New member introduction: shrI Subhanu Saxena

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Anand Hudli wrote:

>   chamakaM namakaM chaiva paurushhasUktaM tathaiva cha  |
>   nityaM trayaM prayuJNjAno brahmaloke mahIyate       ||
>
>   One who practises the three -- the namakaM (Rudram), chamakaM,
>   and the Purushha sUkta-- daily becomes great in Brahmaloka.
>
>   Anyway, it is clear that the first verse above AND this one cannot
>   both be injunctions!

Wouldn't brahmaloke mahIyate be only an arthavAda, meant to eulogise the
person who acts thus? The earlier verse, which uses the form Avartayet, is
much simpler to view as an injunction. There is one school of mImAMsA
interpretation which would say that there is an injunction implied in the
arthavAda also,  but there is another school which would require a direct
statement of injunction, as in svargakAmI yajet, etc.

Vidyasankar