Rig-Veda 1-164-46 and Y.V 32-1 clearly mention that God is “One”; wise men call Brahman by different names. The souls in all human beings are the subtle particles (ansh) of the same Supreme Soul- Paramatma.
The Hindus believed in polytheism, believing all of their Gods to be separate individuals, which was introduced much later by the founders of Hinduism which contains diverse beliefs caste, and creed.
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.
Vedic religion was modified and reintroduced with new add-ons by Sage Sankara a great Advaita Master to uplift the Vedic culture and Santana Dharma, which were in ruins in the clutches of Buddhism. 18 Puranas are introduced in the name of Veda Vyasa not by Sage Sankara but by someone else because the Puranic gods are non-Vedic Gods. Worship of Such gods has been barred in Vedas.
As one goes deeper into the annals of 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 whereas in the Vedas the God has been described as v Sakshi (Witness) v Chetan (conscious)v Nirguna (Without form and properties). v Nitya (eternal) v Shuddha (pure) v Buddha (omniscient) v Mukta (unattached).
The nature of the Atman (Soul) is:~v Witness v conscious v Without form and properties v eternal v pure v omniscient v unattached
It refers to the formless and attributeless God, which is the Atman (Soul), the Self within the false experience. Thus it indicates clearly all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imaginations based on the false self. Thus Atman or Soul, the Self is God. thus all the gods of Hinduism today are not of Vedic origin. thus one must know the fact that Hinduism is not Vedic religion or Sanatana Dharma to come out of the prison of superstition, myth, and dogmas.
Genuine philosophy must be independent of religion, that in Sage Sankara himself the Saguna Brahman or a personal God is only a part of the phenomenal (if not illusory) world, and the Nirguna Brahman is the only reality and has nothing to do with religion. The main hurdle in his way of thinking is the fact that Sage Sankara did not claim to be an original thinker at all, and his philosophy took the form of commentaries on the generality of Hindu scriptures, particularly the Upanishads and the Gita.
Sage Sankara was an independent thinker. His philosophy has not been taken seriously by many in India because most of the followers of Sage Sankara are orthodox. It is that philosophy in India was for centuries more an exposition of the ancient classics than the independent thought of individual thinkers as in ancient Greece or modern Europe and America.
The doctrine of Avatara and the caste system are not Vedic in origin. The theory of Avatara (‘descend’) of gods which is very important to modern Hinduism is a non-Vedic. The term Avatara […] is not found in the earlier Vedic texts, and is absent from the older Sanskrit glossaries.”
The caste system which is so integral to Hinduism was also not practiced in the Vedic times. There is hardly any evidence of a rigid caste system in the Vedas. It is argued that the purushasukta hymn of the Rig Veda (X.90) which is often referred to give a religious sanction to the caste system, was a later interpolation.
The Vedas, however, speak of various classes of people, which appear to have been names of professions, and they were not hereditary.“The very concept of castes by birth, upper/lower castes, superior/inferior castes, outcasts, untouchables, Dalits, etc. are clearly prohibited by Rigveda”
The taboo on cow slaughter is not Vedic in origin. The taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in Vedic times. Criteria like taboo on beef-eating or belief in reincarnation might stamp the Vedic seers as non-Hindus”. The question of whether the Vedic people practiced cow slaughter is debated among Hindu traditionalists.
The cow was a sacred animal that the authors of the Vedas sacrificed cows and ate beef on special occasions. This argument only substantiates the view that the cow was not an inviolable animal and that beef-eating was not a taboo in Vedic times. As is clear from the above, several aspects that are intrinsic to the Hinduism of today, such as the doctrine of re-incarnation, avatars (‘descent’) of gods, caste system, the taboo on cow slaughter, and beef-eating were absent in the Vedic religion. It was shown by a critical study of the Vedas that the Aryans had no developed idea of the caste system, (.…) The taboo on the use of beef was shown to be of later origin, that the cow was freely killed for ceremonial and other purposes in ancient India”.
Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is distinct from Hinduism.T Vedic religion or Santana Dharma deserves to be treated on its own as a distinct religion with its own sacred texts, rites, rules of social life, beliefs, and practices without inter-linking it with Hinduism. Perhaps it is right to maintain that the Mimamsa School which is concerned with the investigation of the Vedic texts, their correct interpretation, and the meticulous performance of the Vedic rituals and ceremonies has preserved and defended a part of the heritage of the Vedic tradition.
The Vedanta school also may have received a part of the inspiration from the Vedas. For the rest of the Hindu philosophical schools and religious sects, the influence of the Vedas is nominal. However, in as much as elements from the Vedas have influenced some aspects of Hinduism, it may be considered as one of the many factors influencing modern Hinduism.
But by no means can it be maintained that Hinduism has its direct ancestry in the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma. Therefore, Hinduism of Vedic times is an imagined community. Hinduism is of a much later origin, and a historical view of Indian religions would endorse a dichotomy between the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma and contemporary Hinduism.
Hinduism does not have a long ancestry as is often presumed or propagated by the Hindu ideologues. In fact, historically, religions like Buddhism and Jainism can claim greater antiquity than the Hinduism of today. Hinduism began to take a systematic form from the time of Sage Sankara (8th century A.D). In this sense, he may be considered the ‘founder’ of Hinduism.
Hinduism came into existence with its own code of conduct beliefs, and rituals after the 8th century. Hinduism as one knows it today is of recent origin. He states: “Hinduism did not really achieve its status as a coherent, though still baffling, religious complex until after the establishment of the British rule in India.
In discussing the Vedic religion it is also to be remembered that in the course of history, many non-Aryan elements entered the Vedic religion. The Vedic Aryans freely borrowed elements from the culture and the society around them. But we cannot say with precision, which are the non-Aryan elements in the Vedic religion. Therefore, the thesis of the direct ancestry of Hinduism today from the Vedic religion is to be considered a myth propagated by orthodoxy.
The word Brahman means ultimate truth or reality which cannot be indicated by any word. The Brahman can be expressed through silence because it is beyond the experience of form, time, and space. Therefore, the word Brahma clearly stands for the essence of the three states, which is consciousness only. The final use of the pursuit of truth is to know that self is consciousness.
Sage Sankara opposed the Buddhists only, who misunderstood Bhagavan Buddha and became atheists. According to Sage Sankara meditation always means a critical analysis of the Self to get salvation from worldly tensions. Due to the eccentric ego of the then atheists, Sage Sri, Sankara did not go beyond this since the atheists will not accept God beyond themselves. This limitation is not due to limited knowledge of Sage Sankara but is due to the then-existing situation of the psychology of the surrounding society. Even Bhagavan Buddha kept silent about God because the society dealt with by Him consisted of Purvamimamsakas, who were strong atheists. Bhagavan Buddha told us that everything including the self is only relatively real (Sunya). This is correct because the self is a part of the universe, which is relatively real with respect to the absolute unimaginable God. Bhagavan Buddha stopped at this point because atheists cannot realize the existence of the unimaginable God indicated through His silence. The point of Bhagavan Buddha is that if God is non-existent, the entire creation including the Self is non-existent. Sage Sankara wanted to establish the existence of the Brahman. For this purpose, He made the Atman as Brahman. He brought out the identity of self with consciousness and made The Atman the Brahman. Since one will not negate the existence of himself, he will accept the existence of the Brahman, which is the Atman or Soul, the innermost self. Both Bhagavan Buddha and Sage Sankara kept silent about the absolute unimaginable God. The same philosophy was dealt with by them from different angles in different situations.
Sage Sankara believed that those of superior intelligence, have no need of this idea of divine causality, and can, therefore, dispense with Sruti and arrive at the truth of Non-Dualism by pure reason.
Sage Sankara’s supreme Brahman is Nirguna (without the Gunas), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without attributes), and Akarta (non-agent). He is above all needs and desires.
Sage Sankara says, "This Atman is self-evident. This Atman or Self is not established by proofs of the existence of the Self. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it. Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge.
The Self is within, the Self is without, the Self is before and the Self is behind. The Self is on the right hand, the Self is on the left, the Self is above and the Self is below"
Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam-Anandam-are, not separate attributes. They form the very essence of Brahman. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than He.
The objective world-the world of names and forms-has no independent existence. The Atman alone has real existence. The world is only phenomenal.
Sage Sankara was the exponent of the Advaitic wisdom. His wisdom can be summed up in the following words:-
Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya,
Jeevo Brahmaiva Na Aparah
Brahman alone is real, this world is unreal; the Jiva is identical to Brahman.
Sage Sankara said: ~ Just as the snake is superimposed on the rope, this world and this body are superimposed on Brahman or the Soul, the Self. If one gets knowledge of the rope, the illusion of the snake will vanish. Even so, if he gets knowledge of Brahman, the illusion of the body and the world will vanish.
The snake is only an idea: it disappears on inquiry but deeper self-search reveals the fact that the rope is also an idea and its reality will be exposed when wisdom dawns. There is neither a snake nor a rope in reality because from the ultimate standpoint the duality is merely an illusion created out of consciousness.
Consciousness is the root element of the universe. From consciousness, the universe comes into existence. In consciousness, the universe resides. And into consciousness, the universe is dissolved. Consciousness is the parent of all that is there.
Consciousness is the only reality, and the universe too but an illusory manifestation.
The Veda serves only as the starting point. What one has to learn from Veda must be understood through the exercise of reason, as far as reason might go. And what one has understood must be realized in one’s life.
It is not that one should pore over the ancient scriptures. There is no need to study first and then realize. One has to realize first then only he will know ‘what is the truth’ and ‘what is untruth’.
The witness merely registers the presence or absence of the three states. Three states are not experienced by the waking entity, but it becomes an experience only in the realm of ignorance.:~Santthosh Kumaar
Rig-Veda 1-164-46 and Y.V 32-1 clearly mention that God is “One”; wise men call Brahman by different names. The souls in all human beings are the subtle particles (ansh) of the same Supreme Soul- Paramatma.
The Hindus believed in polytheism, believing all of their Gods to be separate individuals, which was introduced much later by the founders of Hinduism which contains diverse beliefs caste, and creed.
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.
Vedic religion was modified and reintroduced with new add-ons by Sage Sankara a great Advaita Master to uplift the Vedic culture and Santana Dharma, which were in ruins in the clutches of Buddhism. 18 Puranas are introduced in the name of Veda Vyasa not by Sage Sankara but by someone else because the Puranic gods are non-Vedic Gods. Worship of Such gods has been barred in Vedas.
As one goes deeper into the annals of 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 whereas in the Vedas the God has been described as v Sakshi (Witness) v Chetan (conscious)v Nirguna (Without form and properties). v Nitya (eternal) v Shuddha (pure) v Buddha (omniscient) v Mukta (unattached).
The nature of the Atman (Soul) is:~v Witness v conscious v Without form and properties v eternal v pure v omniscient v unattached
It refers to the formless and attributeless God, which is the Atman (Soul), the Self within the false experience. Thus it indicates clearly all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imaginations based on the false self. Thus Atman or Soul, the Self is God. thus all the gods of Hinduism today are not of Vedic origin. thus one must know the fact that Hinduism is not Vedic religion or Sanatana Dharma to come out of the prison of superstition, myth, and dogmas.
It refers to the formless and attributeless God, which is the Atman (Soul), the Self within the false experience. Thus it indicates clearly all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imaginations based on the false self. Thus Atman or Soul, the Self is God. thus all the gods of Hinduism today are not of Vedic origin. thus one must know the fact that Hinduism is not Vedic religion or Sanatana Dharma to come out of the prison of superstition, myth, and dogmas.
Genuine philosophy must be independent of religion, that in Sage Sankara himself the Saguna Brahman or a personal God is only a part of the phenomenal (if not illusory) world, and the Nirguna Brahman is the only reality and has nothing to do with religion. The main hurdle in his way of thinking is the fact that Sage Sankara did not claim to be an original thinker at all, and his philosophy took the form of commentaries on the generality of Hindu scriptures, particularly the Upanishads and the Gita.
Sage Sankara was an independent thinker. His philosophy has not been taken seriously by many in India because most of the followers of Sage Sankara are orthodox. It is that philosophy in India was for centuries more an exposition of the ancient classics than the independent thought of individual thinkers as in ancient Greece or modern Europe and America.
The doctrine of Avatara and the caste system are not Vedic in origin. The theory of Avatara (‘descend’) of gods which is very important to modern Hinduism is a non-Vedic. The term Avatara […] is not found in the earlier Vedic texts, and is absent from the older Sanskrit glossaries.”
The caste system which is so integral to Hinduism was also not practiced in the Vedic times. There is hardly any evidence of a rigid caste system in the Vedas. It is argued that the purushasukta hymn of the Rig Veda (X.90) which is often referred to give a religious sanction to the caste system, was a later interpolation.
The Vedas, however, speak of various classes of people, which appear to have been names of professions, and they were not hereditary.“The very concept of castes by birth, upper/lower castes, superior/inferior castes, outcasts, untouchables, Dalits, etc. are clearly prohibited by Rigveda”
The taboo on cow slaughter is not Vedic in origin. The taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in Vedic times. Criteria like taboo on beef-eating or belief in reincarnation might stamp the Vedic seers as non-Hindus”. The question of whether the Vedic people practiced cow slaughter is debated among Hindu traditionalists.
The cow was a sacred animal that the authors of the Vedas sacrificed cows and ate beef on special occasions. This argument only substantiates the view that the cow was not an inviolable animal and that beef-eating was not a taboo in Vedic times. As is clear from the above, several aspects that are intrinsic to the Hinduism of today, such as the doctrine of re-incarnation, avatars (‘descent’) of gods, caste system, the taboo on cow slaughter, and beef-eating were absent in the Vedic religion. It was shown by a critical study of the Vedas that the Aryans had no developed idea of the caste system, (.…) The taboo on the use of beef was shown to be of later origin, that the cow was freely killed for ceremonial and other purposes in ancient India”.
Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is distinct from Hinduism.T Vedic religion or Santana Dharma deserves to be treated on its own as a distinct religion with its own sacred texts, rites, rules of social life, beliefs, and practices without inter-linking it with Hinduism. Perhaps it is right to maintain that the Mimamsa School which is concerned with the investigation of the Vedic texts, their correct interpretation, and the meticulous performance of the Vedic rituals and ceremonies has preserved and defended a part of the heritage of the Vedic tradition.
The Vedanta school also may have received a part of the inspiration from the Vedas. For the rest of the Hindu philosophical schools and religious sects, the influence of the Vedas is nominal. However, in as much as elements from the Vedas have influenced some aspects of Hinduism, it may be considered as one of the many factors influencing modern Hinduism.
But by no means can it be maintained that Hinduism has its direct ancestry in the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma. Therefore, Hinduism of Vedic times is an imagined community. Hinduism is of a much later origin, and a historical view of Indian religions would endorse a dichotomy between the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma and contemporary Hinduism.
Hinduism does not have a long ancestry as is often presumed or propagated by the Hindu ideologues. In fact, historically, religions like Buddhism and Jainism can claim greater antiquity than the Hinduism of today. Hinduism began to take a systematic form from the time of Sage Sankara (8th century A.D). In this sense, he may be considered the ‘founder’ of Hinduism.
Hinduism came into existence with its own code of conduct beliefs, and rituals after the 8th century. Hinduism as one knows it today is of recent origin. He states: “Hinduism did not really achieve its status as a coherent, though still baffling, religious complex until after the establishment of the British rule in India.
In discussing the Vedic religion it is also to be remembered that in the course of history, many non-Aryan elements entered the Vedic religion. The Vedic Aryans freely borrowed elements from the culture and the society around them. But we cannot say with precision, which are the non-Aryan elements in the Vedic religion. Therefore, the thesis of the direct ancestry of Hinduism today from the Vedic religion is to be considered a myth propagated by orthodoxy.
The word Brahman means ultimate truth or reality which cannot be indicated by any word. The Brahman can be expressed through silence because it is beyond the experience of form, time, and space. Therefore, the word Brahma clearly stands for the essence of the three states, which is consciousness only. The final use of the pursuit of truth is to know that self is consciousness.
Sage Sankara opposed the Buddhists only, who misunderstood Bhagavan Buddha and became atheists. According to Sage Sankara meditation always means a critical analysis of the Self to get salvation from worldly tensions. Due to the eccentric ego of the then atheists, Sage Sri, Sankara did not go beyond this since the atheists will not accept God beyond themselves. This limitation is not due to limited knowledge of Sage Sankara but is due to the then-existing situation of the psychology of the surrounding society. Even Bhagavan Buddha kept silent about God because the society dealt with by Him consisted of Purvamimamsakas, who were strong atheists. Bhagavan Buddha told us that everything including the self is only relatively real (Sunya). This is correct because the self is a part of the universe, which is relatively real with respect to the absolute unimaginable God. Bhagavan Buddha stopped at this point because atheists cannot realize the existence of the unimaginable God indicated through His silence. The point of Bhagavan Buddha is that if God is non-existent, the entire creation including the Self is non-existent. Sage Sankara wanted to establish the existence of the Brahman. For this purpose, He made the Atman as Brahman. He brought out the identity of self with consciousness and made The Atman the Brahman. Since one will not negate the existence of himself, he will accept the existence of the Brahman, which is the Atman or Soul, the innermost self. Both Bhagavan Buddha and Sage Sankara kept silent about the absolute unimaginable God. The same philosophy was dealt with by them from different angles in different situations.
Sage Sankara believed that those of superior intelligence, have no need of this idea of divine causality, and can, therefore, dispense with Sruti and arrive at the truth of Non-Dualism by pure reason.
Sage Sankara’s supreme Brahman is Nirguna (without the Gunas), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without attributes), and Akarta (non-agent). He is above all needs and desires.
Sage Sankara says, "This Atman is self-evident. This Atman or Self is not established by proofs of the existence of the Self. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it. Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge.
The Self is within, the Self is without, the Self is before and the Self is behind. The Self is on the right hand, the Self is on the left, the Self is above and the Self is below"
Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam-Anandam-are, not separate attributes. They form the very essence of Brahman. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than He.
The objective world-the world of names and forms-has no independent existence. The Atman alone has real existence. The world is only phenomenal.
Sage Sankara was the exponent of the Advaitic wisdom. His wisdom can be summed up in the following words:-
Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya,
Jeevo Brahmaiva Na Aparah
Brahman alone is real, this world is unreal; the Jiva is identical to Brahman.
Sage Sankara said: ~ Just as the snake is superimposed on the rope, this world and this body are superimposed on Brahman or the Soul, the Self. If one gets knowledge of the rope, the illusion of the snake will vanish. Even so, if he gets knowledge of Brahman, the illusion of the body and the world will vanish.
The snake is only an idea: it disappears on inquiry but deeper self-search reveals the fact that the rope is also an idea and its reality will be exposed when wisdom dawns. There is neither a snake nor a rope in reality because from the ultimate standpoint the duality is merely an illusion created out of consciousness.
Consciousness is the root element of the universe. From consciousness, the universe comes into existence. In consciousness, the universe resides. And into consciousness, the universe is dissolved. Consciousness is the parent of all that is there.
Consciousness is the only reality, and the universe too but an illusory manifestation.
The Veda serves only as the starting point. What one has to learn from Veda must be understood through the exercise of reason, as far as reason might go. And what one has understood must be realized in one’s life.
It is not that one should pore over the ancient scriptures. There is no need to study first and then realize. One has to realize first then only he will know ‘what is the truth’ and ‘what is untruth’.
The witness merely registers the presence or absence of the three states. Three states are not experienced by the waking entity, but it becomes an experience only in the realm of ignorance.:~Santthosh Kumaar
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.