उपनिषद् · Varāha 3.1
॥
देवनागरी
नहि नानास्वरूपं स्यादेकं वस्तु कदाचन । तस्मादखण्ड एवास्मि यन्मदन्यन्न किञ्चन
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
nahi nānāsvarūpaṃ syādekaṃ vastu kadācana | tasmādakhaṇḍa evāsmi yanmadanyanna kiñcana
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
न हि नाना-स्वरूपं स्यात्na hi nānā-svarūpaṃ syātnot indeed a manifold form
एकं वस्तु कदाचनekaṃ vastu kadācanaa single thing, ever
तस्मात् अ-खण्डः एव अस्मिtasmāt a-khaṇḍaḥ eva asmitherefore I am undivided
यत् मत् अन्यत् न किञ्चनyat mat anyat na kiñcanafor besides me there is nothing whatever
अनुवाद
"A single thing is never of manifold form; therefore I am undivided, for besides me there is nothing whatever."
संस्करण
378c13bdf351 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The third chapter begins, and it opens with an argument deserving examination, for it is the fundamental argument of nondualist teaching. The argument is this: the single is not manifold; hence, if the Highest is one, multiplicity does not exist. The premise is beyond dispute: one is not many.
The Vaishnava objection is not to the premise, but to what it leaves unsaid: it does not say in what respect it is one. It distinguishes three kinds of unity, and they deserve naming, for this distinction is central in its polemic. Svajatiya-bheda, "difference within a kind": one tree differs from another.
Vijatiya-bheda, "difference between kinds": a tree differs from a stone. Svagata-bheda, "difference within itself": a tree has a trunk, branches, leaves — and they are not the same thing. Nondualist teaching denies all three; the Vaishnava denies the first two and acknowledges the third.
That is, by its reckoning, He is one of His kind and beyond kinds — but has parts: form, qualities, powers, companions. With this distinction, the argument "the single is not manifold" loses its force: a tree is single and yet has branches; and no one would say the branches are a misunderstanding. Let us add what deserves noting in the word akhanda, "undivided" itself: it literally means "uncut," that is, denying precisely the third kind of difference. And it is over this that the dispute turns.