Anybody knows abt Sukhla Yajur subsect

[Sree]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Recently I came across the subsect Sukhla Yajur in Tamil Iyer. Can anybody know about this subsect.If so please let me the origin of this subsect.
Is it a subsect of Kurukal??

Regards,
Sree

 

[ammanji]

Dear sree,sukla yajur people r not kurukkals, u can find them in tanjore cauvery belt.

 

[RVenkatraman]

Sree:

Just a prelude on what we already know:

Veda is a single collection of all mantras. It consists of mantras which are of three types namely ŗk, the mantra of illumination in one of several metres, the sāman, a mantra with a metre which has to be sung according to the symbols indicated in the mantra and the remaining yajus mantra which is in rhythmic prose. When Veda is said to be threefold (trayi) the reference is to these three types. According to the tradition, Krişhņa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa compiled four collections of mantras with the names Rig Veda Mantra Samhitā (Rig Veda), Yajur Veda Mantra Samhitā (Yajur Veda), Sāma Veda Mantra Samhitā (Sama Veda) and the Atharva Veda Mantra Samhitā (Atharva Veda) from the original single collection

Now:

Yajur Veda Samhitā has two broad types of recensions called as Krişhņa (mixed) Yajur Veda (KYV) Samhitā and the Shukla (pure) Yajur Veda (SYV) Samhitā. We will clarify the words "mixed', and "pure' later. Taittirīya Samhitā is one of the recensions of the Krişhņa Yajur Veda Samhitā, along with Maitrāyaņī Samhitā, Kapişhţhala Samhitā and Kaţhaka Samhitā. The Shukla Yajur Veda Samhitā has two recensions namely Vājasaneyi Mādhyandina and Vājasaneyi Kāņva. There is heavy overlap between the KYV books like Taittirīya and SYV books like the Vājasaneyi.

In south india 90% and above brahmins belong to Krishna Yajur Veda. Some villages in Kaveri Belt (Thanjavoor) and Tambrabharani Belt (Thirunelveli, Kadayanallor) there are families who belong to Sukla Yajur Veda.

Perhaps many of us already know each Veda consist of three major portions Samhitha, Brahmana and Aranyaka. Samhitha portion is mainly of mantras and Brahmana details the mantras of Samhitha as prose, meaning it explains the Samhita portion. Aranyaka is the philosophical portion of the Veda.

One of the peculiarities of the Mantra Samhitā of Krişhņa Yajur Veda such as Taittirīya Samhitā or Maitrayāņī Samhitā is that some of the anuvākās contain brāhmaņa passages of plain prose. It is one of the reasons for these Veda Samhitā for being called kŗşhņa or mixed (i.e., mixed with brāhmaņa). The Shukla Yajur Veda Samhitā does not contain any brāhmaņa passage in Samhita.

There is a interesting legend attached to the above said separation of Yajur Veda into Krishna and Sukla Yajur Veda:

It is said that Rishi Vaisampayana taught Yajur Veda to Yagnavalkya and other disciples. Yagnavalkya was one of the very illustrious and bright students. It was a regular rite for the Rishi Vaisampayana to perform vedic ritual for the welfare of the country and for the King (I think the Janaka Maharaja) and after the ritual the mangala akshdhai (Holy auspicious rice added with turmeric) will be sent to the King’s palace as prasaadam and aseerwadham. One day when Yagnavalkya’s turn had come to bring the Mangala Akshadhai to King’s Palace. When Yagnavalkya reached the palace he found King was not at his Simhasana, since Yagnavalkya was impatient and didn’t want to miss the class J he just placed the Mangala Akshadhai on the Simhasana and came back to the Patasaala. The potent student power made the Akshadhai to get germinated and it got sprouted out. Seeing this wonder the great Maharaja rushed to the place of Rishi and conveyed the wonder. Though this was a wonder the Guru didn’t accepted the way Yagnavalkya behaved and dishonored the King by not giving the Mangala Akshadai to him personally. Hence he punished Yagnavalkya by ordering him to give away what all he had learnt from him. Obeying the order of his Guru Yagnavalkya vomited whatever he learnt. It is said that he vomited what he had learnt as fire (Agni) and the fire was swallowed by other disciples in the form of Tittri Bird (This bird is said to be fed on Fire) and from then a new recension called Tattriya Saaka of Yajur Veda came from them. Later Yagnavalkya made severe penance and thapas towards the Sun god and he again learnt Yajur Veda from the Sun and that was named as Sukla Yajur Veda.

This story need not give us any disgust at all if we understand it properly. Annoyed at the lesser students of the class room, the teacher asked Yagnavalkya to repeat the lesson that he had taught, and the genius in Yagnavalkya ‘vomited’ what was taught to him. When a student has absorbed knowledge and when he gives it out, it becomes more palatable to the other students of the class room, who could not so efficiently understand it directly from the teacher’s learned discourses. Seeing that the delivery of Yagnavalkya was masterly, the teacher in appreciation asked the other students of the class to absorb it in the form of the “sparrows” which they did.

Of all the birds, sparrows are most energetic and industrious; the two great qualities that are unavoidable for any diligent student f Vedantic literature are indicated here.

I remember other explanations are also available for this Legend.

Hope what i said above would give you some idea about Sukla Yajur Veda.

If what said about need to be further explained or any other details you would be seeking I would be more than happy to share.

RV

 

[pazhani]

hi rv

there are other places. kamalapuram near salem in tamizhnadu is one such place where shukla yajurvedis have been living for generations.

cheers

 

[mrifan]

Taittiriya Samhita

While I agree that some of the metaphors used in the Puranas are based on actual events, it is quite possible that some are meant literally. In other passages we are told that the "dhristi" of some rishis allowed them to see events unfold a certain way.

This may fall into the category of the same vision that allowed the apostles to claim that Jesus walked on water etc. Being of the Krishna Yajur Iyer subsect myself, I had to memorize the Taittiriyopanishat as part of my upbringing, and do believe that the tone and meter represent an assertion, rather than a query. This is clarified by Yaskacharya, and is considered to be one of the first expositions of modern Semantic Theory, much before Panini made his giant contributions to solidifying the rules of Sanskrit grammar differentiating the perfective and the imperfective nouns. Sanskrit is one of the most consistent languages in terms of the rules applied in terms of meter, tone, prefixes, and predicate construction. Please read the book "The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language.", 1990, Oxford, Bimal Matilal, for a fascinating look into some of the history of the evolution of Sanskrit (Ashtadhaayi) over a period 1800 BC - 700BC, far before the language we write in today even obtained the concept of a present continuous tense.

I wonder how many of the Brahmanas today even know the seminal work done by many of their ancestors, Yagnavalkya, Vaisampayana, Tittiri, Yaska, Panini, Brahmadutta, Krishnadvaipayana, Kosala, Patanjali, Bhrigu, and countless others. Just one Upanishad, Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad is over 10 times the size of the Greek Odyssey. The early Yajur constructs estimates on the age of the Universe to be approximately 4.3 billion years, and postulates that purna (infinity) will remain purna regardless of what is taken from it.

What I find distressing is that the current Brahmanas of today have for the most part, turned their backs on the intellectual accomplishments of their ancestors. If the above rishis, or rishis like Vaachaspati, Kashyapa, Jabali, Brihaspati, Vashista and other mental giants could see their descendants of today they would be appalled at the state to which Brahmanas have been reduced to. Some busy fighting for survival against mental midgets like the KKKs, others obsessed with squandering their (whatever little) genetic heritage left (abracadabra! watch us disappear!), yet others finding great relish in extolling a violence based philosophy arisen from a desert bedouin. Which begs the question, instead of apologizing to other castes, should the Brahmanas of today rather apologize to their ancestors for being such poor copies? Instead of "Who are we?", should the topical question be "What have we become?". Looks like history has passed Brahmanas by. Who today has the mental capacity to write another Taittiriya Samhita, or a YakshaGaana? How many Brahmanas today even know Sanskrit, the language of their ancestors?

Sree:

Just a prelude on what we already know:

Veda is a single collection of all mantras. It consists of mantras which are of three types namely ŗk, the mantra of illumination in one of several metres, the sāman, a mantra with a metre which has to be sung according to the symbols indicated in the mantra and the remaining yajus mantra which is in rhythmic prose. When Veda is said to be threefold (trayi) the reference is to these three types. According to the tradition, Krişhņa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa compiled four collections of mantras with the names Rig Veda Mantra Samhitā (Rig Veda), Yajur Veda Mantra Samhitā (Yajur Veda), Sāma Veda Mantra Samhitā (Sama Veda) and the Atharva Veda Mantra Samhitā (Atharva Veda) from the original single collection

Now:

Yajur Veda Samhitā has two broad types of recensions called as Krişhņa (mixed) Yajur Veda (KYV) Samhitā and the Shukla (pure) Yajur Veda (SYV) Samhitā. We will clarify the words "mixed', and "pure' later. Taittirīya Samhitā is one of the recensions of the Krişhņa Yajur Veda Samhitā, along with Maitrāyaņī Samhitā, Kapişhţhala Samhitā and Kaţhaka Samhitā. The Shukla Yajur Veda Samhitā has two recensions namely Vājasaneyi Mādhyandina and Vājasaneyi Kāņva. There is heavy overlap between the KYV books like Taittirīya and SYV books like the Vājasaneyi.

In south india 90% and above brahmins belong to Krishna Yajur Veda. Some villages in Kaveri Belt (Thanjavoor) and Tambrabharani Belt (Thirunelveli, Kadayanallor) there are families who belong to Sukla Yajur Veda.

Perhaps many of us already know each Veda consist of three major portions Samhitha, Brahmana and Aranyaka. Samhitha portion is mainly of mantras and Brahmana details the mantras of Samhitha as prose, meaning it explains the Samhita portion. Aranyaka is the philosophical portion of the Veda.

One of the peculiarities of the Mantra Samhitā of Krişhņa Yajur Veda such as Taittirīya Samhitā or Maitrayāņī Samhitā is that some of the anuvākās contain brāhmaņa passages of plain prose. It is one of the reasons for these Veda Samhitā for being called kŗşhņa or mixed (i.e., mixed with brāhmaņa). The Shukla Yajur Veda Samhitā does not contain any brāhmaņa passage in Samhita.

There is a interesting legend attached to the above said separation of Yajur Veda into Krishna and Sukla Yajur Veda:

It is said that Rishi Vaisampayana taught Yajur Veda to Yagnavalkya and other disciples. Yagnavalkya was one of the very illustrious and bright students. It was a regular rite for the Rishi Vaisampayana to perform vedic ritual for the welfare of the country and for the King (I think the Janaka Maharaja) and after the ritual the mangala akshdhai (Holy auspicious rice added with turmeric) will be sent to the King’s palace as prasaadam and aseerwadham. One day when Yagnavalkya’s turn had come to bring the Mangala Akshadhai to King’s Palace. When Yagnavalkya reached the palace he found King was not at his Simhasana, since Yagnavalkya was impatient and didn’t want to miss the class J he just placed the Mangala Akshadhai on the Simhasana and came back to the Patasaala. The potent student power made the Akshadhai to get germinated and it got sprouted out. Seeing this wonder the great Maharaja rushed to the place of Rishi and conveyed the wonder. Though this was a wonder the Guru didn’t accepted the way Yagnavalkya behaved and dishonored the King by not giving the Mangala Akshadai to him personally. Hence he punished Yagnavalkya by ordering him to give away what all he had learnt from him. Obeying the order of his Guru Yagnavalkya vomited whatever he learnt. It is said that he vomited what he had learnt as fire (Agni) and the fire was swallowed by other disciples in the form of Tittri Bird (This bird is said to be fed on Fire) and from then a new recension called Tattriya Saaka of Yajur Veda came from them. Later Yagnavalkya made severe penance and thapas towards the Sun god and he again learnt Yajur Veda from the Sun and that was named as Sukla Yajur Veda.

This story need not give us any disgust at all if we understand it properly. Annoyed at the lesser students of the class room, the teacher asked Yagnavalkya to repeat the lesson that he had taught, and the genius in Yagnavalkya ‘vomited’ what was taught to him. When a student has absorbed knowledge and when he gives it out, it becomes more palatable to the other students of the class room, who could not so efficiently understand it directly from the teacher’s learned discourses. Seeing that the delivery of Yagnavalkya was masterly, the teacher in appreciation asked the other students of the class to absorb it in the form of the “sparrows” which they did.

Of all the birds, sparrows are most energetic and industrious; the two great qualities that are unavoidable for any diligent student f Vedantic literature are indicated here.

I remember other explanations are also available for this Legend.

Hope what i said above would give you some idea about Sukla Yajur Veda.

If what said about need to be further explained or any other details you would be seeking I would be more than happy to share.

RV

 

[pazhani]

hi mrifaan,

hats off for the spirited info. ya the sthithi of samskrutham and that of brahmanas which are mutually dependent speak for themselves. but all is not lost. if you just look back the past two decades - dont be surprised to find that children from the families of loukika brahmanas - been sent to veda pataSalAs for vedadyayanam. These children apart from vedAdyayanam also go for further studies on vyakaraNam, nyAyam, mimAmsa, vedantam. i may say so ts sort of resurrection. i do not know whether you are in india or dweepantharam. in india - in south india - people who have close association with vaidikAs won't miss this subtle resurrection.

Cheers

 

[KRS]

A confession

Dear Sri mrifan Ji,

Your point is well taken. Instead of asking 'Who are we', I agree we should pose the question you have raised. And I bet that you would find the answer very troubling.

Our guardianship of intellectualism came with the responsibility of the guardianship of the welfare of the society. All the giants you cite were strangers to a job that paid and were looked after by the great Kings of the times. They had a code to live by, and they were brought up in the traditional Brahminical way of upbringing, meaning that they underwent training in our scriptures and Sanskrit for atleast twenty years. These were the times when the society understood the value of such an education and supported it.

I don't know what you do in your work life, but I bet that it has nothing to do with what Brahmins are supposed to do. Given this state of affairs, we are what we are: a people who have accomplished a lot in the secular realm because of our genetics, but have not contributed much to the spiritual realm of Hinduism. This is why we need to understand 'who we are' first before talking about contributions to our culture like the giants you have mentioned.

It is just a very complex issue.

Pranams,
KRS