Sage Sankara’s missions was to wean people away from a ritualistic approach and to project wisdom (Gnana) as the means of liberation.+

One of Sage Sankara’s missions was to wean people away from a ritualistic approach advocated by Mimamsakas and to project wisdom (Gnana) as the means of liberation in the light of Upanishad teachings.

Sage Sankara criticized severely the ritualistic attitude and those who advocated such practices. However, the Orthodox texts that combined rituals with wisdom (jnana_karma_samucchaya) more in favor of the Mimamsaka position came into vogue, projecting favor of the Mimamsaka position came into vogue, projecting Sage  Sankara as the rallying force of the doctrine.

That is why Adhyasa Bhashya of Sage Sankara:~:~ (11) As regards the rituals, Sage  Sankara says, the person who performs rituals and aspires for rewards will view himself in terms of the caste into which he is born, his age, the stage of his life, his standing in society, etc. In addition, he is required to perform rituals all through his life. However, the 'Self' has none of those attributes or tags. Hence, the person who superimposes all those attributes on the changeless, eternal Self and identifies the Self with the body is a confusing one for the other; and is, therefore, an ignorant person. The scriptures dealing with rituals, rewards, etc. are therefore addressed to an ignorant person. 

The rituals mentioned in the karmakanda of the Vedas are sought to be negated in the jnanakanda which is also part of the same scripture. While the karmakanda enjoins upon you the worship of various deities and lays down rules for the same, the jnanakanda constituted by the Upanishads ridicules the worshipper of deities as a dim-witted person no better than a beast.

This seems strange, the latter part of the Vedas contradicting the former part. The first part deals with karma, while the second or concluding part is all about jnana. Owing to this difference, people have gone so far as to divide our scripture into two sections: the Vedas (that is the first part) to mean the karmakanda and the Upanishads (Vedanta) to mean the jnanakanda.

 Lord Krishna teaches us in the Gita and in it, he lashes out against the karmakanda. It is generally believed that the Buddha and Mahavira were the first to attack the Vedas. It is not so. Lord Krishna himself’ spoke against them long before Bhagavan Buddha and Mahavira.

As indicated in ISH Upanishads: ~ By worshipping Gods and Goddesses you will go after death to the world of Gods and Goddesses. But will that help you? The time you spent there is wasted because if you were not there you could have spent that time moving forward towards Self-knowledge, which is your goal. In the world of Gods and Goddesses, you cannot do that, and thus you go deeper and deeper into darkness.

It clearly indicates that: ` If the human goal is to acquire Self-Knowledge then why does one has to indulge in rituals and glorifying the conceptual Gods, Goddesses, and Gurus to go into deeper darkness. Instead, spend that time moving forward towards Self-knowledge, which is one’s prime goal. 

Understanding what is God is not so easy. Religious people can only imagine God based on their beliefs.

From the Vedic perspective, Lord Krishna is not a Vedic God because Rig Veda says:   May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?"

That is why Lord Krishna says Ch ~V: ~ “Those who know the Self in truth.". The last two words (tattvataha) are usually ignored by pundits, but they make all the difference between the ordinary concept of God and the truth about God.

Bhagavad Gita: ~ brahmano hi pratisthaham ~ Brahman (God in truth) is considered the all-pervading consciousness which is the basis of all the animate and inanimate entities and material. (14.27)

It proves that the all-pervading Atman, which is present in the form of consciousness, is God.   Thus, worshipping the form-based Gods is meant for the ignorant populace who are incapable of realizing the truth, which is beyond form, time, and space. 

The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago followers of Vedism never worshiped idols. Idol worship was 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 the Soul, but Hinduism indulges in worshiping 60 million Gods.

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, and 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.)

Yajur Veda – chapter- 32:~ God is Supreme Spirit has no ‘Pratima’ (idol) or material shape. He cannot be seen directly by anyone. He pervades all beings and all directions. Thus,   Idolatry does not find any support from the Vedas.

Rig Veda: ~ The Atman is the cause; Atman is the support of all that exists in this universe. May ye never turn away from the Atman, the Self. May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?" (10:48, 5)

Rig-Veda 1-164-46 and Y.V 32-1 clearly mention that God is “One”.

Rig Veda declares God is ‘ONE’ and God is Atman, then why believe and worship in place of the real God.

Brihad Upanishad: ~ “If you think there is another entity, whether man or God there is no truth."

When Upanishad itself declares: ~   Sarvam khalvidam brahma ~ all this (universe) is verily Brahman. By following back all of the relative appearances in the world, we eventually return to that from which it is all manifest – the non-dual reality (Chandogya Upanishad). 

Even Sage Sankara’s Supreme Brahman (God) is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal, and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as it is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other besides it. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described because the description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not a distinction between substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitutes the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes. The Nirguna Brahman of Sage  Sankara is impersonal.

Sage  Sankara: ~"That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman  (God) ~ that thou art."

Sage Sankara’s Nirguna Brahman is based on Vedas. The Saguna Brahman has no Vedic sanction.

Thus, it clearly indicates that Vedic God is without the form and attributes and ever free.   Vedic Gods, hardly have any significance in the present-day Hindu belief system. The Gods and Goddesses important to the Hindus of today are Ram, Krishna, Kali, Ganesh, Hanuman, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and the respective consorts of the last three, namely, Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Shakti. None of these deities figured prominently in the Vedic pantheon and some of them are clearly non-Vedic.:~Santthosh Kumaar