New member introduction: shrI Subhanu Saxena

[Anand Hudli]

 Ramakrishnan wrote:

>>  Now, there are some important sUktas or Vedic hymns which are
>>  chanted by everyone regardless of the shAkhA. For example, the
>>  GaNapati -atharva-shIrshha upanishhad, which obviously belongs to
>>  the atharva veda, is chanted during GaNesha pUjA regardless of the
>>  shAkhA of the person who is performing it. The Shri Rudram is also
>>  one such hymn, I would say. There is a saying:
>>
>>  svashAkhopanishhad.h gItA viShNornAma sahasrakam.h |
>>  rudraM cha paurushhaM sUktaM nityamAvartayet.h budhaH ||
>>
>>  The wise one should regularly (daily) repeat these: 1) the
upanishhad
>>  of one's own shAkhA, 2) the gItA, 3) the thousand names of Vishnu,
>>  4) the Shri Rudram, and 5) the purushha sUkta.
>
>Thanks for this explanation. I thought about this for some more time.
It
>certainly puts things in a new light (atleast for me). Where is this
>passage from?
>
>Avartayet.h above is the causative - optative isn't it? I am aware of
>the word vartayati. I am assuming here that Avartayati from the root A
+
>vR^it or am I mistaken? A quick glance at Monier-Williams did not yield
>any results. The root A + vR^it is given, but I couldn't track down
it's
>meaning. Anyway, I know the optative is interpreted as an imperative as
>per mImA.nsA shAstra under certain circumstances. Is it the case here?

  A+ vR^it.h in the causative, as you have correctly shown, is the
  origin of Avartayet.h, which has the potential or optative tense,
  technically called liN^.h The meaning of AvartanaM, for example,
  is going around, revolving or in this case, more appropriately
  repeating.

  The origin of the saying, I honestly don't know. It must be from
  a smR^iti, as in the case of another smR^iti statement quoted by
  BhaTTa BhAskara in his shrIrudrabhAShya:

  chamakaM namakaM chaiva paurushhasUktaM tathaiva cha  |
  nityaM trayaM prayuJNjAno brahmaloke mahIyate       ||

  One who practises the three -- the namakaM (Rudram), chamakaM,
  and the Purushha sUkta-- daily becomes great in Brahmaloka.

  Anyway, it is clear that the first verse above AND this one cannot
  both be injunctions!
>
>Why I am asking is that then the study of the above becomes and
>injunction and hence becomes a nityakarma. I am afraid I do none of
>these daily! If it's an injunction I can at least start chanting the
>purushha sUkta daily. But then, maybe I can give the excuse that it's
an
>injunction only for the wise :-).

 The nityakarmas that are accepted are the snAna, sandhyA,
  gAyatrI japa, devapUjA, vaishvadeva and Atithya. One can
  perhaps include the Rudram-chamakam and Purushha sUkta in the
  devapUjA part, but this is open to interpretation. I am unable to
  say for sure but I am inclined to think that at least the three
  -- Rudra-chamaka and PuruSha sUkta-- are as good as being part
  of the nitya karmas.

  In any case, I wasn't so much saying that the Rudram-chamakam
  _must_ be recited as saying that it _may_ be recited  by anyone
  regardless of the shAkhA (after having learnt it). Perhaps, as you
  have led me to think, it might indeed be part of the nitya karmas.

  As you have said,  this matter may require clarification from
  some authority in India.

 Anand



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com