The Self-realization itself is God realization. God -realization is real worship.+

India is the home of mysticism and deification and very few are keen on rational Advaitic truth.

Swami Vivekananda also said that it is unfortunate that most of the  Indians don’t understand the depth of our culture and exhibit non-culture/non-religion in the day of today's life in the name of culture/religion.

Swami Vivekananda aptly described Sage Sankara’s Advaita as the fairest flower of philosophy that any country in any age has produced.

Swami Vivekananda:~"Teach yourself, teach everyone his real nature, call upon the sleeping soul and see how it awakes. Power will come, glory will come, goodness will come, purity will come, and everything that is excellent will come when this sleeping soul is roused to Self-conscious activity.

Ashtavakra Gita:~The universe rises from the Soul the Self like bubbles from the sea. Thus,  know the Self to be One and in this way enter into the state of dissolution."

Ashtavakra Gita:~ the Soul the innermost Self is perfect and the same in misery and happiness, hope and despair, and life and death, therefore in this way enter into the state of dissolution. 

Sage Sankara gave religion and scholasticism and yoga no less than philosophy, to the world. He was great enough to be able to do so.  His commentary on Manduka Upanishads is pure philosophy, but many of his other books are presented from a religious standpoint to help those who cannot rise up to the  Advaitic wisdom.

In Brahma Sutra Sage Sankara takes the position that there is another entity outside us, i.e. the wall really exists separately from the mind. This was because Sage  Sankara explains in Manduka Upanishad that those who study the Sutras are religious minds, intellectual children, hence his popular viewpoint to assist them. These people are afraid to go deeper because it means being heroic enough to refuse to accept Sruti, and God's authority, in case they mean punishment by God.

Sage Sankara says:` Keep the scriptures for children but throw them on the fire for wise seekers.

In Brahma Sutras Sage Sankara takes for granted, assumes that a world was created: He there mixes dogmatic theology with philosophy.

That God created the world is an absolute lie; nevertheless, you will find Sage  Sankara (in his commentary on Vedanta Sutras) clearly says this! He has to adapt his teachings to his audience, reserving the highest for philosophical minds.

The text of Brahma Sutras is based on religion, dogmatism, but in the commentary Sankara cleverly introduced some philosophy. If it is objected that a number of Upanishads are equally dogmatic because they also begin by assuming Brahman, but a few Upanishads do not but prove Brahman at the end of a train of proof.

The causality and creation, but these are for religious people only.  Religion is only for those who are unable to understand the truth beyond form, time, and space. Religion is not final. It only gives satisfaction to the populace. The Self - knowledge is for the whole of humanity to free them from experiencing the birth, life, death, and world as reality.

People of small intelligence follow religion and believe that the world was created by God. But how do they know that He did so? When a pot is created, one can see both pot and its maker, but not in the case of the world.

Sage Sankara‘s doctrines spread after his lifetime.  Very few were capable of understanding his wisdom.  The orthodox pundit’s followers are not Gnanis or have grasped the Advaitic wisdom.

Sage Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give their particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step forward towards the truth.  The followers of Sage Sankara have constituted a religious sect. Thus, all movements ultimately degenerate.

According to Sage Sankara Orthodoxy which is stuck to the ritualistic pursuit is meant for the ignorant populace. The seeker of truth has to discard the orthodox baggage.  The Secker of truth must thirst for Sage Sankara’s wisdom that is all that matters. 

Sage Sankara says:~ One must first know what is before him. If he cannot know that, what else can he know or understand? If he gives up the external world in his inquiry, he cannot get the whole truth.

Sage Sankara's work has got two aspects: the dualistic perspective and the non-dualistic perspective.

Sage Sankara gave religious, ritual, or dogmatic instruction to the populace but the Advaitic wisdom only to the few who could rise to it. Hence the interpretation of his writings by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus, they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.

Sage Sankara taught that it was only through direct knowledge of Advaita that one could be enlightened.

Sage Sankara’s critics accused him of teaching Buddhism in the garb of Santana Dharma because his non-dualistic ideals were a bit radical to contemporary Vedic philosophy. However, it may be noted that while the Later Buddhists arrived at a changeless, deathless, absolute truth after their insightful understanding of the unreality of samsara, historically Vedantins never liked this idea.

Although Advaita also proposes the theory of Maya, explaining the universe as a "trick of a magician", Sage Sankara and his followers see this as a consequence of their basic premise that Atman is real. Their idea of Maya emerges from their belief in the reality of Atman, rather than the other way around.

Sage Sankara was a peripatetic orthodox monk who traveled the length and breadth of India. The more enthusiastic followers of the Advaita tradition claim that he was chiefly responsible for "driving the Buddhists away". Historically the decline of Buddhism in India is known to have taken place long after Sage Sankara or even Kumarila Bhatta (who according to a legend had "driven the Buddhists away" by defeating them in debates), sometimes before the Muslim invasion into Afghanistan (earlier Gandhara).

Although today's followers of Advaita believe Sage Sankara argued against Buddhists in person, a historical source, the Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam, indicates that Sage  Sankara sought debates with Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, and Yoga scholars as keenly as with any Buddhists. In fact, his arguments against the Buddhists are quite mild in the Upanishad Bhashyas, while they border on the acrimonious in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya.

The Visishtadvaita and Dvaita schools believe in an ultimately attribute Atman. They differ passionately with Advaita and believe that his attriubuteless Atman is not different from the Buddhist Shunyata (nothingness ness) ~ much to the dismay of the Advaita School. A careful study of the Buddhist Shunyata will show that it is in some ways metaphysically similar to Atman. Whether Sage Sankara agrees with the Buddhists is not very clear from his commentaries on the Upanishads. His arguments against Buddhism in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya are more a representation of Vedantic traditional debate with Buddhists than a true representation of his own individual belief.

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). 

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 beside it. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because 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)."

Thus, truth realization is Self-realization. Self-realization is God-realization.  God-realization itself is real worship.:~Santthosh Kumaar  

There is neither Shiva nor Shakti but only consciousness. Consciousness is God in truth.+

Q: ~  David Murali Cowan: ~  I hear the inner guru and I can see the Shakti. I am not sure if they are real or not. The inner guru speaks beyond the deep dream state. Is it real or unreal? Also,  the goddess speaks to me.

A:~Santthosh Kumaar: ~ There is neither Shiva nor Shakti but only consciousness. Consciousness is God in truth.

 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).

When Bhagavad Gita says, God is considered the all-pervading consciousness which is the basis of all the animate and inanimate entities and material then nothing has to be accepted as God other than consciousness. 

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.

The dualistic worship of "God” is only for the ignorant populace. The God in truth is only Atman, the  Self.   In reality, there is no duality, no differentiation. Only Atman exists.

The Vedas confirm God is Atman (Spirit), the Self.

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. 

Rig Veda: ~ 'Prajnanam Brahma'- Consciousness is the ultimate reality or Brahman or God in truth.

God in truth is the Atman, the Self. Atman is present in the form of consciousness.

Do not accept any other God other than Atman not worship other than Atman.

Let these words be inscribed in your subconscious.

Nothing is real but God. Nothing Matters but love for God in truth. God in truth is everywhere and in everything.

God in truth is hidden by the illusory universe. God in truth alone is and all else is an illusion. 

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: ~ “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.

Chandogya Upanishad:~ One who meditates upon and realizes the 'Self' discovers that everything in the cosmos-- energy and space, fire and water, name and form, birth and death, mind and will, word and deed, mantrams and meditation--all come from the Self.

The sun, the moon, the stars, planets shine because of the Soul or Spirit. The Soul shines and all things else shine as a result. Everything in the universe reflects but that light of the Soul which is present in the form of consciousness. Merely knowing the truth is not enough to escape from the tangle of illusion.

Religious Gods are not God in truth. Bible says “God is a Spirit, and they that worship God must worship God in Spirit and in Truth. Rig Veda says may ye never accept another God in place of the Atman (Spirit) nor worship other than the Atman.

What is the use of arguing with religious believers?  They think what they know as the ultimate truth.

Whatever is real in the world in which we exist is God. All that is real in the world in which we exist is the Soul, the Self.

Thus, by realizing the Self, which is the Soul, we discover the Soul, which is present in the form of the consciousness itself is God which is hidden by the ‘I’, which is the dualistic illusion. 

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

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

Vedas itself declares: May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman? Thus, to know the real God Self-realization is necessary. Self-realization is God-realization. Self-realization itself is real worship.

How can you worship God? That implies two ~ the worshipper and the worshiped, whereas God is nondual. One can worship his idea of God only or realize his unity with it when he can’t worship it as apart.

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

God is the Supreme Being the One eternal homogeneous essence, indivisible consciousness, and intelligence, which is beyond form, time, and space. Which the Sages describe in a variety of ways through diverse words.

Bhagavad Gita: ~ ‘All those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires, they worship many Gods. (7- Verse -20)

Only the path of wisdom leads the seeker of truth on his journey to the ultimate realization of the true nature of the Universal Essence, which is the Soul. The Soul is present in the form of consciousness.

Shiva and Shakti are religious concepts.  Whatever is seen, known, believed, and experienced as a person within the dualistic illusion (world) The dualistic illusion is created out of the Soul, the Self, which is present in the form of consciousness. Consciousness is God in truth.  : ~ Santthosh Kumaar

*****

Ramakrishna Enlightenment

Osho -There is an episode in Ramakrishna’s life... For his whole life, he had been worshipping Mother Kali, But at the very end, he began to feel,” It is duality; the experience of oneness has still not happened. It is lovely, delightful, but two still remains two.” Someone loves a woman, someone loves money, someone politics; he loved Ma Kali – but love still was divided in two. Still, the ultimate non-duality hadn’t happened and he was in anguish. He began looking out for a nondualist, a Vedantist – for Some person to come who could show him the path.

A Paramahansa named Totapuri was passing. Ramakrishna invited him to stop with him and asked, ”Help me to have darshan of the one.”

Totapuri said, ”What’s difficult in that? You believe there are two, so there are two. Drop the belief!” Ramakrishna replied, ”But dropping this belief is very difficult – I have lived with it my whole life. When I close my eyes the image of Kali is standing there. I drown in that nectar. I forget that I am to become one; as soon as I close my eyes there are two. When I try to meditate, it becomes dual. Help me out of this!”

So Totapuri said, ”Try this: when the image of Kali is before you, pick up a sword and cut her in two.” Ramakrishna said, ”Where will I find a sword?”

What Totapuri said is the same as what is said in Ashtavakra’s sutra*. Totapuri said, ”From where did you bring this Kali image? – bring a sword from the same place. She too is imaginary. She too is an embellishment of your imagination. Through nurturing it for your whole life, through continuously projecting it for your whole life, it has become crystallized. It is just imagination. Not everyone sees Kali when they close their eyes.”

After years of effort, a Christian closes his eyes, and Christ comes to him. A devotee of Krishna closes his eyes and Krishna comes to him. A lover of Buddha closes his eyes and Buddha comes to him. A lover of Mahavira closes his eyes and Mahavira comes to him. Christ doesn’t come to a Jaina, Mahavira doesn’t come to a Christian: only the image you project will come. Ramakrishna’s effort was with Kali, and the image became almost solid. It became so real from constant repetition, from continuous remembering, that it seemed Kali was standing in from of him. No one was standing there.

Consciousness is alone. There is no second here, no other.

”Just close your eyes,” Totapuri said, ”raise the sword and strike.”

Ramakrishna closed his eyes, but as soon as he closed them his courage vanished. Raising his sword to strike Kali! – the devotee has to raise his sword and strike God – it was too hard. To renounce the world is very easy. What is worth holding onto in the world? But when you have established an image deep in the mind, when you have created poetry in the mind, when the mind’s dream has become manifest, then it is very difficult to renounce it. The world is like a nightmare. A dream of devotion, a dream of feeling is not a nightmare, it is a very sweet dream. How to drop it? how to break it?

Tears would start flowing from his eyes and he became ecstatic... his body would begin shaking. But he didn’t raise his sword – he would completely forget about it. Finally, Totapuri said, ”I’ve wasted many days here. It’s no good. Either you do it or I’m going to leave. Don’t waste my time. Enough of this nonsense now!” That day Totapuri brought a piece of glass with him, and he said, ”When you begin to be absorbed in delight, I will cut your forehead with this piece of glass. When I cut your forehead, inside gather courage, raise your sword, and cut Kali in two. This is the last chance – I am not staying any longer.”

Totapuri’s threat of leaving... and it is difficult to find such a master. Totapuri must have been a man like Ashtavakra. Ramakrishna closed his eyes and Kali’s image appeared to him. He was about to bliss out – tears were ready to flow from his eyes, overwhelmed, joy was coming – he was about to become ecstatic when Totapuri held his forehead and, where the third eye chakra is, made a cut from top to bottom with the piece of glass. Blood began to stream from the cut and this time

Ramakrishna found courage. He raised the sword and cut Kali into two pieces. When Kali fell apart he became nondual: the wave dissolved in the ocean, The river fell into the ocean. It is said that he stayed immersed for six days in this ultimate silence. He was neither hungry nor thirsty – there was no consciousness of the outside, no awareness. All was forgotten. And when he opened his eyes six days later, the first thing he said was, ”The last barrier has fallen!” -Source: “The Mahageeta Vol 1” By Osho

Ramana Maharishi: To whom is the illusion? Find it out.+

R.S Q: ~ “What is this illusion?

Ramana Maharishi: To whom is the illusion? Find it out. Then the illusion will vanish. Generally, people want to know about illusion and do not examine who it is. It is foolish. The illusion is outside and unknown.

 But

The seeker is considered to be known and is inside. Find out what is immediate, intimate, instead of trying to find out what is distant and unknown.” ―Ramana Maharishi, Talks with Ramana Maharishi: On Realizing Abiding Peace and Happiness.

Remember:~

Santthosh Kumaar: ~ The 'I' itself is the dualistic illusion. The dualistic illusion is present in the form of the universe in which you exist. When the Self is not the form, then the question of whom does not arise.  

A Deeper self-search reveals the fact that the ‘I’ itself is an illusion.  If the ‘I’ is an illusion, then it is no use of inquiring ‘Who Am I?. Till one holds the ‘I’ as the Self, the Soul, the innermost self is caught up in the prison of the dualistic illusion.  

Sage Sankara:~  VC~.63: "Without knowing and examining the external world, one can’t know the Truth, as the idea that the external world exists, won't go. It can go only by an inquiry into the nature of the external world.

Deeper Self-search reveals the fact that by inquiring the Who Am I? the wisdom will not dawn. Who Am I?- Inquiry is only for beginners and it is inadequate and useless in the later stages.

That is why Sage Sankara: ~ VC~.61~ For one who has been bitten by the serpent of Ignorance, the only remedy is the knowledge of Brahman. Of what avail are the Vedas and (other) Scriptures, Mantras (sacred formulae), and medicines to such a one?

VC-  v6~ Let erudite scholars quote all the scripture, let Gods be invoked through sacrifices, let elaborate rituals be performed, let personal Gods be propitiated---yet, without the realization of one‘s identity with the Self, there shall be no liberation for the individual, not even in the lifetimes of a hundred Brahmas put together.

Sage Sankara goes on to say: ~A sickness of not cured by saying the word “medicine.” You must take the medicine. Liberation does not come by merely saying the word “Brahman.” Brahman must be experienced. Until you allow this apparent universe to dissolve from your consciousness until you have realized Brahman, how can you find liberation just by saying the word Brahman? The result is merely noise. Until a man has destroyed his enemies and taken possession of the splendor and wealth of the kingdom, he cannot become a king by simply saying “I am a king.” 

A buried treasure is not uncovered by merely uttering the words: “Come forth.” You must follow the right directions, dig, remove the stones and earth from above it, and then make it your own. In the same way, the pure truth of the Atman, which is buried under Maya and the effects of Maya, can be reached by meditation, and contemplation, but never by subtle arguments. :~Santthosh Kumaar 

Sage Sankara’s Supreme Brahman (God) is impersonal (Nirguna).+

India is the home of mysticism and deification and very few are keen on rational Advaitic truth. Indian populace is most interested in their caste and creed propagated by different founders in different regions of India.  Very few are interested in Advaitic wisdom. In Atmic path has no place for an extra-cosmic God or for anything supernatural. 

Sage Sankara gave religion and scholasticism and yoga no less than philosophy, to the world. He was great enough to be able to do so.  His commentary on Manduka Upanishads is pure philosophy, but many of his other books are presented from a religious standpoint to help those who cannot rise up to his Advaitic wisdom.

In Brahma Sutra Sage Sankara takes the position that there is another entity outside us, i.e. the wall really exists separately from the mind. This was because Sage  Sankara explains in Mandukya that those who study the Sutras are religious minds, intellectual children, hence his popular viewpoint to assist them. These people are afraid to go deeper because it means being heroic enough to refuse to accept Sruti, and God's authority, in case they mean punishment by God.

Sage Sankara says: Keep the scriptures for children but throw them on the fire for wise seekers.

In Brahma Sutras Sage Sankara takes for granted, and assumes that a world was created: He there mixes dogmatic theology with philosophy.

That God created the world is an absolute lie; nevertheless, you will find Sage  Sankara (in his commentary on Vedanta Sutras) clearly says this! He has to adapt his teachings to his audience, reserving the highest for philosophical minds.

The text of Brahma Sutras is based on religion and dogmatism, but in the commentary Sankara cleverly introduced some philosophy. If it is objected that a number of Upanishads are equally dogmatic because they also begin by assuming Brahman, but a few Upanishads do not but prove Brahman at the end of a train of proof.

The causality and creation, but these are for religious people only.  Religion is only for those who are unable to understand the truth beyond form, time, and space. Religion is not final. It only gives satisfaction to the populace. The Self - knowledge is for the whole of humanity to free them from experiencing birth, life, death, and the world as reality.

People of small intelligence follow religion and believe that the world was created by God. But how do they know that He did so? When a pot is created, one can see both pot and its maker, but not in the case of the world.

Sage Sankara‘s doctrines spread after his lifetime. And very few were capable of understanding his wisdom.  The orthodox pundit’s followers are not Gnanis or have grasped the Advaitic wisdom.

Sage Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give up their particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step forward towards the truth.  The followers of Sage Sankara have constituted a religious sect. Thus, all movements ultimately degenerate.

According to Sage Sankara Orthodoxy which is stuck to the ritualistic pursuit is meant for the ignorant populace.   The seeker of truth has to discard the orthodox baggage.  The Secker of truth must thirst for Sage  Sankara’s wisdom that is all that matters. Sage Sankara says:~ One must first know what is before him. If he cannot know that, what else can he know or understand? If he gives up the external world in his inquiry, he cannot get the whole truth.

Sage Sankara's work has got two aspects: the dualistic perspective and the non-dualistic perspective.

Sage Sankara gave religious, ritual, or dogmatic instruction to the populace but the Advaitic wisdom only to the few who could rise to it. Hence, the interpretation of his writings by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus, they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.

Sage Sankara taught that it was only through direct knowledge of Advaita that one could be enlightened.

Sage Sankara’s critics accused him of teaching Buddhism in the garb of Santana Dharma because his non-dualistic ideals were a bit radical to contemporary Vedic philosophy. However, it may be noted that while the Later Buddhists arrived at a changeless, deathless, absolute truth after their insightful understanding of the unreality of samsara, historically Vedantins never liked this idea.

Although Advaita also proposes the theory of Maya, explaining the universe as a "trick of a magician", Sage Sankara and his followers see this as a consequence of their basic premise that Atman is real. Their idea of Maya emerges from their belief in the reality of Atman, rather than the other way around.

Sage Sankara was a peripatetic orthodox monk who traveled the length and breadth of India. The more enthusiastic followers of the Advaita tradition claim that he was chiefly responsible for "driving the Buddhists away". Historically the decline of Buddhism in India is known to have taken place long after Sage Sankara or even Kumarila Bhatta (who according to a legend had "driven the Buddhists away" by defeating them in debates), sometime before the Muslim invasion into Afghanistan (earlier Gandhara).

Although today's followers of Advaita believe Sage Sankara argued against Buddhists in person, a historical source, the Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam, indicates that Sage  Sankara sought debates with Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, and Yoga scholars as keenly as with any Buddhists. In fact, his arguments against the Buddhists are quite mild in the Upanishad Bhashyas while they border on the acrimonious in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya.

The Visishtadvaita and Dvaita schools believe in an ultimately attribute Atman. They differ passionately with Advaita and believe that his attriubuteless Atman is not different from the Buddhist Shunyata (nothingness ness) ~ much to the dismay of the Advaita School. A careful study of the Buddhist Shunyata will show that it is in some ways metaphysically similar to Atman.

 Whether Sage Sankara agrees with the Buddhists is not very clear from his commentaries on the Upanishads. His arguments against Buddhism in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya are more a representation of Vedantic traditional debate with Buddhists than a true representation of his own individual belief.

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). 

Sage Sankara’s Supreme Brahman (God in truth) 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 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 in truth)."

Thus, truth realization is Self-realization.  Self-realization is God-realization. God-realization itself is real worship.:~Santthosh Kumaar   

Sage Sankara and Sage Goudpada are the finality in Atmic path.+

It is not you who is in ignorance because the world in which you exist is a product of ignorance. It is the Soul that has to wake up from its sleep of ignorance. All the non-dualistic teachings of modern authors are based on the dualistic perspective and intellectual speculations and logical conclusions. 

One must keep in mind only Sage Sankara and Sage Goudpada are the finality in the Atmic path. All other Gurus and teachings have stopped in the preliminary stages of Advaitic teaching ‘Who Am ‘I’? and ‘I AM THAT’. 

So many centuries have passed since Sage Sankara appeared, yet it is very hard to find his true wisdom understood anywhere in the world today. It is because so few could rise to his level.

Sage Sankara‘s doctrines spread after his lifetime and very few were capable of understanding his wisdom. The orthodox pundit’s followers are not Gnanis or have grasped the Advaitic wisdom. 

The Advaitic orthodoxy is meant for the ignorant populace. According to Advaita Vedanta, the Veda addresses itself to two kinds of audiences - the ordinary ones who desire the transitory heaven and other pleasures obtained as a result of ritual sacrifices.

The more advanced seeker who seeks to know the ultimate truth or Brahman. Thus, the Purva mimam. sa, with its emphasis on the KARMA KANDA of the Vedas, is meant for the first audience, to help lead its followers along the way. However, the Vedanta, with its emphasis on the JNANA KANDA, is meant for those who wish to go beyond such transient pleasures.

Sage  Sankara said: ~ Neither by the practice of yoga nor philosophy nor by good works nor by learning, does liberation come, but only through the realization that Atman and Brahman are one in no other way. (1) VivekaChudamani v 56, pg 25

The seeker should never stick to any Guru or his teaching if he is seeking the ultimate truth. Scriptural knowledge is conceptual divisions invented by some past and modern authors of Advaita by their excessive imaginary analysis. 

All these imaginary analyses are a great obstacle in the Atmic path. They create more confusion and try to satisfy their imaginary explanations based on the dualistic perspective. 

Fortunate are people who do not lose themselves in the labyrinths of such bookish knowledge, but they will never be satisfied until they find ‘what they are seeking. 

Most thinkers hold views of Maya (illusion) which are entirely incorrect and untenable because they do not know Sage Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya. 

When one is unaware of what illusion is, then there is ignorance. From the standpoint of the Soul, the Self, and the duality is merely an illusion. 

The illusion is a reality only from the standpoint of you (ego). The world in which you exist is the product of ignorance. Till ignorance is there, the world in which you exist prevails as a reality. 

Remember:~

"One may recognize a fool by the fact that he talks too freely"…Sunyavadins Buddhists say everything is non-existence, but their judgment is based on the dualistic perspective. 

As one goes deeper and deeper he realizes; how can one see, hear, and think? …All these differences, all this multiplicity, all this ignorance which regards the multiplicity as real, is caused by ignorance of the Soul, the innermost Self. 

The Soul is the witness of the world in which you exist. Your youth, maturity, and old are happening within the dualistic world. The Soul remains unchanged amid these changes. 

All these experiences as a father, son, owner, and pupil and all the contents of the world were one and the same the Soul or consciousness appeared differently. All these distinctions disappear in the Soul wakes up from its sleep of ignorance. 

Dream the mountain which is apparently insentient and material, is nevertheless still the Soul, which is present in the form of the consciousness alone. Whether living or dead, conscious or unconscious thought or matter; all things are appearances of one and the same consciousness. All these distinctions are seen by Gnani as only the Soul or consciousness. :~Santthosh Kumaar 

Without Sage Sankara, the Advaitic wisdom is incomplete.+

Swami Vivekananda aptly described Sage Sankara’s Advaita as the fairest flower of philosophy that any country in any age has produced.

Without Sage Sankara,  the Advaitic wisdom is incomplete. Without Advaitic wisdom, it is impossible to realize the truth, which is beyond the form, time and space. Advaitic wisdom is the fullness of the truth.

Sage Sankara’s whole teaching can be summed up in one sentence, ‘There is nothing else but Brahman. He says that the Absolute Existence, Absolute Knowledge, and Absolute Bliss are real. The universe is not real. He says that Brahma and Atman are one. The ultimate and the Absolute Truth is the Self, which is one though appearing as many different individuals. The individual has no reality. Only the Self is real; the rest, mental and physical are but passing appearances.

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.

Sage Sankara pokes fun at ascetics and points out that all their austerities do not cause desires to go (Altar Flowers" Page 205, v.2 P.207 v.4)

The Brahma Sutras together with Sage Sankara's commentary thereon do not contain the higher wisdom. They are intended for those who are incapable of thinking rationally.

Sage Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras is not on a philosophical basis, but on an orthodox and mystic basis, with an appeal to the Vedas as a final authority.

In Brahma Sutra Sage Sankara takes the position that there is another entity outside us, i.e. the wall really exists separately from the mind. This was because Sage  Sankara explains in Manduka that those who study the Sutras are orthodox minds, intellectual children, hence his popular viewpoint to assist them. These people are afraid to go deeper because it means being heroic enough to refuse to accept Sruti, and God's authority, in case they mean punishment by God. A Gnani says the scriptures for children, but wise seekers will think rationally.

In Brahma Sutras Sage Sankara takes for granted, and assumes that a world was created: He there mixes dogmatic theology with philosophy.

That God created the world is an absolute lie, nevertheless one will find Sage  Sankara (in his commentary on Vedanta Sutras) clearly says this! He has to adapt his teachings to his audience, reserving the highest for philosophical minds.

The text of Brahma Sutras is based on religion, dogmatism, but in the commentary Sage Sankara cleverly introduced some philosophy. If it is objected that a number of Upanishads are equally dogmatic because they also begin by assuming Brahman, only a few Upanishads do not but prove Brahman at the end of a train of proof.

Scholars translation of Brahma Sutras must be read cautiously as they have not understood its highest sense, e.g. for Advaita, they wrongly put "Unity" instead of “Non-duality."

Sage Sankara gave religion and scholasticism and yoga no less than philosophy, to the seeking world. He was great enough to be able to do so. His commentary on Mandukya is pure philosophy, but many of his other books are presented from a religious standpoint to help those who cannot rise up to his Advaitic wisdom.

Orthodoxy is the home of mysticism and deification that is why they are not keen on rational truth. Thus, Sage Sankara is the Jagadguru to the religious followers and he is a great Sage (Gnani) of the highest order to the seeking world. 

Remember:~ 

Sage Sankara is Jagadguru for the ignorant populace and Brahma Gnani for the seeking world.

Sage Sankara’s wisdom is nothing to do orthodox sect and religion. Sage  Sankara is the only sage who has final authority on the Advaitic truth. The Advaitic truth is rational truth and scientific truth without dogma.

Religion is nothing to do with Advaita. Advaitic sect belongs to religion. Advaita is pure spirituality. Advaitic sect is dualistic is nothing to do with the Advaitic truth which is hidden by the illusion. Mixing religion and spirituality is like mixing oil and water.

Religion is regarded as sacred and real by the common people, by the wise as false and by the politicians as useful.

The religion and its sects are based on the form, time, and space whereas the Spirituality is based on the Atman the formless, timeless and spaceless existence.

Religions hold the birth, life, death and the world as a reality. From the ultimate standpoint, the world in which we exist is an illusion created out the Soul, which is present in the form of the consciousness.

The seeker must know the difference between religion and spirituality. Many people think religion itself is spirituality. 

Spirituality leads to discovering the truth which is hidden by the form, time, and space.

Advaita is universal. Advaita is the nature of the Soul, the innermost Self. The world in which you exist is created out of single stuff. That single stuff is consciousness. Knowledge of the single stuff is Advaitic wisdom.

Sage Sankara’s wisdom is nothing to do with the orthodox belief systems. Some philosophers in the past dissented from this interpretation of Vedanta philosophy, holding that the incarnated Souls were separate from the Divine Essence and only finally merged with it after the cycles of birth.

All these theoretical philosophies are based on the imagination based on the false ‘Self’ (ego or you) within the false experience (waking).

Orthodox people argue that Sage Sankara had a Guru. Sage Sankara himself’ was Guru.

Yes, for orthodox people he is Jagadguru but for seekers of truth, he is a Brahma Gnani

The traditionally religious people are so entangled in orthodox religiosity; it is very difficult for them to free themselves from narrow-minded prejudices and dogmas and superstitions. These educated orthodox people are more ignorant than illiterate. They strongly stuck to their inherited orthodox baggage meant for the ignorant populace. Even though their own Sage has said that orthodoxy is meant for the ignorant populace they ignore and they are like blind led by another blind follow the inherited blind belief.

Even Swami Vivekananda was Ramakrishna Paramahansa disciple. Swami Vivekananda himself’ said: ~ “You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher, but your own Soul.”

There are two kinds of audiences - the ordinary ones who desire the transitory heaven and other pleasures obtained as a result of ritual sacrifices, and the more advanced seeker who seeks to know the ultimate truth or Brahman. The Guru and Guru paramparas are meant for the first audience, to help lead its followers along the way. However, there is no need to follow any parampara and follow any Guru those who wish to realize the truth which is beyond the form, time, and space. We should not mix religion with spirituality because the religion is based on the ego and spirituality is based on the Soul. The religion is concerned with its paramparas, not truth whereas the spirituality is concerned only with the truth, which is beyond the form, time, and space. The religion is not spirituality.

Sage Sankara: ~ "Though I wear these robes of a Sanyasin, it is only for the sake of bread." (Select Works of Sage  Sankara" also his commentary on Brihad)

Thus, the above passage proves that all those who were the sanyasin robes are wearing it for the sake of bread belongs to the religion; they are nothing to do with the ‘Self’-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. There is no need to criticize and condemn the Gurus, yogis, and swamis because they are needed for the welfare of ignorant mass in the dualistic world.

So he wore a Guru's robe only for the sake the ignorant. So he was identified as Guru with parampara by religious people. For the truth seekers, Sage Sankara is a Brahma Gnani.

Sage Sankara clearly indicates in Viveka Chudamani (2) that the Knower of the Atman (A Gnani) "bears no outward mark of a holy man" (Stanza 539).

When Sage Sankara says, the Knower of the Atman (A Gnani) "bears no outward mark of a holy man.

Thus, it proves that the religious Gurus and yogis are not Gnanis because they identified themselves as holy people.

On Advaitic perspective, A Gnani never identifies himself’ as a Guru or a Yogi or someone disciple. The one who accepts himself as a Guru or someone’s disciple is not a Gnani.

For the seekers of truth need not identify Sage Sankara as a holy man or Jagadguru but as a Brahma Gnani.

Ashtavakra Samhita: ~ "The man of knowledge (Gnani), though living like an ordinary man, is contrary to him and only those like him understand his state.

All the Guru Parampara is for the religious people. There is no need of a Guru who wants to tread the path of wisdom.

The Guru is useless so long as the ultimate truth is unknown, and Guru is equally useless when the ultimate truth or Brahman has already been known.

A Guru is needed in religious and the yogic path. There is no need of a Guru  to acquire ‘Self’-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar