Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Just tell your interlocutors that they are badly informed and even plainly wrong, both on grammar as well as on texts: namo namaH is attested from the Rgveda onwards: namo nama ity uurdhvaaso anakSan RV 10.115.9e Especially frequent in the late Taittiriya Aranyaka (Mahanarayana Upanisad) TA 10.17.1 etc., etc. Cf. also upa yo namo namasi stabhaayan RV 4.21.5a MW On Jun 9, 2004, at 10:23 AM, kishore mohan wrote: > In a recent post to Indian civilization, I have used the wording " > namo(name)namah" > > This usage has been objected by some puritans. They said it is > jarring coz of repetition of namah. > > I think it is not wrong. I heard many times pundits chantings ' aum > namo narayanaya namah" etc and in fact, some of the other memebers > did post some messages in support of my usage. > > yet, i am looking for an authority in my favour. > > Hope the members will help > > kishore Links > > > > > > Michael Witzel Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University 1 Bow Street , Cambridge MA 02138 1-617-495 3295 Fax: 496 8571 direct line: 496 2990 http://witzel (AT) fas (DOT) harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 cool but what about the repetion as I have used in the Sacred names? kishore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.