Dear Sri Sangom,
If you talk of grihya sutras, you may not be completely correct.
If the svetasvatara upaniSad quotation is to be taken at its face value and as a literal
translation, which you want us to do and as also you talk about grihya sutras, then
you will have to say whether mahanyasam as per Bodhayana paddathi is genuine or
whether it is an interpolation.
If Bodhayana knew about svetasvatara upaniSad and his interpretation is the same as
yours, why there is a dhyana sloka addressed to Lord Siva which would simply defy
the concept of " na tasya pratima asti"
Dear Shri Narayanan,
Thank you for bringing in some very valid points.
As you may be well aware, the Mahanyaasam is a procedure to invoke rudra into the
various organs of the body. In a way, if you can look at it dispassionately,
Mahanyaasam may be said to be an ancient forerunner of the Reiki of present times,
imo. But both Reiki and Mahanyaasam requires "Faith" as the first and most essential
requirement.
In the traditional Baudhaayanokta mahanyaasa paddhati, it is seen that the nyaasa
may be done by the purohit and then there is a mantra saying "yajamaanam
rakShatu...". Hence I conclude that even the nyaasa is only for the purohit and not
done by the yajamaanan.
The Dhyaanasloka which my book - a very old book in Grantha script which may be
about a 100 years old, bought by my grandfather in his patashala days possibly - has is
the following:
गौरं कुंकुमपङ्किलं सुतिलकं व्यापाण्डु गण्ढस्थलं
भ्रूविक्षेप कटाक्षवीक्षणलसत्संसक्त कर्णोत्पलं ।
स्निग्धंबिंबफलाधरप्रहसितं लीलालकालंकृतं
वन्दे पूर्ण शशाङ्क सन्निभनिभं वक्त्रं हरस्योत्तरं ॥
gauraṃ kuṃkumapaṅkilaṃ sutilakaṃ vyāpāṇḍu gaṇḍhasthalaṃ
bhrūvikṣepa kaṭākṣavīkṣaṇalasatsaṃsakta karṇotpalaṃ |
snigdhaṃbiṃbaphalādharaprahasitaṃ līlālakālaṃkṛtaṃ
vande pūrṇa śaśāṅka sannibhanibhaṃ vaktraṃ harasyottaraṃ ||
(I am giving this dhyaanasloka here so that we may know whether we are talking on the same point.)
This is a mental picturizing of some form of Rudra to facilitate the subsequent identification of different organs of this mental image of Rudra with the corresponding organs of the Mahanyaasa chanter; this is not a "pratimaa" which means an imitation, likeness, image, resemblance, etc. To the extent this dhyaanasloka attributes a certain form to Rudra, I feel it violates the vedic words. Baudhaayana perhaps did so because the Taittiriya YV in its rudraprasnam already describes Rudra's form to some extent, neelagreeva, sitikaNTha, vyuptakESa, sahasraakSha, etc. But it was contradicting the na tasya pratimaa asti if we take the wide meaning that the God is formless.
Adishankara also says exactly what the Yajurveda says, namely, the Parabrahman is devoid of all Gunas. And we continue practising idol worship and justify it because we practice it.
(Brahmins, or rather Hindus, it seems to me, have been like the no-good nephew in (matrilineal) Kerala society who says when his uncle and guardian punishes him and yells out:
അമ്മാവാ എന്നെ അടിക്കണ്ട, ഞാന് നന്നാവൂല്ല! (ammāvā enne aṭikkaṇṭa, ñān- nannāvūlla!) Uncle! No use punishing me, I will not improve.)
