Upanishads · Varāha 1.7
॥
Devanāgarī
आहत्य तत्त्वजातानां षट्त्रिंशन्मुनयो विदुः । पूर्वोक्तैस्तत्त्वजातैस्तु समं तत्त्वानि योजयेत्
Transliteration (IAST)
āhatya tattvajātānāṃ ṣaṭtriṃśanmunayo viduḥ | pūrvoktaistattvajātaistu samaṃ tattvāni yojayet
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
आहत्य तत्त्व-जातानांāhatya tattva-jātānāṃtaking together the whole array of principles
षट्-त्रिंशत् मुनयः विदुःṣaṭ-triṃśat munayaḥ viduḥthirty-six, the sages know
पूर्व-उक्तैः तत्त्व-जातैः तुpūrva-uktaiḥ tattva-jātaiḥ tuwith the previously stated array of principles
समं तत्त्वानि योजयेत्samaṃ tattvāni yojayetlet one join together the [further] principles
Translation
"Taking together the whole array of principles, the sages know thirty-six; with the previously stated array of principles, let one join together [the further] principles."
Version
194431651e81 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
A second count: thirty-six. They are composed thus: the twenty-four previous, five elements, three bodies, three states, and the self itself — thirty-six in all. Worth noting is that the count grows: first twenty-four, then thirty-six, then it will be ninety-six.
This growth comes not from new discoveries, but from finer analysis: what was formerly counted as one is broken into parts. This detail is telling and deserves stating, for it explains the discrepancy among lists in different books. A school counting twenty-five principles and a school counting ninety-six do not contradict each other: they divide the same thing at different degrees of fineness.
To dispute the number of principles is as useless as disputing how many parts a house has: it depends how you count. The Vaishnava side does not enter such disputes and holds to the count given by the Gita — twenty-four with the addition of the field and the knower of the field (13.5–6). Let us add how it explains its unwillingness to subdivide. Fineness of division does not bring one closer to the goal: one who knows ninety-six principles knows more about matter than one who knows twenty-four, and is exactly as far from what is not matter.
Hence its own books describe in detail not principles, but relations; and all its finesse of division goes into the examination of the senses, not of the elements.