Gayatri Mantra

[Vishal Agarwal]

I would humbly offer a correction. According a version, when Maharshi
Yajnavalkya vomitted the Sukla-Yajurveda, the disciples of Charaka
Vaishampayana assumed the forms of Tittiri and swallowed it. Not that
Charakas learnt it from partridges.

Note that the word 'Tittiri' is actually the name of a Rishi in Paniniya
Ganapatha, and from the context it is clear that the story on partridges is
a later fabrication.

Tittiri is a spotted bird, and the word 'Charaka', used to denote the other
Sakhas of Sukla Yajurveda, also means 'spotted' (and is used in particular
to denote a kind of a skin disease or leprosy in which there are discolored
marks on the patient's skin, east of Varanasi).
The words could therefore merely reflect the nature of Krishna Yajurveda as
such - the Brahmanas appearing as 'spots' in the midst of 'white' background
formed of the mantras, or vice versa, whichever way you choose to look at
it. In the Sukla Yajurveda, the mantras and Brahmanas are separate, and the
'Brahmana' portions in the Samhita (as marked in the Katyayana
Sarvanukramani) are ALSO treated as Mantras.

By today's standards, Bhagvatpada Shankaracharya et al would be considered
wrong in debarring Women and Sudras from reciting the Vedas. That is my firm
assessment.

I am not at all questioning or discussing the correctness of this convention
in the 8th century CE, because that is a different issue altogether.

I hope that people in the list do not want to pour lead into the ears of
Sudras if they accidentally hear Vedic recitations, just because the Gautama
Smriti enjoins us to do so. If this list believes in the validity of such
obnoxious injunctions, I would rather unsubscribe.

>From my side, this discussion is closed.

Regards,

Vishal