Shloka 3

Matsya Purana — Vishnu’s Names Across Yugas and the Gods’ Refuge During the Tārakāmaya War

Devanagari script

अव्यक्तो व्यक्तलिङ्गस्थो य एष भगवान्प्रभुः नारायणो ह्यनन्तात्मा प्रभवो ऽव्यय एव च //

Transliteration

avyakto vyaktaliṅgastho ya eṣa bhagavānprabhuḥ nārāyaṇo hyanantātmā prabhavo 'vyaya eva ca //

Translation

That Lord and Sovereign—Nārāyaṇa—though Himself unmanifest, abides in the marks of the manifest world; He is the infinite Self, the originating source, and indeed the imperishable one.

Word by Word

• avyaktaḥ: unmanifest (beyond sense-perception)

• vyakta-liṅga-sthaḥ: abiding in the signs/characteristics of the manifest (phenomenal) universe

• yaḥ: who

• eṣaḥ: this (very one)

• bhagavān: the Blessed Lord, possessor of divine powers

• prabhuḥ: sovereign, master

• nārāyaṇaḥ: Nārāyaṇa (Vişṇu as the supreme refuge/source)

• hi: indeed

• ananta-ātmā: infinite Self, limitless consciousness

• prabhavaḥ: origin, source, one from whom all arises

• avyayaḥ: undecaying, imperishable

• eva: truly/alone

• ca: and

Speaker

• Lord Matsya (Vishnu) instructing Vaivasvata Manu (theological exposition within the Matsya–Manu dialogue)

Entities Mentioned

• Narayana

Tags

• Pralaya
• Vishnu
• Narayana
• Paramatma
• Cosmology

FAQs

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

It identifies Nārāyaṇa as the imperishable source (prabhava, avyaya) who remains beyond manifestation yet pervades the manifest world—implying that during Pralaya, forms dissolve but the divine source does not.

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

By grounding ethics in a supreme, all-pervading Lord, it supports the Matsya Purana’s ideal that rulers and householders should govern and act with humility and dharma, seeing worldly power as a manifestation dependent on the imperishable Nārāyaṇa.

What is the architectural or ritual significance mentioned here?

No direct Vāstu or ritual rule is stated, but the principle that the unmanifest Lord abides in manifest “signs” underlies iconography and temple practice: visible forms (liṅga/marks, images) are treated as sanctioned supports for contemplating the transcendent.