तस्मिन्यदन्तर्निर्लिप्तमव्ययमनाद्यन्तमशेषवेदवेदान्तवेद्यमनिर्देश्यमनिरुक्तमप्रच्यवमाशास्यमद्वैतं सर्वाधारमनाधारमनिरीक्ष्यमहरहर्ब्रह्मविष्णुपुरन्दराद्यमरवरसेवितं मामेव ज्योतिःस्वरूपं लिङ्गं मामेवोपासितव्यं तदेवोपासितव्यम्
tasminyadantarnirliptamavyayamanādyantamaśeṣavedavedāntavedyamanirdeśyamaniruktamapracyavamāśāsyamadvaitaṃ sarvādhāramanādhāramanirīkṣyamaharaharbrahmaviṣṇupurandarādyamaravarasevitaṃ māmeva jyotiḥsvarūpaṃ liṅgaṃ māmevopāsitavyaṃ tadevopāsitavyam
«In it, what is within — unstained, undiminishing, beginningless and endless, knowable by the whole Veda and vedānta, unpointed-to, inexpressible, imperishable, desired, non-dual, the support of all and itself unsupported, unseen, served day after day by Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Indra, and the finest of immortals — me indeed, having the form of light, the liṅga, me indeed must be worshipped».
8320544cda29 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
A long series of definitions, and among them one deserves marking, for it overturns everything else: sarva-ādhāram an-ādhāram, «the support of all, and itself without support». This definition is precise and central to disputes. The support of all things itself has no support — otherwise one would have to seek the support of the support, and so on without end.
This argument is ancient in Indian letters and is invoked by every school; and it is, in essence, the only argument by which a limit can be pointed to at all. Worth noting a second detail too: brahma-viṣṇu-purandara-ādi-amara-vara-sevitam, «served by Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Indra». Here Viṣṇu is called one who serves; while in Rudra-hṛdaya (13) Viṣṇu was called the eternal self of all beings. Both passages are recorded, and both in Śaiva books.
Worth noting that such passages in both collections are reciprocal: in the Bhāgavatam Śiva reveres Viṣṇu, in this book Viṣṇu reveres Śiva. And this is not so much theology as custom: every community places its own figure at the center and the rest around him. From this the Vaishnava side draws a conclusion worth naming. Arguing over who bows to whom in whose books is useless; one must look at what is said of whom in substance — and in this respect the passage in Rudra-hṛdaya (13) about «the eternal self of all beings» weighs more than the picture of one who bows.