उपनिषद् · Varāha 5.49
॥
देवनागरी
धातूनां वर्धनेनैव प्रबोधो वर्तते तनौ । दह्यन्ते सर्वपापानि जन्मकोट्यर्जितानि च
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
dhātūnāṃ vardhanenaiva prabodho vartate tanau | dahyante sarvapāpāni janmakoṭyarjitāni ca
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
धातूनां वर्धनेन एवdhātūnāṃ vardhanena evaby the very increase of tissues
प्रबोधः वर्तते तनौprabodhaḥ vartate tanauawakening occurs in the body
दह्यन्ते सर्व-पापानिdahyante sarva-pāpāniall sins are burned
जन्म-कोटि-अर्जितानि चjanma-koṭi-arjitāni caaccumulated through millions of births
अनुवाद
"By the very increase of tissues, awakening occurs in the body; and all sins are burned, accumulated through millions of births."
संस्करण
abcbd827f2f4 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The chain is brought to its end, and it is worth noting where it leaps. From wind to fire, from fire to digestion, from digestion to sap, from sap to tissues — all this is sequential and stays within the bodily. But then it is said: from the increase of tissues comes prabodha, "awakening," and the burning of the sins of millions of births.
That is, between the second-to-last and the last link lies a chasm, filled by nothing. From the fact that tissues are well nourished, neither awakening nor absolution follows; and this transition is, in my view, the weakest point of the whole chapter. Let us say plainly why it is made.
It is made because a craft that has undertaken to explain everything must derive the highest from its own first principles too; and lacking the means for this, it simply appends the highest to the chain's end. The Vaishnava side holds against this the rule cited when reading the third chapter (3.29): what is reached by a means is only what a means can reach. Its own explanation of absolution is different and does not derive from the body at all.
The Bhagavatam (6.1) tells of Ajamila, who uttered his son's name, and explains: the name acts by itself, as medicine acts even on one who took it unknowingly. This comparison, it must be granted, also likens the action to something material; but the difference is that there it is a name that acts, that is, something belonging to someone, while here it is the nourishment of tissues.