[Slonopotam845]

According to many scholars, the Sri Rudram is part of Yajur Veda so is Purusha Shooktam (there is another version in the Rig Verda).

Why so much of confusion here?? Why must Sri Rudram be 'part' of Yajur Veda?? Is it not in the Yajur Veda - in all origin??? How many 'add-on's that came later become 'part' of these Vedas? And how long is this going to go on?

I do not understand what you mean "Is it not in the Yajur Veda-in all origin???" You may be missing some connectors but I take it to mean "Is it not there from the beginning?" Yes it has and you are the one who is saying that it was introduced later.

The Vedas are not a bunch of words or one large word. It is made up of parts that deal with different issues. Sri Rudram is one such part and it is part of the Yajur Veda.

The way the Vedas was created, preserved, and propogated it would be impossible to add, edit, or delete them. I would like to pose a question to you. Do you understand how the Vedas are structured, how they were preserved, and how they were propogated? If you do, I would like you to outline them for the audience and also explain why and how you think that Sri Rudram was introduced into the Yajur Veda.

I sense that you are cynical about the Vedas-- you are entitled to your opinion but I do not want to belabor a point if you want to be close minded. I apologize in advance, if I have mis-understood your point.

I am willing to discuss various theories so we can both learn.

The word Siva itself is Sanskrit which could mean kindness, peace, benevolence, calm, beauty, etc.

The Sanskrit word 'Siva' (Shiva) is used to mean 'auspicious' (adjective) all over the Vedas - It never meant 'A God, named Siva' in the Vedas. And the Vedic 'Rudra' is NOT the native 'Siva'.

The word "Shiva" in Sanskrit also meant "auspicious not only that. I am not sure what you mean by "It never meant 'A God, named Siva'." Ours is a subtle civilization and is not in your face one. Add to this the centuries of morphing of language, the metaphors in use, and the lack of clarity in explanation and you will find that many of the information may not be understandable with our current blinders.

What the Vedas talk about is a Rudra who has all the attributes, achievements, names, features, love, stories, etc as the "Shiva" (as you say) of the South India. The question is whether they are the same or different. I am saying that they are the same (as do many scholars). Shrines of South India colloborate each and every story mentioned in the Vedas that are associated to Rudra/Shiva. Saints from South India including the "Thevaramuthaligal" have sung songs in these shrines corroborating these stories.

I see that you are saying the opposite in which case I would like to prove or convince me why that is so. Just to say that this has been borrowed is not enough. I would like some clear evidence please.

The date of Sri Rudram that you have quoted is also incorrect.

Well - I don't normally get very close on the first date! I let the other party make the first move - it works very well for me!

I am sorry, but I find this argument infantile and not scholarly. What do you mean "cloe to the first date?" The very fact that you ascribed a date to the Vedas and opined that the Sri Rudram happened several centuries after, you are pegging yourself down. You have already made the first move.

Please refer to my earlier question to you on how the Vedas were preserved and propogated. I will respond to this remark once you have answered that question.

Contrary to what you said about the lack of names for Sanskrit texts, here is some information. When Veda Vyasa classified the Vedas, there was only one form. He later taught Yajur Veda to his pupil Vaisampayana. Vaisampayan taught it to his pupil Yagnavalkya. When Vaisampayana and Yagnavalkya had a misunderstanding, Vaisamoayana asked his pupil to return what he learnt which was acqueised. Later, Yagnavalkya prayed to Surya (the Sun) who accepted him as a pupil and taught him Yajur Veda which came to be called Vaajasaneyi or Sukla Yajur Veda.

There you are! I was right when I said that the authors are legendry or mythological. The 'Sun' coming to earth to teach --- What would you call that- Histroy?

Has it every occured to you that:

a) the Sun could be a metaphor? Just because we call the Pandiyan King "Meenavan" does it mean that the Pandyan is a fish-man? I know most think serially (example of calling the Vanaras of South India in Ramayana "monkeys") I did not frankly expect that from you.

b) there could have been alien visits as proposed by many astro-physicists that could have imparted such knowledge?

c) there are numerous seers from different parts of the world, different cultures, different civilizations, different languages, have said similar things about life, God, rights & wrongs, and humanity. Is it possible that they all "heard" similar things? Is it not what the Vedas also said about how they Vedas were "heard?"

Therefore, instead of poo-pooing thoughts and ideas, I would like you to tell me in a non-cynical, scholarly fashion refute this information. Just because we believe something to be history today does not mean that it is accurate or inaccurate. For example, just a few year before we all thought that "Aryans" invaded from Europe. Now an overwhelming body of evidence suggest otherwise. As George Bernard Shaw said "the only thing we are certain about is what we do not know about our past or future."

Since this was called Sukla, the one taught by Vaisampayana came to be known as Krishna Yajur Veda. Also, Yajur Veda is not just about yagnas. The Brahadaranyaka and Thaitreya Upanishad have roots in Yajur Veda as is the philosophy of Advaitha.

How can they have 'roots in the Yajur Veda - when no one can show a direct link or some similarities- to the Yajur Veda! Can you show me some 'roots'.

I would actually argue that no one can show that they were inserted in the Yajur Veda. Before we argue this point out, I would like to answer my earlier question on how the Vedas were preserved and propogated. That has the key to this question.

There are numerous references to Shiva in the Vedas and we can agree to disagree on that score.

You mean the four Vedas, Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharvan. There is no 'Siva' - the God, in the Vedas. YOu you think He was there - show me some verses!

OK, in the Sri Rudram, look up stanzas 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 2.0. They describe the "Shiva" as we know Him in South India. How is there such as similarity between these two versions? A simple explanation of that they were inserted in the Vedas will not do. You will have to tell me how they were inserted, preserved, and propogated. For those who understand this, it will be clear that this is an impossibility.

Appar swamigal's question is when the temple at Arur originated. In fact he has clearly made it a question "munno pinno" and never took the view that it happened before as you suggest.

If is was later -- Appar would not have said - 'munno pinno'. Just 'pin' (later) would have be enough! He raised doubts, didn't he!

Oh I see, now you say that the Pinno was added later? The original versions said just "Pin?" If he wanted to say that in absolute terms why not just say "Munnae" instead of "Munno". Better still why did he have to add the "Pin" to it?

The original versions are lost as they were and the only version we have is what has been handed down orally. I will not buy this theory, unless you can prove your version.

My reply is to what the "eights" were about and that is the reference to Sri Rudram which explains what the "eights" were. As far as I know, there is no other reference to what the "eights" were before Appar. Since, Appar referenced them, he knew what the "eights" were.

Some 600-700 years before Appar the Tamils talk of 'eights' and Siva. Valluvar mentions that the Lord has 8 kuNams.....

§¸¡Ç¢ø ¦À¡È¢Â¢ü ̽Á¢Ä§Å ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý
¾¡¨Ç Å½í¸¡ò ¾¨Ä.
--kural 9

There you go quoting dates again and you said you dont. First of all, the date for the ancient Thirukkural has never been set. How do you know that they are not even older or more recent? Second, how do you know that the Thirukkural does not refer to the same "eights"? Valluvar Peruman talks about the "En Gunathan" but what are the eights? I have given you a theory about the eights. Why dont you propose another? Thirdly, how do you know that the eights that I mentioned were rigtht? All I said was that this was someone's theory of what the eights were.

Again, I do not want to rat-hole the discussion on the history of the Thevarams to a discussion on whether the Vedas came first or whether Shiva was mentioned in the Vedas. My reference was to forward a theory from someone that the eights mentioned were the eights from Sri Rudram and we have certainly crossed a lot of water here. If readers want to continue this discussion, I am willing to continue. Otherwise, I think this discussion should be on a diferent thread and not mess up this one.

Do others have an opinion?

Rgds, Aravind Sitaraman