Regarding Yajnavalkya, I was under the impression that the was directly connected to Vedic having divided the Yajur Veda into Krishna and Shukla. Even if that were not the case, can we actually be so specific on the period in which he lived? The Veda is said to be anAdhi, and I don’t recall found any historical or empirical evidence for when and how it actually came into being – albeit some evidence in Turkmenistan for its having been practiced there around 1000 BCE.

If you wish to understand my position on Veda better, and how I believe, the inclusion of the Azhwar hymns brought a more humane understanding of religion as a whole, I would suggest you read the later post. Perhaps this can return us to the healthy conversation that @Giridhar has repeatedly requested.

But what I said and still maintain is that someone like Yajnavalka or Satyakarma Jabala were still breathing the spirit of Veda samhitas and the Sanskrit of that time. They theselves were away from the period of closure of Veda samhitas but they still predated the time of multiple shakhas based on sutras (like Apastamba) and many other Brahminical traditions that came up based on shakhas like Bhaskala or Shakala…The flux of time between them, the likes of Patanjali, Yaska is itself quite great. Now add the flux of time between say Yaska and Sayana and then the likes of Shankaracharya or Ramanujaacharya and it will be even greater. So I was talking about capturing the essence of what the Vedas were saying, which, owing to the time period, varied from Upanishadic time to the millenium of the achatya traditions. Once again, I am talking about the messages of our scriptures and not about religious practices that have been always changing. Phew…

Popular Hinduism is largely based on the idea of advaita, which suggests that the world is at worst, a place of suffering or at best, an temporal illusion. The only True Reality is Brahman, an abstract and largely undefinable consciousness for which we are driven to realize. However, the Upanishads suggest that the closes description to this Brahman’s nature is “Satyam, Jnanam, and Anantam”, True, Wise, and Infinite. If that is the case, then the idea of a temporal, illusory world would be a contradiction for the following reasons:

1. If the sense of individuality and matter are temporal, Brahman, who is Eternal and Unchanging, cannot be a part of it, putting the aspect of Brahman’s Anantam in question.

2. If the world is illusory and consciously responsible for it, then Brahman is lying to itself, putting to question its being Satyam.

3. It is believed that yoga, as is suggested by Upanishads and summarized in Bhagavad Gita as Karma, Jnana and Bhakthi is the responsibility of the deluded self to know its true nature as Brahman. Thus, it suggests that Brahman can be deluded by avidya, questioning its nature as jnanam.

Consequently, we should presume that the world is real, that the souls are real, that these are a direct extension of Brahman’s nature. As such, it is Brahman, so statements like “aham Brahmasmi” become justified in this context.

@Giridhar has asked me a lot about the Gita. I have been reluctant to respond in particular because from the standpoint that I am presenting, the very word yoga means connection. The root “yuj” means yoking or connecting. Consequently, the karma, jnana and bhakthi yogas are something that are directly due to and guided by the Supreme Being. Vishnu Saharanmam speaks of Brahman as “karanam kAranam, karta”, meaning that the reason for our actions, the acting itself, and the fruit of the action are being done by Himself. So, the yoga that Krishna has asked us to engage in is already being done by Him, in times and in ways that are at His Discretion. I know that @Giridhar will now challenge with his thorough knowledge of the work, and my Sanskrit will far too limited to reply very well. I humbly submit, however, that I base this position on clear and direct discussion with my mentors over 20 years.

Now with regards to the Azhwars and Tamil Tradition. The Tamil sentiment, extolled in poetry and ethical doctrines like the Thirukkural, is not as philosophical in nature as it is humanistic. It suggests that life is best lived with an affectionate attitude towards others. The goal of the mature human being is not personal gain, but to be of some benefit to society as a whole. From this, it is natural that the Supreme Being is seen as the One with the Most Affection. He acts without expectation, and Blesses by creating and preserving this world as it is. As such, there is no need to seek anything else, or be worried about one’s liberation, because life itself, if seen in this context, is already Heaven.

This knowledge makes us to accept our own humanity, and our non-entitlement in our own salvation. He makes us know that He expects nothing from us, not even our desire to know Him, but rather Makes His Presence Known to us, in life itself. Bhakti, in this case, is seen as adimai or sEshatvam, an awareness that all is at His Bidding and Care (Dharma itself is defined as perumAl thiruvullam, Bhagavad Sankalpam in Sanskrit). With this awareness, the best we can pray for is an opportunity live a good life.

With this in mind, we ourselves will be inspired to live life with affection, cognizant of its being His Blessing.

The theistic sentiment of the AzhwArs compliments, and in fact, serves as a pragmatic example of the Vedantic understanding of Brahman offered above. I hope that one can see how this philosophy can be better be compared to the Occidental faiths, on a level that is on par with them, devoid of ideas of sin and damnation. It also mitigates the need for blind adherence to ambiguous notions of Dharma. To me, this approach is far more applicable in the day to day lives of ordinary human beings, bringing both peace of mind and solace to lead a purposeful life.

2. If it is the part of the

Since you refuse to acknowledge the role of such great souls as Shankara or Ramanuja – something which I feel is supercilious and vain on your part – and fail to recognize that the verses of both the AzhwArs and NayanmArs were part of the Sangam Age, we are just speaking apples and oranges, and this conversation will be never ending.

I can only conclude by saying that if you do believe that Vedas can be adhered to without the rationalist and reformative ideas of Sankara and Ramanuja, then I can only wish you well in your aswamedha sacrifices and in your deafening the ears of non-Brahmin listeners with hot oil upon hearing Veda being chanted.

Good luck to you.

yellAm iraivan sEyal

1) Tamil Shiva Vs Vedic Shiva: You are merely playing with words when you say that you mean that Shiva was interpreted differently by Tamils (in your last comment). Here is your original comment and it contradicts what you stated in your last comment – “The god Sivan of Tamil literature is not the same Siva described in the Puranas. That latter Siva is Roudram, angry, and is seen as a wild man residing in the mountains of the Himalayas. The Tamil god Sivan is Nataraja, the god whose dance is this existence. ” When pushed to substantiate your claim from Sangam literature, you only seemed to wax eloquence & hurl abuses. If you had no clue about Shiva (as you yourself claimed), why did you venture out to articulate a baseless idea?

2) Darshanas: The 6 Darshanas (Astika) include Samkhya too that borders on the modern day, Western theory of atheism. So my point was that the theism of Westerners is different from what the Vedic Astika means. And I look at the “theism” that you use to describe Shaivite / Vaihnavite works differently. I do not look at Shiva / Vishnu as independent, disconnected deities but to me they are merely some of the multiple names of the Supreme Truth. Rudra has certain defined aspects and so does Vishnu, in Vedas. But as many Vedic verses clearly show, they are all part of the same higher Truth. I do not treat one deity to be higher than another. And it is precisely why I hold Vedas and Upanishads to be truer than any of the Acharyas. And I’d believe more in the words of someone like Yajnavalka than the likes of Shankaracharya or Ramanujacharya because, the likes of Yajnavalka were still closer to the period of Veda samhitas and their mindset & understanding was different from the Acharya traditions. I’d go with the integrated Brahman of Upanishads than with named / personal Shaivite or Vaishanavite traditions.

3) And you seem not to understand the drift of my arguments. Why do you expect me to quote from Tirupugazh and later day works? I was pushing back against your baseless Tamil Shiva argument and when the premier work of Sangam literature (Tolkappiyam) talks about the legend of Shiva destroying the three cities (Puranic legend), your whole argument on Tamil Shiva vs other Shiva falls down. Shaivite works including Periya Puranam came after Tolkappiyam. I was trying to use Sangam literature to establish that YOUR Tamil Shiva was no different from Vedic / Puranic Shiva. You are not the first person to have come up with this borrowed idea of Tamil Shiva being something else from the Vedic Shiva. And in the past, people that said so, wanted not later day Shaivite works to back my standpoint but authentic Sangam literature. So there can be nothing more authentic (to back up my argument) than Tolkappiyam or Purananuru of the Sangam era

BTW, personal judgments like “hyper-emotional and irrational man”, one word answers like “RUBBISH”, ‘amateurish’ seem to be the typical standards set by the blind believers who cannot answer anything on their own. It is rather a character of those who follow the secondary works. I wonder if this is your notion of a “healthy debate”.

Should we analyse your reading and comprehension skills, the mockery you create of scriptures and dangerous rumours you spread by frivolously and blindly percieving them through mediatory works, call you a coward for running away and

1) Ignoring my posts on “September 10, 2011 at 8:15 am” and “September 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm”

2) The sanskrit reply I gave which you ignored and then asked a question like verse in Gita for neti neti, the reply for which is already in that sanskrit reply. I thought you knew sanskrit since you questioned my sanskrit. I thought we could chat in sanskrit all day long!

3) Ignoring 9.4, 9.5, 9.13-15, 15.3-4, 4.7, 9.11, 3.42 and specially 6.36 and 18.63 of BG, which talk of the ultimate reality being beyond cause and effect, which is impersonal, promotes questioning which is a character of higher consciousness etc to name a few? And then, 10.21, 10.23 and 10.33? And then chapter 7 and whole 10?

I was just getting started in a ‘healthy debate’ but seem to be stuck in
- character analysis
- cautioning us of the great risk of retribution from followers of Ramanuja and other bhakti school champions
- chanting the glories of your fervent belief in Ramanuja
- your abrahamic conception of Krishna and his care
- reducing the article to what Ramnuja and Shankaracharya said, Ramanuja Vs Shankaracharya instead of your understanding of the verses from the Vedas, Upanishad and Gita

4) Ignoring the facts, relations and logic behind the mappings between astik and theism, dharma and religion, monotheism/polytheism etc.

You ignore and you repeat the same arguments with @Apolloreach. I wonder if you really respect the time other people spend on discussing with you, your posts, which in your own tone, can be called a repeated gibberish disconnected from the scriptures both in factual consistency and logical correctness.

It is quite easy to digress and bring personal judgments, but again I ask you to please reply to my post dated “September 10, 2011 at 8:15 am” which you have ignored entirely, let alone the post dated “September 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm”.

BG 9.11
Fools deride me in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities.

So lets carry on with the ‘healthy discussion’