Upaniṣads · Jābāladarśana 8.6
॥
Devanāgarī
अग्न्यंशे चे महेशानमीश्वरं चानिलांशके । आकाशांशे महाप्राज्ञ धारयेत्तु सदाशिवम्
Transliteración (IAST)
agnyaṃśe ce maheśānamīśvaraṃ cānilāṃśake | ākāśāṃśe mahāprājña dhārayettu sadāśivam
Palabra por palabra
SánscritoIASTSignificado
अग्नि-अंशे च महेशानम्agni-aṃśe ca maheśānamand in the fire portion — Maheshana
ईश्वरं च अनिल-अंशकेīśvaraṃ ca anila-aṃśakeand Ishvara — in the wind portion
आकाश-अंशे महा-प्राज्ञākāśa-aṃśe mahā-prājñain the space portion, O great in wisdom
धारयेत् तु सदा-शिवम्dhārayet tu sadā-śivamlet him hold, however, Sadashiva
Traducción
"…and in the fire portion — Maheshana, and Ishvara — in the wind portion; in the space portion, O great in wisdom, let him hold Sadashiva."
Versión
b18fbe0ccae3 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
The chart is carried to the top: Sadashiva in the crown. Worth noting is that this exercise, begun as a bringing-together of elements, has ended in concentration on Persons. This shift is constant in the book, and we noted it when reading the sixth khanda (6.39): every time the matter reaches concentration, a name and a form appear at once.
There is no need to repeat what was said there; let us add only one observation relevant here. The elements themselves do not admit of prolonged concentration. A person can hold "earth" or "water" abstractly in mind for a minute; after that the mind either wanders off, or begins to picture something definite — a field, a river.
This need for the definite is a property of the mind, not a weakness; and every teaching on concentration is sooner or later forced to reckon with it. The Vaishnava side reckons with it from the very start, and hence sets no abstract objects at all. In it one concentrates on a narrative, on a form, on a Name — that is, on what holds attention by itself.
Let us add what follows from this for evaluating the whole ladder. If the mind is held only by the definite, then abstract concentration is not a higher rung, but a difficult one; and its difficulty is not a mark of its height. This distinction deserves holding on to, for confusing the difficult with the high is, in my view, the chief error in every discourse on paths.