अन्धक-हिरण्याक्ष-प्रसङ्गः, वराहावतारः, दंष्ट्राभूषणं च
तस्य शृङ्गं महेशस्य भूषणत्वं कथं गतम् एतत्सर्वं विशेषेण सूत वक्तुमिहार्हसि
tasya śṛṅgaṃ maheśasya bhūṣaṇatvaṃ kathaṃ gatam etatsarvaṃ viśeṣeṇa sūta vaktumihārhasi
那只角又是如何成为大自在天(Mahādeva)的饰物的?噢,苏多(Sūta),你当为我们特别而详尽地宣说这一切。
Sages at Naimisharanya (addressing Suta Goswami)
It frames a focused inquiry into the meaning behind Śiva’s sacred emblems—an approach central to Liṅga worship, where external forms are contemplated as pointers to Pati (the Lord) who liberates the paśu (soul) from pāśa (bondage).
By calling him Mahēśa/Mahādeva and asking how an emblem becomes his ornament, the verse implies that Śiva-tattva is the supreme Pati who can assume symbols for grace (anugraha) while remaining transcendent.
The verse highlights śravaṇa and manana (hearing and contemplative inquiry) as preparatory disciplines that support Liṅga-upāsanā and Pāśupata-oriented reflection on Śiva’s marks and their inner meanings.