उपनिषद् · Bhāvanā p24
॥
देवनागरी
अव्यक्तमहत्तत्त्वमहदहङ्कार इति कामेश्वरी-वज्रेश्वरीभगमालिन्योऽन्तस्त्रिकोणाग्रगा देवताः
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
avyaktamahattattvamahadahaṅkāra iti kāmeśvarī-vajreśvarībhagamālinyo'ntastrikoṇāgragā devatāḥ
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
अ-व्यक्तम् महत्-तत्त्वम् महत्-अहङ्कारःa-vyaktam mahat-tattvam mahat-ahaṅkāraḥthe unmanifest, the mahat principle, the great ego
इति कामेश्वरी-वज्रेश्वरी-भग-मालिन्यःiti kāmeśvarī-vajreśvarī-bhaga-mālinyaḥare Kāmeśvarī, Vajreśvarī, Bhagamālinī
अन्तः-त्रिकोण-अग्र-गाः देवताःantaḥ-trikoṇa-agra-gāḥ devatāḥthe deities going along the tips of the inner triangle
अनुवाद
The unmanifest, the mahat principle, the great ego are Kāmeśvarī, Vajreśvarī, Bhagamālinī, the deities going along the tips of the inner triangle.
संस्करण
0eadad5dceee · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
We have reached the center of the diagram: the three tips of the inner triangle are occupied by the three first principles of Sāṅkhya. Avyakta — "unmanifest," that is, nature before any differentiation; mahat — "the great," the first movement within it, from which intellect will proceed; ahaṅkāra — "selfhood," literally "I-making," that by which a being separates itself from the rest. This order in Sāṅkhya is strict and deserves attention: selfhood appears third, after the unmanifest and after the great. That is, "I" is not the beginning and not the foundation; it arises in the unfolding, and something already existed before it.
An important conclusion follows from this, and it is a commonplace of all these books: what a person calls himself is not him. Ahaṅkāra is an instrument of separation, useful in life and false in reckoning: it says "I do," whereas it is nature that does. The Gītā says exactly this: "deeds are performed entirely by the guṇas of nature; deluded by selfhood, one thinks 'I do'" (3.27).
Here the Vaiṣṇava side takes a step Sāṅkhya does not take. Having removed the false "I," she finds not impersonality, but another "I" — eternal, small, and belonging to Him; and so the question "who am I" is resolved there not by negation, but by a change of owner: not "I am no one," but "I am His."