奥义书 · Varāha 4.28
॥
天城文
प्रजहाति यदा कामान्सर्वांश्चित्तगतान्मुने । मयि सर्वात्मके तुष्टः स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते
转写 (IAST)
prajahāti yadā kāmānsarvāṃścittagatānmune | mayi sarvātmake tuṣṭaḥ sa jīvanmukta ucyate
逐字释义
梵语IAST释义
प्रजहाति यदा कामान्prajahāti yadā kāmānwhen he abandons desires
सर्वान् चित्त-गतान् मुनेsarvān citta-gatān muneall that have entered consciousness, O silent one
मयि सर्व-आत्मके तुष्टःmayi sarva-ātmake tuṣṭaḥcontent in me, all-embracing
सः जीवत्-मुक्तः उच्यतेsaḥ jīvat-muktaḥ ucyatethat one is called liberated while living
译文
"When he abandons all desires that have entered consciousness, O silent one, and is content in me, all-embracing, — that one is called liberated while living."
版本
5810ba1af246 · 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 verse where the alteration of a famous passage went the opposite way, and this deserves special note. The Gita: prajahati yada kaman sarvan partha mano-gatan; atmany evatmana tushtah sthita-prajnas tadochyate (2.55). Translation: "when he abandons all desires that have entered the mind, O son of Pritha, and is content by the self in the self, — then he is called established in understanding."
Here the first half is taken word for word; but in the second, atmany evatmana tushtah, "content by the self in the self," is replaced with mayi sarvatmake tushtah, "content in me, all-embracing." That is, the impersonal "in oneself" is remade into the personal "in Me." This alteration is exactly the opposite of the one we examined in verse twenty-six, where "dear to Me" was replaced with "called liberated."
And comparing the two alterations within one chapter shows, in my view, better than any argument, how this book was composed: hands of differing bent worked on it, each correcting in its own direction. Let us add what deserves saying in substance. We examined, when reading the third chapter (3.27), the grammatical objection to the phrase "content by the self in the self": the verb tripti requires two, and this phrasing is a strain.
Here the strain has vanished: it says "content in Me," and the sentence has become ordinary. That is, the alteration not only changed the teaching, but corrected the language; and this is, in my view, the best proof of which of the two readings is more natural to speech itself.