Looking at Veda, shastra and purana as sruti, smriti and purana, we find that sruti or Veda has remained unchanged since the beginning, and indeed cannot be changed, while smriti or shastra has changed with experience. Satyam vada says the Veda, but Harischandra who adhered to it experienced lifelong difficulties. Karna, who adhered to the vedic precept dharmam chara, lost even the kavachakundala that protected him. But those who observed Vedic precepts in accordance with prevailing circumstances were invariably successful.

Legends therefore teach us that we need to observe satya and dharma with due regard to consequence and in line with circumstances. One instance of this is the story of a man who spoke the truth and was thereby responsible for the killing of a cow went down to hell, while a man who had never been truthful and helped save a cow’s life through an untruth went up to heaven.

Bharata varsha

Consider the ways in which shastra has been of help to us. The terms Bharata Desa, Bharata Varsha, and India refer to the same place. What do our scriptures say on these? In the first place, what does the shastra say? Nomenclature may change with time, but there is an unvarying sankalpa in every religious observance in ours, in which we keep saying Bharata varshe bharatah kande meror dakshine parsve sakabde, meaning “in the geographical part to the south of the Meru Mountain in the land of Bharata.” When these religious observances began, ancients used the expression Bharata varsha.

Our age is Kali yuga. The one prior to it is Dwapara yuga. Towards the end of that yuga Sage Vyasa who was also known as Badarayana wrote, among other works, the Mahabharata. It could be because of this that the expression Bharata varsha came into being. That a king called Bharata ruled over the land mass to the south of the Meru Mountain leads to the surmise that the land came to be named after him as Bharatah kanda. But in the Dwapara yuga or in the Kruta yuga in which the Ramayana is placed, terms like Ayodhya, Dwaraka and Hastinapura do not figure. Nor were terms like Bharatah kanda and Bharata desa in vogue in that era. One has to conclude that these were created later.

Consider the term Hindu that has become one connoting religion. Him himsa, du dukha: that is, according to some, Hindu means one who hastens to assist another in distress. The general view, however, is that the word is derived from Sindu. A word that is not found in purana or shastra or Veda has thus come about and has found general acceptance.

The sankalpa mantra does not say Asia kande, India varshe. That sankalpa, remaining unchanged over time, helps us find the age, the antiquity, of our culture. We have crossed three yugas and are in the first quarter of the fourth yuga. Evidence for this is in the shastraic practice followed by our ancestors.

Nandanar

Puranas, likewise, have undergone changes. Take the history of the sixty-three saints in Peria Puranam by Sekkizhar, the prose version of the songs created by Nambiandar Nambi and rendered by Saint Sundaramurthy. There are several divergences between what Sekkizhar wrote as Thirunalaippovar and Gopalakrishna Bharati’s musical discourse called Nandanar. For popular appeal, Gopalakrishna Bharati added a few incidents to the original narrative. As a result, some truths about the history of Thirunalaippovar in Peria Puranam have disappeared. In the Peria Puranam there is no character called Vedhiar. Nor did Sekkizhar suggest that anyone had ever humiliated Nandanar by calling him pariah or puliah. Nandanar has indeed been portrayed with great respect as Thirunalaippovar. Because of Gopalakrishna Bharati’s fictional creation, however, questions about social inequality have arisen.

Thirunalaippovar, who was attracted by the Saiva tradition of non-killing, mourned that he had been born into a tradition of tanners and, through devotion to God, transformed his life and rose to a position higher than that of Brahmins. But that narrative has been changed by Gopalakrishna Bharati to one of a Brahmin’s ill treatment of Nandanar. There is even an anecdote that as Gopalakrishna Bharati began his work, Thiruvavaduthurai Meenakshisundaram Pillai advised him not to alter the sacred Peria Puranam. As a result of Gopalakrishna Bharati’s work, the Peria Puranam narrative about Thirunalaippovar has all but vanished and been replaced by the fictional creation Nandanar.

Sankara and Ramanuja

Consider the story of the lives of Ramanuja and Sankara. You find that even in these, alterations have come about.

Sankara lived thirty-five years; he took sanyas while a brahmachari; he knew little about the grahasta stage of life; he was older than Ramanuja; and he took birth in the eighth century to establish advaita. Thus say narratives of his life, such as Sankara Vijayam, Keraliya Sankara Vijayam and Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam. Also, Sankara Bhagavadpada sought only to spread the advaita philosophy and did not attempt any social reform: perhaps in the then milieu there was no need for it.

Several of these details have become altered over time. Look at some. Once, there arose an argument between the acharya and Mandanamisra over mimamsa. Mandanamisra’s wife Bharati was appointed arbiter to settle the victor in that argument. This, in itself, has something to tell us. In our time, many believe women cannot recite Vedas and the like. If this were true, would a woman have been chosen to mediate in a debate involving Sankara Bhagavadpada? Shastra has evidently been changed by some at some time.

When the debate had gone on for long, Bharati, anxious lest her husband Mandanamisra be defeated, suggests that Sankara might start talking about shringara. “Give me a month’s time, I shall learn about shringara and then join the debate,” says Sankara. And, learning that the king of Kasi had died, he transfers his life force to the king’s physical frame, goes to bed with the king’s consort, and learns about shringara. So goes the legend.

In Sankara’s Soundarya Lahari, the 86^th verse says that one night while Parvati and Parameswara are at play in their bedchamber, the head of each happens to be at the other’s foot; that at that time, the Lord begins describing other women; that Parvati, intolerant of such description, kicks Shiva’s forehead, hitting his third eye; that Manmatha, who had for long been angry at that eye that had burnt him, was happy that he had finally been avenged by Parvati’s foot hitting the third eye; and that the sound of her anklet bells demonstrated his triumph.

Legend has it that Sankara asked for a month’s time to be able to talk about shringara; but this 80^th verse of Soundarya Lahari suggests something else altogether. What a difference. This is not to fault the acharya. Soundarya Lahari could have been written by another named Sankara and its authorship could have been transferred later to the Bhagavadpada. If indeed Sankara had authored Soundarya Lahari, he would surely not have asked for a month’s time to discuss shringara in his debate with Mandanamisra.

Tirupati anecdote

Consider another story. Some decades ago the kumbabhishekam of the Tirupati temple was performed. At that time, the outlet called gomukhi, through which water from the sanctum comes out, was opened. This was publicized in newspapers at that time. This story is about that gomukhi. A plan was once hit upon by Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja to determine whether the temple was a Siva temple or one of Vishnu. The thiruman that adorns the forehead of Vishnu and the vibhuti adorning the forehead of Siva were kept inside the sanctum, the sanctum was closed and sealed, and it was decided that whatever was found adorning the forehead of the deity would indicate whether the deity was Siva or Vishnu. Next morning when the sanctum was opened the Lord had thiruman on his forehead. How did it happen? Ramanuja, who knew the transference of life force into another body, moved into the body of a mouse, entered the sanctum by way of the gomukhi outlet and placed the thiruman on the deity’s forehead. And, to prevent anybody else attempting to similarly place the vibhuti on the deity’s forehead, the gomukhi was closed. At the time of the opening of the gomukhi outlet, the then executive officer Ananda Rao wrote that it was being opened after several centuries and went on to mention the Sankara-Ramanuja anecdote.

History says that Sankara Bhagavadpada lived during the seventh century and that Ramanuja during the eleventh century. We have to wonder how these two could have met. As a result of writers writing according to their respective beliefs, one is unable to discern the truth.

The acharyas’ times

Sankara Bhagavadpada sought to establish advaita and protect from other beliefs the people of Bharata adhering to a sacred religion going back to the Vedic era. There was no population pressure at that time. There was no shortage of food or fiber. Sankara was anxious that other religions should not convert these prosperous people and thereby alter Bharata culture. Therefore he took to the spreading of advaita, which was somewhat similar to the beliefs of other religions of that time. He proclaimed Aham Brahmasmi: One Brahmam pervades all souls, and the soul is indestructible. He sought thus to save everyone from those adhering to purva mimamsa beliefs and to unite them. His thinking was one suited to that century.

In Ramanuja’s day, the milieu had changed. Caste and other issues had arisen. He took several measures to alter these. His writing of a commentary for Brahma sutra, his renaming as thirukkulathar all those who had been thrust aside by society as chandalas and admitting them into temples, his imparting of the moola mantra that he had obtained from his guru to everyone regardless of caste in violation of his guru’s command, and his taking sanyas because of his wife’s continuing to believe in social disparities – all these were the consequences of the milieu in his day. He was not Sankara’s foe. Sankara and Ramanuja alike have written commentaries for sruti, smruti and purana, but in line with their respective beliefs.

Advaita transcends the varnasrama dharma; therefore there was no need for Sankara to talk of varnasrama. Sri Ramanuja started viewing everyone as equal. He sought to instruct people about what the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita said about caste divisions. The Purusha Sukta says: Brahmanoasya mukhamaasith / Bahoo rajanyah krutah / Ooru tadyasya yadvaisyah / Padhyabhyagam shudro ajaayata. The import is that at birth everybody is without differences but become divided by the nature of their work.

Arjuna says in the Gita that because of war many warriors are destroyed, women outnumber men, character diminishes, and admixture of castes results. At another place in the Gita, Lord Krishna supplies the answer to that: Chatur varnyam maya srushtam guna karma vibhagasah / Tasya kartaaramapi maam viddhyakartaaramavyayam (Gita 4-13). The Lord says in this verse: “According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society were created by me.”

Brahmana is one endowed with satva guna. Kshatriya has rajo guna with a little satva guna. Vaisya has tamo guna with a little rajo guna. Shudra is one having a large part of tamo guna with some rajo guna. This is what Veda says: Janmanaa jaayate shudrah karmanaa jayaate brahmanah. Ramanuja wished to prove these verities.

Take Kishkinda in the Ramayana. Vali and Sugriva, with rajo guna dominant in their nature, became kshatriyas. Anjaneya, learned in Veda vyakarana, attained an even higher stature. At one stage, he offered advice even to Sri Rama.

The definition of acharya is: Yaha aacharate iti acharyah. He is an acharya who practices what he preaches. Ramanuja was an illustration for that definition.

Puranas and temple festivals

Now consider how in some temple festivals puranas have become altered. In the life of Sundaramurthy Nayanar there is a story about the Lord visiting the home of Paravai Nachiyar on behalf of the Nayanar. That episode used to be celebrated in some temples in the month of Marghazhi as Mattaiyadi festival. As Lord Nataraja returns from a stroll, the door of the shrine of His consort would remain closed. A temple devadasi would stand at the door with a plantain trunk peel. One by one, the priests and others would go toward the shrine, return and announce that since the Lord was returning after visiting a dasi’s home the Goddess would not allow Him in. The devadasi would strike each of them thrice with the plantain trunk peel. The temple doors would then be opened, the Lord and the Goddess would be seated side by side, deeparadhana would be performed and the festival would come to a close.

Puranas were created to explain the several elements that combine in bhakti: elements such as madhuram, daasyam, sakha, vaatsalyam, prema, sakhi, and naama sankirtanam. Sundaramurthy Nayanar’s life illustrated sakha bhakti. It is a paradox how this has been altered into a story about the Lord visiting a dasi and how this has come to be celebrated as a festival. Several temples thus hold festivals without understanding the true import of puranic episodes.

Sundaramurthy Nayanar exemplified sakha bhakti – this is raja yoga. Thirunavukkarasar exemplified daasa bhakti – this is karma yoga. Manickavachakar exemplified moksha sanyasa yoga. And Sambandar exemplified dhyana yoga.

Vedas and shastras did not create differences in respect of the Almighty. Consider how the ancients viewed these and how those views have come to be altered over time.

Shiva holds Ganga in his head. Vaishnavas call Ganga as Noopura Ganga. Noopuram is anklet. For that reason, some stotras have it that Ganga, which emanates from the feet of Vishnu, is held on his head by Shiva. Now look at this verse by the Vaishnava saint Poygai azhvar: Nalanthigazh sadaiyaan mudikkonraimalarum / Naaranan paadathulaayum / Kalandhu izhi punalaal pugarpadu gangaik / Kandam enum kadinagare. (Mudhalayiram 4 – 7 – 2). The import of the verse is that the water that floats down with the konrai blossom from Shiva’s head combines with the water in the Alakananda carrying the tulasi offered at the lotus feet of Vishnu and flows down as Ganga, cleansing people of their sins.

One can cite several such instances.

Veda adapted to the times

Sruti called Veda is immutable. Adjustments are however effected in accordance with the times: these constitute smriti or shastra. To cite one instance of such change from the Ramayana, Sri Rama sends Sita to the forest; he wishes afterwards to perform an aswamedha yaga like his father Dasaratha to acquire the distinction of being an ekachakradhipati; but he cannot perform a yaga without his wife, the dharma patni; his heart is disinclined to call Sita back from the forest, nor does his heart incline him to marry someone else, thereby losing his status as an eka patni vrata; he asks the sages for a way out; and they offer him advice, slightly altering the shastra. The alteration they effect in the shastra is that he could have a golden image of Sita made and keep it by his side.

The yaga was duly performed. The Vedic prescription that the aswamedha be performed to acquire the title of chakravarti was not changed. But the shastraic requirement of the dharma patni having to be by one’s side while performing it was changed to keeping a golden image of the dharma patni by one’s side.

Puranas explain Veda in the form of narratives. Itihasa tells what happens at different times. Harischandra suffered for adhering to Truth. In the yugas that followed, the manifestation of the Lord himself hides Truth. Example: The Mahabharata episode about how Aswathama is announced as killed and thereby Drona is caused to lose his life.

Now consider yuga dharma. In Kruta yuga Sagara’s sons numbered 1,000. In Dwapara yuga the Kauravas were 100. At the start of Kali yuga the number of children in a family was 10. In the 18^th century, it was prescribed to be no more than two. Today, a couple says one is adequate.

Between Ramavatara in Kruta yuga and Krishnavatara in Dwapara yuga the yuga dharma had changed considerably. Parasarar was of high birth. He married a fisher girl called Matsyagandhi. Their son was Veda Vyasa who wrote Mahabharata. At a time when a woman married one man, the five Pandavas took one woman for wife.

Changing times and the consequence of past deeds effect such changes. Veda, shastra and purana act as guides to prepare us for such changes. Temples function as treasurehouses to preserve and protect Veda, shastra and purana. It is our duty to protect the temples.