Husky:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That is, the understanding these traditional Vadyars have of the Vedas is still exactly the same as what Hindus' ancestors had of the material since at least when this whole oral tradition started. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean the understanding and interpretation of the veda saMhitA-s, its meanings, and its ritual aspects have remained sanAtana, i.e. eternally unchanged within those who claim to be vedic Hindus?
But the textual data shows otherwise.
Look at even what the upaniShadas say about the veda-s and the rituals. Some early upaniShada-s interpret from the veda-s symbolic, deeper and hidden meanings of the rituals. (e.g. the ya~jna is meditation, and the altar is the heart) and deriving j~nAna kANDa as opposed to the karma-kANDa. parA vidyA as opposed to the aparA vidyA and so on.
Look at the commentators, one after the other after the other, from sha~Nkara to madhva, rAmAnuja to sAyana and even from dayAnanda to aurobindo -- are all of them deriving the same understanding from the veda-s? If so then where was the need of the multiple or even one commentary -- if understanding remained the same unaltered all the while?
That is talking only within Astika mata-s. Otherwise, even nAstika-s claim to be receivers of the veda! and give it entirely different meaning (to me, not much different from vedAntic interpretations).
You probably meant to limit your scope to within the smArata and shrauta gurukula-s. But even there between one traditional school to the other, you have different redactions and recensions of the saMhitA-s being preserved and transmitted.
So how is that you say that the understanding of the veda-s has remained unchanged? In fact it has got to be the other way round.
Rituals MIGHT remain unchanged, recitation and intonation might remain unchanged. But understanding is BOUND to change since it is an intellectual process of human life and result of many conditional and psychological variables.
Yes, the experience (not understanding) might remain unchanged, for SOME sAdhaka-s. understanding is an intellectual process, experience is a spiritual process.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That is, the understanding these traditional Vadyars have of the Vedas is still exactly the same as what Hindus' ancestors had of the material since at least when this whole oral tradition started. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean the understanding and interpretation of the veda saMhitA-s, its meanings, and its ritual aspects have remained sanAtana, i.e. eternally unchanged within those who claim to be vedic Hindus?
But the textual data shows otherwise.
Look at even what the upaniShadas say about the veda-s and the rituals. Some early upaniShada-s interpret from the veda-s symbolic, deeper and hidden meanings of the rituals. (e.g. the ya~jna is meditation, and the altar is the heart) and deriving j~nAna kANDa as opposed to the karma-kANDa. parA vidyA as opposed to the aparA vidyA and so on.
Look at the commentators, one after the other after the other, from sha~Nkara to madhva, rAmAnuja to sAyana and even from dayAnanda to aurobindo -- are all of them deriving the same understanding from the veda-s? If so then where was the need of the multiple or even one commentary -- if understanding remained the same unaltered all the while?
That is talking only within Astika mata-s. Otherwise, even nAstika-s claim to be receivers of the veda! and give it entirely different meaning (to me, not much different from vedAntic interpretations).
You probably meant to limit your scope to within the smArata and shrauta gurukula-s. But even there between one traditional school to the other, you have different redactions and recensions of the saMhitA-s being preserved and transmitted.
So how is that you say that the understanding of the veda-s has remained unchanged? In fact it has got to be the other way round.
Rituals MIGHT remain unchanged, recitation and intonation might remain unchanged. But understanding is BOUND to change since it is an intellectual process of human life and result of many conditional and psychological variables.
Yes, the experience (not understanding) might remain unchanged, for SOME sAdhaka-s. understanding is an intellectual process, experience is a spiritual process.