उपनिषद् · Varāha 2.34
॥
देवनागरी
त्वं वहमस्मि भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि । तुभ्यं मह्यमनन्ताय मह्यं तुभ्यं चिदात्मने
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
tvaṃ vahamasmi bhagavo devate'haṃ vai tvamasi | tubhyaṃ mahyamanantāya mahyaṃ tubhyaṃ cidātmane
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
त्वं वै अहम् अस्मिtvaṃ vai aham asmiThou art indeed I
भगवःbhagavaḥO lord
देवतेdevateO deity
अहं वै त्वम् असिahaṃ vai tvam asiI indeed am Thou
तुभ्यं मह्यम् अनन्तायtubhyaṃ mahyam anantāyato Thee, to me, to the infinite
मह्यं तुभ्यं चित्-आत्मनेmahyaṃ tubhyaṃ cit-ātmaneto me, to Thee, to the conscious one
अनुवाद
"Thou art indeed I, O lord; O deity, I indeed am Thou. To Thee — to me, the infinite; to me — to Thee, the conscious one."
संस्करण
9b6368ddfb61 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Here is the verse that closes the chapter, and it is, in my view, the most remarkable passage in the whole book; it deserves examination word by word. It is said twice and mutually: tvam vai aham asmi, "Thou art indeed I," and aham vai tvam asi, "I indeed am Thou." Then a bow, and again twice and mutually: tubhyam mahyam, "to Thee — to me"; mahyam tubhyam, "to me — to Thee."
This structure deserves being appraised, for it is unusual. Nondualist teaching would say once: "Thou art I." No mutuality is needed there: if there are not two, there is no one to exchange anything.
But here it is said reciprocally; and reciprocity is a mark of relation, not identity. Let us add the grammar too, for it settles the matter decisively here. The verse contains bhagavah and devate — vocative cases: "O lord," "O deity."
The vocative case is an address; one addresses another. And hence even the strongest assertion of identity is here stated in the form of a calling-out. The Vaishnava side holds such passages as its own and reads them thus: oneness in substance with difference in person — that very achintya-bheda-abheda discussed when reading the Krishna Upanishad (1.25).
And it adds a consideration especially fitting here. Two lovers say to each other "you are I" and do not thereby cease to be two; more than that, only one who is two can say this. A person alone cannot say it to himself — there is no one to say it to.
Hence the second chapter, which began with the name "breaker of the devotees' anguish" and is full, in its middle, of nondualist verses, ends with a mutual bow; and this ending, in my view, weighs more than the whole of its middle.