Gita Govindam is beautiful; it isn't shastra, but it is poetry and an amazing one at that. It is deep, erotic, philosophical, theological, and magical. Sadly, this guy can't grasp or see that.
Big sigh…
Let’s break this down, shall we?
Swastika, from the Sanskrit su + asti, meaning ‘good being’.
It’s a Hindu symbol that traces itself back millennia.
The Swastika Laundry, founded in Dublin in 1912, was inspired by the ancient Indian/Hindu symbol of good luck and well-being, completely predating the Nazi party.
This was a full eight years before that asshat Adolf Hitler adopted the *Hakenkreuz* for the Nazi Party in 1920.
The founder, John W. Brittain , was captivated by its traditional Sanskrit meaning of good fortune and prosperity, he chose to name his laundry after it.
Hitler called his appropriation and cultural hijacking the Hakenkreuz.
Everything said Hakenkreuz.
But lazily it got translated to ‘Swastika’ by James Vincent Murphy, an Irish translator and former Catholic priest.
So annoyingly, Hindus are continuously watching, years later, their sacred symbol be misattributed, mistranslated and stolen in meaning.
This has nothing to do with the Nazis, and everything to do with persistent laziness to find out the truth.
Start learning more about the word and the world, and correct it.
தென்னாடுடைய சிவனே போற்றி, எந்நாட்டவர்க்கும் இறைவா போற்றி!" - தமிழகத்தின் சைவ, வைணவப் பெருமையையும், பன்னிரு திருமுறைகளையும் காத்த ஓதுவா மூர்த்திகளுக்குக் கிடைத்த வரலாற்று அங்கீகாரம்; மத்திய அரசுக்கு நன்றி!
- பத்ம ஸ்ரீ விருது பெற்ற திருத்தணி சுவாமிநாதன் ஓதுவார்
According to legend, when Tagore got news of his Nobel Prize, he was chairing a meeting on financial problems related to plumbing for the Santiniketan school he had founded. A man came in & gave him a telegram. Tagore read it, & said, “Money for the drains has just been found.”
Hinduism is a peer-reviewed system of ideas and practices. The traditional Hindu texts containing detailed argumentation even with regards to Vedas, are a proof of this. Those who are against such openness to dialogue and criticism, cannot understand Hinduism.
“Sadashiva Samarambham Shankaracharya Madhyamam
Asmad Acharya Paryantam Vande Guru Paramparam”
An inscription from the reign of Vira Rajendra Chola (c. 1065 CE) is found in the Cholamadevi temple. It is located near the shrine meant for Dakshinamurthy. This is an important piece of evidence for the presence of the Advaita tradition in the temple, especially since the Dakshinamurthy Ashtakam is traditionally recited before the Sankara Bhashya.
The inscription reads:
பாண்டிய குலாசனி வளநாட்டு பிரமதேயம்
ஶ்ரீசோழமாதேவி சதுருப்பேதி மங்கலத்து பெருங்குறி
சபையோம் திருமாதிரி நல்நூலை ஆழ்வார்
திருமுற்றத்து……..கூட்டம் குடைவரை கூடியிருந்து
பணிப்பணியால் பணிந்து பகவத் பாதீயம் சாரீரக
பாஷ்யத்துக்கு சிதானந்த பிடாரர் பண்ணின
ப்ரதிபாகம் ஆகிய வார்த்திகம் வக்கணிப்பாருக்கு
விருத்தியாக விட்ட நிலம்
The Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Adi Sankara is traditionally known as the Sariraka Bhashya, and this is what the inscription refers to as “Bhagavatpadiyam Sariraka Bhashya.” The inscription also mentions a person named Chitananda Pidarar, who composed a Vartika on this Bhashya, called Pradipakam.
A Vartika is an explanatory treatise that elaborates upon an original text.
The inscription records that the Sabha of Cholamadevi donated land as an endowment for those who delivered lectures or discourses (வக்கணிப்பார்) on this Vartika in the temple. This shows that the temple was not merely a place of worship, but also a centre of philosophical learning where the teachings of Adi Sankara’s Sariraka Bhashya and its commentarial tradition were formally expounded.
#ShankaraJayanthi
I’ve long maintained that Hinduism is plural and respects all paths to the divine. But that openness cannot be a one-way street. Institutionalised proselytisation aimed at altering demographics must be firmly checked. And temple revenues must serve the preservation and advancement of Sanatana. Without these actions, everything else will remain fleeting outrage.
My wife yelled from upstairs and asked, “Do you ever get a shooting pain across your body, like someone's got a voodoo doll of you and they're stabbing it?”
I replied, “No.”
She responded, “How about now?”
When an article relies heavily on frameworks derived from persons like Kamil Zvelebil — employing terms such as “Sanskritisation,” “Hindu appropriation,” or “Vedic influence” — without the readings of primary Sangam sources, this is how it will look like.
Even a cursory engagement with Sangam literature shows that there is no theological distinction between Murugan and Karthikeya/Skanda apart from linguistic expression — one being the Tamil name, the other the Sanskrit equivalent.
The attributes of the deity as described in Sangam texts align closely with pan-Indian Skanda traditions. Thirumurugatrupadai explicitly mentions Murugan being worshipped according to Vedic mantras without alteration of ritual procedure. (மந்திர விதியின் மரபுளி வழாஅ அந்தணர் வேள்வி ஓர்க்கும்மே)
Iconographically too, the details are consistent:
•Six faces — described in Thirumurugatrupadai
•The Vel (spear) as primary weapon — noted in Paripadal
•Peacock as vehicle (“விரை மயில் மேல் ஞாயிறு” – Paripadal)
•Rooster as emblem (“சேவல் அம் கொடியன்” – Thirumurugatrupadai)
These attributes correspond closely with sculptural depictions of Skanda in northern India and with coinage issued by the Yaudheya from pre-Common Era centuries. Similar iconographic continuity is seen under the Kushan Empire and later the Gupta Empire.
While Murugan is indeed associated with hill landscapes in Tamil poetic convention (kurinji thinai), Sangam texts do not describe him as an exclusively “tribal” deity. On the contrary, sacred sites such as Tirupparankundram, Tiruchendur, and Swamimalai were significant and structured centres even in the early historic period.
If one must speak of “appropriation,” it may be more historically accurate to question the framing that attempts to confine a widely worshipped pan-Indian deity — attested across regions, dynasties, and textual traditions — into a narrowly regional identity.