PDA

View Full Version : Ask An Udgātr: Questions About The Most Noble Shrī Sāmaveda



Jaskaran Singh
06 January 2014, 02:27 AM
Namaskār Sarva[forum]jana :),

So I recently did a keyword search on sāmaveda and it only turned up with 26 results, none of which go into detail in regard to sāmaved-ic practices and since I'm a udgātā/chandogaḥ (i.e. sāmasaṅgāyakaḥ, or singer of the sāmagānam-s), I thought I would make a thread on it. At the same time, I don't want to confuse you or bore you (or both, :p) with technicalities (like what the significance of verse 54 of the vādhūlaśrautasūtram in regards to kāthaka ritual; the relationship between iḍā and cattle; the relationhip between the Kāleyasāman [referring to vitadanya-s son, not the demon of the kaliyuga], the gandharva-s, and soma; or the classifications of the songs [like why the udgī[t/th]a "ā ratnadhā yonim ṛta[sya]," chanted at the beginning of the jyotiṣṭoma yajña, classifies as a uhyagānam rather than an āraṇyagānam]). Hence, I would rather have y'all ask questions if you have any so I can get an idea of what you actually want to know. However, please limit your questions to sāmaveda, not the ṛgveda, yajurveda, or atharvaveda as more than likely, I probably don't know the answer to those (although sudās or kālicaraṇ most likely will).

ameyAtmA
06 January 2014, 03:57 AM
Since a good portion of the sāma ṛchīs are derivatives of or some even just musical versions of ṛg ṛchīs, perhaps you can show us a map of the ṛg ṛchīs and how they got into sāma in song/music form .

Also, sāma vedists claim that many of the sāma ṛchīs are independant of ṛg . Perhaps you can give us a glimpse of these and show a pattern as to their candidacy for sāma i.e what made these ṛchīs a part of sāma veda .

Nice thread . "Of vedas, I am sāma " -- Shri Kṛṣṇa in Vibhūtī Yog , Bhagvad Gītā chapter 10 . Surely there must be big reasons for Him to say that . Our shāstrīya sangeet (Hindustānī classical music) came from this very piece of shāstra -- sāma veda .

Thanks .

Alter ego
06 January 2014, 11:54 AM
Namaskār Sarva[forum]jana :),

So I recently did a keyword search on sāmaveda and it only turned up with 26 results, none of which go into detail in regard to sāmaved-ic practices and since I'm a udgātā/chandogaḥ (i.e. sāmasaṅgāyakaḥ, or singer of the sāmagānam-s), I thought I would make a thread on it. At the same time, I don't want to confuse you or bore you (or both, :p) with technicalities (like what the significance of verse 54 of the vādhūlaśrautasūtram in regards to kāthaka ritual; the relationship between iḍā and cattle; the relationhip between the Kāleyasāman [referring to vitadanya-s son, not the demon of the kaliyuga], the gandharva-s, and soma; or the classifications of the songs [like why the udgī[t/th]a "ā ratnadhā yonim ṛta[sya]," chanted at the beginning of the jyotiṣṭoma yajña, classifies as a uhyagānam rather than an āraṇyagānam]). Hence, I would rather have y'all ask questions if you have any so I can get an idea of what you actually want to know. However, please limit your questions to sāmaveda, not the ṛgveda, yajurveda, or atharvaveda as more than likely, I probably don't know the answer to those (although sudās or kālicaraṇ most likely will).
Pranam,

I always wanted to know whether or not the portrayal and description of shri rudra in samaveda is identical to rigveda. I presuppose only minute differences or lack thereof

Jaskaran Singh
07 January 2014, 03:47 AM
Namaste,

Since a good portion of the sāma ṛchīs are derivatives of or some even just musical versions of ṛg ṛchīs, perhaps you can show us a map of the ṛg ṛchīs and how they got into sāma in song/music form .
Also, sāma vedists claim that many of the sāma ṛchīs are independant of ṛg . Perhaps you can give us a glimpse of these and show a pattern as to their candidacy for sāma i.e what made these ṛchīs a part of sāma veda .
Really? The tANDyamahAbrAhmaNam, sAmavidhAnabrAhmaNam, and the jaiminIyabrAhmaNam all view the R^icha-s and sAman as inseperable and the chhAndogyopaniShad even claims that the R^icha is the upholder of the sAma (tadetadetasyAmR^ichyadhyUDhaM sAma). According to the ekAgni kANDam of the yajurveda, the sAmaveda and R^igveda are like husband and wife. To put it in other words, would you ever say that viShNu is independent of shrI or that shiva is independent of pArvatI? No. Similarly, it would be a bit strange to claim that the sAma is independent or not related to the R^icha. Some sAmavedin-s may believe that it is completely independent, but that's probably not a common belief.

Nice thread . "Of vedas, I am sāma " -- Shri Kṛṣṇa in Vibhūtī Yog , Bhagvad Gītā chapter 10 . Surely there must be big reasons for Him to say that . Our shāstrīya sangeet (Hindustānī classical music) came from this very piece of shāstra -- sāma veda .
Thanks .
That's true not only for HindustAnI music, but karnATik music as well (probably moreso). Heck, even the saptasvara-s, namely "sA" "ri" (re in Northern India) "gA" "ma" "pa" "dha" and "ni" come from the sAmaveda: sA = ShaDja, ri = R^iShabha, gA = gAndhAra, ma =madhyama, pa =pa~nchama, dha= dhaivata, and ni =niShAda; tyAgarAja (a medieval karnATik composer and bhakta) also alludes to this:

nAda tanumanishaM sha~Nkaram namAmi me manasA shirasA
modakara nigamottama sAmavedasAraM vAraM vAram
sadyojAtAdi pa~nchavaktraja sarigamapadhanI vara saptasvara
vidyAlolaM vidalita kAlam vimala hR^idaya tyAgarAja pAlam

Trans. "Again and again, I heartfully bow my head in obeisance to lord sha~Nkara: the embodiment of music, the giver of joy, the greatest of veda-s, [and] the essence of the sAmaveda. From sadyojAta and the [other of the] five faces, the vara of seven notes, "sarigamapadhanI" [arises]. [Your] moving recitations (svara-s) tear death asunder, O pure-hearted guardian of tyAgarAja."

Pranam,

I always wanted to know whether or not the portrayal and description of shri rudra in samaveda is identical to rigveda. I presuppose only minute differences or lack thereof
Since the vast majority of the actual shabda-s [not counting stobhAkShara-s] of the sAmaveda "come from" the R^igveda, there are no differences in their portrayal of rudra, as the only sAmodgItha-s which do not have their basis in the R^ichamantra-s are all pavamAnastotra-s.

Alter ego
08 January 2014, 11:36 PM
Namaste,

Really? The tANDyamahAbrAhmaNam, sAmavidhAnabrAhmaNam, and the jaiminIyabrAhmaNam all view the R^icha-s and sAman as inseperable and the chhAndogyopaniShad even claims that the R^icha is the upholder of the sAma (tadetadetasyAmR^ichyadhyUDhaM sAma). According to the ekAgni kANDam of the yajurveda, the sAmaveda and R^igveda are like husband and wife. To put it in other words, would you ever say that viShNu is independent of shrI or that shiva is independent of pArvatI? No. Similarly, it would be a bit strange to claim that the sAma is independent or not related to the R^icha. Some sAmavedin-s may believe that it is completely independent, but that's probably not a common belief.

That's true not only for HindustAnI music, but karnATik music as well (probably moreso). Heck, even the saptasvara-s, namely "sA" "ri" (re in Northern India) "gA" "ma" "pa" "dha" and "ni" come from the sAmaveda: sA = ShaDja, ri = R^iShabha, gA = gAndhAra, ma =madhyama, pa =pa~nchama, dha= dhaivata, and ni =niShAda; tyAgarAja (a medieval karnATik composer and bhakta) also alludes to this:

nAda tanumanishaM sha~Nkaram namAmi me manasA shirasA
modakara nigamottama sAmavedasAraM vAraM vAram
sadyojAtAdi pa~nchavaktraja sarigamapadhanI vara saptasvara
vidyAlolaM vidalita kAlam vimala hR^idaya tyAgarAja pAlam

Trans. "Again and again, I heartfully bow my head in obeisance to lord sha~Nkara: the embodiment of music, the giver of joy, the greatest of veda-s, [and] the essence of the sAmaveda. From sadyojAta and the [other of the] five faces, the vara of seven notes, "sarigamapadhanI" [arises]. [Your] moving recitations (svara-s) tear death asunder, O pure-hearted guardian of tyAgarAja."

Since the vast majority of the actual shabda-s [not counting stobhAkShara-s] of the sAmaveda "come from" the R^igveda, there are no differences in their portrayal of rudra, as the only sAmodgItha-s which do not have their basis in the R^ichamantra-s are all pavamAnastotra-s.

Namaste,

Indeed I was talking of 75 mantras not found in RV. I consider SV an intermediary to RV and Shatarudriyam .Thanks for the info about rudra . BTW, can brhat and ratantara be considered proto SV ganas? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10181.htm

ameyAtmA
09 January 2014, 02:34 AM
Namaste,

Really? The tANDyamahAbrAhmaNam, sAmavidhAnabrAhmaNam, and the jaiminIyabrAhmaNam all view the R^icha-s and sAman as inseperable and the chhAndogyopaniShad even claims that the R^icha is the upholder of the sAma (tadetadetasyAmR^ichyadhyUDhaM sAma). According to the ekAgni kANDam of the yajurveda, the sAmaveda and R^igveda are like husband and wife. To put it in other words, would you ever say that viShNu is independent of shrI or that shiva is independent of pArvatI? No. Similarly, it would be a bit strange to claim that the sAma is independent or not related to the R^icha. Some sAmavedin-s may believe that it is completely independent, but that's probably not a common belief.
You have not read what I said: SOME sāma ṛchī are not from Ṛg , while a majority are.


from Sāma Veda Vol I & II by Swami Satyaprakāsh Saraswatī & Satyakām Vidyālankār:
99 verses of Sāma do not come from ṚgVed, whereas 1776 verses are a reproduction of Ṛg ṛchī s

(Present Collection consists of 1874 shlok divided into Pūrvārchika, Mahānāmni ārchika and Uttarārchika sections [in sequence.])

Certainly Sāma and Ṛg are Husband and Wife. Sāma is Shri Kṛṣṇa [Bhagvad Gitā 10.22 - vedānām sāmavedosmi] and Ṛg ṛchī are His Gopis perpetually glorifying Him, the Supreme Lord [bhāgvat 10.87].

Sāma is the Ved that brings ecstatic Love of the Supreme, adding aesthetics & sāma gāyan shāstra to the Ṛg ṛchīs.
EDIT: This Supreme Divine ecstatic love and happiness is depicted as the transcendental Soma Ras, ENDEDIT
which has to be filtered from its Infinite Universal form in a figurative "wooden vessel, and mixed with milk, water, yogurt, honey," to make it ready for the infinitesimal individual yajmān (personal factors).

Jaskaran Singh
09 January 2014, 02:44 AM
Namaste,

Indeed I was talking of 75 mantras not found in RV. I consider SV an intermediary to RV and Shatarudriyam .
Why so? Many of the verses in the nAmakam seem more similar to the R^igveda verses and most of the shloka-s/mantra-s therein are composed in an almost prose-like manner in which they could not be incorporated into a sAmagAnam; one verse that comes to mind is "mR^i\_DA no\' rudro\_ta no\_ maya\'skR^idhi kSha\_yadvI\'rAya\_ nama\'sA vidhema te yachChaM cha\_ yoshcha\_ manu\'rAye\_je pi\_tA tada\'shyAma\_ tava\' rudra\_ praNI\'tiShu."


BTW, can brhat and ratantara be consider proto SV ganas? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10181.htm

Considering the fact that both begin with a prastAva verse and their corresponding pR^iShTa-s end with a nidhanam verse with pratihAra verses in between, most definitely . Technically however, the rathantara is likened to a R^icha and the bR^ihat is likened to the "sAman" (R^igvai rathantaraM sAma bR^ihat). However, I don't know if rathantara in the case you're showing in the link refers to the same thing, as these verses seem to be relating the rathantara to gharma offerings (which are more like milk), whereas in a sAma-vedic context, the rathantara is associated with soma (so that seems a bit odd to me). By the way, the word "ratha" in the word, at a literal level, refers to it's ability to make a sound akin to that of a chariot (tad rathantaramasR^ijata... tasmAdra thantarasya stotre rathaghoShaM kurvanti) but at a deeper level was actually named as such in referring to the loka-s which were passed by the 810 rakSha-s and asura-s (tAnyasurarakShasAni nava navataya imA.N llokAnavR^iNvan rathA ha nAmAsuH te devA rathantareNaiva stutvA rathantaraM samAruhya svargaM lokamagachChan te'bruvannatAriShma vA imAnrathAniti tadeva rathantarasya rathantaratvam).

Amrut
09 January 2014, 05:11 AM
Namaste,

Please can you explain the uniqueness of sAmaveda. In brief, i know that singing sAmaveda brings tranquility and deva-s become happy.

On youtube, you find a couples of results with keyword 'Sri Rudram samveda'. Indeed it is a pleasure to listen. I am not getting the video in which is kid sings Sri Rudram.

Hari OM

Sudas Paijavana
09 January 2014, 05:26 AM
Namaste,

Please can you explain the uniqueness of sAmaveda. In brief, i know that singing sAmaveda brings tranquility and deva-s become happy.

On youtube, you find a couples of results with keyword 'Sri Rudram samveda'. Indeed it is a pleasure to listen. I am not getting the video in which is kid sings Sri Rudram.

Hari OM

Pranam-s, Amrutbhai:

I would be very much obliged, as well, if Jaskaran-ji can confirm the swara variation in this video: Samaveda Rudram (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufwuMSSUSH8). I, personally, find this recitation to be much sublime and of divine quality.

Regarding the video in which a young child or a kid sings the Samaveda Rudram...could this be it? Click me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnIAoKeFBA8)

Please forgive me for my ignorance of the most noble Shri Samaveda...but is the "Samaveda Rudram" different from "Shri Rudram"?

Amrut
09 January 2014, 05:46 AM
Pranam-s, Amrutbhai:

I would be very much obliged, as well, if Jaskaran-ji can confirm the swara variation in this video: Samaveda Rudram (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufwuMSSUSH8). I, personally, find this recitation to be much sublime and of divine quality.

Regarding the video in which a young child or a kid sings the Samaveda Rudram...could this be it? Click me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnIAoKeFBA8)

Please forgive me for my ignorance of the most noble Shri Samaveda...but is the "Samaveda Rudram" different from "Shri Rudram"?

Pranams Sudas bhai,

I have not studied samveda version of Sri Rudram. I will try to get some info.

Here are 2 links

Sri Rudram andra Path (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICpZKfddFEY&index=30&list=PLo7YX77nPBtMQ9OnTzNLvsUoKHZ4o_9Us)
Sri Rudram - Samveda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIhmj0Jl8hc&index=29&list=PLo7YX77nPBtMQ9OnTzNLvsUoKHZ4o_9Us)

Thank you

Hari OM

Jaskaran Singh
09 January 2014, 01:50 PM
Sorry for not responding earlier, I had a physics lab this morning. Anyway, I think you two (sudAs and amRit) didn't read my response to Alter Ego carefully. Alter Ego talked about the shatarudriyam, meaning the nAmakam and chamakam from the yajurveda (the actual shrI rudram), not veyagAnam-s based on verses from various rudra sUktam-s from the R^igveda (like the one you two linked to, which starts with "A vo rAjAnam adhvarasya rudraM hotArAM..."). The actual shrI rudram would be impossible (as far as I can tell) to recite as a sAmagAnam, even with the insertion of stobha-s, as many of the mantram-s [except the invocations] are too prose-like in structure, hence I used the example of "mR^i\_DA no\' rudro\_ta no\_ maya\'skR^idhi..."

Certainly Sāma and Ṛg are Husband and Wife. Sāma is Shri Kṛṣṇa [Bhagvad Gitā 10.22 - vedānām sāmavedosmi] and Ṛg ṛchī are His Gopis perpetually glorifying Him, the Supreme Lord [bhāgvat 10.87].
From a vaiShNava perspective that makes sense, but not all Hindu-s consider the bhagavad gItA or the bhAgavatam as authoritative, so not everyone would agree (I do consider them authoritative; I'm just pointing out that some people might view your statement as a bit sectarian).

Amrut
09 January 2014, 11:52 PM
Namaste Jaskaran

Sri Rudram apart, I just wanted to know the uniqueness of samveda. I am not well versed in sanskrit. If possible kindly explain in simple way.

I think you and Sudas can make quality educational threads on veda-s. Most here speak much about vedanta.

Husband-wife relation between veda-s is a Vaishnava view. Though we (vedantins, in general) regard Bhagavad Gita (and Bhagavat Purana) as authentic, the interpretation differs greatly.

Hari OM

ameyAtmA
10 January 2014, 03:10 AM
From a vaiShNava perspective that makes sense, but not all Hindu-s consider the bhagavad gItA or the bhAgavatam as authoritative, so not everyone would agree (I do consider them authoritative; I'm just pointing out that some people might view your statement as a bit sectarian).

Agreed, but what is behind this apparent sectarian perspective, [which is really not so sectarian]? Ans: The non-sectarian statements that followed the sectarian one :

Sāma is the Ved that brings ecstatic Love of the Supreme, adding aesthetics & sāma gāyan shāstra to the Ṛg ṛchīs.
EDIT: This Supreme Divine ecstatic love and happiness is depicted as the transcendental Soma Ras, ENDEDIT
which has to be filtered from its Infinite Universal form ...

This means, Ṛg provides the content of the ṛchī -- beautiful praise of the Supreme via various names . Then Sāma takes this and adds aesthetics, shāstrīya sangeet (classical music), chhanda (rhythm, taal), thereby adding ecstacy, providing ecstatic Love of God and happiness arising from it, to the devotee/ṛshi/purohit/yajmān . This is symbolized as Soma Ras .

Therefore they are husband-wife , they work together, and one cannot do without the other, to create this harmony and music.


Husband-wife relation between veda-s is a Vaishnava view. Hari OM

Are you sure? Here is where it comes from:

According to the ekAgni kANDam of the yajurveda, the sAmaveda and R^igveda are like husband and wife.

:)

Please see my post before this one - for the non-sectarian view.

Amrut
10 January 2014, 08:38 AM
Namaste,

Husband wife means purush and prakruti and not love relationship like Radha-Gopala.

Purush means omnipresent entity and not a particular person. When we say 1000 eyes, 1000 hands, etc, it may not be taken as description of a human form. It means omnipresence. The description is depicted in picture form.

I am open to change my view if a specific verse says so and is not to be taken as arthavAda.

Hari OM