उपनिषद् · Varāha 5.32
॥
देवनागरी
समग्रीवशिरः कायः संवृतास्यः सुनिश्चलः । नासाग्रे चैव हृन्मध्ये बिन्दुमध्ये तुरीयकम्
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
samagrīvaśiraḥ kāyaḥ saṃvṛtāsyaḥ suniścalaḥ | nāsāgre caiva hṛnmadhye bindumadhye turīyakam
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
सम-ग्रीव-शिरः-कायःsama-grīva-śiraḥ-kāyaḥwith neck, head, and body even
संवृत-आस्यः सु-निश्चलःsaṃvṛta-āsyaḥ su-niścalaḥmouth closed, wholly motionless
नासा-अग्रे च एव हृत्-मध्येnāsā-agre ca eva hṛt-madhyeat the tip of the nose and likewise the middle of the heart
बिन्दु-मध्ये तुरीयकम्bindu-madhye turīyakamin the middle of the point — the fourth
अनुवाद
"With neck, head, and body even, mouth closed, wholly motionless, — at the tip of the nose and likewise the middle of the heart, in the middle of the point, [he contemplates] the fourth…"
संस्करण
806be2858b0c · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
The verse repeats the Gita 6.13 almost word for word, discussed when reading verse seventeen. Let us add what deserves separate examination here: three points of attention — the tip of the nose, the middle of the heart, the middle of the point. The first is a bodily point and serves to gather the gaze: the eyes half-closed and directed toward the nose, whereby they cease to wander.
The second is the heart; and in this literature it is spoken of as the place where the self abides. The third — bindu, "point," that is, the very point above om, discussed when reading the Tarasara (2.4). Worth noting is that the Gita, in the same passage where it speaks of bodily posture, immediately names the object too: mach-chittah yukta asita mat-parah, "let him sit, having concentrated the mind on Me, holding Me the highest" (6.14).
That is, in the Gita the technique and the object are given together, and technique without object is inconceivable there. Here the object is named turyaka, "the fourth," that is, a state, not a Person. This difference is fundamental in Vaishnava polemic and is stated briefly: concentration requires an object, and a state cannot be an object, for it is that in which one concentrates, not that on which.
Hence its own concentration always has a form; and the Bhagavatam (3.28.12 and onward) describes it in detail, listing features, garment, ornaments — not from a fondness for detail, but because the mind needs something to hold onto.