योऽहमस्मीति वा सोहमस्मीति वा योऽसौ सोऽहमस्मीति वा या भाव्यते सैषा षोडशी श्रीविद्या पञ्चदशाक्षरी श्रीमहात्रिपुरसुन्दरी बालांबिकेति बगलेति वा मातंगीति स्वयंवरकल्याणीति भुवनेश्वरीति चामुण्डेति चण्डेति वाराहीति तिरस्करिणीति राजमातंगीति वा शुकश्यामलेति वा लघुश्यामलेति वा अश्वारूढेति वा प्रत्यंगिरा धूमावती सावित्री गायत्री सरस्वती ब्रह्मानन्दकलेति
yo'hamasmīti vā sohamasmīti vā yo'sau so'hamasmīti vā yā bhāvyate saiṣā ṣoḍaśī śrīvidyā pañcadaśākṣarī śrīmahātripurasundarī bālāṃbiketi bagaleti vā mātaṃgīti svayaṃvarakalyāṇīti bhuvaneśvarīti cāmuṇḍeti caṇḍeti vārāhīti tiraskariṇīti rājamātaṃgīti vā śukaśyāmaleti vā laghuśyāmaleti vā aśvārūḍheti vā pratyaṃgirā dhūmāvatī sāvitrī gāyatrī sarasvatī brahmānandakaleti
«“Who I am,” or “that I am,” or “who that one is, that I am” — she who is thus contemplated is the Sixteenth, the fifteen-syllable Śrī-vidyā, the great Tripurasundarī; or Bālāmbikā, or Bagalā, or Mātaṅgī, Svayaṃvara-kalyāṇī, Bhuvaneśvarī, Cāmuṇḍā, Caṇḍā, Vārāhī, Tiraskāriṇī, Rājamātaṅgī, Śukaśyāmalā, Laghuśyāmalā, Aśvārūḍhā, Pratyaṅgirā, Dhūmāvatī, Sāvitrī, Gāyatrī, Sarasvatī, the portion of brahman’s bliss».
6eaddce71b31 · publicado 12 ago 2026, 5:00:00 UTC
Disponible enRUENPasa de verso en verso con
A list of names is given — twenty-odd — and it is worth saying what it means. All these goddesses are distinct objects of worship in different traditions: Bagalā and Dhūmāvatī are counted among the ten mahāvidyās; Vārāhī and Mātaṅgī among Tripurasundarī’s companions; Gāyatrī and Sāvitrī are Vedic; Sarasvatī is her own. And the book declares them one.
This device is basic to Śākta literature and is called abheda, “reduction to non-difference”; we noted it reading Sarasvatī-rahasya (3.6), where Sarasvatī was called Bhavānī. Let us restate what the Vaiṣṇava side says about this, for here the list is long, and so the objection is clearer. If twenty names mean one thing, then a name ceases to be a name and becomes a designation; and a designation is what one calls a thing, not a person.
Its rule was cited reading Gaṇapati (7.3) and reading Varāha (5.65): a name is an address, not a term; and to use it as a term is a corruption. Add, too, what it acknowledges, so the objection does not come out crude. It too reduces: its own verse, cited reading Tārasāra (3.7), says ete cāṃśa-kalāḥ puṃsaḥ, “all these are parts and portions of the Puruṣa.”
But it reduces to a person, not to a power; and so with it the reduction does not cancel the names but orders them: Narasiṃha, Vāmana and Rāma remain themselves, being His forms. The difference is that the portions remain, while identity does not; and this, to my mind, is the whole difference between this book’s list and its own.