[Advaita-l] aruNa prashna & upanishad chanting in evening

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

What is this "authority" trying to say? That yajur vedins should not
recite sri-suuktam? Quite frankly, it is a well known fact that the
sri-suuktam is not from the yajur vedam. No one is an authority on
what suuktas from other vedas yajur vedins can/cannot chant (other
than tradition), much less pass grandiose comments about what
tradition does. Yes, sva-shaakhaa is the first one to be learned, but
there are always exceptons made. Case in point - the kaaThakam,
ironically the aruna prashnam and the svaadhyaaya braahmaNam are not
orginally from the taittiriiya shaakha, as evident from the svaras and
other prAtishAkhya peculiarities (also attested by Bhatta Bhaskara and
Sayana). This was imported wholesale by the taittiriiyakas and is
being learned to this date as a part of the taittiriiya shaakha.
Bodhayana, while for yajurvedins, suggests learning some particular
important suktas from Rg-veda.

The fact also is that important sUktas/mantras has been co-opted from
one veda to another. They have a common core. As a matter of fact, the
hotR^i mantras in the very basic darsha-puurNamasa iShTi are found in
the yajur-brAhmaNam and not the R^ig veda (though some mantras can be
found scattered), so should R^ig vedins stop doing this iShTi?

There are many many more examples - the authority on what to use and
not use, wherefrom to take what, is shiShTaachaara, not extant texts
taken by themselves or self appointed authorities.

Rama

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
> rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sri-suktam is a suktam in the Rk-khila. It is accepted as a valid
>> sukta by rg-vedins. I have no idea why people go around talking about
>> things they know nothing about.
>>
>
> I spoke about the Yajurveda and that on the authority of someone who has
> done the complete yajurvedAdhyayana. I think you failed to notice that. I
> did not say that about the Rg veda.