Upanishads · Jābāladarśana 6.39
॥
Devanāgarī
सव्येतरेण गुल्फेन पीडयेद्बुद्धिमान्नरः । जान्वोरधः स्थितां सन्धिं स्मृत्वा देवं त्रियम्बकम्
Transliteration (IAST)
savyetareṇa gulphena pīḍayedbuddhimānnaraḥ | jānvoradhaḥ sthitāṃ sandhiṃ smṛtvā devaṃ triyambakam
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
सव्य-इतरेण गुल्फेनsavya-itareṇa gulphenawith the other, left ankle
पीडयेत् बुद्धिमान् नरःpīḍayet buddhimān naraḥlet the wise man press
जान्वोः अधः स्थितां सन्धिंjānvoḥ adhaḥ sthitāṃ sandhiṃthe junction standing beneath the knees
स्मृत्वा देवं त्रि-यम्बकम्smṛtvā devaṃ tri-yambakamhaving remembered the god Tryambaka
Translation
"Let the wise man press, with the other, left ankle, the junction standing beneath the knees, having remembered the god Tryambaka…"
Version
778341201aba · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
Worth noting is that the bodily technique is joined with smritva, "having remembered": while pressing with the heel, one is to remember a deity. This combination runs throughout the book: during breathing — contemplate fire (5.7), during retention — the form of a syllable (6.4), now during the lock — Tryambaka. Tryambaka means "three-eyed" and is a name of Shiva; in the next line Vinayaka and Vagishvari will be remembered.
Here it is worth saying something of this whole book that we have not said until now. For all its abstraction, and for all that in the fourth khanda it rejected images (4.52–4.59), — in practice it leaves no technique without the name of a deity. Every time a practice is assigned, beside it stands "having remembered such-and-such."
This contradiction is of the same kind we noted in the Ganapati and the Rudraksha-jabala: the reasoning rejects what the practice lives by. From this the Vaishnava side draws a conclusion worth stating directly. An abstract teaching cannot be performed abstractly: the moment it comes to the actual doing, a name and a Person are immediately required, for one can only remember someone.
This is easy to verify from the book itself. It commands contemplation — and at once gives an object; it commands remembrance — and at once names a name. Never once is it said "contemplate nothing" or "remember the formless"; and this, in my view, is testimony stronger than any argument.