The karma theory is meant for those who are immersed in worldly life thinking the individual life within the practical world as reality.

The karma theory is meant for those who are immersed in worldly life thinking the individual life within the practicle world as reality. In path of truth the karma theory becomes a great obstacle in realizing the truth. 

When the self is neither the body nor the ego, neither the waking entity not the dream entity, then how the karma based on the false self within the false experience can yield fruits.  Therefore, karma is a religious fable.

The karma theory is reality only for those who believe their present physical identity (ego or waking entity) as real, and world as reality. When the Sri, Sankara declares the world itself is illusion, and Brahman is real, then what value the karma theory has when the world is illusion, because man is part and parcel of the illusory world. Therefore, one has to view and judge the worldview on the standpoint of Brahman (Atman or soul) in order to overcome the duality, which he is experiencing it as reality.   

The individuality is reality within the illusory world. Therefore, all the theories created within the illusion on the base of false entity, within the false experience, has to be the part and parcel of the illusion.  Thus it is necessary to realize the fact that Atman is the true self and all else is illusion, to overcome the illusory concept of cycle of birth, life and death.  Thus to understand and assimilate Sri, Sankara’s Advaitic truth, seeker  has to  do his own home work through inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true base, without mixing religion, scriptures, theories  concept of god and yoga.

Sage Sri Sankara  says in Aparokshanubhuti:-

   88. When the whole universe, movable and immovable, is known to be Atman, and thus the existence of everything else is negated, where is then any room to say that the body is Atman?

   89. O enlightened one, pass your time always contemplating on Atman while you are experiencing all the results of Prarabdha; for it ill becomes you to feel distressed.

   90. The theory one hears of from the scripture, that Prarabdha does not lose its hold upon one even after the origination of the knowledge of Atman, is now being refuted.

   91. After the origination of the knowledge of Reality, Prarabdha verily ceases to exist, inasmuch as the body and the like become non-existent; just as a dream does not exist on waking.

   92. That Karma which is done in a previous life is known as Prarabdha (which produces the present life). But such Karma cannot take the place of Prarabdha (for a man of knowledge), as he has no other birth (being free from ego).

   93. Just as the body in a dream is superimposed (and therefore illusory), so is also this body. How could there be any birth of the superimposed (body), and in the absence of birth (of the body) where is the room for that (i.e., Prarabdha) at all ?

   94. The Vedanta texts declare ignorance to be verily the material (cause) of the phenomenal world just as earth is of a jar. That (ignorance) being destroyed, where can the universe subsist ?

   95. Just as a person out of confusion perceives only the snake leaving aside the rope, so does an ignorant person see only the phenomenal world without knowing the reality?

   96. The real nature of the rope being known, the appearance of the snake no longer persists; so the substratum being known, the phenomenal world disappears completely.

   97. The body also being within the phenomenal world (and therefore unreal), how could Prarabdha exist ? It is, therefore, for the understanding of the ignorant alone that the Shruti speaks of Prarabdha.

   98. “And all the actions of a man perish when he realizes that (Atman) which is both the higher and the lower”. Here the clear use of the plural by the Shruti is to negate Prarabdha as well.

   99. If the ignorant still arbitrarily maintain this, they will not only involve themselves into two absurdities but will also run the risk of forgoing the Vedantic conclusion. So one should accept those Shrutis alone from which proceeds true knowledge.

The above proves that the karma is reality only on the base of false self, where one thinks body and the universes as reality. When one becomes aware of the fact that, the true self is formless soul, then the karma becomes part and parcel of illusion.   My point is that, if one accepts the karma theory as reality, he will never be able to come out of the ignorance. And ignorance makes him believe the cycle of birth, life and death as reality.  Thus the freedom which one is seeking will remain distant dream. For the one who accepts the birth life and death as reality, Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana  is impossible.

Inborn samskara or conditioning , parental grooming is the main cause of religious influence upon the mass mind-set and it cannot be wiped out without knowing the truth of one’s true existence

People are making unlimited sacrifices and enduring unlimited suffering in the name of protecting their religion and god. They are therefore ignorant about the truth and incapable of understanding the ultimate truth, which is universal god. All organized religions have unequivocally claimed man for the life in the truth; thus it is sheer folly to fight in the name of religion and god. 

It is time that humanity had a fresh vision of truth that the mind, which is in the form of universe, is myth and consciousness is the only thing that is real and that matters.  On the base of consciousness as self, the physical life is a vain and empty pursuit of illusory values. 

Inborn samskara or conditioning , parental grooming  is the main cause of religious influence upon the mass mind-set and it cannot be wiped out without knowing the truth of one’s true existence. Thus, teaching children to view and judge everything on religious point of view by their parents, which warps the minds and destroys the capacity to think beyond the belief system of their grooming.

People who are yearning for spiritual truth will not find it what they are seeking for. Religious truth is individual truth and it is not universal truth because the religion is based on individuality. 

As one goes in deeper investigation find nothing satisfying in any religion.  The more he learns of any religious doctrine they become aware of the fact that, the religion is not the means for self-realization because the true ‘Self” is not the form but the true self is formless.  The religion is based on the false self [ego] and false experience [universe]. Religion takes the false self as real self and false experience as reality. Thus whatever is based on the false self and false experience is bound to be falsehood.     

The obsession with "our sins" having been "washed away by water of river  would be regarded as evidence of a serious mental illness in an individual within any sane society, but when this is an obsession of millions of people it becomes "religious faith", held by many others to be something that should never be criticized.

It was desperately important for the believers of their belief system for some reason that others shared their beliefs because they assume that their religious doctrine is literally true, and then justify their beliefs because "God says so in their doctrine ".

It is no use of arguing with someone who has faith in his belief system because for him there can be no possible refutation of what he believes, so rational argument is entirely useless. He clings to his belief so strongly that he makes no distinction between the truth and his belief. One has to know the fact that god cannot exist without his existence. The truth does not depend on gods’ existence but it entirely depends on man’s existence.   Thus it is foolish to venture in knowing the truth of gods existence without verifying the facts about his own existence. 

Deeper inquiry revel the fact that, the self is   neither the body, nor the ego.  If the self is not the body nor the ego  then  it proves the fact that, whatever is seen, known, believed and experienced on the base of the  self as body or ego is bound to be false hood.  Thus arguing on the standpoint of the body or ego, which is not the “self”, is erroneous.  Thus the whole argument has to be based on the true self, which is not the body or ego.   Thus it is necessary to realize the fact that, the “self” is not the form but the “self” is formless in order to realize the Advaitic truth.  

A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the world of the Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the Seer.

It is no use arguing Buddha is wrong or Sri Sankara is right, but where we are going wrong in our understanding the non-dual truth, propagated by the great sages of the past.  Some say, that without the sunyvada, Advaita philosophy could not have come into existence; Because Advaita starts from where sunyavada ends.  That is why they say it is extension of Buddhism.  If Advaita existed prior to Buddha, he would not have advocated sunyavada at all because Advaita is final and ultimate truth. 

Since the Buddhist and Vedic scriptures have been passed down by hearing. They were written down only relatively late. So one wouldn’t know whether to rely on the times they give. Also, a lot depends on the translation. Each 'Shloka' or sutta is open to many layers of interpretation.

As per the religious archeologists view: the date of Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9^th century. Some claims are made in India that he lived two thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim.  They do not go back farther than the 12th century A.D. and that all so-called evidences for Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ are either were conjectures or Pundit's fabrication.

Regarding the question of Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not die, at the age of 32 but disappeared into a cave. This is another Pundit's story which is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.

As one go in to the annals of the history, one becomes aware of the fact that; the spiritual Advaita is mixed up with punditry.  Therefore there is a need to do his own research in order to know the true essence of Advaita of Sage  Sri,Sankara and Sage  Sri, Gudapada and emptiness of Buddha . 

 How it was possible for Sri, Sankara to have written so many books during such a short term of existence. The fact 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, talks and discussions. Fourthly Sri, Sankara's own Guru was named Sri, Govinda and he lived near Indore. When Sri,Sankara wrote his commentary on the Mandukya his guru was so pleased with it that he took his disciple  to the Himalayas to visit his own Sri, Guru who was named Sri, Goudapada. Only when the latter agreed that the commentary was perfect did Sri, Govinda release his disciple to start his own mission of teaching.

Sri, Sankara wrote his 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 throughout India. 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.

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 few therefore were capable of understanding his philosophy.

Nearly all Bengal thinkers hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sri, Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya. Sri, Sankara wrote his Mandukya commentary on a beautifully situated island called Omkaresvar, border of Indore State, where Cauvery and Narbadha rivers meet. On this island there is also a tomb of Sri,Govinda, his guru.

Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give 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.

In Brahma Sutras Sage Sri,  Sankara says 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.

Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.

The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But nobody knows or has seen Brahman. If we say "All this is wood" and show a piece of wood, the words are understandable. Suppose you have never seen wood. Then what is the use of such a sentence? It becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none. Hence the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is X". Both have no meaning so long as they are not understood, if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason that I say the book is intended for theological minds, because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.

A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the world of the Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the Seer. Vedanta never negates the seer, only the seen. Scriptural mastery is not wisdom.

As one goes deeper in the subject one becomes aware of the fact that the religion, scriptures and concept of god is nothing to do with spiritual  side of Advaita, the present religious based Advaitic knowledge and theories is meant for the mass, who hold the religion as high, not the truth, because religion is based on the form (ego or waking entity)and they view and judge and argue on the base of body (ego or waking entity) as self,  but spiritual Advaita is based on the formless [soul] and it negates everything other then the soul.

 Sage Ramana Maharishi  said:   All the conceptual divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from which they all arise.   It is better follow the direct path of Ramana, instead of going all around and coming to same point (soul or /Atman).