The Vedic Culture and Vedas are complete in themselves but Hinduism which is a non-Vedic belief system with all its ritual and conduct oriented practices has been contributed largely by the orthodox priests to suit their convenience!
Vedas are in the 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 the 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 the 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 states that the Soul attains 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 a 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 into the 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 the first century, we encounter Vedanta. Vedanta literally means “End of the Vedas,” though it is today interpreted as "the essence of Vedas."
The Vedanta 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 Heaven lies 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 castes 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 the Vedic religion.
Vedic religion was modified and reintroduced with new add-ons by Sage Sankara a great Advaita Sage 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 grandmaster of Vedas. It is impossible to accept and believe that Veda Vyasa authored and introduced Puranas which have all conceptual gods because:-
In Vedas, God has been described as:~
Rig Veda 1/164/46: ~ “They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni or the heavenly sunbird Garutmat. The seers call in many ways that which is One; they speak of Agni, Yama, Matarishvan.
Rig Veda 8/58/2: Only One is the Fire, enkindled in numerous ways; only One is the Sun, pervading this whole universe; only One is the Dawn, illuminating all things. In very truth, the One has become the whole world.
Yajurveda – chapter- 32:~ God is Supreme Spirit.
Rig Veda: ~ The Atman (Soul or Spirit) is the cause; Atman is the support of all that exists in this universe. May ye never turn away from the Atman the innermost ‘Self’. May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?" (10:48, 5)
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ~ Brahman (God) is present in the form of the Athma, and it is indeed Athma itself’.
Thus, it refers to formless and attributeless God, which is the Atman (Soul), the innermost ‘Self’ within the false experience. Thus it indicates clearly all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imagination based on the false ‘Self’. Thus Atman or Soul, the innermost ‘Self’ is God.
The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago followers of Vedism never worshiped idols. Idoworshipedwas started by the followers of Buddhism and Jains. There is logic to idol worship. Vedas speak of one God that is the supreme ‘Self’ in i.e. Atman or Soul but Hinduism indulges in worshiping 60 million Gods.
It indicates clearly all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imagination based on the false ‘Self’.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares: "He who worships the deities as entities entirely separate from him does not know the truth. For the Gods he is like a pasu (beast)". (1. 4. 10)
The Vedas as a body of scripture contains many contradictions and they are fragmentary in nature. For Hindus, scriptures like the Bhagavad-Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas are more attractive and appealing than the Vedas. And also the Gods and Goddesses they worship differ considerably from the Vedic ones. The collection of hymns called Vedas are written in praise of certain deities by poets over several centuries does not seem to have much significance for the Hindus
Whereas Vedas reveal ONE GOD but Hinduism filled with 33crores of gods Vedas reveals God as Spirit (Atman or Brahman ) and no form whereas Hinduism worships god in the form of various non-Vedic idols of gods and goddesses are barred by Vedas.
Vedas say that God does not have any form and exists 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 a 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 is the ultimate truth or Brahman or God in truth.
If people who indulge god or guru glorification are not Advaitins because they have accepted the blind belief based 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 religious believers and yogis, and exists separately from them, then there is duality, which always implies a contradiction. On the ultimate point of view God is merely a belief or an idea, a thought, an object, therefore the self or witness, contradicts 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-dualists the consciousness itself is the ultimate truth and the ultimate truth is God. Nonduality means the negation of all thought.
The 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 the 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 the Reality, because his saying so is only an idea, not reality. The 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 misleads the seekers of truth, therefore the seeker of truth has to verify the truth on his own by reason based on the consciousness as self then only accept the uncontradictable truth.
And also in Yajurveda 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 than those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol, etc.) [Yajurved 40:9]
Translation 2.
"Deep into the 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 than 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 says 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 forms and names are being propagated as Vedic gods. Why these conceptual gods are introduced when the Vedic concept of God is free from form and attributes.
Who introduced the 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 prove that the form and attribute-based concepts are introduced by some sages of the past with a 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 to go beyond religion. Go beyond religion means, go beyond the 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 history it looks like the true Advaita expounded by Sage Sankara and Sage Goudpada was lost or mutilated by the orthodox cult, because their preaching is based on nonduality and practices are based on duality.
Sage 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.
Sage 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. Sage Sankara did not seek to destroy religion like Buddha but he advocated reforming it for the 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.
Sage Sankara's sex experience in Benares and occupying the body of another man and then having sexual intercourse with his wife, is a story created by orthodox pundits hiding the real fact. Sage 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 sex is part of the illusion on the ultimate standpoint. Sage 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, Sage 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 orthodox people 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 priestcraft. The religious pundits are mere followers of religion, never having understood the depth of Advaitic philosophy. Sage Sankara gave religion and scholasticism and yoga no less than philosophy, to the world.
His commentary on Manduka 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.
Sage 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 a few were capable of understanding his philosophy.
Sage 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 Sage 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.
Sage Sankara says the 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 Sage Sankara's Upanishads Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya. The followers of Sage Sankara have constituted a religious sect. Thus all movements ultimately degenerate.
In the commentary to "Brahma Sutras Sage Sankara says:~ " "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 nondualistic wisdom.
Sage Sankara's commentary to Brahma Sutras :~ A Gnani "should pass through life", not run away from life, and should take a middle course between seeking worldly honor and worldly abasement. (Chap.3.4.50)
Sage 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. SageSri, Sankara was extremely precise and careful in his choice of words.
Sage Sankara did more than write books or initiate Sanyasins: He brought India into 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. Sage Sankara’s spirit is that of an appeal to reason, with scripture dragged in as second and lesser support afterward.
Sage Sankara gave religious, ritual, or dogmatic instruction to the mass but pure wisdom 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 Sage 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 into 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.
Sage Sankara wrote his commentaries on Manduka 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 Hinduism is the 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 from time to time. Only when one tries to go deeper in the 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 uncontradictable truth is obtained.
The seeker must have the courage of Buddha to accept the truth and reject the untruth. Since Buddha rejected religion, the 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 of Buddhism is very difficult.
The Buddhist scriptures were completely distorted by the time of Sage Sankara. Sage Sankara had to criticize 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 Sri, Sankara) 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 criticize the Buddhist knowledge? and literature of his time as he wanted to bring us back the Pure Vedantic knowledge through his work on the Prasthanatraya. That is why there is a reference to the writing of Dharmakirti in Sutrabashya.
There is another aspect that:~ Vishnu Purana also says that Lord Buddha created confusion. In Sarnath, he first taught about the basic Moral code. He talked about Anatma. Then? two decades later he taught the concept of Shunyata and? the tenets of the Mahayana Buddhism.? Despite Nagarjuna'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 Vivekananda 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.
Religion, yoga, and 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. The 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, the 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. :~Santthosh Kumaar
