Shloka 10

Matsya Purana — Brahmā–Gāyatrī as a Divine Pair and the Early Genealogies of Creation

Devanagari script

वेदराशिः स्मृतो ब्रह्मा सावित्री तदधिष्ठिता तस्मान्न कश्चिद्दोषः स्यात् सावित्रीगमने विभो //

Transliteration

vedarāśiḥ smṛto brahmā sāvitrī tadadhiṣṭhitā tasmānna kaściddoṣaḥ syāt sāvitrīgamane vibho //

Translation

Brahmā is remembered as the very “mass of the Vedas,” and Sāvitrī (Gāyatrī) presides over that Vedic revelation. Therefore, O Lord, there can be no fault at all in approaching or reciting Sāvitrī.

Word by Word

• veda-rāśiḥ: the heap/totality of the Vedas

• smṛtaḥ: is remembered/declared

• brahmā: Brahmā

• sāvitrī: Sāvitrī (Gāyatrī mantra / Vedic goddess)

• tat-adhiṣṭhitā: presiding over that / established as its ruler

• tasmāt: therefore

• na: not

• kaścit: any

• doṣaḥ: fault/blemish

• syāt: would be/is

• sāvitrī-gamane: in going to/approaching/reciting Sāvitrī

• vibho: O Mighty One / O Lord

Speaker

• Likely Lord Matsya (teaching) addressing Vaivasvata Manu (vocative: vibho used within the dialogue frame)

Entities Mentioned

• Brahmā
• Sāvitrī (Gāyatrī)
• Vedas

Tags

• Dharma
• Mantra
• Gayatri
• Vedic authority
• Ritual purity

FAQs

What does this verse reveal about the creation or dissolution (Pralaya)?

Indirectly, it grounds cosmic order in Vedic revelation: Brahmā embodies the Vedas and Sāvitrī presides over them, implying that the mantra-principle remains authoritative across cosmic cycles, even when worlds arise or dissolve.

How does this verse relate to the duties of a King or Householder?

It supports daily dharma through mantra-practice: a householder (and a king as guardian of dharma) should uphold Vedic discipline, and the verse explicitly removes the idea of “fault” in approaching/reciting Sāvitrī, reinforcing regular Gāyatrī-japa and Vedic study as legitimate duties.

What is the architectural or ritual significance mentioned here?

Ritually, it validates Sāvitrī (Gāyatrī) as intrinsically authoritative—useful for sandhyā-vandana, japa, and consecratory rites—by stating that no doṣa arises from ‘approaching/reciting’ her.