Rigveda prohibits: ~ The very concept of castes by birth.+

As we peep into the annals of the religious history of India we find that the caste by birth is not a Vedic idea but the caste system belongs to the Hinduism of today. Remember: Hinduism is not an ancient Vedic religion or Sanatana Dharma. 

There is hardly any evidence of a rigid caste system in the Vedas. It is argued that the purushasuktahymn 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 the professions, and they were not hereditary.

The very concepts of castes by birth, upper/lower castes, superior/inferior castes, outcasts, untouchables, Dalits, etc. are clearly prohibited by Rig-Veda”.

The caste system which is so integral to Hinduism was also not practiced in the Vedic times.

The Book of Manu was made Manu Dharma Shastra.   The Book of Manu was a book that originated in India in and around the 9^th century A.D. This book of Manu was given a false spiritual interpretation by orthodoxy. And this book was projected as ‘Manu Dharma Shastra’ by orthodoxy. It is the Manu Dharma Shastra that is the foundation and cause for caste discrimination.

The orthodoxy has taken upon the responsibility to maintain, propagate and perpetuate the authority of caste discriminating principle called Manu Dharma Shastra.

This caste discrimination led to umpteen numbers of castes and sub-castes within the Indian population. Today because of this caste discrimination makes the Hindus, hate each other, fight each other, therefore, there is no unity among the Hindus.

This caste discriminating tool is used by modern-day politicians to divide and destroy the social fabric of India.  The politicians and the orthodox cults preserve and promote Varnashrama Dharma for their own advantage, which is non-Vedic. Orthodox cults and politicians glorify, preserve, enforce and perpetuate caste discrimination in India.

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 based on 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 a trial by jury, as Jones considered Indians to be equal under the law with Europeans.

His most famous accomplishment in India has established 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 the 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 that 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, the Hindu religion is different from Santana Dharma or Vedic religion.

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

After 1750 A.D., Europeans captured certain parts of India and started ruling those areas. The capital of 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, based on 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 Indians of the British dominion was belonging to the 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 or ‘Hindutva; 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 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 themselves from the stranglehold of casteism to realize their original religion is not Hinduism which is full of different caste and creeds but Vedic religion or Santana Dharma. The people should be educated about the historical truth of the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma. 

The caste system which is so integral to Hinduism was also not practiced in the Vedic era. There is hardly any evidence of a rigid caste system in the Vedas.  The Vedas, however, speak of various classes of people, which appear to have been names of professions, and they were not hereditary.

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.

Rigveda prohibits ~“The very concept of castes by birth, upper/lower castes, superior/inferior castes, outcastes, Untouchables, Dalits,

Bhagavata clearly says in 7.11.35 that: ~ “Just because one is born to a Brahmin doesn’t automatically make him a Brahmin. But he has more chances of becoming a Brahmin by acquiring Self- knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana is the only qualification of Brahmin to become a Brahmin. If a person born to a non-Brahmin who acquires Self- knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana possesses he/she should be immediately accepted as a Brahmin.”

In the Vedic era, a Brahmin was a person who had acquired Self- knowledge or Brahma Gnana Atma Gnana. This was an extremely difficult path of the discipline of body, mind, and intellect, and people irrespective of their birth or class, who were dedicated to such an austere life, were recognized as Brahmins. 

A great example of this tradition (that a person becoming a Brahmin, rather than born as one) is the case of Vishwamitra, a warrior (Kshatriya), who became a Brahmin after attaining Atma Jnana or Self-Knowledge.

A Smritis or code of conduct composed by sage Atri defines Brahminhood very clearly:~

"By birth, every man is a Shudra (an ignorant person). Through various types of disciplines (samskaras), he becomes a dwija (twice-born). Through the studies of scriptures, he becomes a vipra (or a scholar). Through the realization of the Supreme Spirit (Brahma jnana), he becomes a Brahmin.”

The belief that people born in the Brahmin caste, automatically become Brahmins, is a much later concept in very ancient India.  Thus, Brahmin means not a caste but one who has attained Atma Jnana or Brahma Jnana.

By birth everyone is   Shudra only with Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Brahma Gnana it is possible for every Shudra to become a Brahmin.  Those who identify themselves as Brahmins caste without Brahmajnana are not Brahmins. 

Religion and caste and creed are nothing to do with God. Humanity itself is a religion. Love and peace and equanimity are much necessary to discard the religion and sect which breeds hatred, violence in the name of God and religion.

Santana Dharma deserves to be treated on its own as a distinct religion with its own sacred texts and practices without inter-linking it with Hinduism.:~Santthosh Kumaar 

Swami Vivekananda says: - The word Hindu is a misnomer; the correct word should be a Vedantins, a person who follows the Vedas.+

As we peep into Indian religious history we become aware of the fact that present-day Hinduism is not ancient Vedic religion or Santana Dharma

Aryans were ancient people who originally inhabited Central Asia and later migrated southwards to the regions stretching from Iran to northwest India. These early Aryans had a similar language, race, culture, and religion with many variations. The Aryans were influenced by the Dravidic culture and in later centuries other peoples also invaded and migrated to India bringing other influences and mixing many cultures' ideologies and beliefs. 

Ancient peoples of India belong to the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma, therefore, they have nothing to do with present-day Hinduism. The ancient peoples of Indus Valley or undivided India were called Hindus by Muslim Invaders. 

Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is not Hinduism. The word Hindu came originated from the word Sindhu which is another name for the river Indus. Maybe people who stayed along the Sindhu (Indus) valley came to be known as Hindus. 

An exact date of the birth of Santana Dharma cannot be given.  They say that Santana Dharma is as old as planet earth. Some claim it is 5000 to 7000 years old Ancient India consisted of indigenous people. 

 Aryans, Dravidians, Jews, Christian, and Muslims have invaded India and all ingenious people were converted to different faith from time to time.  Thus, Hinduism is a group of different caste, creeds, and faith.

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.  Going to a temple would make one a follower of Hinduism.

The term ‘Hindu’ is originally a geographical nomenclature. In the Arabic texts where the term ‘Hindu’ is initially used, refers to the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, the land across the Sindhu or Indus River. Al-Hind was, therefore, a geographical identity, and the Hindus were all the people who lived on this land.

Thus, the term ‘Hindu’ was used to describe those who professed a religion other than Islam and Christianity. It is also noteworthy that the use of the word ‘Hindu’ in non-Islamic sources is known probably only from the 15^TH century A.D.

The term ‘Hindu’ became a term of administrative convenience when the rulers of Arab, Turkish, Afghan, and Mughal origin ~ all Muslims ~ had to differentiate between ‘the believers’ and the rest.

Aurobindo (1872-1950) believed that the Vedas are the foundation of the Santana Dharma.

Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is distinct from Hinduism. The 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 interlinking 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 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 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 Sri, Sankara (8^thcentury A.D). In this sense, he may be considered the ‘founder’ of Hinduism.

 Thus, Hinduism came into existence with its own code of conduct beliefs, rituals after the 8^th 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 into 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 of today from Vedic religion is to be considered as a myth purported by orthodoxy.

Sage Sri Sankara endeavored towards establishing the Vedic religion overthrowing Buddhism. But even he was not able to avoid the influence of Buddhism. The influence of the revolutionary atmosphere of Buddhism has reappeared in the Advaita of Sage Sri, Sankara. His inability to revive Vedic religion that flourished before the Buddhist revolution in its pure form is discernible.

Santana Dharma means that it has no beginning or an end, righteousness forever.

Swami Vivekananda says:~  The word Hindu is a misnomer; the correct word should be a Vedantins, a person who follows the Vedas.

In Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:~  The word Hinduism was first used by the British writers in the year 1830 to describe the multiplicity of the faiths of the people of India excluding the converted Christians. (Volume -20, Reference -581)

Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru:~  The word Hindu can be earliest traced to a source a tantric in the 8th century and it was used initially to describe the people, it was never used to describe religion. (The discovery of India” on pages -74 and -75) 

According to Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, Its connection with religion is of late occurrence. The word Hinduism is derived from the word Hindu.

The word Hinduism was first used by English writers in the 19th century to describe the multiplicity of faiths of the people of India.

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 based on Manu Dharma Śāstra.

It is a well-known fact that the Vedic people not only did not identify themselves as Hindus but also did not possess the essential characteristics of Hinduism. However, to legitimize the antiquity of Hinduism, Maharishi Sri, and Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883) founder of Arya Samaj insisted on ‘going back to the Vedas’.

Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati founder of Arya Samaj was the first thinker and reformer to emphasize the importance of ‘going back to the Vedas’ to bring about social reforms in society and to purify Hinduism of its many aberrations. Hinduism is ‘Puranic based’. Vedic Gods like Indra, Varuna, Agni, Soma, and the like, whom the Vedic people worshipped, hardly have any significance in Hinduism.:~Santthosh Kumaar 

According to the Vedas, God neither has any image, nor God resides in any particular idol or statue.+

What God is like? God is a formless, timeless, and spaceless existence. According to the Vedas, God neither has any image nor God resides in any particular idol or statue. God cannot be seen directly by anyone. God pervades all beings and all directions.

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

Avatara (‘descent’) of Gods,  the caste system, were absent in the Vedic religion. Only when the Vedic religion with its own as a distinct with its own sacred texts, rites, rules of social life, beliefs and practices without interlinking it with Hinduism the true essence of Vedas will be revealed.

Some scholars believe that Lord Krishna has been just a Mahan yogi and not God himself. Hinduism is not Vedic religion or Santana Dharma.    

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

People, who worship the belief of God, are hallucinating that they become one with such God.

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

When Upanishads and Vedas declare that, “God is 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.

People, who worship the belief of God, are hallucinating that they become one with such 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.

Yajur Veda indicates that: ~  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 Prakriti, 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.)

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 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. 

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

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 philosophies and practices under the very broad umbrella of Hinduism. And all Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practices barred by the Vedas introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism.

The vast ocean of Vedic religion or Santana Dharma was consistently steady and calm for a very long period. It appears that as a consequence of the rage of the Buddhist revolution it got suddenly disturbed and flowed down to us in disorder. Even today Vedic religion or Santana Dharma has not recovered from the onslaught of Buddhism and Jainism and is not able to settle in people's hearts in its original form in the same old measure.

The Buddhist influence is seen in a great measure in the Vedic philosophy which is followed by the majority of Indians. Thus, it is clear that Vedic religion or Santana Dharma has not retained its original form, but been influenced by other religions that have undergone a sea change. Thus, the influence of Buddhism on Santana Dharma is extraordinary. Even Kumarila Bhatta, who fought with great heroism for the revival of Vedic religion, was so much influenced by Buddhism that he established for the first time in the country, an atheist Vedic religion or Santana Dharma. There is no room for any doubt to assert that the Kumarila Bhatta School was influenced by atheist Buddhism because the school which is based on the validity of the Vedas and rituals refutes the existence of God.

Sage Sankara endeavored towards establishing the Vedic religion overthrowing Buddhism. But even he was not able to avoid the influence of Buddhism. The influence of the revolutionary atmosphere of Buddhism has reappeared in the Advaita of Sage Sankara. His inability to revive Vedic religion that flourished before the Buddhist revolution in its pure form is discernible.

Many thinkers since his time have said about Sage Sankara that he made use of many important tenets of Buddhism and presented to the people the very Buddhism in the guise of Vedic religion. Though the Vedic religion represented by  Sage Sankara is like a conglomeration of many things he deserves the credit of having turned the Hindu mind which was once averse to Vedas -the root of Hinduism, towards the Vedas once again. For this,  the followers of the Vedic religion should be grateful to Sage Sankara.

The brilliance shown by Sage Sankara, a man of wonderful genius, a matchless speaker, and an extraordinary dialectician is really a great spectacle in history. In his time, there was a severe conflict between Buddhism and the atheist Vedic religion of Kumarila Bhatta. Utilizing this opportunity Sage Sankara intervened in the conflict and making use of some concepts and methodology of both the Kumarila Bhatta School and Buddhism presented a new coalition religion before people.

Sage Sankara gave an extraordinary charisma to this religion with the help of his methods of logic and style of exposition. Its influence was so much that both the Bhatta School and Buddhism had to flee from India without leaving a trace. The absence, even today, of a single follower of the Kumarila Bhatta School as well as of Buddhism, is proof enough for the great achievement of Sage Sankara. This indeed is a historical miracle.

One can see in the Vedic religion expounded by Sage Sankara a different version of the Kumarila Bhatta School and Buddhism. That is why the tradition of following Kumarila Bhatta methodology in expounding the Advaita thought at the empirical level gained ground in the Advaita School.

Different types of the methodology of Buddhism were absorbed into the Advaita thought, of course, under new labels. There is a very clear similarity between the Vedic religion of Sage  Sankara and Buddhism and the Advaita School has given the world a common message. The essence of both schools is:-

The entire world which one perceives is illusionary; it is just an appearance of unreality and there is only one indeterminate and attributeless Sat at the root of this world".:~Santthosh Kumaar