Upanishads · Yogakuṇḍalinī 3.8
॥
Devanāgarī
स्थित्वासौ बैन्दवस्थाने घ्राणरन्ध्रे निरोधयेत् । वायुं बिन्दुं समाख्यातं सत्त्वं प्रकृतिमेव च
Transliteration (IAST)
sthitvāsau baindavasthāne ghrāṇarandhre nirodhayet | vāyuṃ binduṃ samākhyātaṃ sattvaṃ prakṛtimeva ca
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
स्थित्वा असौ बैन्दव-स्थानेsthitvā asau baindava-sthānehaving stood at the seat of the point
घ्राण-रन्ध्रे निरोधयेत्ghrāṇa-randhre nirodhayetin the nostril opening shall he restrain
वायुं बिन्दुं समाख्यातंvāyuṃ binduṃ samākhyātaṃwind, point — so are they named
सत्त्वं प्रकृतिम् एव चsattvaṃ prakṛtim eva caand sattva, and nature indeed
Translation
"Having stood at the seat of the point, shall he restrain it in the nostril opening; wind, point — so they are named — and sattva, and nature indeed".
Version
e69c6aca5525 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
The line enumerates: wind, point, sattva, nature; and this enumeration, in later Vedanta and Sankhya, is a charting of principles. There is no need to repeat it; only one general thing deserves note. All these books, upon reaching enumerations, begin to equate: this is that, and that is this. Wind is the point, the point is the mind, the mind is nature. And these equations proceed unhindered, until it turns out that everything is everything.
Of the limit of this method it was discussed when reading Bhavana (p20): correspondence proves nothing, if it explains nothing. The Vaishnava side, on the question of principles, holds the same count as everyone, and has no need to dispute it; but she adds one thing absent from these lists. However many principles are enumerated — twenty-four, twenty-five, thirty-six — all of them are an enumeration of what the world is made of; and not one of them is the One for whom it is made. Sankhya reaches the twenty-fifth, purusha, and stops; Vaishnava Vedanta adds a twenty-sixth — Ishvara; and this was discussed when reading Sharirak (22), where it was noted that the twenty-fifth there is not numbered.
The difference between the teachings, then, lies not in the count of principles, but in whether the count ends with things, or ends with Someone.