Our interpretation can depend on the growth and width of reach of our perception

We have to understand and appreciate certain undercurrents in religious faiths.even within what we call Hinduism in a broad manner.. Before Shankara Hinduism was divided into six major sects.. Saura, Saaktha, Ganapathya, Shaanmugha(or Kaumara), Vaishnava and Saiva.. Then there were Buddhists, Samanas, jain, followers of aboriginal religions, followers of Sankhya, Kanaadas ( practically agnostics and atheists) and what not.. Then there were hardcore Vedic followers.. of Purvamimamsa... Jaimini, Kumarila and all.

The greatness of Sankara lies in the achievement of semblance of unity among the six major sects, other subsects, and vanquishing the external religions.. In this process local lore, stories of synthesis, Umamaheswara, Shankaranarayana, Somaaskanda.. all were useful.. Shankara first managed to establish a semblance of order in the sagunopaasana and brought unity among the votaries of six major sects.. True four sects except Vaishnava and Saura merged into one for all practical purposes.. But Vaishnavism. and its offshoots . dwaitam, visistaadvaitam etc persisted and survived Advaita philosophy which underlined the majority Uttarameemaasa..

The admixture of legends and stories and myths have to be viewed from this angle..

We have to view the issue drawing analogy from the growth of an infant to a grown up person. The fundamental religious sects and the united front were like taking breastmilk or semi solid food by the infant and the child. When the human being grew up he had no use for such simple foods.. This is analogous to the state of Vedanta.. advaita, dwaita or visistadwaita..whatever it is.. We become mature and grow into it..

Our interpretation can depend on the growth and width of reach of our perception..

We cannot talk of Brahmam or jeevatma and paramatma etc., and the menu for a sastaapreethi or aarattu sadhya at the same breath and compare the two extremes..