व्याघ्रचर्माम्बरधरं मृगहस्तं भस्मोद्धूलितविग्रहं तिर्यक्त्रिपुण्ड्ररेखाविराजमानभालप्रदेशं स्मितसम्पूर्णपञ्चविधपञ्चाननं वीरासनारूढमप्रमेयमनाद्यनन्तं निष्कलं निर्गुणं शान्तं निरञ्जनमनामयं हुंफट्कुर्वाणं शिवनामान्यनिशमुच्चरन्तं
vyāghracarmāmbaradharaṃ mṛgahastaṃ bhasmoddhūlitavigrahaṃ tiryaktripuṇḍrarekhāvirājamānabhālapradeśaṃ smitasampūrṇapañcavidhapañcānanaṃ vīrāsanārūḍhamaprameyamanādyanantaṃ niṣkalaṃ nirguṇaṃ śāntaṃ nirañjanamanāmayaṃ huṃphaṭkurvāṇaṃ śivanāmānyaniśamuccarantaṃ
«…wearing a tiger skin for clothing, with a fawn in hand, whose body is dusted with ash, whose brow shines with the crosswise lines of the tripuṇḍra, with five smiling faces, seated in the hero's pose, immeasurable, without beginning or end, partless, without qualities, at peace, unstained, unharmed, uttering «hum phat», ceaselessly uttering the names of Śiva…»
82948fcfd8e9 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
There is a detail in the description worth unpacking for its own sake: Śiva is depicted śiva-nāmāni aniśam uccarantam, «ceaselessly uttering the names of Śiva». That is, He repeats His own name. This oddity occurs in Vaishnava books too, and there it is explained. Rāma repeats the name of Rāma; Kṛṣṇa listens to accounts of Kṛṣṇa; and the Caitanya-caritāmṛta says the Lord took the form of a devotee in order to taste the sweetness of His own name, which He could not otherwise taste.
This explanation is, to my mind, lovelier than any theology. Honey is sweet; but honey cannot taste itself, and so — if one wants that badly enough — one must become the bee. Worth noting too is what stands beside it: niṣkalam nirguṇam śāntam, «partless, without qualities, at peace».
These definitions stand in the same line as the tiger skin, the fawn in hand, the five smiling faces, and the hero's pose. That is, qualitylessness is declared — and in the same breath a form, a face, a pose, clothing, and something held in hand are described. The author feels no contradiction; and that this is always so in these books was noted when reading Tripurātāpinī (99): qualitylessness is declared, and yet someone is always described.