The Vedic Culture and Vedas are complete in themselves but Hinduism
which is non-Vedic belief system with all its ritual and conduct oriented
practices has been contributed largely by the priests to suit their
convenience!
Vedas are in Vedic language which was a high class language. Rig
Veda (excluding chapters II and X) were written before the Christian Era in
Vedic language. Vedic language is not Sanskrit. It is the same
language in which the Zoroastrian Scripture Zend Avesta is written – a form of
Persian language. All the other scriptures of India are written in
Sanskrit. These include Rig Veda Chapter II and X and the Upanishads,
Brahmanas, Puranas and the Vedantas. These were written during the
Christian Era after the Thomas ministry. As the use of this language
diminished, it became a tough language for the commoners. The priests, who were
supposed to be expert of this language, translated it into Sanskrit language
and manipulated the meanings in time and gradually, all the practices changed.
The DaVita, Vedanta borrows concept from Abrahamic religions, such as
Eternal Damanation (of certain souls destined to hell forever) which goes
against the belief of most Vedanta schools, which sate that soul attain
liberation.
It looks like the creator
creation theory is also borrowed from Abrahamic religion and on the base new
belief system has been introduced giving it Vedic outlook and propagated all
non-Vedic rituals and worships by someone in the past.
St. Thomas is said to have come
to India to spread Christianity in the first century AD. It first spread among
the people of the Malabar coast and in areas near present-day Madras.
There is a total discontinuity in the
concept of God before and after the entry of St, Thomas. As one goes in deeper
in to annals of religious history then we become aware of the fact that, the Vedic gods were personifications
of Nature and their worship essentially sacrifices to these Natural Forces to
appease them. All of a sudden by first century, we encounter
Vedantas. Vedanta literally means “End of the Vedas,” though it is today
interpreted as "the essence of Vedas."
Vedantas, which appeared as
theological discourses, presents a supreme Godhead, “Para Brahman’. Such
an idea was not even remotely conceivable in the Vedic context.
New Gods like Maheshwara and Vishnu
appeared. The concept of Maheshwara.
Vishnu means Sky or Heavens. Vishnu simply means God of the
Heavenlies or one who pervades everything. Then we have the concept
of incarnation – God taking flesh in human form to save humanity. All
these suddenly appeared after the entry of St, Thomas.
This was
also the time when most of the Vedic gods passed into oblivion. Their place was
taken by the trinity of gods, with Brahma as the creator, Vishnu the preserver
and Shiva the destroyer. It is believed that when evil is rampant, various
incarnations of Vishnu enter the world of men to save them. Krishna is one such
'avatar'.
There are many contradictions, Brahma Vishnu and Maheshwar are the three
main GODs but they are one. Brahma is the creator of this universe (Generator),
Vishnu is responsible for the smooth conduct of the same (sustainer), &
Maheshwar is Destroyer! But if you go and read Vishnu Purana, he is
characterized as the supreme power.
Further, due to many caste and sub-caste prevailing in the society, some
more rules and principles were added for the benefit of these priests. Can you
imagine how would you get rid of the sin you committed by killing a cat? You
will have to make a golden cat weighing equal to the dead cat and hand over
this golden cat to the priest chanting for the purification of individual soul! Hinduism is
different from Vedic religion.
Vedic religion
was modified and reintroduced with new add-ons by Sri, Sankara a great Advith Master to
uplift the Vedic culture and Santana Dharma [Hinduism], which were in ruins in
the clutches of Buddhism. 18 puranas are introduced in the name of Veda Vyasa.
As one goes
deeper in the annals of the history, it indicates the fact that somewhere
someone has added the puranas in the name of Veda Vyasa the grand master of
Vedas. It is impossible to accept and believe that Veda Vyasa authored and
introduced puranas which has all conceptual gods because:-
In Vedas the God
has been described as:-
Sakshi (Witness)
Chetan (conscious)
Nirguna (Without form and properties).
Nitya (eternal)
Shuddha (pure)
Buddha (omniscient)
Mukta (unattached).
Whereas Vedas reveals ONE GOD but Hinduism
filled with 33crores of gods Vedas reveals God as Spirit (Atman or Brahman )
and no form whereas Hinduism worship god in the form of various non-Vedic idols of god against Vedas .
Vedas say that God does not have any form and
exist as light, but in Hinduism people idol worship with their inherited
personal god.
It indicates
clearly all the gods with form and attributes are mere imagination based on the
false self. The ideas of conceptual gods
are reality on the base of false self within the false experience. Thus all the belief systems are based on the
false self. Thus their idea of god is mere belief based on their religious
doctrine. In Advaita lord means Atman and Atman means Brahman.
If people who
indulge god or guru glorification are not Advaitins because they have accepted
belief of god as true god and they forget the true god is Atman their true identity,
which exists without the body and the experience of the world.
If God exists, as he does for
religionists and yogis, and exists separately from them, then there is duality,
which always implies contradiction. On ultimate point of view God is an mere
belief or an idea, a thought, an object, therefore the self or witness,
contradict God.
When there are two, one thought contradicts
another for one thought comes at one moment, and the other at another moment,
both moments contradict; one cannot say they are identical. He cannot find
non-contradiction in this universe.
One the ultimate point of view the
individualized God does not exist, because his existence implies that one is
different from Him. Any kind of difference means contradiction. Nothing
whatsoever other than the consciousness exists thus for non-duelists the
consciousness itself is ultimate truth and ultimate truth is god. Non-duality
means the negation of all thought.
Truth is not only that which is beyond
contradiction, but also that in which is no possibility of contradiction. Such
a state can only be realized as non-duality, where there is no second thing
other than consciousness. The illustration for that is deep sleep but sleep is
not the ultimate reality. It is merely an analogy.
Brihad Upanishad declares:-, "if you
think there is another entity whether man or God there is no truth." This
is the teaching since time immemorial of those who have inquired into truth.
Consciousness alone which is permanent
and eternal, unchanging in the changing world is reality. People hear of
Brahman or ultimate truth. People can only imagine it. One requires words only
to distinguish between is there and not there, but he can’t posit either of
Reality, because his saying so is only an idea, not reality. Ultimate truth is
beyond words. Words are of use, however, as a thorn to pull out the thorn of
other words that hinder knowledge.
Intellectually knowing the truth is only
an imagination, whereas realizing the truth is knowing it as such.
Thus orthodoxy
which misleads the seekers of truth, therefore seeker of truth has to verify the
truth on his own by reason based on the consciousness as self then only accept
the un-contradictable truth.
And also in Yajurved says:
Translation 1.
They enter
darkness, those who worship natural things (for example air, water, sun, moon,
animals, fire, stone, etc).
They sink deeper
in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for
example table, chair, idol etc.)
[Yajurved 40:9]
Translation 2.
"Deep into
shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti's worshippers. They sink to darkness
deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent."
[Yajurveda
Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith pg 538]
Translation 3.
"They are
enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the
greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti -- the
material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, But those who
worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies
(human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in
other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and
sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time."
[Yajur Veda
40:9.]
So, Yajur Veda
indicates that:-
They sink deeper
in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for
example table, chair, idol etc [Yajurved 40:9]
Those who worship
visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and
the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other
words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow,
and suffer terribly for a long time." [Yajur Veda
40:9.]
When Yajur Veda declares that they are
extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer
terribly for a long time."
When the religion of the Veda knows no idols
then why so many gods and goddesses with different form and name are being
propagated as Vedic gods. Why these conceptual gods are introduced when Vedic
concept of god is free from form and attributes.
Who introduced
concept of god with attributes and attributeless gods, when Yajur Veda says:
- those who worship visible things,
born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like), in
place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness. Therefore, all these
add-ons proves that the form and attribute based concepts are introduced by
some sages of the past with new belief system and code of conducts in the name
of Vedas.
Sruti is made the final or exclusive authority
in apara Vidya and that for supporting the tenet of the CAUSAL relation or
creatorship of Brahman, Nirguna Brahman = the "Absolute beyond
qualities," which can be defined only in a negative way. For the
Shankarian school = the Ultimate Reality, higher than the Lord. i.e. of Saguna
or apara Brahman ... The support of Scriptural Revelation is, therefore,
absolutely necessary for this hypothesis of cosmology, this Saguna or apara (=
inferior) Brahman, but not for the absolute truth of Nirguna Brahman.
The Sruti itself says: "This Atma is NOT
to be attained by a study of the Vedas. [Katha Upanishad
I, 2, 23.]
Therefore, all
the non- Vedic add-ons and attribute based knowledge, which are inferior, have
to be bifurcated and excluded to know the ultimate truth. The seeker of truth has to drop all the
inferior knowledge based on the attributes and go beyond Vedas to understand
assimilate and realize the ultimate truth or Brahman.
One has to go
beyond Vedas means go beyond religion. Go beyond religion means, go beyond
concept of god. Thus, going beyond Veda,
religion and conceptual god means going beyond illusion. That is end of Vedas [Veda –antha]
When one goes
into the annals of the history it looks like the true Advaita expounded by Sri
Sankara and his param guru, Goudpada was lost or mutilated by the orthodox cult,
because their preaching is based on non-duality and practices are based on
duality.
Sri, Sankara says
in Brahma Sutras: that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya
he denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding,
the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they
cannot understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a
higher stage, the truth of non-causality can be revealed.
Sri, Sankara himself has warned us not to use ambiguous words,
and to practice semantic analysis in his book "Definition of one's own
Self. [" Page
199, v.24 of "Sankara's Selected Works]
Buddha found
religion in such a worthless state, with so many vile animal sacrifices, that
he attacked religion. Sri, Sankara did not seek to destroy religion like Buddha
but he advocated reforming it for better. He did this because he saw that the
masses had to have some form of religion as they were not ripe intellectually
for truth.
Sankara's sex
experience in Benares and occupying the body of another man and then having sex
intercourse with his wife, is a story created by pundits hiding the real fact.
Sri, Sankara had the scientific spirit and when told by Saraswathi the woman
that he was talking freely about sex, being a Sanyasi, he wanted to know the
truth by having actual intercourse himself and thus learning by experiment and
observation. Thus, this has to be viewed by the seeker on the rational
standpoint, because the sex is part of the illusion on the ultimate
standpoint. Sri, Sankara stressed the
great importance of freeing our use of words from all ambiguity.
Buddhists and
Jains did not believe in the Vedic positions, did not accept the scriptures.
Hence, Sri, Sankara had to meet their objections also. Biographical anecdotes about his persecution
of Jains and Buddhists or of his challenges to self-immolation for the loser of
a debate are all foolish tales fabricated after his lifetime either by his own
followers who took him to be a religious propagator but not as a
philosopher or by the dualistic cult.
The religious pundits of Advaitic sect relate boastfully pseudo-historic stories of how Sri,
Sankara's school put down, persecuted end exterminated the Buddhists, as though
this was something to be proud of. However these stories are either
exaggerations or false stories fabricated by pundits or priest craft. The
religious pundits are mere followers of religion, never having understood the
depth of Advaitic philosophy. Sri, Sankara gave religion and scholasticism and
yoga no less than philosophy, to the world.
His commentary on
Mandukya is pure philosophy, but many of his other books are presented from a
religious standpoint to help those who cannot rise up to philosophy. North India is the home of mysticism and
deification and South India of keen rational truth.
Sri, Sankara had
only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His
doctrines spread after his lifetime. His books were dictated to secretaries as
he traveled. So, only few were capable of understanding his philosophy.
Sri, Sankara
always traveled and he never lived in a monastery. He simply instructed his
disciples to build one here and there
" and then left because he was busy spreading his doctrines.
Some who followed
Sri, Sankara are mere followers of religion, never having understood the
Advaitic philosophy are religious scholars not Gnanis, and they are unable to
grasp the non-dual -truth.
Sri, Sankara says
seeker must first know what is before him. If he cannot know that, what else
can he know or understand? If he gives up the external world in his inquiry, he
cannot get the whole truth.
Some thinkers
hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know
Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya. The followers of Sri Sankara have constituted
a religious sect. Thus all movements ultimately degenerate.
In commentary to
"Brahma Sutras Sri, Sankara writes." "The highest beatitude is
not to be attained by Yoga." [Sacred Books of
East Series page 298 Vol.1.] And he also says Samadhi is the same as
sleep [p.312]. ---this indicates that yoga is not
the means to self-realization. And yogic
Samadhi is not non dual wisdom
Sri, Sankara's
commentary to Brahma Sutras [Chap.3.4.50] shows that the Gnani "should
pass through life", not run away from life and should take a middle course
between seeking worldly honor and worldly abasement.
Sri, Sankara
varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he
was amongst. He never advised them to give up their particular religion or
beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst
features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step forward towards the
truth. Sri, Sankara was extremely
precise and careful in his choice of words.
Sri, Sankara did
more than write books or initiate Sanyasins: He brought India into a unity as a
nation. He advised the mass: Worship what they wish, remain in their particular
religion, but remember also they are part of a larger whole.
Few Pundits have
caught the spirit; they are merely fond of his words. Sri, Sankara’s spirit is
that of an appeal to reason, with scripture dragged in as a second and lesser
support afterwards.
Sri, Sankara'
gave religious, ritual or dogmatic instruction to the mass but pure philosophy
only to the few who could rise to it. Hence the interpretation of his writings
by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus
they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.
Centuries have
passed since Sri, Sankara appeared; yet it is very hard to find his true
teachings understood anywhere in the world today. It is because so few could rise
to his level. Hence dualistic cults and devotional sects came in existence
prospered.
It may not have
been possible for him to have written so many books during such a short term of
existence of 32 years. The truth is that he wrote very few books. Those
actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads
and on the Gita. All other books ascribed to him were not written down by his
own hand. They are merely collections of notes recorded by his disciples from
his sayings, talk and discussions.
Sri, Sankara
wrote his commentaries on Mandukya commentary first, and then as this revealed
that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested him to write the
commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work
universally studied by Advaitins. That is why his commentary is written from a
lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and
there Sri, Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.
Since, the Hinduism
is mixer of many ideologies one gets confused which is true philosophy, because
the dual, non-dual and qualified non-dual philosophies all are based on
Vedas. And many believe their inherited
beliefs of their forefathers are pure and sacred without verifying the facts.
All rituals and individualized gods are added time to time. Only when one tries to go deeper in annals of
history one will be able to find that all the present days’ beliefs and rituals
are not part of the Santana Dharma /Vedic religion.
It is necessary for the seeker to do his
homework, and verify the validity of all the claims, rather than blindly
believe, what others expound as knowledge, till, the un-contradicted truth is
obtained.
The seeker must
have the courage of Buddha to accept the truth and reject the untruth. Since
Buddha rejected religion, idea of god and scriptures, therefore, it is evident
that, he has gone through every aspect and verified and found them to be
inadequate and useless for the pursuit of truth.
Even Buddhism is
mixed up with regional culture and traditions of the local religion, wherever
it existed. Thus to get the full essence from Buddhism is very difficult.
The Buddhist scriptures
were completely distorted by the time of Adi Sankaracharya. Adi Sankaracharya
had to criticise the Buddhist literature prevailing then as the Buddhists
themselves were confused as to what Shunyata is. Vasubandhu and his disciple
Dignaga (the latter lived about a couple of centuries before Adi Sankaracharya)
could not retain the original teachings of Lord Buddha.
At first Vasubandhu did
not agree with his half-brother Asanga and wrote one book on Abhidharma and
later on he went to the side of Asanga and wrote a second book, where? he
opposed his own earlier views on Abhidharma. Adi Sankaracharya? had to
criticise the Buddhist knowledge? and literature of his time as he wanted to
bring to us back the Pure Vedantic knowledge through his work on the
Prasthanatraya.. That is why there is reference to the writing of Dharmakirti in
Sutrabashya.
There is another aspect
that in :- Vishnu Purana also says that
Lord Buddha created confusion. In Sarnath he first taught about the Moral code
which is basic. He talked about Anatma. Then? two decades later he taught the
concept of Shunyata and? the tenets of the Mahayana Buddhism.? In spite of
Nagrjuna's telling that Shunyata is not Nihilism and that Parajanaparamita also
mentioning about the Shunyata after one leaves? the five? skandhas, there are
and there will always be people who will go on calling Buddha's philosophy as
Nihilism. About the origin of the? Tantric Buddhism also? there are
controversies.
Hindus hold Lord Buddha
being an Avatara of Lord Vishnu. It seems that in many Buddha viharas, probably
more in Sri Lanka, there are statues of Lord Vishnu, which are looked at
reverentially. by the Buddhists. Sri Ramakrishna paramhansa also says that
there is no doubt about Lord Buddha being an Avatara of Lord Vishnu. Swami
Vivakananda tells us about him very superlatively. Dr. radhakrishnan says that
he was a reformer of Hinduism. Personally I worship him as the Avatara of Lord
Vishnu.
The scriptures
are for ignorant masses, who wholly accept the material world as it presents
itself. Wisdom is for those who have begun to realize that things are not what
they seem.
Each sect
concocts a God to suit its own purposes.
Such concocted Gods have no value in pursuit of truth. Man himself suggests that there must be a
God. It is an auto-suggestion.
Prayers and
sacrifices belong to a premature stage of development. However when no answers
come to prayers, struggle for existence presses man, and doubt arises
again. Faith in religion weakens as man
pays more attention to facts of life and this world.
Reason is the
common ground for whole humanity in modern age, whereas the appeal to
scriptural relations reaches only the sects.
Those who argue that truth is only in their religion are vain logicians,
depending on mere ideas, speculations and imaginations.
Truth is bitter
pill. It becomes very difficult for the seeker to accept it at first; because
of his inherited conditioning. Gradually he will be able to grasp it as he
moves on.
The illusion is
present only in ignorance where, 'I' and you are separate entity. In truth,
there is neither 'I' nor you, nor, the illusion. Therefore there is no
teaching, no teacher, and no student in reality.
Truth pursuit is
a very personal journey. Seeker has to verify minutely on his own, “what is
truth”, and “what is not truth”, before accepting anything as truth. The
illusion exists as reality, only on base of the ego, which is he false self
within the false experience.
For Gnani, who is
aware of the fact that the self is not physical but self is consciousness,
there is no illusion, even though; he is in the midst of illusion, because he
is fully aware of the fact that, all the three states are consciousness. Therefore he is conscious of consciousness in
the midst of illusion.
The language of
the duality, invented by the within the duality, for use in the dualistic
world, when used to describe non-duality, produces these apparent
contradictions, because there no apparatus in non-duality, because noting exist
other than the soul, which is in the form of consciousness.
Non duality is
the state of oneness of existence and there is no scope for anything like
non-existence in the realm of non-dual truth.
These are my personal views in pursuit of truth and it is mere sharing
my views with the fellow seekers and is not intended to offend anybody's
religious and theoretical beliefs.
The self-knowledge has to be acquired by realizing the self is not physical but
self is the soul, which is in the form of consciousness. . Self-Knowledge is
the highest form of knowledge. However, this knowledge is not comprehensible
for everyone because of their egocentric outlook. .
Knowledge is like a path and
truth is the ultimate destination. Truth is one; knowledge varies from person
to person according to their ability to comprehend. This does not make a person
with lower knowledge "untruthful". He or She knows as much He or She
can comprehend.
If one is seriously seeking truth then it is necessary for him the drop
religion, concept of god and scriptures like Buddha and Sri, Ramana Maharshi in
order to acquire non-dual wisdom in lesser time and effort.