Upanishads · Jābāladarśana 4.58
॥
Devanāgarī
अन्तस्थं मां परित्यज्य बहिष्ठं यस्तु सेवते । हस्तस्थं पिण्डमुत्सृज्य लिहेत्कूर्परमात्मनः
Transliteration (IAST)
antasthaṃ māṃ parityajya bahiṣṭhaṃ yastu sevate | hastasthaṃ piṇḍamutsṛjya lihetkūrparamātmanaḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
अन्तः-स्थं मां परित्यज्यantaḥ-sthaṃ māṃ parityajyame, who dwell within, abandoning
बहिः-स्थं यः तु सेवतेbahiḥ-sthaṃ yaḥ tu sevatewho, however, serves what dwells without
हस्त-स्थं पिण्डम् उत्सृज्यhasta-sthaṃ piṇḍam utsṛjyathe lump in his hand, casting away
लिहेत् कूर्परम् आत्मनःlihet kūrparam ātmanaḥlicks his own elbow
Translation
"Who, abandoning me, who dwell within, serves what dwells without, — casting away the lump in his hand, licks his own elbow."
Version
bb2e5185f3b4 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
A folk comparison, and forceful for that: to throw bread out of one's hand and lick one's own elbow. But it is worth seeing who is speaking here, for this changes everything. It is said mam, "me," in the first person. Not "the Atman is within," but "abandoning me, who dwell within."
So the within is not a property or a state, but someone, who says "I" and to whom "you" is addressed. This circumstance undermines the nondualist reading of this very line. Were the within myself, there would be no "me," no "one who has abandoned," and no one speaking.
The Vaishnava side points to such places constantly, and points not to the sense but to the grammar: everywhere these books shift from reasoning to speech, the first and second person appear at once. Now to the argument itself, for it is half true. It is true that He is within, and that seeking Him elsewhere without looking within is absurd.
What is untrue is the opposition. From the fact that He is within, it does not follow that He is not without; and the Gita says this directly, and twice in a row: "outside and within beings, unmoving and moving, unknowable by reason of its subtlety; and it is far, and it is near" (13.15). This verse deserves being held against all reasoning of this kind. It refuses to choose between "within" and "without" and asserts both; and hence one who derives the uselessness of the outer from an inner presence reasons for the book, not by the book.