[Advaita-l] Acarya Shankara is not a blind follower of theScriptures

Raghavendra N Kalyan kalyan7429 at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Feb 1 16:22:37 CST 2005

"At least this is what I was again and again told by my traditional masters, till I first started
to learn the Rig-veda in year 2000, when I started to doubt that explanation that so called 96 thousand Mantras only deal with Karma or Upasana?????????????"
Among modern thinkers, Aurobindo also considered that the vedas have a deeper philosophical meaning. Given the fact that the vedas are highly extolled at many places, it is difficult to see how only ritualistic interpretations can lead to such praise.
"My full-time study
of the Rig-veda in the past 4 years, clearly shows that whatever we see in
the Upanishads, is just a clear commentary on the very obscure Mantras of
the Vedas. The Sun of knowledge in the Vedas is far more radiant than the
Sun of knowledge in Upanishads, Gita and Brahmasutra."
I too have a high opinion of the Rig Veda. So can you please tell me what method have you adopted to extract the significance of its mantras?  Did you follow any particular commentaries? You also mentioned that patanjali and nirukta oppose the views that give purely ritialistic interpretation for mantras. Can you throw more light on this? (This is just to assure myself that traditionally the RV was considered to have a deeper meaning). And why do you consider the upanishads and gita to be commentaries on the mantras?
I remember you mentioning that only samhita can be called as brahma. (Ignore this if you did not do so). May I know your justification for that?

 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list