swamy,

Thank you for the response.

My view is that ::

No one knows what was in the mind of azhwars, when they sung the pasurams. Hence, I would prefer to go by word by word meaning, rather than assumptions and interpretations. True, the language used is bit different than what is prevalent today. On reading, one who has basic vedantic / puranic details, can know himself nearly half the words used. My above post is based on this understanding.

adiyen

Srimate Raamanujaya namaha,

Swamy in that case the 2nd aspect of what they sang being the conclusion of vedas is relevant.

Adiyen

adiyen intentionally avoided commenting on the verse. Because, if we go by the literal meaning of this verse, no literature is required and but only Him, which is ultimately true also.

The scriptures are for the explanation of many details required for spirituality. I was considering the content of the vedas and not as what is mentioned in that verse. Hence, I did not consider the second point.

I have explained in my above posts.

Swamy
“but not all the details of vedas are covered”

What do you mean by this? Where have you mentioned in your above posts?

When Azhwars song, they give Veda Saaram

Velukkudi used to say:
Saaram
Saara Tharam
Saara Thamam

So all these could be found in pasurams.
Most Azhwars haven’t met each other except for few like

NammAzhwAr – Madurakavi
PeriyAzhwar – Andal

Yet they all sing the same because Marai Porul is the same.

Adiyen could not understand which post you are referring to. It’s not visible to me.

Dasanudasan

vikraminside swamy,

“but not all the details of vedas are covered”
What do you mean by this? Where have you mentioned in your above posts?From vikraminside

I was comparing the literal ‘contents’ of vedas, commented and nothing beyond that.  How one can list the details of vedas?. There are only four posts by me – initial post and three replies. I have explained my consideration for the subject, like word to word meaning etc., in these.

I have not mentioned about any specific pasuram. I have indicated as many of the pasurams.

I am very sure, you will not accept, so will be in my case. You have indicated you can counter a popular acharya (I fall in his lineage).  I have my own way of reading anything, do judgemental analysis and accept based on that.

In another thread you have mentioned

Adiyen don’t know 4KDP.From vikraminside

I am not sure from this whether you have gone through. A person who has gone through can probably appreciate my point.

One of my relative have done post graduate in Nalayira Divya Prabhandam. I discussed with him about this. He consented my views.

adiyen

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

“I am very sure, you will not accept, so will be in my case. ”

Adiyen agree that devareer is judgemental as well.

“One of my relative have done post graduate in Nalayira Divya Prabhandam” – Super.

In this whole post devareer not made a single objective statement

“Vedam anaithirkkum vithAgum kodhai thamizh”

Are you countering this?

Also why should we not question our AchAryAs then how will we learn?

Adiyen even question Swamy Desikan as to XWhy he submit sins to Sri Mahalakshmi thayar”?

Please justify this statement
“Azhwars expressed vedantic details from vedas, in a simple manner and very crisply, but not all the details of vedas are covered. It appears not all azhwars expressed details from vedas.”

Remember upamAnam has a dosham of inequality. If upamAnam is same as source it becomes equal.

So Vedam = Prabandham should be contextually read not as it is

Not sure the comparison between apples & oranges

A PhD on 4KDP is appreciated but cannot make a person “Sarvgyan by the way” .

Dasanudasan

My namaskarams to devareer for coming in that lineage.

Please accept my praNAms
Dasanudasan

I was comparing the literal ‘contents’ of vedas, commented and nothing beyond that.From SriVaishnava dasan

My point of discussion is comparing ‘contents’ of the vedas only. If one say that Nalayiya Divya Prabhandham communicates saram / rasam of vedas, it could have been called as Dravida veda rasam / saram and not as Dravida vedam itself.

The work of azhwars indicated by you can be called as Dravida veda rasam / saram.

This is my point of contention.

Read

“The work of azhwars indicated by you can be called as Dravida veda rasam / saram.”

as 

“The work of azhwars indicated by you may be called as Dravida veda rasam / saram, considering this discussion.”