उपनिषद् · Yājñavalkya p1
॥
देवनागरी
अथ जनको ह वैदेहो याज्ञवल्क्यमुपसमेत्योवाच भगवन्संन्यासमनुब्रूहीति कथं संन्यासलक्षणम्
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
atha janako ha vaideho yājñavalkyamupasametyovāca bhagavansaṃnyāsamanubrūhīti kathaṃ saṃnyāsalakṣaṇam
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
अथ जनकः ह वैदेहःatha janakaḥ ha vaidehaḥand then Janaka of Videha
याज्ञवल्क्यम् उपसमेत्यyājñavalkyam upasametyahaving approached Yājñavalkya
उवाचuvācasaid
भगवन् संन्यासम् अनुब्रूहि इतिbhagavan saṃnyāsam anubrūhi iti"Lord, tell me of renunciation"
कथं संन्यास-लक्षणम्kathaṃ saṃnyāsa-lakṣaṇamwhat is the mark of renunciation
अनुवाद
And then Janaka of Videha, having approached Yājñavalkya, said: "Lord, tell me of renunciation. What is the mark of renunciation?"
संस्करण
0b7f83563915 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The book begins with a conversation between two figures known to anyone who has read the upaniṣads: Janaka, king of Videha, and Yājñavalkya, the greatest of the sages of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. It is worth noting who asks. Janaka is a king, and moreover an active king: he rules, judges, arranges contests of sages. And in the Gītā he is named the model of one who attained perfection through deeds: karmaṇaiva hi saṃsiddhim āsthitā janakādayaḥ, "by deeds indeed did Janaka and others attain perfection" (3.20).
That is, the one asking about renunciation is one who has not renounced, and whom the Gītā credits for exactly this. This position is worth keeping through all that follows, for the book will speak of abandoning home, family, and rites; and the one asking about it is a king who has abandoned none of it. The Vaiṣṇava side builds on Janaka her own objection to renunciation as an obligatory step. She distinguishes phalgu-vairāgya, "sham renunciation," from yukta-vairāgya, "befitting renunciation"; and these were discussed when reading the Jābāla-darśana (4.22).
Let us add what she asserts about renunciation itself, worth knowing. Renunciation is not canceled or condemned by her: her own teachers were hermits, and Caitanya accepted sannyāsa. But it is declared a means, not a mark; and a person who has left home without a change of heart is called, by her, the same word used for one who stayed home and changed — only with "sham" added.
What is asked here is precisely about lakṣaṇa, "the mark"; and the question is correctly framed: not "how to renounce," but "by what to recognize one who has renounced."