奥义书 · Kaṭharudra 22
॥
天城文
सर्वान्तरेण पूर्णश्च ब्रह्म नान्येन केनचित् । यदिदं ब्रह्मपुच्छाख्यं सत्यज्ञानद्वयात्मकम्
转写 (IAST)
sarvāntareṇa pūrṇaśca brahma nānyena kenacit | yadidaṃ brahmapucchākhyaṃ satyajñānadvayātmakam
逐字释义
梵语IAST释义
सर्व-अन्तरेण पूर्णः चsarva-antareṇa pūrṇaḥ caand full with what is entirely within
ब्रह्म न अन्येन केनचित्brahma na anyena kenacitBrahman — not by anything else
यत् इदं ब्रह्म-पुच्छ-आख्यंyat idaṃ brahma-puccha-ākhyaṃthat which is called 'brahman-the-tail'
सत्य-ज्ञान-द्वय-आत्मकम्satya-jñāna-dvaya-ātmakamconsisting doubly of truth and knowledge
译文
And Brahman is full with what is entirely within — not by anything else; that which is called "brahman-the-tail," consisting doubly of truth and knowledge.
版本
f3514a5f5eac · 发布于 2026年8月12日 05:00:00 UTC
可用语言RUEN用方向键翻颂
It is said of Brahman: na anyena kenacit, "not by anything else" is He full. Everything else in this mapping was full with what was within it; but He is full with Himself. This definition is precise, and the Vaiṣṇava side accepts it entirely: the highest is distinguished from all else precisely by not needing an external filler. Whatever needs support is not the limit; the limit is what stands by itself.
The phrase brahma-puccha, "brahman-the-tail," is taken from the Taittirīya (2.5), where it is said: "Brahman is the tail, the support." The turn of phrase is strange and is interpreted two ways: some understand Brahman to be the tail, that is, the last part; others, that He is that on which everything rests, as a bird rests on its tail when perching. The second, to my mind, is more correct and better answers the whole mapping. The sheaths are listed from coarse to subtle, and after the fifth stands He — not a sixth sheath, but that on which the whole series rests.
A separate word is worth saying about the word dvaya, "double," by which His property is here named: satya-jñāna-dvaya-ātmaka, "consisting doubly of truth and knowledge." It is curious that in the tenth verse the same formula ended with the word advaya, "non-dual," and here with dvaya, "double"; and they refer to different things. Whether He is one or two is a question of the number of persons; truth and knowledge is a question of properties. Confusing these two questions is the source of half of all these disputes: from the fact that He is one, it does not follow that He has only one property.