Upaniṣads · Jābāladarśana 7.2
॥
Devanāgarī
बलादाहरणां तेषां प्रत्याहारः स उच्यते । यत्पश्यति तु तत्सर्वं ब्रह्म पश्यन्समाहितः
Transliteración (IAST)
balādāharaṇāṃ teṣāṃ pratyāhāraḥ sa ucyate | yatpaśyati tu tatsarvaṃ brahma paśyansamāhitaḥ
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
बलात् आहरणं तेषांbalāt āharaṇaṃ teṣāṃforceful withdrawal of them
प्रत्याहारः सः उच्यतेpratyāhāraḥ saḥ ucyateis called withdrawal of the senses
यत् पश्यति तु तत् सर्वंyat paśyati tu tat sarvaṃand whatever one sees, all of that
ब्रह्म पश्यन् समाहितःbrahma paśyan samāhitaḥseeing as brahman, concentrated
Traducción
"Forceful withdrawal of them is called withdrawal of the senses. And whatever one sees, all of that — seeing as brahman, concentrated…"
Versión
fdb43987257b · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
Two definitions are given in a row, and they are opposite in method. The first: balat aharanam, "forceful withdrawal." This is withdrawal in the literal sense: the senses are pulled away from their objects by effort.
The second begins right here and will take up the following lines: to see everything as brahman. The difference between them deserves stating, for it is the difference between two methods in general. The first method is to take away the object. Do not look, do not listen, close your eyes; and its bodily performance was discussed when reading the sixth khanda (6.33).
The second is to change the seeing. Look at whatever you like, but see something else in it. The second method is, in my view, both better and harder. Better — because it does not war against the nature of the senses and does not require locking them up. Harder — because seeing cannot be changed by decision, while eyes can be closed.
The Vaishnava side holds to the second, and states it in a verse that has become, for it, the definition of the highest rung: sarva-bhuteshu yah pashyed bhagavad-bhavam atmanah, "who sees, in all beings, the presence of the Lord" (Bhagavatam 11.2.45). Worth noting is that it does not say there "sees brahman," but "sees the presence of the Lord"; and the difference between these two seeings is the same as between "everything is one" and "everything belongs to Him." The first seeing equalizes, and hence easily slides into indifference. The second does not equalize, but binds: if everything is His, then everyone must be treated as His property, and this already requires conduct, not contemplation alone.