यदि पौण्ड्रकालिकदूतोऽसि यदि वा पौण्ड्रकालिकः स्वयं सचरति सचरति तत्कारी मत्कारी विषनाशिनी विषदूषिणी विषहारिणी हतं विषं नष्टं विषं हतमिन्द्रस्य वज्रेण विषं हतं ते ब्रह्मणा विषमिन्द्रस्य वज्रेण स्वाहा
yadi pauṇḍrakālikadūto'si yadi vā pauṇḍrakālikaḥ svayaṃ sacarati sacarati tatkārī matkārī viṣanāśinī viṣadūṣiṇī viṣahāriṇī hataṃ viṣaṃ naṣṭaṃ viṣaṃ hatamindrasya vajreṇa viṣaṃ hataṃ te brahmaṇā viṣamindrasya vajreṇa svāhā
«If you are the messenger of Pauṇḍrakālika, or if you are Pauṇḍrakālika himself — "moving, moving… destroying poison, corrupting poison, carrying away poison: poison is slain, poison has perished, slain by the thunderbolt of Indra, slain in you by brahman — svāhā».
dba1eecdeec0 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
The most repeated word of the refrain deserves examination: sacarati sacarati, “moving, moving.” The word is obscure and interpreted two ways. First reading: “moves” is said of the poison: it travels through the body, and the charm calls to it in passing.
Second: “moves” is said of the knowledge: it travels after the poison and overtakes it. The second reading is more likely, for the rest of the refrain stands entirely in the feminine — and vidyā, “knowledge,” is feminine. On this reading the whole refrain becomes coherent: the knowledge moves, takes the form of the poison, corrupts, dries up, destroys, and carries it away.
That is, the charm describes a chase; and this image, to my mind, is fitting and explains why it is repeated without end: a chase is exactly repetition. Let us add what should be said of the doubling “moving, moving,” for it is the only word here doubled not in the imperative. The other doublings are commands: burn, burn; sever, sever.
This one is a description, doubled for urgency; and in our own language, the corresponding turn is “coming, coming,” said of one who hurries. The Vaiṣṇava side is untroubled by such analysis and has no reading of its own here: it does not interpret charms, for it does not use them. We examine it as a monument, and hence our analysis is philological, not theological.