage, and to promise the one who bows that he will become the one he bows to is to destroy the very mantra. The Vaiṣṇava reading is different and rests on grammar. The phrase "becomes such-and-such" in Sanskrit constantly denotes not identity but the acquiring of a quality or the attainment of a world; and we analyzed something similar when reading the Rudrākṣa-jābāla (3p9), where ekādaśa-rudratvam meant not "becoming the Rudras" but attaining their state.
Confirmation is found in this very book too. In the third pāda the same construction will be expanded: there it says nārāyaṇa-padam avāpnoti, "attains the state of Nārāyaṇa" (3.12); and the word pada means "place, station, foot," not "essence." That is, a place is attained, not identity; and this place will be named directly in the closing verse — tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padam, "that highest place of Viṣṇu" (3.13).
Let us add the general rule of reading we have arrived at more than once. Where a book says in one place "will become Him" and in another "will attain His place," the latter should be preferred: it is more definite and does not destroy what the book itself stands on.