उपनिषद् · Yājñavalkya 6
॥
देवनागरी
त्वङ्मांसरक्तबाष्पाम्बु पृथक्कृत्वा विलोचने । समालोकय रम्यं चेत्किं मुधा परिमुह्यसि
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
tvaṅmāṃsaraktabāṣpāmbu pṛthakkṛtvā vilocane | samālokaya ramyaṃ cetkiṃ mudhā parimuhyasi
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
त्वक्-मांस-रक्त-बाष्प-अम्बुtvak-māṃsa-rakta-bāṣpa-ambuskin, flesh, blood, tear-fluid
पृथक् कृत्वा विलोचनेpṛthak kṛtvā vilocanehaving separately arranged, the eyes
समालोकय रम्यं चेत्samālokaya ramyaṃ cetexamine — if [it is] beautiful
किं मुधा परिमुह्यसिkiṃ mudhā parimuhyasiwhy then are you vainly deluded
अनुवाद
Having separately arranged skin, flesh, blood, and tear-fluid, examine the eyes: if beautiful — why then are you vainly deluded?
संस्करण
dace68647121 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
A device is named, and it is worth examining, for it is the same in the ascetic books of every tradition: dissect and show part by part. Let us say what is true in it, for something true is there. It is true that attraction does not withstand dissection: broken into parts, it stops attracting. And anyone who has caught himself losing the enchantment over one incidental detail knows the device works.
Now let us say plainly where it fails. It proves the wrong thing. From the fact that the dissected is not beautiful, it does not follow that the whole is not beautiful; from the fact that a disassembled clock does not show the time, it does not follow that the clock does not run.
Beauty is a property of the whole, not the sum of parts; and a device that dissects the whole thereby destroys the very object it is reasoning about. Let us add that this device, applied consistently, devalues everything: a dissected rose is petals and juice, a dissected song is vibrations of air. The Vaiṣṇava side does not use this device, and it is worth saying what she replaces it with.
She replaces it with the substitution discussed when reading the Rudrākṣa-jābāla (1.11): not aversion to the object, but the appearance of something better; and the Gītā's verse was cited — raso'py asya paraṃ dṛṣṭvā nivartate, "and even the taste recedes for one who has seen the higher" (2.59). The distinction between the two methods is worth voicing. The first leaves a person with aversion to everything, for anything can be dissected. The second leaves him with love for one thing, and the rest falls away of itself.