பூணுல்

[psnarasimhan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

பூணுல் ஏன் இடது தோளில் அணிகிறோம். ? பூணுல் ஏன் மூன்று பிரியாக இருக்கிறது ?
இடது தோளில பூணுல்அணியவேண்டும் என்பது வேதத்தின் கட்டளை. எப்பொதும் பூணுல் இடது தோளின் இருக்க வேண்டும். இடது தோளின் பூணுல் இருக்கும்போது அதற்கு உபவீதி என்று சிறப்புப் பெயர்.
உபவீதியாக எப்பொதும் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்று தர்ம சாஸ்திரம் (ஸதோப வீதினா பாவ்யம்) சொல்கிறது. தேவர்களுக்கு பணிவிடை செய்யும் வேளையில் பூணுல் இடதுதோளில் இருக்க வேண்டும். அதாவது உபவீதியாக இருக்க வேண்டும.
நம் முன்னோர்களை ஆராதிக்கும்போது பூணுல் வலது தோளில் இருக்க வேண்டும். ரிஷிகளை வழிபடும் வேளையில் இரு தோளிலுமாக தொங்க வேண்டும். அதாவது மாலை போல அணிய வேண்டும். முத்தொழிலின் வெளிப்பாடு முப்பிரி.
மூன்று ஆச்ரமங்களுக்கும் அது தேவை. காலம் மூன்று. முர்த்திகள் மூன்று. வேதம் மூன்று. பூணுலின் பிரிவுகளும் மூன்று. மூன்று எண்ணிக்கை முற்று பெற்றதாக கூறும். ஏலத்தில் மூன்று முறை அழைப்பார்கள். நீதி மன்றத்திலும் மூன்று முறை அழைப்பார்கள். அது முற்று பெற்றதாக கருதுகிறோம்.
பூணுல் பரமாத்மா வடிவம் (யஞஜாக்ய பரமாத்மாய). பரமாத்மா மூன்று கால்களோடு எழும்பினார் (த்ரீபாத் ஊர்தவ) மூன்று அடி அளந்தவர். அப்போது முற்றுப் பெற்றது. தேவர்கள், ரிஷிகள், முன்னோர்கள் இம்மூவருக்கும் தினமும் பணிவிடை செய்ய வேண்டும். அதற்கு ஆதாரமான பூணுலும் மூன்று பிரியாக இருப்பது பொருந்தும்.
அவன் ஆராதிக்கும் காயத்ரீ மூன்றடிகளோடு விளங்குபவள். அவளை மூன்று வேளையும் வழிபட வேண்டும். அதற்கு காரணமாக பூணுலும் மூன்று பிரியாக வந்தது சிறப்பு.சைவநீதி விளங்குக உலகமெல்லாம்




dharma sastram/

 

[sangom]

I do not think the samhitas of the three vedas (rik-, yajur- and saama- vedas) refer to poonal or yajnopavita. It is only in the later, brahmopanishad, that we get the oft-recited sloka, यज्ञोपवीतं परमं पवित्रं प्रजपतेः यत्सहजं पुरस्तात् (yajñopavītaṃ paramaṃ pavitraṃ prajapateḥ yatsahajaṃ purastāt). While there is praise for the brahmachari in the vedic samhitas and references to मेखला (mekhalā) or girdle (belt) are also there, Atharvaveda XI-7 has a great extent of praise of the 'brahmachari'.
The Atharvaveda also says that the brahmachari wears the skin of the black antelope and sports a beard. Hence it means that upanayanam was done very late in those days or else the brahmacharis did not get married till late. The usage of the words 'this man' (ayam puruṣaḥ) to refer to brahmachari confirms the above.

Therefore, it looks as though in the vedic times upanayanam meant merely the beginning of the learning of the scriptures, the gāyatrī upadesam by the teacher and the student taking upon himself certain austerities and habits like the wearing of the girdle, skin of black antelope, etc., and that there was no practice of the poonool being worn. This poonool must therefore be a later custom started during the smriti times and hence a purely smarta system which is now followed by all brahmins including the vaishnavites.

 

[KRN]

Sir
Krishna Yajurveda Taitt Samhita Rudradhyayah has

Namo Harikeshaayopaveethine

Upaveetham is part & parcel of Vedic culture

 

[sangom]

Sir
Krishna Yajurveda Taitt Samhita Rudradhyayah has

Namo Harikeshaayopaveethine

Upaveetham is part & parcel of Vedic culture

Sir,

The word "upaveetham" meant only an upper cloth, or the present day "anga vastram". Since you seem to be proficient in Sanskrit, you will be knowing this, I suppose, already.

prajApatEryatsahajam purastAt also refers to a yajna upaveetham with which possibly prajApathi was born. More info can be had from Orion or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas by B.G. Tilak. In prajApati's case, he is supposed to wear the yajnOpaveetham as a girdle around his waist (possibly, the milky way).

In real life also the vedic purohits might have worn their angavastram or mElvEShTi as a girlde in order to avoid fire hazards. The Nambudiris of Kerala, however, have their time-honoured practice of twisting this angavastram and making a brahma mudicchu and wearing it like a poonal for doing any pooja or homa.

When and how this mElvEShTi took the form of the cross-belt and just three cords is not known but it is definitely not a practice of vedic times, the three yarns method, that is.

 

[tbs]

hi

in pre vedic period ..i think...there is no poonal thread...ONLY SKIN OF DEER WEARINF/COVERING....so even today ...some

parts brahmachari uses a piece of skin deer with poonallll...generally UTHAREEYAM USED TO BE VYAGRA CHARMAM....

SKIN OF TIGER/LION....later changed into clothes...so POONAL POST VEDIC CULTURE...NOT PRE VEDIC...

 

[sarang]

With respect, there is no pre vedic period as we understand, believe and practice. Such arguments are red herrings to divert and dilute belief and dharma.

hi

in pre vedic period ..i think...there is no poonal thread...ONLY SKIN OF DEER WEARINF/COVERING....so even today ...some

parts brahmachari uses a piece of skin deer with poonallll...generally UTHAREEYAM USED TO BE VYAGRA CHARMAM....

SKIN OF TIGER/LION....later changed into clothes...so POONAL POST VEDIC CULTURE...NOT PRE VEDIC...

 

[KRN]

Sir,

The word "upaveetham" meant only an upper cloth, or the present day "anga vastram". Since you seem to be proficient in Sanskrit, you will be knowing this, I suppose, already.

Sir
The word Upaveetham meant a cloth - without wearing which one is not supposed to conduct Yajnam and Devata Aradhanam. It has a sanctity of its own and cannot be considered a mere Angavasthram or Uthareeyam.

prajApatEryatsahajam purastAt also refers to a yajna upaveetham with which possibly prajApathi was born. More info can be had from Orion or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas by B.G. Tilak. In prajApati's case, he is supposed to wear the yajnOpaveetham as a girdle around his waist (possibly, the milky way).

As far as I know - the Vedas or Brahmanas have not clearly mentioned anywhere how the Upaveetham is to be made.

If you have come across a clear reference in the Vedas that the Upaveetham is to be worn in a way different from *poonol* then please share your evidence.

The Vedas need not describe the detail of everything. However the Vedas sanction the Smritis for doing the elaboration. The Vedas say - Yad Vai Manuravadat Tad Bheshajam. (Whatever Manu prescribes is Medicine). From this it must be clear that the Smritis like Manu Smriti are not a later development but are very much part of Vedic culture. All our Acharyas like Sankara Ramanuja etc give respect to Manu and his Smriti. Smritis often elaborate on a point which is merely touched upon in the Vedas. Now the Sishtachara (and what the Smritis themselves suggest) is that - if the Smriti prescribes anything that is mentioned in passing in the Vedas - the same may be accepted in toto as very much a Vedic prescription. If the Smriti says something which goes contrary to a Vedic rule - the Vedic rule takes precedence and the Smriti rule needs to be rejected. If there are two Vedic rules contrary to one another - both needs to be accepted. If there are two Smriti rules contrary to one another - the one which is more in alignment to Vedic practice needs to be accepted. In the case of a rule elaborated in a Smriti but which is just referred to in passing in the Vedas - to state that the Smriti rule is not Vedic - is not a correct interpretation of scriptures. In the case of sacred thread - Manu Smriti clearly states the practice as is followed now. To my knowledge there is no Veda nor Smriti that prescribes a different kind of Yajnopavitam. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the Veda has left it to the Manu Smriti to give the details of wearing Upaveetham.

 

[KRN]

With respect, there is no pre vedic period as we understand, believe and practice. Such arguments are red herrings to divert and dilute belief and dharma.

Sir
Even if it transpires to be an Islamic custom we borrowed - it doesnt matter except academically...since its an innocuous custom that binds millions of community people together.. just like the name Hindu that we took for ourselves since it bonded the disparate dharmas into a single entity. Just my personal view.

 

[sangom]

Sir
The word Upaveetham meant a cloth - without wearing which one is not supposed to conduct Yajnam and Devata Aradhanam. It has a sanctity of its own and cannot be considered a mere Angavasthram or Uthareeyam.

The prefix "upa-" + veetha means cloth worn above. The vedic yajnas required that the yajamana must wear alower cloth and an upper cloth. Since you are well-versed in all these texts, the srauta sutras lay down this rule. Actually, the poonal has no sanctity as per our Srauta Sutras; it is just a convenient gimmick developed subsequent to the vedic times.

As far as I know - the Vedas or Brahmanas have not clearly mentioned anywhere how the Upaveetham is to be made.

If you have come across a clear reference in the Vedas that the Upaveetham is to be worn in a way different from *poonol* then please share your evidence.

The Vedas need not describe the detail of everything. However the Vedas sanction the Smritis for doing the elaboration. The Vedas say - Yad Vai Manuravadat Tad Bheshajam. (Whatever Manu prescribes is Medicine). From this it must be clear that the Smritis like Manu Smriti are not a later development but are very much part of Vedic culture. All our Acharyas like Sankara Ramanuja etc give respect to Manu and his Smriti. Smritis often elaborate on a point which is merely touched upon in the Vedas. Now the Sishtachara (and what the Smritis themselves suggest) is that - if the Smriti prescribes anything that is mentioned in passing in the Vedas - the same may be accepted in toto as very much a Vedic prescription. If the Smriti says something which goes contrary to a Vedic rule - the Vedic rule takes precedence and the Smriti rule needs to be rejected. If there are two Vedic rules contrary to one another - both needs to be accepted. If there are two Smriti rules contrary to one another - the one which is more in alignment to Vedic practice needs to be accepted. In the case of a rule elaborated in a Smriti but which is just referred to in passing in the Vedas - to state that the Smriti rule is not Vedic - is not a correct interpretation of scriptures. In the case of sacred thread - Manu Smriti clearly states the practice as is followed now. To my knowledge there is no Veda nor Smriti that prescribes a different kind of Yajnopavitam. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the Veda has left it to the Manu Smriti to give the details of wearing Upaveetham.

The yajurvedic hymn says यद्वै किं च मनुरवदत् तद् भेषजम्। कृ० यजुर्वेद तैत्ति०सं० २:२:१०:२, i.e., further, whatever Manu says is medicine. But brahmins do not follow manusmriti but their own sutras. Vedas did not leave it to Manu or any smriti to explain what an upaveetham is/was and how it was to be worn because it was just as silly as saying how a cowpeenam was to be worn. And if, Manusmriti preceded yajurveda, the only conclusion will be that between rigveda and yajurveda themselves, the upaveetham shrunk to three cords!!