Upaniṣads · Jābāladarśana 4.2
॥
Devanāgarī
त्रिकोणं मनुजानां तु सत्यमुक्तं हि सांकृते । गुदात्तु द्व्यङ्गुलादूर्ध्वं मेढ्रात्तु द्व्यन्ङ्गुलादधः
Transliteración (IAST)
trikoṇaṃ manujānāṃ tu satyamuktaṃ hi sāṃkṛte | gudāttu dvyaṅgulādūrdhvaṃ meḍhrāttu dvyanṅgulādadhaḥ
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
त्रिकोणं मनुजानां तुtrikoṇaṃ manujānāṃ tutriangular, however, in humans
सत्यम् उक्तं हि सांकृतेsatyam uktaṃ hi sāṃkṛtetruly it is said, O Sankriti
गुदात् तु द्वि-अङ्गुलात् ऊर्ध्वंgudāt tu dvi-aṅgulāt ūrdhvaṃabove the anus by two finger-widths
मेढ्रात् तु द्वि-अङ्गुलात् अधःmeḍhrāt tu dvi-aṅgulāt adhaḥbelow the organ by two finger-widths
Traducción
"Triangular, however, is it in humans, truly it is said, O Sankriti: two finger-widths above the anus and two finger-widths below the organ…"
Versión
2f81b498c8df · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
The place is indicated with a surveyor's precision: two finger-widths above, two below. This detail, for all its bodiliness, deserves attention as a mark of experiential knowledge. One does not write this way of what has been read, but of what has been felt out; and this whole section, apparently, is a record of what people actually found in themselves.
It is worth saying at once, however, what such knowledge is not. It is not anatomy. Not one of the things described here — the triangle, the bulb, the channels — can be found by dissection; and anyone who has tried to reconcile these descriptions with the arrangement of nerves and vessels knows they do not reconcile.
To reject them on this account, however, would be hasty. What is described here is not what the body is made of, but what a person feels within himself when sitting motionless and attending to himself; and as a description of what is felt, it can be exact while remaining false as a description of substance. The Vaishnava side has no particular opinion here and does not enter the dispute. The structure of inner experience is not, for it, a subject of doctrine; and its books speak of channels and knots only when retelling another's account.
It gives a ground for this in one consideration worth citing. A relation to a Person does not require knowledge of one's own structure: a lover does not study his heart in order to love — and ignorance of anatomy has never yet kept anyone from being faithful.