उपनिषद् · Bhasmajābāla 1.22
॥
देवनागरी
यतिर्भस्मधारणं त्यक्त्वैकदोपोष्य द्वादशसहस्रप्रणवं जप्त्वा शुद्धो भवति । अन्यथेन्द्रो यतीन्सालावृकेभ्यः पातयति
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
yatirbhasmadhāraṇaṃ tyaktvaikadopoṣya dvādaśasahasrapraṇavaṃ japtvā śuddho bhavati | anyathendro yatīnsālāvṛkebhyaḥ pātayati
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
यतिः भस्म-धारणं त्यक्त्वाyatiḥ bhasma-dhāraṇaṃ tyaktvāa renunciant, having abandoned the wearing of ash
एकदा उपोष्यekadā upoṣyahaving fasted once
द्वादश-सहस्र-प्रणवं जप्त्वाdvādaśa-sahasra-praṇavaṃ japtvāhaving repeated twelve thousand praṇavas
अन्यथा इन्द्रः यतीन् सालावृकेभ्यः पातयतिanyathā indraḥ yatīn sālāvṛkebhyaḥ pātayatiotherwise Indra casts renunciants to the jackals
अनुवाद
«A renunciant, having abandoned the wearing of ash — having fasted once, having repeated twelve thousand praṇavas, becomes pure; otherwise Indra casts renunciants to the jackals».
संस्करण
bd2fd9dceac8 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Here is a place about which one must speak plainly: indro yatīn sālāvṛkebhyaḥ pātayati, «Indra casts renunciants to the jackals». This is a threat, and a direct one. These words, incidentally, are taken from an old passage: in the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa it is told how Indra cast śālāvṛkas, «jackals» or «hyenas», upon ascetics — whether for neglecting the sacrifice or for surpassing the gods. The passage is obscure and was interpreted variously in antiquity.
Here it is cited as intimidation: fail to apply the ash and you will be given to beasts. Let us say this honestly. Threat as a means of persuasion is present in every religious book, and in Vaishnava books too: the descriptions of hells in the Bhāgavatam (5.26) are detailed and terrible.
But there is a measure here worth stating. It is one thing to threaten for cruelty and deceit, another to threaten for an unperformed rite. In the first case the threat points to real harm done to another; in the second it merely reinforces a custom whose violation harms no one visibly. The Vaishnava side draws this distinction and says so directly. Among all offenses it counts the gravest not the omission of a rite but offense against a devotee and presuming to sin on the strength of the Name; and both of these are harm done to another and to oneself, not a breach of order.