उपनिषद् · Jābāladarśana 4.51
॥
देवनागरी
भावतीर्थं परं तीर्थं प्रमाणं सर्वकर्मसु । अन्यथालिङ्ग्यते कान्ता अन्यथालिङ्ग्यते सुता
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
bhāvatīrthaṃ paraṃ tīrthaṃ pramāṇaṃ sarvakarmasu | anyathāliṅgyate kāntā anyathāliṅgyate sutā
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
भाव-तीर्थं परं तीर्थंbhāva-tīrthaṃ paraṃ tīrthaṃthe holy place of disposition — the highest place
प्रमाणं सर्व-कर्मसुpramāṇaṃ sarva-karmasuthe measure in all deeds
अन्यथा आलिङ्ग्यते कान्ताanyathā āliṅgyate kāntādifferently is a beloved embraced
अन्यथा आलिङ्ग्यते सुताanyathā āliṅgyate sutādifferently is a daughter embraced
अनुवाद
"The holy place of disposition is the highest place, the measure in all deeds: differently is a beloved embraced, differently is a daughter embraced."
संस्करण
6525eced0c2a · प्रकाशित 7 अग॰ 2026, 8:28:46 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Here is the finest line in this khanda, and its comparison leaves nothing to dispute: both are embraced, but embraced differently. The word bhava means "state, disposition, mood, feeling"; and it is said to be the pramana, "measure," in all deeds. That is, the same action, performed with a different disposition, is a different action; and no outward description of a deed will say what it is.
This position is fundamental in Vaishnava teaching, and the word bhava is among its chief ones there. It denotes both the next-to-last stage before love, and the very disposition with which one serves; and its whole literature on the rasas is, in substance, an examination of what forms relationships take. Five are counted: shanta (calm reverence), dasya (service), sakhya (friendship), vatsalya (parental), madhurya (conjugal). And, importantly, all five are held genuine: the dispute among them is not over which is true, but over which is fuller.
The comparison given here appears in its books in almost the same words, and serves the same purpose: to show that it is not the action that is determined, but the relation. Let us add what follows from this for our whole discussion. If the measure is disposition, then the difference between one who serves and the One who is served cannot be abolished: disposition exists only toward someone.
Hence this line, standing in the middle of a discourse on the inner and the outer, is, in my view, unwitting testimony in favor of relation; and it also explains why, in the lines that follow, where relation will be denied, the discourse turns drier.