shiva & rudra

[Viswanath B]

[starting a new thread]

Dear shrI Bhatji,

My personal belief, more as a devotee, is that of an ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti. I consider Shiva, Rudra or for that matter others being different forms of the same God.  [I don't have a proof for this :-) ]. So I treat rudradhyaya as praise for the same God. I do respect your view as shiva as being a praise of rudra, from a linguistic perspective. I will also try and findout from some of the commentaries I have...

But i would like to ask you from a non-devotee perspective, if you see any distinct reason for rudra to be different from shiva. For example, rudra is constantly addressed as shiva in rudradhyaya ..

शिवा रुद्रस्य भॆषजी, शिवा रुद्राः भॆषजी

नमस्तॆ अस्तु भगवन् विश्वॆश्वराय......त्र्यंबकाय....सदाशिवाय...श्रीमन् महादॆवाय..

[I believe the second is not found in all commentaries, esp, sayana, but is there in abhinava-shankara bhashya.]


Viswanath

2011/10/4 Viswanath B <vegav...@gmail.com>

Dear shri Bhat,

I would limit my response to just the reference.

The whole of  the 5th prasna i mentioned below is called rudradhyaya, also called namaka prasna, also called namakam, a daily mandated recital for many.

The 17th panasa inside it contains the following (i couldn't add the swara marks, ) I've highlighted the relevant portion.

नम श्शम्भवॆच मयॊभवॆच नम श्शङ्करायच मयस्करायच नम श्शिवायच शिवतरायच

I didn't quote this, since in my opinion, its a popular knowledge of the presence of the highlighted portion in Taittiria Samhita. My mistake.

Viswanath

2011/10/4 hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

By the quotation itself has superlative degree of the adjectives शिव and शिवतर are used as adjectives for शम्भु or रुद्र the main deity of the रुद्राध्याय and doesn't in any way indicate शिव is the deity praised in this portion as it is also among one of the adjectives used in praise of रुद्र. Any comments are welcome and free at the desire and inclination of the devotees. 

 

-- 

- Hide quoted text -

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Viswanath B]

Please ignore this, until i get back some correct quotes, as to why I would like to think they can be same.

You are welcome to point to me any places they are made out to be different, than just addressed differently,

Thanks
vissu

[hnbhat B.R.]

I didn't mention that शिव and रुद्र are different or same. I just mentioned that शिव is not the देवता, of रुद्राध्याय as devotees, practice, according to the practice, it is 

अस्य रुद्रस्य प्रश्नस्य अघोरऋषिः, अनुष्टुप्छन्दः, श्रीसदाशिवरुद्रो देवता this is the image that devotees call by शिव. and you need not look around for their identity as भट्टभास्कर has  quoted a verse to the effect that रुद्र is known as शिव--

अशुभद्रावको रुद्रो यज्जहार पुनर्भवम्।

तस्माच्छिवस्तततो रुद्रशब्देनाभिधीयते॥

He offers more etymologies for the same रुद्र interpreted differently by many and remarked एवं तीर्थकारैः स्वस्वमयानुगतं रुद्रपदं व्युत्पाद्यते = thus आचार्य-s derive the word रुद्र according to their stand point of view (सिद्धान्त). If you want I can myself produce all the etymologies of पौराणिक-s as given by him. But I refrain from doing so for fear of the post being too lengthy. For the identification, as mentioned by भट्टाभास्कर, P Ramakrishnan has already quoted a verse from शिवपुराण in another post. There are many which can be quoted as for their identity or with the परब्रह्म as I have already remarked in the other post according to the different schools claiming one of the names as the superior one.

"एको रुद्रो ऽवतस्थे न द्वितीयः" resonance the popular महावाक्य - "एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म"

I don't give the reference for saving time and as it is too popular.

As for the deities in Vedic Texts, there are देवतानुक्रमणी of शौनक, and देवताकाण्ड in the निघण्टु commented by यास्क in his निरुक्त which is also considered to be as वेदाङ्ग which is the authority. For each Chapter, they have fixed a deity according to the topic and for each Mantra or group of Mantra-s, they have been accredited with ऋषि, देवता and छन्दस् for practical purposes. So according to the देवताकाण्ड I had posted my reply in the other thread with derivations accordingly. For example, even though रुद्राध्याय has been popular as dedicated to रुद्र as the deity of the अध्याय, each mantra, has got its own fixed ऋषि, छन्दस् and देवता, individually for practical purpose and for their utility for different purposes. All these are specified in the commentary of भट्टभास्कर. As for the तात्पर्य of the अध्याय, a standard had been adopted:

उपक्रमोपसंहारौ अभ्यासोऽपूर्वता फलम् । 

अर्थवादोपपत्ती च लिङ्गं तात्पर्यनिर्णये ॥ 

Especially in the Vedic Literature, conclusions are drawn by our ancestors following above standard and not of their own.

Sorry for the lengthy reply.

--

[ajit Gargeshwari]

Hi,

Is Rudra Adhyaya also called Namaka Chamka or are they different works

Thanks
Ajit Gargeshwari

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM, ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Is Rudra Adhyaya also called Namaka Chamka or are they different works

Thanks

It seems they are two parts extracted from the complete संहिता text of कृष्णयजुर्वेद from Fourth Kanda,  प्रपाठक-s 5th and 7th respectively for compiled together for the purpose of use in daily worship also which were originally meant for specific rites of Yaga in their places:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Rudram_Chamakam

With regards

 

[ajit Gargeshwari]

Thank you for the clarification.

To do a Shastric study of the verses which is abetter bhashya? The one by Sayanacharya or Bhattabhaskara or Vishnu Suri.
The reason for why I am asking this question is I wanted to understand the text in terms of its philosophy and its impact on Shavaite schools of vedanta.

I read somewhere i do not remember where Srirudram accurs in the Karma Kanda and is used to perform homa. So are the mantras of pure devotional value or does it contain profound philosophy. ( I am not saying devotion is not a philosophy its much higher)

Is there any connection between Rudra Bhashya and Shivarahsya if there is Shivarahsya completely available as printed text
Thank you once again

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 18:23, ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

if there is Shivarahsya completely available as printed text
Thank you once again

I've shrI-shivarahasyam (aMshas 4,5 and 6) printed from TMSSM Library, Thanjavur. This is third of the series. So, at least 3 volumes were published.
I don't know about other volumes.

Search on DLI presented shivarahasyam in kannada. I didn't bother myself to download as I don't know that language or script.

[hnbhat B.R.]

In my limited knowledge, there is no direct relation between the शैव schools (both आगम and सिद्धान्त schools) which had their own आगम texts and during later interchange with the different schools of philosophical innovations progressing, some exchange of their sources could not be ruled out. 

A though acquaintanceship with both the fields of literature is required to have a comparative study if one wants to explore this aspect you suggested.  There too South Indian Shaivism seems  based on Tamil Sources than Sanskrit Vedic Literature in ancient time though might have been adopted to comply with with the demands in later times to cope up with others.

This is just an idea.

[Shambhu]

The threads ‘satyam-shivam-sundaram’, ‘rudra’, and ‘shiva and rudra’
have wandered all over. The opinions of the Western scholars (‘rudra
is a minor deity’, etc.) would be quite silly in the eyes of the
Vaidika practitioners, who still exist in large numbers, possibly in
this group as well; they have their own distinct theories and
practices about rudra. Of course, classifying a deity as minor or
major based on the number of hymns or words in the Veda-s is also an
opinion. It means nothing to the Vadika practitioners.

Although often the devatA of a mantra and the very mantra are
connected (‘sadAshiva rudro devatA’ for ‘aum namaH shivAya’ mantra),
we easily locate many mantra-s with no such self-evident connection.
Example: Rigveda 10-125, the ambhraNI sUktam whose devatA is given as
AtmA and it is used in the RigvedIya traditions as an abhiSeka sUktam
for devi (umA). Apparently herein, the devI is declaring about
Herself.

Leaving aside the confusions contributed by the purANa-s and the Agama-
s, rudra has a major place in the Vaidika traditions, even among
today’s Vaidika-s, not just among the ancient ‘Vedic people’. This
rudra is not shiva, whoever ‘shiva’ is. This rudra is not the creation
of the deva-devatA-s either. This rudra was around before all the
other deva-devatAs were born. Only svayambhu brahma existed before
him. In fact, shruti declaration is there stating that rudra saw
hiraNyagarbha taking birth (taittirIyAraNyaka – mahAnArAyaNopanishad).
The ten prajApati-s, brahmaNaspati, br`haspati, indra, soma, viSNu,
bhaga, aryama, sUrya, mitra-varuNa, uSas, pUSaN, ashvins, etc. were
created only later in the subsequent creation of the universe by
pitAmaha brahma (svayambhu) as per the shruti formula he heard from
nArAyaNa.

There are plenty of similarities between Veda-s’ indra and purANa-s’
shiva, more than between rudra and shiva. If rudra is fierce, indra is
no less. If rudra is ‘aghora’ and ‘abhayankara’, indra is charming and
pleasing too. Indra is purandara, shiva is tripurAntaka, indrANI is
the wife par excellence, and so is sati or gaurI, etc. rudrANI is
hardly invoked. If we view shiva of the purANa-s as Veda-s’ indra
pervading our galaxy cluster and viSNu as soma pervading our galaxy,
the relevant rik mantra-s reveal the story of the cosmological
evolution. In this view, rudra pervades the entire universe. Without
rudra, no other deva-devatAs would exist.

Even in the daily sandhyA vandanA, we begin offering our namaskAra-s
to various deva-devatAs, and therein we say “rudrAya namaH, shivAya
namaH’. If rudra and shiva were identical, why is this repetition?
Further in the daily panchAyatana pUjA, based on the vinoyoga mantra-s
we can say that here the shiva is actually rudra. There is really no
shiva as a deity even in today’s Vaidika practices. Such a popular
notion only exists, even among the practicing Vaidika-s and archaka-s,
thanks to the over-powering propagation of the purANa-s and the Agama-
s.

For example, we may examine the five RigvedIya abhiSeka sUkta-s for
sUrya, gaNapati, ambikA, shiva, and viSNu. All these mantra-s are from
the various maNdala-s of the Rigveda, and they are in wide practice
even today - we are not discussing some by-gone pre-history. By and
large, sUrya is the devatA in the 64 mantra-s of the saura sUktam.
gaNesha sUktam mantra-s have brahmaNaspati (one mantra) and indra (11
mantra-s) as the devatA-s. devI sUktam (with 8 mantra-s) has AtmA as
devatA. viSnu sUktam with 45 mantra-s has viSNu as devatA. In
contract, for ‘deity shiva’, we have 42 rik mantra-s with rudra as the
devatA.

The yajurvedIya practice is also likewise – the rudra prashna,
mentioned in the thread, used in worshiping ‘shiva’ is actually full
of prayers to rudra and the eleven rudra-s. In fact, in the nyAsa
(prior to any rudra prashna related viniyoga) while describing rudra
deva, we say “parshvayoH shivA-shankarau tiSTetAm”. One never says
“shiva homa”; it is ‘rudra homa’ only. Therefore shiva pUjA is indeed
rudra pUjA.

Saying ‘rudra is a minor Vedic deity’, based on whatever
‘classification’, reflects ignorance of the Vaidika practice where
rudra indeed is worshiped in the daily panchAyatana pUjA among other
deities (sUrya, gaNapti, ambikA, and viSNu). It is like the kitchen
plumber dispensing opinions about brain surgery. By and large, this is
the weakness in the non-practitioners’ works on the Veda-s.

On Oct 5, 6:37 pm, "hnbhat B.R." <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my limited knowledge, there is no direct relation between the शैव schools
> (both आगम and सिद्धान्त schools) which had their own आगम texts and during
> later interchange with the different schools of philosophical innovations
> progressing, some exchange of their sources could not be ruled out.
>
> A though acquaintanceship with both the fields of literature is required to
> have a comparative study if one wants to explore this aspect you suggested.
> There too South Indian Shaivism seems  based on Tamil Sources than Sanskrit
> Vedic Literature in ancient time though might have been adopted to comply
> with with the demands in later times to cope up with others.
>
> This is just an idea.
>
> --

> *Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
> **Research Scholar,
> *

[Vasu Srinivasan]

shambhu varya

Thanks for the illuminating answers.

In the taara-tamya system, it is said that rudra will be the next shesha. (when vayu becomes the next brahma). No "minor" deity that is.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
Regards,
Vasu Srinivasan
-----------------------------------
vagartham.blogspot.com
vasya10.wordpress.com

[R. Sivaramakrishna Sharma]

I am not sure about the whole exercise of this thread. Nonetheless
below are my thoughts.

Based on my understanding of Bhashyakara Sayana, Shiva and Rudra are
one and the same.

Rudradhyaya = ShatarudriyaH == Namakam (because it contains 300
NamaHs). Chamaka is another prapAThaka in the same Kanda (in the TS).

And the concept of Puranic Shiva, Vedic Rudra etc. are all flawed, for
Puranas are basically expanded expression of the substratum in the
Vedas. An indepth understanding of Purana and Itihasa (apart from
other pre-requisites) is essential for interpreting the Vedas
correctly, according to Bhagavan Manu. While there are chances that
Puranas in their present form might have been skewed at some time in
the past, Puranas are by themselves, apaurusheya (as described in the
Shiva Purana and a few other puranas). Bhagavan Vyasa was only
instrumental in bringing them to the mortal realm, perhaps even
simplifying them. Even more absurd is the theory of fusion (of the
Aryan Rudra with Dravidian Shiva)!

For further clarification -

Shatarudriya / Rudradhyaya was originally intended to be used for
Ishti homa before begining a Soma/Vajapeya Yajna. The earliest
existing reference to it being used for Abhishekam etc. is in the
Bodhayana Grihya Sutra. And this is probably the basis for
panchayatana puja etc. Similarly, the Laghunyasa/Mahanyasa is not a
part of Rudradhyaya when used in the Ishti homa and a part of it
cannot be traced back to any apaurusheya grantha - they are simply
(parampantargata) vakyas (not mantras).

Also Chamaka was originally intended (and is still used) for
Vasordhara homa, generally conducted at the end of Soma and most
Kamyeshthis / Yajnas. Nowadays it is used at the end of Maharudra /
Atirudra / Rudrahoma etc. just after the purnahuti in Homa. Otherwise
it is recited just after Rudradhyaya.

It is not Rudra-Puja and similarly it is not Shiva-Homa. Shiva-homa is
a seperate affair discussed at length in the Rudrayamala and similar
tantras (There is a Shiva-Homa known by other names in various
reigons).

Nonetheless I am in full consensus about the last sentence - The flaw
in writings of people who are not practitioners, and far greater,
their acceptence by others as an authority!

[Viswanath B]

Dear Shri Sivaramakrishna Sharma Mahodaya,

Thanks for the explanation, I have a small question on your mention of 'originally intended for" in your email.

From what I understand, The shrauta sutra, and/or the grihya sutra provide us the method for carrying out the yagna or the homa etc.

So, when you say "they are originally intended for .... ", I am assuming that you are saying -  "earliest references to the usage of namakam and chamakam" are known to be the isthi homa or the vasordhara homa. In otherwords I am trying to say that the samhita itself doesn't say that the intended usage of these prasnas is for these homa only.

I hope I understood you correctly. Please let me know,

The reason why i am asking this question is thus - If the samhita itself doesn't limit the possibility of the usage, and the usage itself is governed by the kalpa sutras, then there is a possibility that the kalpa sutras does stipulate usage of these prasnas in other procedures as well. May be just that we are not aware.

Mahanyasa method that is followed today is the one stipulated by Bodhayana. There is also one method stipulated by Ravana. I am not sure if somebody follows it. 

Thanks
Viswanath

[Ajit Krishnan]

namaste,

> the samhita itself doesn't say that the intended usage of these prasnas 

The kAThaka-brAhmaNa says "agnAviShNU iti vasrodhArAyAH".

> There is also one method stipulated by Ravana. I am not sure if somebody follows it.  

The rAvaNokta mahAnyAsa is almost the same as the bodhAyanokta mahAnyAsa. The difference is just some additional mantras and shlokas. Many people follow the rAvaNokta method (thought they may not realize it). It is quite common.

sasneham,

   ajit

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Ajit Krishnan <ajit.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

namaste,

> the samhita itself doesn't say that the intended usage of these prasnas 

The kAThaka-brAhmaNa says "agnAviShNU iti vasrodhArAyAH".

> There is also one method stipulated by Ravana. I am not sure if somebody follows it.  

The rAvaNokta mahAnyAsa is almost the same as the bodhAyanokta mahAnyAsa. The difference is just some additional mantras and shlokas. Many people follow the rAvaNokta method (thought they may not realize it). It is quite common.

sasneham,

   ajit

 

 

Thanks Ajit for precise reply for Viswas's query.

Practice is a different think customized by the demand of the time as and when need arise.  Scriptural study and their commentaries is another thing. Thinking only one is right and the other is wrong, is the common flaw among the practitioners.

There are many शाखा-s and सूत्र-s for each शाखा-s and प्रयोग-s utilizing the same मन्त्र-s in ऋग्वेद. The कल्पसूत्र-s are considered to be the वेदाङ्ग-s than our own conviction on our practice today. And महान्यास is following the प्रयोग of बोधायनसूत्र, and न्यास is part of the प्रयोग for रुद्राध्याय if I am right in worshiping रुद्र including एकादश rudra. 

Identifying रुद्र with शिव is a matter of faith, than scriptural authority to be exercised. "सर्वं ब्रह्ममयम्" statement doesn't need any discussion, as it identifies anything with ब्रह्म (and not with ब्रह्मा one of the trinity of Gods, of पुराण-s).

I am also not sure of the whole exercise to deviate from  the point in discussion, tying to make it one between believers and non-believers (than practitioners and non-practitioners). I am afraid whether it is in any way helpful to keep the spirit of the group neutral.

-- 

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,

Research Scholar,

[Ajit Krishnan]

namaste,

 

Dear Dr. Bhat, though I am replying to your mail, this response is not directed solely at you. I am writing it after reading the various threads [[ Incidentally, having a single thread would have been helpful. Though you asked for multiple threads, and that is what resulted, it actually made it *harder* to follow the conversation ! ]]

 

 

> Practice is a different think customized by the demand of the time as and when need arise. 

> Scriptural study and their commentaries is another thing.

 

 

The words of certain ancient practitioners, like Bodhyana, are authoritative. It is not without reason that he is given the epiteth "bhagavAn bodhAyana". In the laghunyAsa, it is "shiva" who he seats in the heart. (Before someone brings it up again, I know that rudra and shankara are seated elsewhere. I don't want to address this tangent now).

 

There is a commentary on the rudra-prashna by skanda-svAmin, where he gives a different dhyAna-shloka for each mantra in the rudra prashna. As an example, in the second mantra, he invokes "shambhum umayA sArdham". This is clearly shiva.

 

According to the tradition of the bodhAyanas (followed by others as well), after giving the vidhi "athAtmAnam shrii-rudra-rUpam dhyAyet", certain dhyAna-shlokas are chanted. Rudra is invoked as trinetram, ga~ngAdharam, shUla-pANinam, umA-dehArdha-dhAriNam etc. It is clearly shiva.

 

Without a shadow of a doubt, in practice, there is a clear identification of shiva as the presiding devatA of the rudra-prashna. If, on the basis of a few texts ("authoritative" or otherwise), it is said to be the non-shiva rudra alone, I would ask -- Is this the pancha mukha rudra, aShTa mUrti rudra, shata rudra, mRtyu~njaya rudra or some other rudra?

 

I hope the readers get the point. If "rudra" were a well-understood single entity, we could attempt to see if rudra were different from shiva. Since he is not, such an exercise is pointless. Any attempt to answer this question would be mere speculation. Some of it may be scholarly speculation, but it is speculation none the less !

 

 

> Thinking only one is right and the other is wrong

 

 

Both the words of bhaktas and the words of commentators are only the beginning. The actual devatA has to be borne out of sAdhanA and experience. Unfortunately, those who have experienced vedic mantras largely stay out of the limelight. The problem with commentators is that they had an ocean of veda to study and comment upon ... in the journey to cover the entire breadth of a topic, depth is naturally foresaken.

 

Anyways, I only read this group in spurts. My apologizes if I don't participate in this thread in a timely manner.

 

sasneham,

 

    ajit

[Viswanath B]

Hi Ajit,

Thanks for clarification. Yes,  I am aware that Samhita itself has references to other mantras for usage. For example much of Yajurveda is said to be how we carryout the Yajna's.  There is a 'only' towards the end of my question. I was half-sleepy when I wrote it. I could have been more clear.

I was trying to ask, if it is limited to such homa. I guess it is not. The reason I am asking is that I got an impression from the previous discussion, that rudradhyaya is not originally 'intened' to be used the way it is today. Hence i was trying to ask if that is the case.

I am not familiar with many of the texts so I thought this group can help me in understanding correctly.

Thanks for teh clarification on the ravanokta mahanyasa,

Thanks
Vissu

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Ajit Krishnan <ajit.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

[R. Sivaramakrishna Sharma]

Namaste,

You have understood me right. While the Mantras in the Samhitas by
themselves do not contain any explicit references to viniyoga, it by
the authority of Parampara that one is able to identify mantras and
their viniyogas. So when I say, 'originally' intended, as you have
rightly assumed, their (earliest) references in the Kalpasutras.

And this is precisely why Bhashyakara Sayana among others have
regarded the Shatarudriya as an Upanishad (despite it being in the
Mantra-Samhita).

The earliest reference to Rudram and Chamakam used for Abhishekam in
Devata-Aaradhana, I have been able to trace is the Bodhayana Grihya
Sutra. I am not aware of any other Kalpa-text dealing with this.

Again some people seem to opine that Mantras can be 'adapted' to
changing situations. I am not sure of any such orthodox usage as such.
Some years back, some big Ghanapathis in South Karnataka were involved
in *re-assigning* Devatas to popular Mantras in the Rigveda Samhita,
in conjunction to their daily use. But to the best of my knowledge
this has not found acceptance within orthodox circles, and most
orthodox use the same devata as has been handed to them in the
Parampara.

Although the procedure for Mahanyasa has been clearly laid down in the
Bodhayana Grihya Sutra, Ravana Mahanyasa is also present. I personally
practice the Ravanokta Mahanyasa ( = BY parampara). Believe me, when I
say, that even though that the sutras are two, the paddhatis are many.
I am aware of and know of atleast 7 paddhatis including Andhra,
Dravida (Tamil), Keraliya (Palaghaut), Gomathiya etc. all with minor
differences here and there. There are differences even within the same
Sutra in different paddhatis. Keraliya Paddhati does not have any Bija
or Bija-Samputikarana at all and is by and far considered the most
short & easy paddhati.

So much for this discussion.

[R. Sivaramakrishna Sharma]

As a rejointer to my early writing,

YES, the viniyoga of any Vedic mantra is generally restricted to those
boundaries drawn by scriptural authority, which includes Kalpa-
Sutras, (ofcourse) Parampara apart from other ancialliary texts such
as Rigvidhanam, Tantra , Agama etc. Bodhayana Grihya Sutra is
definitely a part of this authority.

On Oct 9, 12:52 pm, Viswanath B <vegavah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ajit,
>
> Thanks for clarification. Yes,  I am aware that Samhita itself has
> references to other mantras for usage. For example much of Yajurveda is said
> to be how we carryout the Yajna's.  There is a 'only' towards the end of my
> question. I was half-sleepy when I wrote it. I could have been more clear.
>
> I was trying to ask, if it is limited to such homa. I guess it is not. The
> reason I am asking is that I got an impression from the previous discussion,
> that rudradhyaya is not originally 'intened' to be used the way it is today.
> Hence i was trying to ask if that is the case.
>
> I am not familiar with many of the texts so I thought this group can help me
> in understanding correctly.
>
> Thanks for teh clarification on the ravanokta mahanyasa,
>
> Thanks
> Vissu

> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Ajit Krishnan <ajit.krish...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > namaste,
>
> > > the samhita itself doesn't say that the intended usage of these prasnas
>
> > The kAThaka-brAhmaNa says "agnAviShNU iti vasrodhArAyAH".
>
> > > There is also one method stipulated by Ravana. I am not sure if somebody
> > follows it.
>
> > The rAvaNokta mahAnyAsa is almost the same as the bodhAyanokta mahAnyAsa.
> > The difference is just some additional mantras and shlokas. Many people
> > follow the rAvaNokta method (thought they may not realize it). It is quite
> > common.
>
> > sasneham,
>
> >    ajit
>

> ...
>
> read more »