[Advaita-l] Question/Clarification on Chanting Vaidika mantras

[Rajesh Benjwal]

Namaste,

It is correct, as established in purva memansa, that only chanting
correctly is enough to get the result of the mantra but saying
that svara are as important as correct pronunciation to get the result is
not correct. It is important to learn svara but it is not necessary to show
savara to get the result of the karmakandam. Like in Shukla Yajurveda
madhyandina shakha, which is my shakha,  you show the svara by hand. When
performing Abhisheka or during pooja or in yajna it is not necessary to
show the svara, as your hands are busy so you cannot show svara, only
correct pronunciation is required.

Thanks

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Praveen, I think you have understood where I am coming from. However, I
> think my understanding of the phala of "understanding meanings", etc., is
> somewhat different.
>
> I think we are going quite a bit away from the original question about the
> recitation issues, but that's ok. I'll just summarize some of the issues.
> pUrva mImAmsA vs. vedAnta, usually fall in two camps. One is totally
> against rituals and talks about the scientific vedAnta and the other is the
> vyAvahAre bhATTa nyAyaH camp. The latter is more close to the truth, but
> there are many important differences between advaita and pUrva mImAmsA.
>
> 1. By adR^iShTa phala, I am assuming you mean apUrva phala, where an unseen
> potency is posited via arthApatti to account for phala happening at future
> times. The adR^iShTa phala is a superset of this, including things like
> what is the phala when you thresh grains versus sprinkling with water etc.
> First of all, apUrva phala is not even accepted by advaita. See the bhAShya
> to 3.2.38-41, especially at the end f 3.2.38, where shankara says:
> "apUrvasya-acetanasya kAShTha-loShTa-samasya cetanena-apravR^ittitasya
> pravR^itti-anupapatteH ****tat-astitve eva pramANa-abhAvAt***, and declares
> Ishvara alone the phala-dAtA. There is no apUrva and shankara makes it
> clear.
>
> 2. You seem to be saying that fruit of knowledge of mantras and rituals is
> dR^iShTa in the sense of meditation, but that's only part of it. As per the
> chhAndogya, any ritual performed with knowledge gives more/better benefits.
> Take for example, the shrI-sUkta-homa for dhana-vR^iddhi. Does it even
> matter if my understanding of the mantras hiraNya-varNAm, etc., is only the
> dR^iShTa phala which you posit? if the aim is dhana, then it should not
> matter to me whether I know the meanings, etc., if the apUrva is accepted.
> However the upaniShad is saying that you would get better benefits by
> knowing meanings, etc. The only logical interpretation in this case, is
> that there would be more money coming to me or come sooner, but that is not
> "dR^iShTa-phala" either.  It's just that I get better results. The strict
> pUrva-mImAmsA interpretation of the chhAndogya passages would be as an
> artha-vAda, due to their positing of apUrva, but vedAntins interpret it
> literally. That would apply to cases when it's not regarding meditation as
> well.
>
> 3. The non-acceptance of apUrva leads to a different way of interpreting
> what rituals are and "knowledge" of rituals are. Two performance examples
> are how can you deal with kAmya-karma and rituals like the shyena. The
> reason why sheyna cannot be performed is much discussed in mImAmsA, but the
> advaitins would say that it can indeed be performed, but with certain
> conditions, unlike the mImAmsaka-s. Similarly kAmya karma can and should be
> performed, but with the right attitude. A modern analysis of the mImAmsA
> discussions on sheyna using deontic logic can be found in
> https://www.logic.at/staff/agata/tableaux2015.pdf for those interested in
> this type of things. The vedAntins also differ from the mImAmsaka-s on the
> phrase "ya evam veda" frequently occurring in the taittirIya brAhmaNa
> portions asserting same benefit from knowing how to do rituals vs. actually
> doing them. vedAntin-s interpret this literally as well.
>
> In spite of all this and it's indeed good to know meanings, it is wholly
> irrelevant for *most* people due to the fact that they cannot do things
> properly or recite properly. That's more important and is a huge stumbling
> block. Knowing meanings cannot and will not obviate wrong chanting or
> performance.
>
> Rama
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Namaste Kartikji
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:26 AM, S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen -at- gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Therefore, knowing the meaning is secondary to the extent of being
> >> almost moot.
> >>
> >> No, I'm saying that there is a significant effect of knowing the meaning
> >> of the Vedic Mantras that goes above and beyond merely chanting them.
> >>
> > To clarify, I know what you're saying. I was restating what Ramaji is
> > saying and this was addressed to those who misunderstood his statement.
> >
> >
> >> I've recited the Purusha Suktam many times (even earlier today), and
> >> certainly gained from the knowledge of the meaning of (at least some
> >> of) the Mantras.
> >>
> > Same here, but gaining the knowledge is a dRShTaphala while the
> contention
> > here is about adRShTaphala. I doubt that anyone will question the gain
> > (dRShThaphala) in knowing the meaning (padArtha and vAkyArtha)! This
> > dRShTaphala is gained even without chanting properly or without svara.
> Just
> > reading it and making an anvaya and/ or studying Sayanabhashya will get
> us
> > that. However, it will not get us adRShTa, what will is chanting properly
> > with svara.
> >
> > In a nutshell: knowing the meaning of (a few of) the Veda Mantras may not
> >> be essential, but is surely beneficial! Yes, even to the Average
> Devadatta!
> >>
> > Sure, and that benefit is dRShTaphala. I wonder if Ramaji differs though.
> >
> > gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> > --Praveen R. Bhat
> > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> > That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 


*Rajesh Benjwal*