Sanskrit Tidbits-7: Myth behind most commonly used words in hymns

We now know the word namah is associated with chaturthi vibhakti and it should be easy for us to understand expressions like नमः शिवाय शान्ताय कारणत्रय हेतवे or या देवी सर्वभूतेषु ….नमस्तस्यै नमो नमः By the way, the three states (of the universe) mentioned in Shiva’s context are creation, preservation and destruction.  Do you know where that invocation to the goddess comes from?  It is from Markandeya Purana and is a prayer to the goddess by the assembled gods.  That prayer floats around on the Net and is sometimes written as नमस्तस्मै.  You aren’t going to make mistakes like that, are you?  We can’t mess around with the gender of a goddess.  We have now also been given the vibhakti tables for अस्मद्, युष्मद्.  So, what I have given below should be easy to understand.  This is addressed to a doctor, described as King Yama’s brother.  The patient is bowing to the doctor or the physician and is saying that Yama robs one of life.  But you, the doctor, rob people of lives and riches. Since we generally hate doctors, it is a good idea to learn this and recite it to one’s doctor.

वैद्यराज नमस्तुभ्यं यमराजसहोदर ।
यमस्तु हरति प्राणान् त्वं तु प्राणान् धनानि च ॥

But I now have a question for you.  We say नमस्ते and it means that I am bowing down before you.  As a greeting, it is far better and humbler than “hello”.  However, in the given अस्मद् युष्मद् tables, there is no ते.  Shouldn’t I have said नमस्तुभ्यं ?  Good question to ask.  You see, the given अस्मद् युष्मद् tables aren’t incorrect.  But they are incomplete for dvitiya, chaturthi and shashthi vibhaktis. For example, in the singular, in chaturthi and shashthi, I can have ते, मे instead of what has been given in the tables.  That explains नमस्ते or a prayer like वाङ् मे मनसि प्रतिष्ठिता मनो मे वाचि प्रतिष्ठितम् . May my words be established in my mind, may my mind be established in my words.  Similarly, in the plural, there is वः, नः in addition to what you have been given in the tables and in BG 1.35 Arjuna says, निहत्य धार्तराष्र्टान् नः का प्रीतिः.  I have already given you examples of mistakes and today, I want to leave you with the message that you should not blindly believe everything that you read.  How many times have you heard the expression वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् ?  The earth is like a family.  I am prepared to bet that you have heard India practiced such a policy, as if that policy was laid down in some enunciation of State policy, “Arthashastra” perhaps.  I don’t want to start a debate on whether India practiced such a policy or not.  That’s not what I am driving at. Instead, let me give you the complete shloka.  As you can see, it isn’t as if this expression was collectively adopted.  It actually says that this distinction between mine and yours and similar calculations is for those who are narrow in their minds.  Those who are generous in their minds regard the earth as a family.  In other words, this is an individual characteristic, not collective or social.  You will find the original shloka in Maha Upanishad 6.71-73.  And just so that you have the perspective right, subsequent shlokas go on to say that those who have no attachments go on to find the brahman.
You will also find the shloka in 1.3.71 of Hitopadesha and 5.3.37 of Panchatantra.  So you now know where the original comes from, though you must also know that, with slight modifications, the verse occurs in other texts too.  It was fairly common.

अयं निजः परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्।
उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्॥

Let me give you another example of a shloka that floats around.  You have heard it innumerable times.  May everyone be happy.  May everyone be free from disease.  May everyone see that which is auspicious.  May no one suffer from happiness.  The verbs are in the imperative form, a form that we are still not familiar with.  But we can still understand the shloka, which is a peace invocation (shanti vachana).

ॐ सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः सर्वे शन्तु निरामयाः ।
सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु मा कश्चिद्दुःखभाग्भवेत् ।

Where does it come from?  You may be told that it comes from the Upanishads.  You may even be told more specifically that it comes from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1.4.14.  Sometimes, there are
unauthenticated and corrupt texts of the Upanishads floating around, including of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.  But those corrupt texts apart, the information is wrong.  It’s not there in any of the Upanishads, including the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.  It’s just one of those peace invocations that has been floating around for centuries and was often recited when the Valmiki Ramayana was recited.  There are similar peace invocations in Buddhist and Jain sources too, with
similar sounding words.  Kalidasa wrote a play titled “Vikramorvashiyam”, about the love between Pururava and Urvashi.  In some versions of the text of “Vikramorvashiyam”, in 5.25 to be precise, a bit of the shloka also inserted itself.  However, scholars regard this as an interpolation.  Therefore, this famous peace invocation doesn’t have a clear source that can be pinned down.  It has just been there for centuries.
Finally, Mihir Kumar Jha asked a question that no seems to have reacted to.  Should one write ॐ or ओ३म् ?  Neither is “right” or “wrong”.  Om, Oum, Aum etc. is formed of three letters “a”, “u” and “m” and accordingly ॐ can be written in different ways, though this one is the most common.  However, pronunciation-wise, letters are “hrasva” (‘a”), “dirgha” (“aa”) and “pluta”.  To keep it simple, a “dirgha” letter is pronounced for double the length of a “hrasva” sound and a “pluta” letter is pronounced for three times the length of a “hrasva” sound.  ओ३म् simply indicates that the ओ is “pluta”, it is pronounced for three times the duration of a “hrasva” sound.  It is drawn out, so to speak.  If one writes it like this, the focus is more on right pronunciation.