Hinduism has drifted miles away from the Vedic faith, so that the two seem to be two distinct faiths.+

About 2500 years ago Buddha setting in motion the wheel of the law and proclaiming the four Noble truths and the eightfold path.

There is an extraordinary tolerance of Buddhism, especially if compared to other religions. Buddhism has always been tolerant; it has never resorted to neither the fire nor the sword.

Even in Buddhism: - Buddhist teaching has itself become a kind of interactive and Self-evolving process, much like its idea of pratityasamutpada. However, the end goal is still Nirvana, which is an experience ultimately beyond all concepts and language, even beyond the Buddhist teachings. In the end, even the attachment to the Dharma, the Buddhist teaching, must be dropped like all other attachments. The tradition compares the teaching to a raft upon which one crosses a swift river to get to the other side; once one is on the far shore; there is no longer any need to carry the raft. The far shore is Nirvana, and it is also said that when one arrives, one can see quite clearly that there was never any river at all.

Many wars, violence, and terrorism are still today taking place in the name of some religion or God.

A truth seeker can be a Hindu, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish, Islam or any other religion because the truth is beyond the form, time, and space.  The religion is based on the form, time and space and birth, life, death, and the world.  Thus, religion is nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman or God; because the real God is the formless, timeless and spaceless existence. 

That is why Buddha said:~ Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. 

First of all the orthodox indulge in non-~Vedic ritual and worship and worship of the deities.

All Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practice barred by the Vedas introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism at a different time, whereas the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is ancient and has no founder.

As we peep into the Indian religious history: ~

D. PAGAN VAGARIES OF ŚIVA-MYTHS GREW BY LEAPS & BOUND FOLLOWING THE ARYAN- MANIFESTATIONS OF NON-ARYAN ŚIVA

Indus Siva’s brief period is sandwiched between vastnesses of two pagan worlds:~

(I)               The older Gods of Indus,

Later

(II)             Devas of Vedism, Jainism and Buddhism. .

Śiva belongs to the pre-Aryan period of ancient India, hence non-Aryan by origin. Pānini sutra (V, 2.76) informed that Śiva was a popular deity outside the Vedic religion.

Śiva has a family background obscured in pre-Vedic past but still, there are living claims of his ancestry; even today some ancient tribes like Chenchus and Malavans in South India consider him as an ancestor of their tribes.

There are yet living traces from Alvar Tamils like Nath-muni (Saivite), his successor Ramanuja, and his follower Venkatanatha (b.1268) - who informed us Santana Dharmic ‘Prapatti' (surrender to the will of God).

This Nath-muni must not be equated with the heterodox Nath tradition of Siddhas and their sub-sects founded by Matsyendranath, whose primary aim is to achieve liberation (jivanmukta) in current lifespan and avoid reincarnation.

The first mention of Śaiva sects known as Śiva-Bhagavatas has come in Patanjali's commentary on the Panini Sutra (V, 2.76); he describes a devotee of Śiva as clad in animal skins and carrying an iron lance as the symbol of his God, perhaps a precursor of Śiva's trident.

(Again, these early Śaivites must not be confused with Samanic tradition of Jainism, founded by naked ascetic (Digambar monks) Rikhab).

There are references to early Siva ascetics in the Mahabharata as well; only in later ages two different sects, Saivism and Vaishnavism have emerged. The origins of Saivism and Vaishnavism lay outside the systems of Vedic religion; here devotional Tamil poems of Alvars and Nayanmars, and Thevaram hymns (perhaps composed in by Sambandar, Appar, and Sundarar) etc are regarded by Tamils as authority equivalent to what Vedas are to Brahmins.

Remember:~

The early Tamil saints' compositions were devotional and not philosophical abstractions (e.g. ancient Tamil Sitthar padalgal), who were non-Brahmins, used ordinary Tamil words without technical meaning, but Sanskrit ideas eventually crept in because Tamil received a double dose of Sanskrit words from north and south. Now as we reflect the names Vishnu and Śiva, they give rise to a collection of theistic trends and sects. Śaivism like Vaishnavism, the term also implies a unity which cannot be clearly found either in religious practice or in philosophical and esoteric doctrine. Furthermore, practice and doctrine must be kept separate (Michaels. p, 215) (24).

From northern Indus, Śaivism makes it route to Tamil Nadu of South India at some earlier time. In early Vedic writing,  we could find only dim outlines of Śiva; but after a millennium Śiva becomes the brightest headline in Brahminical Hinduism. Pāṇini's grammar marks the end of the period of Vedic Sanskrit and defines the linguistic expression of later thought. As Brāhmī changed into the Devanagari group of Indic languages - the Brahminical proficiency in Sanskrit could dictate the terms of Hinduism by writing everything according to their own fancies. At a comparatively early date pre and post-Vedic religious imports were brought under Vedic fold through a process of cultural syncretism.

Virtually Aryan manifestations of Śiva begin to appear by the Brahminical proficiency of classical Sanskrit ~ even by rewriting the older Tamil accounts in Brahminical terms. As we look into non-Aryan Śiva's Aryan manifestations, it proceeds from a subordinate deity in the Vedic Age when both Vishnu and Śiva (as identified with Rudra) played relatively minor roles. By the time of the Brahmanas (800-500 BC), both were gaining ascendance (Zimmer, 1946) (25).

The Śvetāśvatara Upanishad (400 - 200 BC) is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Śaivism (Chakravarti. 1994) (26). As explained by Gavin Flood (op.cit), the text proposes: ‘... a theology which elevates Rudra to the status of ‘supreme being', the Lord (Sanskrit: Īśa) who is transcendent yet also has cosmological functions, as does Śiva in later traditions. Eventually, Saivism turned into a pan-Hindu tradition, practiced widely across all of India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.

The formation of Śaiva traditions as we understand them begins to occur during the period from 200 BC to 100 AD (Flood, 2003) (27). It is with the Puranas that Śaivism spread rapidly, eventually throughout the subcontinent, through the singers and composers of the Puranic narratives (Flood, 1996, p.154). During the Puranic period, both Siva and Visnu had major sects that competed with one another for devotees (Flood.1996, pp.110-111).

The two great epics of India, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana, deal extensively with stories of both Śiva and Vişņu. Many stories developed showing different types of relationships between these two important deities. The Vishnu Purana (400 AD) shows Vishnu awakening and becoming both Brahma to create the world and Siva to destroy it (Flood, 1996, p. 111).

Śiva also is viewed as a manifestation of Vishnu in the Bhagavata Purana (4.30.23, 5.17.22-23, 10.14.19).

In Saivite myths, on the other hand, Śiva comes to the fore and acts independently and alone to create, preserve, destroy, hide, and to bless his five works (Zimmer, p. 128). In one Saivite myth of the origin of the lingam, both Vishnu and Brahma are explained as emanations from Siva’s manifestation as a towering pillar of flame (Zimmer, p. 128).

The bulk of the material contained in the Puranas was established during the reign of the Guptas (dated 300-500 AD) - with incremental additions taking place to the texts up to later medieval times (Flood. 1996, p. 110) stretching to 8th to 11th centuries AD. They must not be seen as random collections of old tales, but as highly selective and crafted expositions and presentations of worldviews and soteriologies, compiled by particular groups of Brahmins to propagate a particular vision, whether it be focused on Vishnu, Śiva, or Devi, or, indeed, any number of deities (Flood. 1996, p.111).

Thus history of Saivism reveals an episode that Śiva's concept has continued to metamorphose from Vedic Rudra (the power of destruction) to different promiscuous lore and legends in the epics and Puranas; he also became part of the Puranic ‘trinity' along with Brahma/Vishnu; and then Śiva eventually superseded most of the God-hoods. Brahminical genius formulated Siva’s God-hood as Mahadeva ("Great God"; Maha = Great + deva = Vedic God), Maheshwar ("Great Lord"; Maha = Great + Ishvara = Lord), and Parameśhvara ("Supreme Lord"). There are at least eight different versions of the Siva Sahasranama, listing thousands of Siva’s names (28).

In the Smarta tradition, Siva is regarded as one of the five primary forms of God. And Śākta tradition focuses on his female counterpart - as Goddess Śakti. In the present Saiva tradition, Siva' comprises both creation and destruction within him and is the reason for the existence of everything.

Integration of heterodoxies between Saivism, Vaisnavism, Śakti cults with Brahminical Hinduism was culminated during the Gupta period and gave rise to neo-Hinduism or Puranic Hinduism. But the paganization of Siva’s concept originated from Tamil Nadu itself – and it became rampant especially after Sanskritization of the early Tamil accounts.

The theological interpretation of Svayam Bhagavān (‘The Lord' or Lord Himself) began to differ with each rival sect solicitous of own ascendancy. The fusion of different pagan concepts grew by leaps and bounds in classical Sangam poetry since 100 AD. 

An era of confusion started following the arrival of Sage Sankara in the 8th century AD. Falsehoods of Śiva-myths finally culminated in abstract paganism that began to rise from monistic philosophy preached by Sage Sankara.

People all over the world think that Hinduism is a Religion. As one goes into the annals of the religious history one finds: - Hinduism has drifted miles away from the Vedic faith so that the two seem to be two distinct faiths. When we carefully examine the two faiths, it is not difficult to discover that there is no noticeable continuity of Hinduism from the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma. Hinduism of today cannot be traced in the Vedic literature.

 Although the Vedas are revered as sacred texts, there are many people in India who do not know what ‘belief in the Vedas’ means. In most cases, the acquaintance of the Hindus with the Vedas is limited to the few hymns that are recited in temples and household liturgies.

The Vedas as a body of scripture contains many contradictions and they are fragmentary in nature. For Hindus of today, scriptures like the Bhagavad-Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas are more attractive and appealing than the Vedas.

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 of today.

All Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practice barred by the Vedas introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism at a different time, whereas the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is ancient and has no founder.

All Hindu Gods are Puranic Gods.  Puranas deals with symbols Puranas are not history; it is concerned with objective reality. Puranas are not concerned with subjective reality. These Puranic  Gods do not exist outside the physical existence but they have a psychological existence and that psychological existence is a great hindrance to realizing the reality beyond the form, time and space.

 So the first thing to be understood is that Puranic Gods are not real persons in the world but they are mere belief. The belief creates a barricade and hides the truth, which is beyond the form, time and space.

Remember:~

It all started with the question: what is the actual meaning of Advaita?

What is "One without the second" (Ekam Evadvaitham)?  

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 Sage Sankara as the rallying force of the doctrine.

That is why Adhyasa Bhashya of Sage Sankara:~ (11) As regards the rituals, Sage Sri, 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 throughout 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 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 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 spend 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.

ISH Upanishad clearly indicates that: ` If the human goal is to acquire Self-Knowledge then why 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. 

All Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practice barred by the Vedas introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism at a different time, whereas the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is ancient and has no founder.

Hinduism is not Vedic religion or Santana Dharma.  Hindus do idol-worship, while Vedas bars idol worship.

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

The Hindus believed in polytheism, believing all of their Gods to be separate individuals, which were introduced much later by the founders of Hinduism which contains diverse beliefs caste, and creed.  

When the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma knows no idols then why so many Gods and goddesses with different forms and name are being propagated as Vedic Gods. Why these conceptual Gods are introduced when the Vedic concept of God is free from form and attributes. 

Hindus do idol-worship, while Vedas bars idol worship.   According to Vedas, God pervades in everything and everywhere.

People, who worship the belief of God, are hallucinating that they become one with such God because they believed the false God as real God. 

To be considered an orthodox Hindu one need only accept the authority of Shruti, however, there is no universal agreement among Hindus what constitutes Shruti. Vedantins consider the Vedanta, i.e., the Upanishads as Shruti but also include the Bhagavad-Gita and Brahma Sutras as authoritative. For some Vaishnavas, the Bhagavata Purana is to be considered Veda. Some consider the Tantras are considered Veda. Thus, we find that there is ample scope for different ideologies,   philosophies, and practices under the very broad umbrella of Hinduism.

Hindus indulge non-Vedic beliefs such as idolatry, ancestor worship, pilgrimages, priestcraft, offerings made in temples, the caste system, untouchability and child marriages. All these lack Vedic sanctions, therefore, Hinduism is not Ancient Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma.

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 innermost self. May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?" (10:48, 5)

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

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ~ Brahman (God) is in the form of the Athma, and it is indeed Athma itself.

 When Upanishads and Vedas declare that, “God is in the form of the Athma, and it is indeed Athma itself” then why to accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman.

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.)

According to Yajur Veda: ~ They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, 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.)

Then why anyone has to indulge in idol worship which is not God when Rig Veda clearly says:  “May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?

When Yajur Veda says worshipping non~Vedic Gods in place of real God they fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow and suffer terribly for a long time 

Thus, to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana, the seeker has to realize his inherited religion is adulterated in the past and it becomes a great obstacle is realizing the ultimate truth or Brahman or God in truth.

Thus, Self-realization is God-realization. Self-realization itself is real worship. There is no other worship other than self-realization.

Thus, to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana, the seeker has to realize his inherited religion is adulterated in the past and it becomes a great obstacle is realizing the ultimate truth or Brahman or God.:~Santthosh Kumaar