तस्या एव ब्रह्मा अजीजनत् । विष्णुरजीजनत् । रुद्रोऽजीजनत् । सर्वे मरुद्गणा अजीजनत् । गन्धर्वाप्सरसः किन्नरा वादित्रवादिनः समन्तादजीजनत् । भोग्यमजीजनत्। सर्वमजीजनत् । सर्वं शाक्तमजीजनत् । अण्डजं स्वेदजमुद्भिज्जं जरायुजम् यत्किंचैतत् प्राणि स्थावरजंगमं मनुष्यमजीजनत्
tasyā eva brahmā ajījanat | viṣṇurajījanat | rudro'jījanat | sarve marudgaṇā ajījanat | gandharvāpsarasaḥ kinnarā vāditravādinaḥ samantādajījanat | bhogyamajījanat| sarvamajījanat | sarvaṃ śāktamajījanat | aṇḍajaṃ svedajamudbhijjaṃ jarāyujam yatkiṃcaitat prāṇi sthāvarajaṃgamaṃ manuṣyamajījanat
«From her Brahmā was born, Viṣṇu was born, Rudra was born, all the hosts of the Maruts were born, the gandharvas, apsarases, kinnaras and the players on instruments — all things round about; the enjoyable was born, everything was born, all that is of śakti was born; the egg-born, the sweat-born, the sprouting and the womb-born were born — all that is living, fixed and moving, and man».
cbb1d3d0a75e · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
Here is the place for the sake of which this book was written: Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra are said to be born of the goddess. Let us take it up directly and without evasion, for it is a plain assertion, not a hint. The Śākta school’s position is this: śakti is the first, and the triad is her offspring; and so every other book that sets one of the three above the rest reads wrongly.
The Vaiṣṇava position is the reverse and is stated through the Viṣṇu-purāṇa, cited reading Varāha (5.51): śakti-śaktimator abhedaḥ, “power and the possessor of power are not different” — and yet power is always somebody’s power. Let us restate the argument in its shortest form, for here it decides the matter. The word śakti is a relative word: as “daughter” presupposes a parent, and “shadow” a body, so “power” presupposes a possessor.
And so to call power first is to use the word against its own sense: power belonging to no one is not power. Add too that the Vaiṣṇava side does not thereby demean the goddess and cannot demean her. Its own teaching about Rādhā says that she is hlādinī-śakti, “the power of delight,” and that He is not whole without her; that was discussed reading the Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā.
That is, the dispute is not about greatness but about word order: she is His power, not He her offspring. Add one more observation that suggests itself here: in the list of the born stands bhogyam, “the enjoyable”; that is, the object of enjoyment too was born. And where there is an object of enjoyment there is an enjoyer; and the book, having begun with one, has by its second line already counted two.