奥义书 · Varāha 2.57
॥
天城文
तस्मान्मुमुक्षिभिर्नैव मतिर्जीवेशवादयोः । कार्या किन्तु ब्रह्मतत्त्वं निश्चलेन विचार्यताम् ॥ 56। अद्वितीयब्रह्मतत्त्वं न जानन्ति यथा तथा । भ्रान्ता एवाखिलास्तेषां क्व मुक्तिः क्वेह वा सुखम्
转写 (IAST)
tasmānmumukṣibhirnaiva matirjīveśavādayoḥ | kāryā kintu brahmatattvaṃ niścalena vicāryatām || 56| advitīyabrahmatattvaṃ na jānanti yathā tathā | bhrāntā evākhilāsteṣāṃ kva muktiḥ kveha vā sukham
逐字释义
梵语IAST释义
तस्मात् मुमुक्षिभिः न एवtasmāt mumukṣibhiḥ na evatherefore, for those seeking liberation, not
मतिः जीव-ईश-वादयोःmatiḥ jīva-īśa-vādayoḥunderstanding of the discourses on the living being and the lord
कार्या किन्तु ब्रह्म-तत्त्वंkāryā kintu brahma-tattvaṃshould be produced, but the truth of brahman
निश्चलेन विचार्यताम्niścalena vicāryatāmlet them examine unwavering
译文
"Therefore, those seeking liberation should not devote their understanding to discourses on the living being and the lord, but should unwaveringly examine the truth of brahman. Since they do not know the non-dual truth of brahman, all are deluded; where, for them, is liberation, where here is happiness?"
版本
72ff57b38723 · 发布于 2026年8月12日 05:00:00 UTC
可用语言RUEN用方向键翻颂
The verse rejects both teachings: on the living being, and on the Lord; and commands examining the nondual alone. Worth noting is that this is the most decisive passage in the whole book, and we do not soften it. Let us say, however, what deserves saying of its place in the book.
It stands between the verse bidding one reflect on Him and speak of Him with others (2.46), and the verses where the book will again turn to Vishnu. That is, before us is an insertion from another work, and of how the later compilations were assembled, discussed when reading verse forty-seven. Let us add an examination of the argument, for one is present here.
The argument is this: those disputing about soul and God do not know the nondual, and hence all are deluded. The objection is simple: this very argument is itself a teaching, and one disputing with the other two; and the one stating it is a third disputant. That is, the line commanding one not to devote understanding to teachings is itself a teaching, to which one is invited to devote understanding.
The Vaishnava side sets against such a move what was discussed when reading the Panchabrahma (32): sva-vachana-virodha, "contradiction of one's own statement." Let us add what it says of the distinction between soul and God itself. For it, this is not "a teaching among teachings," but a condition of conversation: as long as there is one asking and one answering, the distinction has already been made; and it can only be cancelled by falling silent.