奥义书 · Rudrākṣajābāla 3p11
॥
天城文
य इमां रुद्राक्षजाबालोपनिषदं नित्यमधीते बालो वा युवा वा वेद स महान्भवति । स गुरुः सर्वेषां मन्त्राणामुपदेष्टा भवति एतैरेव होमं कुर्यात् । एतैरेवार्चनम्
转写 (IAST)
ya imāṃ rudrākṣajābālopaniṣadaṃ nityamadhīte bālo vā yuvā vā veda sa mahānbhavati | sa guruḥ sarveṣāṃ mantrāṇāmupadeṣṭā bhavati etaireva homaṃ kuryāt | etairevārcanam
逐字释义
梵语IAST释义
यः इमां रुद्राक्षजाबाल-उपनिषदंyaḥ imāṃ rudrākṣajābāla-upaniṣadaṃwhoever this Rudrākṣajābāla Upaniṣad
नित्यम् अधीतेnityam adhītestudies constantly
बालः वा युवा वाbālaḥ vā yuvā vāwhether a boy or a young man
वेद सः महान् भवतिveda saḥ mahān bhavatiknows it — becomes great
सः गुरुः सर्वेषां मन्त्राणाम्saḥ guruḥ sarveṣāṃ mantrāṇāmhe becomes the teacher of all mantras
उपदेष्टा भवतिupadeṣṭā bhavatibecomes their instructor
译文
Whoever studies this Rudrākṣajābāla Upaniṣad constantly, whether a boy or a young man, and knows it, becomes great; he becomes the teacher of all mantras, becomes their instructor, and with them let him offer libation, with them, worship.
版本
43ff5bbadce1 · 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 the line for whose sake it was worth reading the whole book, and it overturns the book's own tenth line. It says: bālo vā yuvā vā, "whether a boy or a young man." Of birth — not a word. It does not say "a brāhmaṇa," does not say "twice-born," assigns neither varṇa nor color.
And it goes on to say: sa guruḥ... upadeṣṭā bhavati, "he becomes the teacher," instructing in all mantras. That is, teaching here is derived from study and knowledge, not from birth; and it is derived so by this very book, which thirty lines earlier mapped the seeds onto the varṇas and forbade wearing another's.
The contradiction is complete, and it is worth saying which of the two halves weighs more. To my mind, the second, and here is why. The first was an allotment — it explained nothing and rested on nothing. The second names a basis: he has studied, he knows — therefore he can teach.
The Vaiṣṇava side has stated this position with a directness the book itself lacks. The Bhāgavatam commands that a person be defined by the qualities he displays, not by where he was born: if the marks of one estate are seen in one born into another, "he should be designated by those marks" (7.11.35). And the Caitanya-caritāmṛta says it still more briefly, leaving no room for interpretation: kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya — yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei guru haya, "whether a brāhmaṇa, or a renunciant, or even a śūdra — whoever knows the truth about Kṛṣṇa, he is the teacher" (Madhya 8.128).
Set beside the passage here, this shows an almost literal coincidence. Here — "a boy or a young man... he becomes the teacher"; there — "a brāhmaṇa, a renunciant, even a śūdra... he is the teacher." In both cases the ranks are listed in order to declare them inessential; and in both cases what decides is named as knowledge.