Vedic worshiper did not use temples and idols as Hindus of today do.+

Vedic worshipper did not use temples and idols as Hindus of today do. For them, the sacrificial rituals were more important than the temple or idol worship the major Hindu feasts of today are based on the epic feats of Rama and Krishna and the Puranic lore pertaining to Shiva and the Goddess.

Hindus are idol worshipers of a large number of Gods and Goddesses whereas the in Vedic God is  ONE and that God is Atman.  

The religion of the Veda knows no idols, then why so many Gods and Goddesses with different form 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.

The God of Santana Dharma or Vedic religion is Athma. Athma is the Soul, the innermost Self.

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)

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 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 the form of the Athma, and it is indeed Athma itself.

When Yajurveda says that God Supreme or Supreme Spirit has no ‘Pratima’ (idol) or material shape then whatever the Indian innocent populace believing and worshiping today are non-~Vedic Gods. All the mantras and prayers are based on non~Vedic Gods.

On the Vedic perspective, all non-Vedic Gods are a myth. Worshipping myth in place of real God barred by Vedas.

The religion of the Veda knows no idols, then why so many Gods and Goddesses with different form 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.

In Yajurveda gives clear-cut instruction what not to worship in place of God: ~

Translation 1

They enter darkness, those who worship natural things (for example air, water, sun, moon, animals, fire, stone, etc).

They sink deeper into darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol, etc.) (Yajurveda 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.)

Yajur Veda clearly says:  

They sink deeper into 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.)

Sage Sri, Sankara says: ~ Atman is Brahman. Thus, the Soul the innermost ‘Self’ is God. Therefore, all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imagination based on the false self. Thus, there are adulteration and add-ons in the past, which has to be bifurcated if one wants pure Vedic essence.

This clearly indicates the nature of the innermost ‘Self’, which is the Soul. Thus, Soul is ultimate truth or Brahman or God. When the Soul is ultimate truth or God why to indulge in worshiping the belief of individualized God, which is not God. The Hindu belief system which came into existence after 2nd century is nothing to do with the Vedas and Vedic religion.

The ultimate truth or Brahman is God. God in truth is not the religious God we believe and worship.

Thus, the Vedas 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. 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. 

That is why Swami Vivekananda:~

The masses in India cry to sixty million Gods and still die like dogs. Where are these gods?

 Knowing this, stand up and fight! Not one step back that is the idea. ... Fight it out, whatever comes. Let the stars move from the sphere! Let the whole world stand against us! Death means only a change of garment. What of it? Thus fight! You gain nothing by becoming cowards. ... Taking a step backward, you do not avoid any misfortune. You have cried to all the gods in the world. Has misery ceased? The masses in India cry to sixty million gods and still die like dogs. Where are these gods? ... The gods come to help you when you have succeeded. So what is the use? Die game. ... This bending the knee to superstitions, this selling yourself to your own mind does not befit you, my soul. You are infinite, deathless, birthless. Because you are the infinite spirit, it does not befit you to be a slave. ... Arise! Awake! Stand up and fight! Die if you must. There is none to help you. You are the entire world. Who can help you? ~ Swami Vivekananda  (Delivered In San Francisco, on May 28, 1900) -The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 1/Lectures And Discourses/The Gita II

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 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.   

Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedic religion, through the various yogas, is to realize that consciousness (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman.

The Vedic pantheon of gods is said, in the Vedas and Upanishads, to be the only higher manifestations of Brahman. For this reason, "ekam sat" (all is one), and all is Brahman.
 

Thus, the goal is to realize Atman (consciousness).  Atman (consciousness) is nothing,  but Brahman.  by realizing Atman (consciousness) as Brahman (ultimate truth) is truth realization or Self-Realization or God realization. 

There is no need to follow the religion, study scriptures or glorifying Gods or  Gurus and follow the path of doubts and confusion by losing oneself in the labyrinths of philosophy when there is an easier path.

By mentally tracing the source of the mind from where it rises and subsides one becomes aware of the fallacy of the mind, which rises as waking or dream and subsides as deep sleep.  The mind arises from consciousness and subsides as consciousness.

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 religion of the Veda knows no idols then why so many gods and goddesses with different form 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. 

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,  which were in ruins in the clutches of Buddhism. 18 Puranas are introduced in the name of  Sage Veda Vyasa not by Sage Sankara but someone else because the Puranic gods are non-Vedic Gods. Worship of Such Gods are barred Vedas.  

 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 grand master of Vedas. It is impossible to accept and believe that Veda Vyasa authored and introduced Puranas which has all conceptual gods. 

In the year 1794 A.D. Sir William Jones, the European chief justice of the then Supreme Court of India at Calcutta, coined the new term Hinduism for the caste discriminating principle of Varnashrama Dharma originated on the basis of Manu Dharma Śāstra. 

(Sir William Jones spent 11 years on the Supreme Court of Calcutta were highly productive ones, and he applied democratic principles to his judicial decisions. The six charges Jones made to the Calcutta Grand Jury during that period helped determine the course of Indian jurisprudence as well as preserve the rights of Indian citizens to trial by jury, as Jones considered Indians to be equal under the law with Europeans.

His most famous accomplishment in India was establishing the Asiatic Society of Bengal, in January of 1784. The founding of the Society grew out of Jones's love for India, its people and its culture, as well as his abhorrence of oppression, nationalism, and imperialism. His goal for the Society was to develop a means to foster collaborative international scientific and humanistic projects that would be unhindered by social, ethnic, religious and political barriers. Through the Society, Jones hoped to make Oriental studies much more attractive to people from the West. As a result, Jones exerted a substantial influence on the academic and literary disciplines in Western Europe. He would remain Society's president until he died.

In addition to establishing the Society, Jones felt compelled to learn Sanskrit so that he could better prepare himself to understand Hindu and Muslim laws. This led to an enormous personal project: the compilation of all such laws. The task was so huge that he was unable to complete it before he died. However, he did publish portions, including Institutes of Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of Menu, Mohammedan Law of Succession to Property of Intestates and Mohammedan Law of Inheritance. He also published numerous works about India, covering a variety of topics including law, art, music, literature, botany, and geography.)

The term Hindu religion is totally a new name which cannot be found in any Indian literature prior to 1794 A.D. Out of the five Indian religions of Buddhism, Jainism, Saivism, Vaishnavism, and Sikhism; Saivism and Vaishnavism were brought under the Varnashrama principle.

After naming the discriminating principle of casteism of Manu Dharma as Hindutva, the religions of Saivism and Vaishnavism, which were enslaved to the caste discriminating principles, were given a new name as ‘Hindu Religion’! Thus, Hindu religion is different from Sanatana Dharma or Vedic religion.

The term Hinduism came into existence under British rule. Hinduism is caste discriminating principle of Varnashrama Dharma based on of the Book of Manu. 

After 1750 A.D., Europeans captured certain parts of India and started ruling those areas. The capital of the then British India was Calcutta the present-day Kolkata.

The Britishers were duty-bound to administer justice to the people living within their dominion. Thus, they set up courts of justice. They needed laws to administer justice through the courts.

To administer justice to the Christian citizens of India living within their dominion, there was Christian Law, based on Biblical principles.

To administer justice to the Muslim citizens of India living within their dominion, there was Islamic Law, based on Quranic principles. But to administer justice to non-Christian and non-Islamic citizens living in British dominion, there was no law book. This created problems for the Britishers.

At this time, Sir William Jones was appointed as the chief justice of the Supreme Court at Calcutta. Local pundits made Sir William Jones believe that the book of Manu was the law book for the people of India.

Sir William Jones believed pundits and translated the book of Manu from Sanskrit to English. Thus, on the basis of the laws of Manu, a law was formed for administering justice to non-Christian and non-Muslim Indians of the British dominion and this law was called as the Hindu law.

The principles of the book of Manu which was used for drafting the Hindu Law were called as Hinduism. The basic principle of the book of Manu is caste discrimination.

The name coined by Sir William Jones to denote caste discriminating principles is Hinduism. It is not a religion. It is a way of Life. It is the way of life of the Indus people.

In this, a historic false perception crept in. That is when they called the terms Christian Law, Muslim law and Hindu Law, both Christian Law, and Muslim Law were associated with the Christian religion and Islamic religion. But in respect of Hindu Law, a false perception of religion was wrongly attributed to it as if it was also associated with a ‘Hindu religion’ which was not there.

This false perception developed a false notion that non-Christian and non-Muslim Indian of the British dominion was belonging to Hindu religion.

Out of the five Indian religions, since Saivism and Vaishnavism were already enslaved to Varnashrama dharma i.e. caste discrimination or Hindutva, the people of India began to use the newly originated common name of ‘Hindu religion’ to denote Saivism and Vaishnavism. The context and substance of the term Hinduism; coined by Sir William Jones is different from the context and substance of this term ‘Hindu religion’, which was substituted erroneously and used by the people to denote Saivism and Vaishnavism.

The Orthodox believe in Varnashrama Dharma or caste discrimination. People of India wrongly believe that the Hinduism is an ancient religion because they are unaware of the fact that Hinduism is not the Santana Dharma or Vedic religion. 

People of   India have to liberate from the stranglehold of casteism to realize their original religion is not Hinduism which is full of different caste and creeds but Vedic religion. The people should be educated about the historical truth of the religion of Vedas. :~Santthosh Kumaar 

Bhagavan Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is unreal, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the reflection alone is real.+

Buddhism and its relationship with Science are like that of water and wine, one cannot say there is no water in wine, but when you drink it, it would not be the water but wine... thus Einstein’s view is water in wine because modern science does not believe in the matter but in this religion, everything is the matter only"

Bhagavan Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is no real, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the reflection alone is real. Bhagavan Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied reality. There is nothing in his words or teaching to show that he considered truth to be non-existent like the horns of a hare. He could not have held the foolish view that something came out of nothing. It is true; some of his disciples misunderstood and misinterpreted him. his idea was that the truth which cannot be designated by a name or described is words and of which one cannot even say whether it is existent or none extent  is like non-existent.  The idea is quite in agreement with the view of the Upanishads.

An object which cannot even be talked about, is, for all practical purposes, as good as non-extent. But it is not non-existent in the sense that the son of a barren woman is non-existent. This subtle idea, Buddha's contemporaries and even his disciple fail to catch. In one passage, Bhagavan Buddha says clearly: Srmana Gautama was an atheist. It is the annihilation of the non-existent truth that he teaches. So will people attribute to me atheism, which is not mine? So will they ascribe me to the theory of non-existence, which again is not mine? 

From these similar statements of  Bhagavan Buddha, it is clear that he was not an atheist. All philosophers old and new arrive at the same point. Orthodox Advaita (monism) is inevitable; the people of thoughtful temperament cannot find peace, and quietude until they do so. Moksha (liberation) is in the realization of oneness with God. They speak of God Goddesses, devotion, and devotee only in an accurate way only from the standpoint of dvaithi.  After realizing oneness with God, there is no distinction between God and devote, and the word "devotion" has no meaning. 
  

People, immersed in ignorance in various ways, flatter themselves, saying: We have accomplished life's mission. Because these performers of karma do not know the non-dual Truth owing to their attachment, they will never be able to cross the ocean of duality, or cycle of birth, life, and death.

Dalai Lama said:~   Buddhism need not be the best religion though it is most scientific and the religion and inquisitive. But Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama [soul] and rebirth.   Dali Lama said that as an individual he believes in rebirth as he had come across a few cases of rebirth.  Modern science, Dalai Lama hoped would unearth the mystery behind the rebirth. (In DH –dec-212009-Gulbarga).

Buddhism is the religion founded by the Bhagavan Buddha, Gautama Siddhartha, in the 6th Century BCE. Like many other offshoots from philosophies spawning from Upanishadic speculation (Gautama himself was a Kshatriya, or noble, and well-versed in Vedic philosophy), it is a religion begun as a reaction to Vedism and the orthodoxy of that time.

Buddhism sees the 'self' as an aggregate of many elements called 'skandhas' which include one's physical form senses, perceptions, deeds, and conceptions. It attempts to free its adherents from the cycle of birth, death, and re-birth by the doctrine of Enlightenment and contends that salvation is only possible after the elimination of suffering, caused chiefly by attachment, striving, and seduction by the senses.

Bhagavan Buddha:~ No one saves us but ourselves.  No one can, and no one may.  We ourselves must walk the path. 

Remember:~

Bhagavan Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp, something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy. Here  Sage  Sankara was wiser and gave religion; such as Bhakti, worship, etc.--to the ignorant masses, as well as wisdom to those of higher intellect.

Buddhism has not proved the truth of Non-duality.  There is no doubt Buddha pointed out the unreality of the world. He told people they were foolish to cling to it. But he stopped there. He came nearest to Advaita in speech but not to Advaita fully. 

The practices of the path and the destination or goals of both religions can be different. Theravada Buddhism is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early Buddhism. Later on, Mahayana and Vajrayana also developed. It appears that later schools of Buddhism has developed a variety of other ritual and devotional practices that were inspired or influenced by the existing religious cultures of India, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, and Tibet. Little differences can be found between later schools of Buddhism and Hinduism. There is a huge difference when comparing Hinduism to the teachings of  Bhagavan Buddha as recorded in the Pali Canon of the Theravada school of Buddhism.

Bhagavan Buddha is a Sanskrit word. Bhagavan Buddha means "awakened one." Bhagavan Buddha Buddha is someone who has realized the enlightenment that ends the cycle of birth and death and which brings liberation from suffering.

Among all the Bhagavan Buddha's teachings, those on the nature of the 'Self' are the hardest to understand, yet they are central to the religion. In fact, "fully perceiving the nature of the self" is one way to define enlightenment.

The Five Skandhas

The Buddha taught that an individual is a combination of five aggregates of existence, also called the Five Skandhas. These are:-

1. Form
2. Sensation
3. Perception
4. Mental Formations
5. Consciousness

Various schools of Buddhism interpret the skandhas in somewhat different ways. Generally, the first skandha is our physical form. The second is made up of our feelings, emotional and physical, and our senses -- seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and  smelling.

The third skandha, perception take in most of what we call thinking --conceptualization, cognition, and reasoning. This also includes the recognition that occurs when an organ comes into contact with an object. Perception can be thought of as "that which identifies." The object perceived may be a physical object or a mental one, such as an idea.

The fourth skandha, mental formations, includes habits, prejudices, and predispositions. Our volition, or willfulness, also is part of the fourth skandha, as our attention, faith, conscientiousness, pride, desire, vindictiveness, and many other mental states are both virtuous and not virtuous. The causes and effects of karma are especially important to the fourth skandha.

The fifth skandha, consciousness, is awareness of or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualization. Once there is awareness, the third skandha might recognize the object and assign the  concept-value to it, and the fourth skandha might react with desire or revulsion or some other mental formation. The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as the base that ties the experience of life together.

What's most important to understand about the skandhas is that they are empty. They are not qualities that an individual possesses because there is no-self possessing them. This doctrine of no-self is called anatman or anatta.

Very basically, the Buddha taught that "you" are not an integral, autonomous entity. The individual self, or what we might call the ego, is more correctly thought of as a by-product of the skandhas.

On the surface, this appears to be nihilistic teaching. But the Buddha taught that if we can see through the delusion of the small, individual self, we experience that which is not subject to birth and death.

Two Views

Beyond this point, Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism differs on how anatman is understood. In fact, more than anything else it is the different understanding of self that defines and separates the two schools.

Very basically, Theravada considers anatman to mean that an individual's ego or personality is a fetter and delusion. Once freed of this delusion, the individual may enjoy the bliss of Nirvana.

Mahayana, on the other hand, considers all physical forms to be void of intrinsic self (teaching called shunyata, which means "emptiness"). The ideal in Mahayana is to enable all beings to be enlightened together, not only out of a sense of compassion but because we are not really separate, autonomous beings.

There's an apparent discrepancy between the Bhagavan Buddha's words in The Dhammapada "By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada, chapter 12, verse 165)

Bhagavan Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is no real, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the reflection alone is real. Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied reality. There is nothing in his words or teaching to show that he considered truth to be non-existent like the horns of a hare. He could not have held the foolish view that something came out of nothing. It is true; some of his disciples misunderstood and misinterpreted him. his idea was that the truth which cannot be designated by a name or described is words and of which one cannot even say whether it is existent, or none extent, is like non-existent.  The idea is quite in agreement with the view of the Upanishads. An object which cannot even be talked about, is, for all practical purposes, as good as non-extent. But it is not non-existent in the sense that the son of a barren woman is non-existent.  This subtle idea, Buddha's contemporaries and even his disciple fail to catch. In one passage Buddha says clearly: Srmana Gautama was an atheist. It is the annihilation of the non-existent truth that he teaches. So will people attribute to me atheism, which is not mine? So will they ascribe me to the theory of non-existence, which again is not mine? 

From these similar statements of the Buddha, it is clear that he was not an atheist. All the philosopher old and new arrivals at the same point. Orthodox Advaita (monism) is inevitable; the people of thoughtful temperament cannot find peace, and quietude until they do so. Moksha(liberation) is in the realization of oneness with God. They speak of God Goddesses, devotion, and devotee only in an inaccurate way only from the standpoint of dvaithi.  After realizing oneness with God, there is no distinction between God and devote, and the word "devotion" has no meaning.   

Buddhists and Jains did not believe in the Vedic positions and 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. 

 Bhagavan Buddha, Sage Sankara, and Sage Goudpada have declared non-dual truth centuries back, but one has to reach the destination with a scientific (rational) investigation, not through punditry and intellectuality. One has to mentally reach the final conclusion, then only the conviction becomes firm. Without a firm conviction, the wisdom will not dawn. Therefore, there is a need to know consciousness is real all else is a myth, which Sage Sankara declared as the world  isa  myth and  Brahman alone is real.

Sage Sankara disagrees with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - a nonentity. Sage  Sankara believes there is some reality, even though things are not what they appear to be. If one knows the truth, he will know what to do to find inspiration for action. The seeker of truth‘s subject is to know what is it that is Real.

Buddhism says: all things are illusory and nothing exists.  However, Advaita avers that it is not so.  It says that the universe, of course, is illusory, but there is Brahman, that exists forming the very substratum of all things. 

Sage Sankara says Atman is Brahman and everything is Brahman is a scientific declaration not religious or yogic. Sage Sankara and Sage Goudpada are more scientific than anyone else in the world. Since the real Advaitic essence is hidden it cannot be got without the inner (mental) journey.

Sage  Goudpada says: ~ The merciful Veda teaches that  the karma and Upasana to people of lower and middling intellect while Gnana is taught to those of higher intellect. Gnana here is knowledge uncontradictable truth or scientific truth. Thus, their scientific truth of the whole, not the part is declared by Sage Sankara 1400 years back and thought only to those of higher intellect. Thus karma and Upasana, yoga, and orthodoxy have to be bifurcated to realize the ultimate truth or Brahman.  

Sage Sankara was criticized for his views on Maya (illusion) without understanding him. He said that (1) Brahman (Atman) is real (2) the universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe. He did not stop at the second because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the ‘Self’ and unreal if perceived as apart from the Self. Hence, Maya or illusion and reality are one and the same. 

The dualists criticize the concept of illusion without understanding it. Sage  Sankara said:~

(1) Consciousness (Atman) is real

(2) The universe ( mind) is unreal, and

(3) Consciousness is the universe(mind because the universe or mind is merely an illusion created out of Atman (consciousness).  

 One need not stop at the second because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self and unreal if perceived as apart from the Self (consciousness). Hence, illusion and reality are one and the same because both are one in essence. Realizing the essence, which is consciousness as the innermost Self, is Self-Realization or truth- Realization of God-Realization. Sage  Sankara‘s declaration is a rational truth, scientific truth, and also the ultimate truth. 

The Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana is for those who are capable of inquiring into their own existence to know and realize the ultimate truth or Brahman.:~Santthosh Kumaar  

The world in which we exist (waking) is a mere superimposition like seeing a snake superimposed on a rope on a dark night.+

The world in which we exist (waking) is a mere superimposition like seeing a snake superimposed on a rope on a dark night.

The snake has no independent existence, apart from the rope, it exists because of the rope, and it ceases to exist as soon as a light is brought.

The snake then dissolves into the rope. In the same way, when the Soul, the Self remains in its own awareness, the mind (I) merges into it.

The mind and Soul are one in essence. To attain this knowledge is the goal of the truth seeker. The three states then cannot taint the Soul, the Self.

Why does the snake appear to be existing, you cannot say a snake does not exist unless you see it as only a rope.

Similarly, the universe in which you exist appears to be existing you cannot say the universe in which you exist does not exist unless you realize the cause of the universe is the Soul.

The ‘I’ is the snake the Soul, the Self is the rope. Until you become aware of the Soul, the Self. the ‘I’ remains as a snake.

The universe is the snake the Soul, the Self is the rope. Until you become aware of the Soul, the Self, the universe remains as a snake.

The waking is the snake the Soul, the Self is the rope.

Until you become aware of the Soul, the Self, the waking remains as a snake.

The form, time, and space are the snakes, and the Soul, the Self is the rope.

Until you become aware of the Soul, the Self, the form, time, and space remain as a snake.

The duality is the snake the Soul, the Self is the rope. Until you become aware of the Soul, the Self, the duality remains as a snake.

When you become aware of the rope there is no more snake. Similarly, the Soul, the Self, wakes up from its sleep of ignorance there is no ‘I’.

If there is no ‘I’ there is no ignorance.

If there is no ‘I’ there is no mind.

If there is no ‘I’ there is no universe.

If there is no ‘I’ there is no waking.

If there is no ‘I’ there is no form, time, and space.

If there is no ‘I’ there is no duality.

If there is no duality there is only the Advaitic reality.

The Soul is the Self. The Soul is present in the form of consciousness.

Consciousness is Self-evident. It is not established by extraneous proof. It is not possible to deny consciousness because it is the very essence of the one who denies it.:~Santthosh Kumaar

Sage Sankara declared 1200 years back –everything is Atman- because Atman is in the form of consciousness.+

Scientists now concluded that you are not the brain (body). Consciousness requires the joint operation of the brain, body, and world. "You are not your brain. The brain, rather, is part of what you are."

The Biology of Consciousness

by Alva Noë. Hill and Wang, 2009:~

 Alva Noe, a University of California, Berkeley, philosopher, and cognitive scientist argues that after decades of a concerted effort on the part of neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers "only one proposition about how the brain makes us conscious ... has emerged unchallenged: we don't have a clue." The reason we have been unable to explain the neural basis of consciousness, he says, is that it does not take place in the brain. Consciousness is not something that happens inside us but something we achieve it is more like dancing than it is like the digestive process. To understand consciousness the fact that we think and feel and that a world shows up for us we need to look at a larger system in which the brain is only one element. Consciousness requires the joint operation of the brain, body, and world. "You are not your brain. The brain, rather, is part of what you are."

Thus, science is going in the right direction in its invention, and one day it will declare that everything is consciousness, which Sage Sankar declared 1200 years back –everything is Ataman- because Ataman is in the form of consciousness.

We have to know the fact that Sage Goudpada and Sage Sankara are not only reformers but also the sage greatest scientists. Since their original thesis has been lost in the labyrinths of philosophy and mutilated by pundits and priestcraft, it becomes very difficult to understand and assimilate the wisdom expounded by the great masters. In addition, the conservativeness of the orthodox scholars will not allow any research other than playing with the words, which suits the mass mindset, because of their egocentric outlook.

All the add-ons have to be deleted, in order to understand and assimilate the real fragrance of the wisdom expounded by the great masters of Advaita, but it is a hurricane task.  Thus, it is no use of studying all the scriptures, when there is a direct path to nondualistic or Advaitic truth.  The same time and effort can be used to reach the nondual destination, in lesser time and effort.   

As the seeker goes deeper into the investigation he finds:-

Sage Sankara founded his Advaita Vedanta either on reason independent of Sruti or on Sruti confirmed by reason."   Sage Sankara's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, II, 1:  This (the unreality of duality) is borne out by the Srutis ... But it is possible also to show the unreality of the object world even from pure reasoning, and this second chapter is undertaken for that purpose.

Sage Sankara himself had often said that his philosophy was based on Sruti, or revealed scripture.  This may be, because, Sage Sankara addressed the ordinary man, who finds security in the idea of causality and thus in the idea of God—and Revelation is indispensable to prove the latter.  He believed that those of superior intelligence, have no need for this idea of divine causality, and can therefore dispense with Sruti and arrive at the truth of Non-Dualism by pure reason. 

Sage Sankara, in debates with Buddhists and others who did not recognize the authority of the Vedas, had been obliged to prove the truth of Advaita by means of reason alone.  Mandukya Upanishad, a scripture that appealed to reason to the exclusion of Revelation. 

Nonduality does not need the support of any scripture or revelation like the Veda. For it is based, not upon the varying theological fancies, which are as numerous as the sands of the sea, but upon reason, the common heritage of all mankind, irrespective of color or creed or clime.

Self-knowledge is meant only for those who have an intense urge, and courage to accept the truth with humility and reject the untruth. Since people start comparing their scriptural knowledge, it becomes impossible to assimilate and realize the non-dual truth.   Therefore, there is no need to convince anyone other than our own-self to get a firm conviction. :~Santthosh Kumaar