RE: Summary of controversy (Mantra-Query-Narsimhaji)

[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 [pvr]Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:46 AMvedic astrology Subject: [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 .......