उपनिषद् · Bhāvanā p8
॥
देवनागरी
ज्ञातृज्ञानज्ञेयानामभेदभावनं श्रीचक्रपूजनम्
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
jñātṛjñānajñeyānāmabhedabhāvanaṃ śrīcakrapūjanam
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
ज्ञातृ-ज्ञान-ज्ञेयानाम्jñātṛ-jñāna-jñeyānāmof the knower, the knowledge, and the known
अ-भेद-भावनंa-bheda-bhāvanaṃthe representation of non-difference
श्री-चक्र-पूजनम्śrī-cakra-pūjanamis the worship of the śrī-cakra
अनुवाद
The representation of non-difference of the knower, the knowledge, and the known — this is the worship of the śrī-cakra.
संस्करण
a0425b2bfb42 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Here is the central position of the whole book, and here one must stop and explain to the full. It is said: worship is abheda-bhāvana, "the representation of non-difference" of the three — the knower, the knowledge, and the known. That is, the whole rite is reduced to representing to oneself that these three are not separate.
The first thing worth noting is the word bhāvana, which gives the book its title. It means not "comprehension" and not "seeing," but representation, bringing to presence by imagination. The book does not say the three do not exist; it says: represent that they do not.
The difference is enormous, and it should not be smoothed over in favor of either side. It is one thing to assert that matters stand thus; it is another to prescribe a practice in which they are represented as thus. Here the second is prescribed.
Now to the substance. From the fact that the knower, knowledge, and the known are inseparably connected, it in no way follows that they are one. A father and son are inseparably connected too — neither can be named father or son without the other; yet they are different persons. The correlative does not mean the identical; and in language this is clearest of all: the word "priest" without an offering is meaningless, but the priest does not thereby become the offering.
Hence the Vaiṣṇava side says: the triad of cognition is evidence of a relationship, not of unity. And worship, by this reading, consists not in imagining that there is no one to whom the offering is made, but in making the offering. The measure here is simple: if worship is the representation of non-difference, it is performed alone — and whatever is done alone is called not worship, but reflection.