Summary of controversy (Mantra-Query-Narsimhaji)

[Guest guest]

Hi Chandrashekhar,

 

One quick clarification. The number of letters is not the matter of

controversy (so far). The controversy is regarding the number of

words. If you have a compound word formed by a sandhi (e.g.

parameswaraanugrahaaptyartham is made up of many words - parama +

iswara + anugraha + aapti + artham, but it is technically one word)

or samaasa (e.g. suragurubrihaspataye is made up of sura, guru and

brihaspataye, but it is technically one word. It is equivalent

to "suraanaam gurave brihaspataye"), it is technically becomes one

word.

 

Thus the controversy is regarding the number of words in the

presence of sandhi/samaasa (conjoining/compounding) and not

regarding the number of letters.

 

As far as letters go, "Om Namassivaaya" has six letters

and "Namassivaaya" has five letters. There is no controversy there.

Namassivaaya IS the panchakshari mantra and some people add om to

remove any bad results due to mispronunciation. Om always safeguards

against mistakes.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

PS: Strictly speaking though, some people mispronounce these

mantras, altering the number of LETTERS too. The Sanskrit word for

letter/syllable is "akshara". To understand it, you have to know

what is kshara (perishable) and what is akshara (imperishable). The

sound "k" or "kl" cannot stand on its own and perishes (you cannot

even properly pronounce it, if it is standing on its own). When an

vowel comes, it makes it imperishable and gives life (you can

pronounce it). So vowels (swaras) are called the lifeforce of a

syllable. A syllable cannot be formed without an vowel.

So "ka", "kah", "tat" etc are all aksharas (supported by a). In tat,

you cannot consider the last "t" as a separate akshara as it does

not have an vowel (life) to support it (the previous a supports the

t coming before it). So "tat" is considered to be just one akshara

and not two (that is how it is used in all Sanskrit slokas. If you

know chhandas, you can verify what I mean). The number of aksharas

in a word is equal to the number of separated vowels in it. So

Sivaaya has 3 aksharas (si, vaa and ya). If one

mispronounces "Sivaaya" as "Sivaay" (thanks to the Arabic influence

on Hindi), it now has only 2 vowels instead of 3 and only two

aksharas (si and vaay, the y here is analogous to the second t in

tat - it cannot stand on its own as an akshara without an vowel

coming after it). Still, you may get some results over the long run

due to devotion. Anywya, I am less concerned about results etc here

and I am concentrating on the technicalities that got lost due to

the corruptions of Kali Yuga. I know what I am saying will not

appeal to a lot of people, but this is based on sound technical

considerations.

 

> Respected Narasimhaji/Ramdass Rao and other knowledgeable teachers,

> I have been watching this topic for some time.If I may intervene,

as I understand "Om Namah Shivaay" has always been called as

panchakshari mantra. Now if the line of reasoning in the ongoing

discussion is to be accepted it would be counted as different number

of words according to who is trying to decipher it.Were the ancient

sages wrong in calling the above mantra as Panchakshari? Please

enlighten me.

> Reagrds,

> Chandrashekhar.

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimhaji,

I think Om gives prana to the mantra. Some one wrote that Om Namah Shivaay is

shdakashri mantra and I was just trying to put the things in correct

perspective. I agree that no. of words would arise out of correct vigraha of a

sandhi.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

-

">pvr108 <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net>

vedic astrology

Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:45 AM

[vedic astrology] Summary of controversy (Re: Mantra-Query-Narsimhaji)

Hi Chandrashekhar,One quick clarification. The number of letters is not the

matter of controversy (so far). The controversy is regarding the number of

words. If you have a compound word formed by a sandhi (e.g.

parameswaraanugrahaaptyartham is made up of many words - parama + iswara +

anugraha + aapti + artham, but it is technically one word) or samaasa (e.g.

suragurubrihaspataye is made up of sura, guru and brihaspataye, but it is

technically one word. It is equivalent to "suraanaam gurave brihaspataye"), it

is technically becomes one word.Thus the controversy is regarding the number of

words in the presence of sandhi/samaasa (conjoining/compounding) and not

regarding the number of letters.As far as letters go, "Om Namassivaaya" has six

letters and "Namassivaaya" has five letters. There is no controversy there.

Namassivaaya IS the panchakshari mantra and some people add om to remove any

bad results due to mispronunciation. Om always safeguards against mistakes.May

Jupiter's light shine on us,NarasimhaPS: Strictly speaking though, some people

mispronounce these mantras, altering the number of LETTERS too. The Sanskrit

word for letter/syllable is "akshara". To understand it, you have to know what

is kshara (perishable) and what is akshara (imperishable). The sound "k" or

"kl" cannot stand on its own and perishes (you cannot even properly pronounce

it, if it is standing on its own). When an vowel comes, it makes it

imperishable and gives life (you can pronounce it). So vowels (swaras) are

called the lifeforce of a syllable. A syllable cannot be formed without an

vowel. So "ka", "kah", "tat" etc are all aksharas (supported by a). In tat, you

cannot consider the last "t" as a separate akshara as it does not have an vowel

(life) to support it (the previous a supports the t coming before it). So "tat"

is considered to be just one akshara and not two (that is how it is used in all

Sanskrit slokas. If you know chhandas, you can verify what I mean). The number

of aksharas in a word is equal to the number of separated vowels in it. So

Sivaaya has 3 aksharas (si, vaa and ya). If one mispronounces "Sivaaya" as

"Sivaay" (thanks to the Arabic influence on Hindi), it now has only 2 vowels

instead of 3 and only two aksharas (si and vaay, the y here is analogous to the

second t in tat - it cannot stand on its own as an akshara without an vowel

coming after it). Still, you may get some results over the long run due to

devotion. Anywya, I am less concerned about results etc here and I am

concentrating on the technicalities that got lost due to the corruptions of

Kali Yuga. I know what I am saying will not appeal to a lot of people, but this

is based on sound technical considerations.> Respected Narasimhaji/Ramdass Rao

and other knowledgeable teachers,> I have been watching this topic for some

time.If I may intervene, as I understand "Om Namah Shivaay" has always been

called as panchakshari mantra. Now if the line of reasoning in the ongoing

discussion is to be accepted it would be counted as different number of words

according to who is trying to decipher it.Were the ancient sages wrong in

calling the above mantra as Panchakshari? Please enlighten me.> Reagrds,>

Chandrashekhar.Archives: vedic astrologyGroup

info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE:

Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's

light shine on us .......|| Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu

||

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha and others,

 

Some thoughts:

The question that arose in my mind was that since almost all written

documentation irrespective of the publisher, the text or the year of

publication, seem to write 'namo' separately, and if we go by as you are saying

that its a Kali yuga distortion, then it would be interesting to know precisely

when this distortion took place. Usually language distortions first take place

in the oral tradition (through pronunciation glitches) and only much later in

the written tradition. Of course once introduced, texts 'alter' over

generations in the hands of translators, editors and publishers. In fact

'reading' texts itself is a major field in linguistic philosophy as championed

by Jacques Derrida among others. So linguists hold that there is nothing called

a 'real' or 'original' text anymore. Each text has layers of sub-texts and the

task of unravelling the original text itself is a separate discipline by

itself. In the case of Hinduism, written texts are complemented by the living

tradition of Hinduism making the whole issue more complicated. So which is the

authentic source? Yajur Veda (including the Taittiriya and the Mahnarayana

Upanishads which is full of fabulous Rudra mantras) or the regional texts? What

came first? Which influenced which? Maybe both are right...these issues are

highly debatable and open to endless pontification, which of course need and

must continue for the sake of scholastic advancement. Hinduism as you know is a

continuum, a fluid, meandering cosmology, rather than a static text frozen in

time and space. It cannot be 'preserved' like an unchanging object or a pickle

or a stuffed animal, but being a living tradition it is continuously changing

and re-inventing itself...although core principles and the grammar is the same.

It can be continued and saved from obsoletion. It is to be lived. Not frozen in

time. So we have a harder time to identify distortions and authentication. The

lines truly get blurred.

 

So including or not including Om...Mantra Maharnava does not include Om when

counting aksharas, while others do. Who is right? I simply follow my parampara

being Sanjay's shishya and consider Om Namah Shivaya as shadakshari although I

am open to debates and discussions. Perhaps unconsciously I make a separation

between belief and scholarship, spirituality and grammar. I deal with them in

separate spheres...at least temporarily. There are many things in the spiritual

plane that I cannot account for in the scholastic, rational sphere. All I am

trying to say is, that it would be very interesting if we could probe deeper

into the whys and wherefores of the distortions. It might be a fruitful

exercise. I will definitely keep my eyes open on this and if I come across any

material on the issues discussed on mantra in the list...I will surely post

them, at least in the Varahamihira forum. So I would not really look at it as a

'controversy' -

 

Best regards,

 

Sarbani

 

 

pvr108 <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net>

[pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:46 AMTo:

vedic astrologySubject: [vedic astrology] Summary of

controversy (Re: Mantra-Query-Narsimhaji)Hi Chandrashekhar,One quick

clarification. The number of letters is not the matter of controversy (so far).

The controversy is regarding the number of words. If you have a compound word

formed by a sandhi (e.g. parameswaraanugrahaaptyartham is made up of many words

- parama + iswara + anugraha + aapti + artham, but it is technically one word)

or samaasa (e.g. suragurubrihaspataye is made up of sura, guru and

brihaspataye, but it is technically one word. It is equivalent to "suraanaam

gurave brihaspataye"), it is technically becomes one word.Thus the controversy

is regarding the number of words in the presence of sandhi/samaasa

(conjoining/compounding) and not regarding the number of letters.As far as

letters go, "Om Namassivaaya" has six letters and "Namassivaaya" has five

letters. There is no controversy there. Namassivaaya IS the panchakshari mantra

and some people add om to remove any bad results due to mispronunciation. Om

always safeguards against mistakes.May Jupiter's light shine on us,NarasimhaPS:

Strictly speaking though, some people mispronounce these mantras, altering the

number of LETTERS too. The Sanskrit word for letter/syllable is "akshara". To

understand it, you have to know what is kshara (perishable) and what is akshara

(imperishable). The sound "k" or "kl" cannot stand on its own and perishes (you

cannot even properly pronounce it, if it is standing on its own). When an vowel

comes, it makes it imperishable and gives life (you can pronounce it). So vowels

(swaras) are called the lifeforce of a syllable. A syllable cannot be formed

without an vowel. So "ka", "kah", "tat" etc are all aksharas (supported by a).

In tat, you cannot consider the last "t" as a separate akshara as it does not

have an vowel (life) to support it (the previous a supports the t coming before

it). So "tat" is considered to be just one akshara and not two (that is how it

is used in all Sanskrit slokas. If you know chhandas, you can verify what I

mean). The number of aksharas in a word is equal to the number of separated

vowels in it. So Sivaaya has 3 aksharas (si, vaa and ya). If one mispronounces

"Sivaaya" as "Sivaay" (thanks to the Arabic influence on Hindi), it now has

only 2 vowels instead of 3 and only two aksharas (si and vaay, the y here is

analogous to the second t in tat - it cannot stand on its own as an akshara

without an vowel coming after it). Still, you may get some results over the

long run due to devotion. Anywya, I am less concerned about results etc here

and I am concentrating on the technicalities that got lost due to the

corruptions of Kali Yuga. I know what I am saying will not appeal to a lot of

people, but this is based on sound technical considerations.> Respected

Narasimhaji/Ramdass Rao and other knowledgeable teachers,> I have been watching

this topic for some time.If I may intervene, as I understand "Om Namah Shivaay"

has always been called as panchakshari mantra. Now if the line of reasoning in

the ongoing discussion is to be accepted it would be counted as different

number of words according to who is trying to decipher it.Were the ancient

sages wrong in calling the above mantra as Panchakshari? Please enlighten me.>

Reagrds,> Chandrashekhar.Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......