आ नो दिव इति मन्त्रस्य अत्रिरृषिः । त्रिष्टुप् छन्दः । सरस्वती देवता । ह्रीमिति बीजशक्तिः कीलकम् । इष्टार्थे विनियोगः । मन्त्रेण न्यासः ॥ या साङ्गोपाङ्गवेदेषु चतुर्ष्वेकैव गीयते । अद्वैता ब्रह्मणः शक्तिः सा मां पातु सरस्वती ॥ ह्रीं आ नो दिवो बृहतः पर्वतादा सरस्वती यजतागं तु यज्ञम् । हवं देवी जुजुषाणा घृताची शग्मां नो वाचमुशती श्रुणोतु
ā no diva iti mantrasya atrirṛṣiḥ | triṣṭup chandaḥ | sarasvatī devatā | hrīmiti bījaśaktiḥ kīlakam | iṣṭārthe viniyogaḥ | mantreṇa nyāsaḥ || yā sāṅgopāṅgavedeṣu caturṣvekaiva gīyate | advaitā brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ sā māṃ pātu sarasvatī || hrīṃ ā no divo bṛhataḥ parvatādā sarasvatī yajatāgaṃ tu yajñam | havaṃ devī jujuṣāṇā ghṛtācī śagmāṃ no vācamuśatī śruṇotu
"She who alone is celebrated in the four Vedas with their limbs and sub-limbs, the non-dual power of brahman — may that Sarasvatī protect me. 'Hrīṃ. From the lofty sky, from the mountain, [may] Sarasvatī [come] to us for the sacrifice; the goddess, having accepted our invocation, desiring, may she hear our benevolent speech.'"
756bc6722a93 · प्रकाशित 12 अग॰ 2026, 5:00:00 am UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
It is worth noting the definition: advaitā brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ, "the non-dual power of brahman." This phrase, to my mind, is the most precise in the whole book, and it is worth examining, for in it is joined what is usually opposed. It is said at once: she is śakti, "power," that is, someone's; and she is advaitā, "non-dual," that is, not different from him.
That is, before us is precisely the position the Vaiṣṇava side holds as her own and voices through the Viṣṇu-purāṇa: śakti-śaktimator abhedaḥ, "power and the one possessing power are not different" — and yet the power is not the possessor. We cited this when reading the Varāha (5.51), and let us repeat the comparison: light is inseparable from fire and yet is not fire. Read this way, "non-dual power" is not a contradiction but a precise definition: inseparable and not identical.
Let us add what follows from this for the whole second half of the book. If Sarasvatī is the power of brahman, then the one speaking at the end of the book is a power, not brahman itself; and so her words that "in me both the living being and the Lord are fabrications" must be read as the words of a power about herself, not as the final word about the highest. We will return to this when reading the thirty-third verse; but it is worth noting here, for here she has named herself.