Upanishads · Varāha 1.4
॥
Devanāgarī
मनोबुद्धिरहङ्कारश्चित्तं चेति चतुष्टयम् । चतुर्विंशतितत्त्वानि तानि ब्रह्मविदो विदुः
Transliteration (IAST)
manobuddhirahaṅkāraścittaṃ ceti catuṣṭayam | caturviṃśatitattvāni tāni brahmavido viduḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
मनः बुद्धिः अहङ्कारःmanaḥ buddhiḥ ahaṅkāraḥmind, intellect, ego
चित्तं च इति चतुष्टयम्cittaṃ ca iti catuṣṭayamand consciousness — the quaternity
चतुः-विंशति-तत्त्वानिcatuḥ-viṃśati-tattvānitwenty-four principles
तानि ब्रह्म-विदः विदुःtāni brahma-vidaḥ viduḥthese knowers of brahman know
Translation
"Mind, intellect, ego, and consciousness — the quaternity; knowers of brahman know these as twenty-four principles."
Version
892513d6dc85 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
The first count is complete: twenty-four principles. They are composed thus: five knowing senses, five active, five breaths, five objects of the senses, and four inner instruments — twenty-four in all. Worth examining is the quaternity of inner instruments, for it is a distinctive feature of the Indian count and is not distinguished in Vaishnava tradition.
Manas, "mind": that by which one accepts and rejects, by which one wavers. It doubts. Buddhi, "intellect": that by which one decides. It determines.
Ahankara, "ego-making": that by which one appropriates. It says "mine." Chitta, "consciousness": that where things are stored and recalled.
This distinction is, in my view, useful and applies beyond any philosophy. Anyone who has observed himself will distinguish these four movements: wavering, deciding, appropriating, recalling. Let us add what must be said of the third, for it is the subject of everything that follows.
Ahankara is not the self, but its counterfeit: not "I," but "the making of I." This was discussed when reading the Jabala-darshana (4.34), where a verse of the Gita 3.27 was cited: ahankara-vimudhatma karta'ham iti manyate, "one deluded by ego-making thinks, 'I am the doer'." Worth noting is that this verse does not deny "I"; it denies ascribing the doing to oneself. And the difference between "I do not exist" and "it is not I who acts" is, in substance, the whole difference between the two readings.