奥义书 · Kaṭharudra 39
॥
天城文
मायासंबन्धतश्चेशो जीवोऽविद्यावशस्तथा । अन्तःकरणसंबन्धात्प्रमातेत्यभिधीयते
转写 (IAST)
māyāsaṃbandhataśceśo jīvo'vidyāvaśastathā | antaḥkaraṇasaṃbandhātpramātetyabhidhīyate
逐字释义
梵语IAST释义
माया-संबन्धतः च ईशःmāyā-saṃbandhataḥ ca īśaḥand by connection with māyā — the Lord
जीवः अ-विद्या-वशः तथाjīvaḥ a-vidyā-vaśaḥ tathāthe jīva, however, is under the power of ignorance
अन्तः-करण-संबन्धात्antaḥ-karaṇa-saṃbandhātby connection with the inner instrument
प्रमाता इति अभिधीयतेpramātā iti abhidhīyateis called the knower
译文
And by connection with māyā — the Lord; the jīva, however, is under the power of ignorance; by connection with the inner instrument, is called the knower.
版本
b4349053c27b · 发布于 2026年8月12日 05:00:00 UTC
可用语言RUEN用方向键翻颂
Here is a definition worth examining slowly, for in it lies the whole difference between the two teachings. It is said: the Lord is consciousness by connection with māyā; the jīva is consciousness under the power of ignorance. That is, they are distinguished not in themselves, but by what is attached to them.
The difficulty is visible at once, and it has been pointed out by everyone who has disputed with this school. The words sambandhataḥ and vaśa are not equivalent: the first means "by connection," the second — "under the power." The Lord is connected with māyā, and the jīva is subject to it; and this is already a difference not in what is attached, but in the relation to what is attached.
Let us ask simply: why does the same consciousness, in one place, master māyā, and in another, is subordinated to it? To answer "by chance" will not do; to answer "by different attachment" is to say the same thing in other words. And if the difference is in consciousness itself, then it is no longer one.
The Vaiṣṇava explanation is simpler and requires no two levels. He and the soul are always different: He possesses power, she is subject to it; He has never forgotten Himself, she forgets. The Gītā says this in one verse: "both of us, I and you, have been born many times; I know them all, but you do not know" (4.5). The difference is placed exactly where it is observed: in memory, and it is full in Him, and absent in a person.
A separate word is worth saying about the word antaḥkaraṇa, "the inner instrument" — this is what the mind, with its parts, is called. It is named an instrument: that is, what is used. An instrument presupposes one who uses it; and hence "the knower" is not the mind, but the one who holds the mind in hand.