द्रमित्युक्त्वा द्रामित्युक्त्वा वा दत्तात्रेयाय नम इत्यष्टाक्षरः । दत्तात्रेयायेति सत्यानन्दचिदात्मकम् । नम इति पूर्णानन्दकविग्रहम् । गायत्री छन्दः । सदाशिव ऋषिः । दत्तात्रेयो देवता । दत्तात्रेयायेति कीलकम् । तदेव बीजम् । नमः शक्तिर्भवति
dramityuktvā drāmityuktvā vā dattātreyāya nama ityaṣṭākṣaraḥ | dattātreyāyeti satyānandacidātmakam | nama iti pūrṇānandakavigraham | gāyatrī chandaḥ | sadāśiva ṛṣiḥ | dattātreyo devatā | dattātreyāyeti kīlakam | tadeva bījam | namaḥ śaktirbhavati
«Having said "dram" or "drām" long, [one adds] "homage to Dattātreya" — this is the eight-syllable [mantra]. "Dattātreya" — consisting of truth, bliss, and consciousness; "homage" — the form of full bliss. The meter is gāyatrī, the sage is Sadāśiva, the deity is Dattātreya. "Dattātreya" is the pin, and also the seed; "homage" becomes the power».
df49f9e84e21 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
Note that here the word “homage” is analyzed, and analyzed unexpectedly. It says: namaḥ iti pūrṇānandaka-vigraham, “‘homage’ — the form of full bliss”; and then: namaḥ śaktir bhavati, “‘homage’ becomes the power.” That is, the bow is called not an act and not a sign of respect, but the power of the mantra.
This detail deserves examination, for it explains the structure of every mantra of this kind. A mantra distinguishes bīja, “seed,” from śakti, “power”: the first is that from which it grows, the second is that by which it acts. And here the word namaḥ is called the power.
The Vaiṣṇava side points to this readily, and draws from it a conclusion worth citing. The conclusion is this: it is not knowledge that acts, but inclination. In the mantra there is a name and there is a bow; the name gives to whom one turns, and the bow gives the posture of the one turning; and without the second, the first remains information.
Let us add what grammar says on this, for it is apt here. The word namaḥ requires the dative case: one bows to someone; and hence such a mantra is grammatically impossible without a second person. We have made this argument more than once; here it appears in its purest form, for the entire mantra consists of a name in the dative and the word “homage.”