LinuxTurn pages
Upanishads · Hayagrīva 1.2
॥
Devanāgarī
ऋग्यजुःसामरूपाय वेदाहरणकर्मणे । प्रणवोद्गीथवपुषे महाश्वशिरसे नमः स्वाहा स्वाहा नमः
Transliteration (IAST)
ṛgyajuḥsāmarūpāya vedāharaṇakarmaṇe | praṇavodgīthavapuṣe mahāśvaśirase namaḥ svāhā svāhā namaḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
ऋक्-यजुः-साम-रूपायṛk-yajuḥ-sāma-rūpāyato Him having the form of the three Vedas
वेद-आहरण-कर्मणेveda-āharaṇa-karmaṇewhose act is the retrieval of the Vedas
प्रणव-उद्गीथ-वपुषेpraṇava-udgītha-vapuṣewhose body is the praṇava and the udgītha
महा-अश्व-शिरसे नमःmahā-aśva-śirase namaḥhomage to the great horse-head
स्वाहा स्वाहा नमःsvāhā svāhā namaḥsvāhā, svāhā, homage
Translation
«To Him having the form of the Ṛc, the Yajus, and the Sāman, whose act is the retrieval of the Vedas, whose body is the praṇava and the udgītha, homage to the great horse-head: svāhā, svāhā, homage».
Version
4700376b4abb · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
Note the middle phrase: veda-āharaṇa-karmaṇe, “whose act is the retrieval of the Vedas.” Āharaṇa means “bringing back, retrieving”; and this is a direct reference to the story of Madhu and Kaiṭabha, discussed reading the first prose unit. This detail, to my mind, deserves attention: Hayagrīva is defined not by an attribute, but by a deed.
Other gods are defined by attributes — all-knowing, all-powerful; this one is defined by what He did. The Vaiṣṇava side points to definitions of this kind as its own distinguishing trait: its Highest is described through a story, and that its teaching unfolds through narrative rather than definition was discussed reading the Kṛṣṇa Upaniṣad (1.2). Add, too, what should be said about the deed itself, for it carries meaning beyond the story.
The Vedas were stolen and hidden in the waters; and the Lord took this form in order to retrieve them. That is, knowledge is described as something that was lost and was restored; and this, to my mind, is truer than the ordinary notion that revelation was given once for all. It is lost — in every age and in every person; and it is not restored by the effort of those who remember, but by the fact that someone comes for it.
Add, too, the words mahā-aśva-śiras, “the great horse-head”: the form is named plainly and without softening. Its strangeness is deliberate: the one who brought back the word does not have a human face — and in this, it seems, lies an indication that the source of speech is itself not human.