Rig-Veda 1.164.46 states:

इन्द्रं॑ मि॒त्रं वरु॑णम॒ग्निमा॑हु॒रथो॑ दि॒व्यः स सु॑प॒र्णो ग॒रुत्मा॑न् । एकं॒ सद्विप्रा॑ बहु॒धा व॑दन्त्य॒ग्निं य॒मं मा॑त॒रिश्वा॑नमाहुः ॥४६॥

English Translation: They called him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni; and he is heavenly Garuda, who has beautiful wings. The truth is one, but the sages (or learned ones) call it by many names or describe him in many ways; they called him Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

The above verse has been popularly quoted by many Neo-Vedantins as to mean that all religions are true.

My question is:

How have traditional Vedic commentators i.e. Vedic commentators before the nineteenth century, such as Sayana, interpreted this verse?

  • Why do you think they are 'traditional'? Also define traditional. What tradition are they following? Because what is traditional is subjective. – Sarvabhouma Nov 19 '18 at 7:47
  • @Sarvabhouma I have already defined it. "Vedic commentators before nineteenth century". – Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury Nov 19 '18 at 7:48
  • Vedic commentators means commentators of Veda. It's unclear. How are you sure that people before 19th century are traditional? There are flaws in their commentaries and can be refuted. Are you looking for Indian commentaries from before the European invasion time? – Sarvabhouma Nov 19 '18 at 7:51
  • @Sarvabhouma Yes, Indian commentators before European invasion. – Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury Nov 19 '18 at 9:31
  • 2
    For those who can translate Sanskrit into English, Sayana commentary on that verse is available at here. – Paṇḍyā Nov 21 '18 at 12:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .