Linuxपन्ने पलटें
उपनिषद् · Hayagrīva 2.p4
॥
देवनागरी
सर्वेषां बीजानां हयग्रीवैकाक्षरबीजमनुत्तमं मन्त्रराजात्मकं भवति । ह्लौं हयग्रीवस्वरूपो भवति । अमृतं कुरु कुरु स्वाहा
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
sarveṣāṃ bījānāṃ hayagrīvaikākṣarabījamanuttamaṃ mantrarājātmakaṃ bhavati | hlauṃ hayagrīvasvarūpo bhavati | amṛtaṃ kuru kuru svāhā
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
सर्वेषां बीजानांsarveṣāṃ bījānāṃof all seeds
हयग्रीव-एक-अक्षर-बीजम्hayagrīva-eka-akṣara-bījamthe one-syllable seed of Hayagrīva
अन्-उत्तमंan-uttamaṃis unsurpassed
मन्त्र-राज-आत्मकं भवतिmantra-rāja-ātmakaṃ bhavaticonsisting of the king of mantras, it is
ह्लौं हयग्रीव-स्वरूपःhlauṃ hayagrīva-svarūpaḥ"hlaum" — the very being of Hayagrīva
भवतिbhavatiit is
अमृतं कुरु कुरु स्वाहाamṛtaṃ kuru kuru svāhā"nectar create, create — svāhā"
अनुवाद
«Of all seeds, the one-syllable seed of Hayagrīva is unsurpassed, consisting of the king of mantras; "hlaum" is the very being of Hayagrīva. "Nectar create, create — svāhā"».
संस्करण
21620a1b4a9f · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Note the position stated here briefly and without qualification: hlaum hayagrīva-svarūpo bhavati, “"hlaum" is the very being of Hayagrīva.” That is, the syllable does not denote the deity, but is the deity. This position is fundamental in mantra-śāstra and deserves examination, for it seems strange.
We usually assume that a name is a label: the thing is one, the name another, and the connection between them is conventional. Here something different is asserted: the name is of one substance with the named. The Vaiṣṇava side holds this claim as its own, but states it about the name, not about the seed-syllable; and this difference is decisive.
Its position was cited reading Kali-santaraṇa and is stated by Rūpa Gosvāmī: abhinnatvaṃ nāma-nāminoḥ, “the non-difference of the name and the named.” And it gives an argument worth citing in full. Between an ordinary name and a thing the connection is conventional: call fire whatever you wish, it will not burn.
But there is a case where this is not so: a call. When someone is called by name, it is not the name that answers, but the one called; and in that moment, for the caller, the name and the person are indistinguishable. That is, the non-difference of the name is not a property of the sound, but a property of address; and hence it arises only when one calls, and does not arise when one merely utters.
Read this way, the position stated here becomes intelligible, and mantric practice turns out to be not magic, but a summons.