उपनिषद् · Varāha 2.51
॥
देवनागरी
एवं मयि चिदाकाशे जीवेशौ परिकल्पितौ । या च प्रागात्मनो माया तथान्ते च तिरस्कृता
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
evaṃ mayi cidākāśe jīveśau parikalpitau | yā ca prāgātmano māyā tathānte ca tiraskṛtā
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
एवं मयि चित्-आकाशेevaṃ mayi cit-ākāśethus, in me, the space of consciousness
जीव-ईशौ परिकल्पितौjīva-īśau parikalpitauthe living being and the lord are contrived
या च प्राक् आत्मनः मायाyā ca prāk ātmanaḥ māyāand whatever illusion the self had before
तथा अन्ते च तिरस्कृताtathā ante ca tiraskṛtāis likewise removed at the end
अनुवाद
"Thus, in me, the space of consciousness, the living being and the lord are contrived; and whatever illusion the self had before is likewise removed at the end."
संस्करण
4d02e0faeed8 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
It is said jiveshau parikalpitau, "the living being and the lord are contrived." That is, both soul and God are called a contrivance; and of the word parikalpita, "contrived," discussed when reading the Jabala-darshana (4.59). This position deserves examination, for it is the extreme of nondualist teaching and must be examined honestly.
The construction is this: there is pure consciousness; within it, as in space, partitions seem to appear; from the partitions come "I" and "He"; remove the partitions, and neither remains. The construction is elegant. Our objection is the same as before, and let us repeat it a third time, for it settles the matter here: whose contrivance is it? If pure consciousness contrives, then it contrives and hence is not pure.
If the soul contrives — but the soul itself has been declared a contrivance; a contrivance cannot contrive. If a third thing contrives, there is no more non-duality. This objection is Ramanuja's ashraya-anupapatti, discussed when reading the Jabala-darshana (4.63) and the Panchabrahma (33).
Let us add what deserves noting specifically in this verse. It stands five lines after the one bidding one reflect on Him and speak of Him with others (2.46). If the Lord is contrived, then speaking of Him is speaking of a fiction; and verse 2.46 turns into an exercise for the incapable.
The Vaishnava side does not accept such a reading, by the rule discussed when reading the Ganapati (2.2): an interpretation forced to declare part of a book conditional explains the book worse than one that is not.