Both Bhagavan Buddha and Sage Sankara kept silent about the absolute unimaginable God.+

The word Brahman means ultimate truth or reality which cannot be indicated by any word. The Brahman can be expressed through silence because it is beyond the experience of form, time, and space.  Therefore, the word Brahma clearly stands for the essence of the three states, which is consciousness only. The final use of pursuit of the truth is to know that the  'Self' is the Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness.

Sage Sankara opposed the Buddhists only, who misunderstood Bhagavan Buddha and became atheists. According to Sage Sankara meditation always means a critical analysis of the 'Self' to get salvation from worldly tensions. Due to the eccentric ego of the then atheists, Sage Sankara did not go beyond this since the atheists will not accept God beyond themselves. This limitation is not due to limited knowledge of Sage Sankara but is due to the then-existing situation of the psychology of the surrounding society. 

Even Bhagavan Buddha kept silent about God because the society dealt by Him consisted of Purvamimamsakas, who were strong atheists. Bhagavan Buddha said everything,  including the Delf, is only relatively real (Sunya). This is correct because the self is a part of the universe, which is relatively real with respect to the absolute unimaginable God. The Bhagavan Buddha stopped at this point because the atheists cannot realize the existence of the unimaginable God indicated through His silence. 

The point of Bhagavan Buddha is that if God is non-existent, the entire creation,  including the Self is non-existent. Sage Sankara wanted to establish the existence of the Brahman. For this purpose, He made the Atman as Brahman. He brought out the identity of self with consciousness and made the Atman the Brahman. Since one will not negate the existence of his self, he will accept the existence of the Brahman, which is the Atman or soul, the innermost self. Both Bhagavan Buddha and Sage  Sankara kept silent about the absolute unimaginable God. The same philosophy was dealt with by them from different angles in different situations. 

Remember:~

Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama [Soul] and rebirth.

Dalai Lama said: Buddhism need not be the best religion though it is most scientific and 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).

In the same way, all religions of the world and all philosophies of the world are based on individuality (ego) find no answers to many questions. Truth seekers all over the world are trying to find answers for themselves, and they imagine and write articles and books on their ideas and others will read and blindly accept them as the ultimate truth.

There is no need to condemn anyone's’ views and ideas or writing, but without being judgmental, the seeker has to verify whether the author is speaking from the standpoint of ego, or whether he is speaking from the standpoint of the Soul, the Self. If his views are based on the standpoint of the physical self (ego), then there are many doubts and confusion. If his views are based on the Soul, the Self then there is no confusion and doubts of any sort.

Nothing has to be accepted without verifying the validity of any claim in the pursuit of truth. Only uncontradictable truth has to be accepted as the truth. There is no need to condemn any religion or any saints or sages, but the seeker has to think beyond religion, scriptures, and individualized Gods.

It is difficult to understand assimilate within a framework of some teaching or holding some philosophy as a yardstick. We have to drop all our accumulated dross to understand and assimilate and realize the Advaitic truth. I am highlighting some scriptural citations only to show the seeker that the Advaitic Sages themselves declare that scriptures, religion, and ideas of God are unimportant in the pursuit of truth. It is easier to understand, assimilate and realize the ultimate truth or non-dualistic truth by rationalizing our views and understanding:-

There is only the mind which is present in the form of the universe. Thus, we have to investigate the world that confronts us.

Consciousness is that which knows everything, that which sees. Consciousness alone remains after one gets rid of all thoughts and ideas by identification with the Soul, the innermost Self. The consciousness is only the seer; it is not Brahman that is an error. It becomes Brahman only after the soulcentric reasoning. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar

Sage Sankara clearly indicates:~ A Gnani bears no outward mark of a holy man.+

A Gnani is the one who is aware that both Self-knowledge and ignorance. A Gnani is fully aware of the fact that birth, life, death, and the world are part of the dualistic illusion. Therefore whatever belongs to the dualistic illusion, ignorance is the cause of the dualistic illusion.

Self-knowledge is the knowledge of the Soul, the Self. The Soul is immortal because it is birthless and deathless. The Soul is birthless and deathless because it is the ever formless, timeless, and spaceless existence.

The immortal material is hidden by the mortal. When you relate the mortal is created of the immortal material and the immortal stuff is the Soul, which is present in the form of the consciousness then the truth shines on its own as eternal existence.  

No need to become a monk or sanyasi in order to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana: ~ 

Sage Sankara says ~ “Though I wear these robes of a Sanyasin, it is only for the sake of bread."

  

Thus, it proves that Sage Sankara meant, taking sanyasa and wearing the religious robes to earn bread. Sanyasa is not a qualification to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. 

  

Thus, all those who wear religious robes are not seeking the truth. The Sanyasa is religious fable. The sanyasa is nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman. Those who are seeking the truth should never search for the Guru because the guru belongs to the religious and the yogic path. 

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

A Gnani wears no signs which means he does not identify himself as Guru or teacher or swami. 

Sage   Sankara: ~ On Gnani: "The knower of Brahman wears no signs. Gives up the insignia of a monk's life…his signs are not manifest, nor his behavior." (page 482 ) 

When the knower of Brahman (Gnani) wears no signs, it means he does not identify himself as a Guru or a yogi or a teacher or a Swami. 

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 with 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 gave out what was of most use to the greatest number of people. Therefore, in the commentaries on the Upanishads, such as the famous Manduka Upanishads, he gave the highest non-dual message of the identity of Atman and Brahman, revitalizing the philosophy and the practice of Advaita, while in the commentaries on the Brahmasutra he gave a lesser teaching, posing both higher and lower Maya and higher and lower Brahman (Ishvara) to explain creation for those of lesser intellects until they were ready for the highest truth. 

Sage Sankara:~ VC 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 (6)

It is clear that liberation cannot be the result of good works, for Sruti itself declares that there is no hope for immortality by means of wealth. (7)

Actions help to purify the mind, but they do not, by themselves, contribute to the attainment of Reality. The attainment of Reality is brought about only by Self-Inquiry and not in the least by even ten million acts. (11)

The fear and sorrow created by the delusory serpent in the rope can be ended only after fully ascertaining the truth of the rope through steady and balanced thinking. (12)

Neither sacred baths nor any amount of charity nor even Hundreds of pranayamas* can give us the knowledge about our own Self. The firm experience of the nature of the Self is seen to proceed from inquiry along the lines of the salutary advice of the wise. (13)

Ultimate success in spiritual endeavors depends chiefly upon the qualifications of the seeker. Auxiliary conveniences such as time And place all have a place indeed, but they are essentially secondary. (14)

He alone is considered qualified to enquire after the supreme Reality, who has discrimination, detachment, qualities of Calmness, etc., and a burning desire for liberation. The four-fold qualifications (17)

Great sages have spoken of four qualifications for attainment which, when present, succeed in the realization of Brahman and In the absence of which the goal is not attained. (18)

 (While enumerating the qualifications), first we count the ability to discriminate between the Real and the unreal; next, comes a spirit of detachment from the enjoyment of the fruits of actions here and hereafter; after that is the groups of six virtues beginning with Calmness; and the last is undoubtedly an intense desire for liberation.(19)

A firm conviction that Brahman alone is Real and the phenomenal world is unreal is known as discrimination between the Real and the unreal. (20)

They have crossed the dreadful ocean of (embodied) existence through their own efforts and without any (personal) motives; they help others to cross it. (37)

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

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

Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason.+

Dalai Lama said: ~ Buddhism need not be the best religion though it is most scientific and 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)

The Upanishads have the answer to the existence of the Atama.

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

Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterward throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.

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 (consciousness), that exists forming the very substratum of all things (illusion or universe).

To realize the Advaitic Truth in a freer and fuller scope the seeker has to realize that form, time and space are one in essence. And that essence is consciousness. And the Soul the innermost Self is present in the form of consciousness. 

To realize the Advaitic truth the seeker has to be free from all superstitions and orthodox contaminations. The seeker must have an intense urge to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana alone.

A Gnani will easily appreciate the high flights of Sage Sankara’s Advaitic wisdom is one of the 'most majestic structures and valuable products of the Genius of man in his search for Truth

The distinction between Sage Sankara’s Advaita and Vijnanavadins Buddhism is that the former is mentalism i.e. the mind is the real, whereas the latter is idealism, i.e. ideas are real. Advaita follows the former.

Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence its failure to affect society in Asia.

Buddha's teachings: ~ All life is misery belongs to the relative standpoint only. For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together.

Bhagavan Buddha taught the goal of cessation of misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness). That the doctrine he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it.

Remember:~ 

It is no use arguing Bhagavan Buddha is wrong or Sage Sankara is right, but where we are going wrong in our understanding of the non-dualistic or Advaitic truth, propagated by the great sages of the past. Some say, that without the sunyavada, Advaita philosophy could not have come into existence because Advaita starts from where sunyavada ends. That is why they say it is an extension of Buddhism. If Advaita existed prior to Buddha, he would not have advocated sunyavada at all because Advaita is the final and ultimate truth.

Since the Buddhist and the Vedic scriptures have been passed down by hearing, they were written down only relatively late so one wouldn't know whether to rely on the times they give. Also, a lot depends on the translation. Each 'Sloka' or sutta is open to many layers of interpretation.

Sage Sankara said:~ Talk as much philosophy as you like, worship as many gods as you please, observe ceremonies, and sing devotional hymns, but liberation will never come, even after a hundred eons, without realizing the Oneness.

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’s Supreme Brahman is Nirguna (without the Gunas), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without attributes), and Akarta (non-agent). He is above all needs and desires.

Sage Sankara says:~ "This Atman is Self-evident. This Atman or Self is not established by proofs of the existence of the Self. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it. Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge. The Self is within, the Self is without, the Self is before and the Self is behind. The Self is on the right hand, the Self is on the left, the Self is above and the Self is below".

Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam-Anandam, are not separate attributes. They form the very essence of Brahman. Brahman cannot be described because the description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than He.

The objective world-the world of names and forms has no independent existence. The Atman alone has real existence. The world is only phenomenal.

Sage Sri Sankara was the exponent of the Advaita philosophy. His teachings can be summed up in the following words:-

Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya,

Jeevo Brahmaiva Na Aparah

Brahman alone is real, this world is unreal; the Jiva is identical to Brahman.

As one indulges in deeper self-search he becomes aware: - As per the religious archaeologist's view: the date of Sage Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9th century. Some claims are made in India that he lived two thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim. They do not go back farther than the 12th century A.D. and all so-called evidence for Sage Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ is either were conjectures or orthodox fabrication.

Regarding the question of Sage Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not die, at the age of 32, but disappeared into a cave. This is another orthodox story that is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.

As one goes into the annals of history, one becomes aware of the fact that; the spiritual Advaita is mixed up with punditry. Therefore, there is a need to do his own research to know the true essence of Advaita propounded by Sage Sankara, and Sage  Gudapada, and the emptiness of the Bhagavan Buddha.

How it was possible for Sage Sankara to have written so many books during such a short term of existence. The fact is that he wrote very few books. Those actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.

Sage Sankara wrote his Manduka commentary first, and then as this revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work universally studied throughout India. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sage Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.

Sage Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. Sage Sankara’s books were dictated to secretaries as he traveled, therefore, only a few who were capable of understanding his philosophy.

Nearly all orthodox hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sage Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya.

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.

In Brahma Sutras, Sage  Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Manduka he denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth of non-causality can be revealed.

Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.

The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman." But nobody knows or has seen Brahman.

If one says "All this is gold" and shows a piece of gold, the words are understandable. Suppose one has never seen gold. Then what is the use it becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none.

Hence, the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is Brahman". Both have no meaning so long as they are not understood if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason, the Brahma Sutra is intended for theological mindsets because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.

Critics who declare Sage Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) do not know that this is applied only to the witnessed (three states), the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the formless witness (soul). The seeker should never negate the formless witness, only the witnessed.

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.

Scriptural mastery is not wisdom:~

That is why Mundaka Upanishad:~ This Atman cannot be attained through the study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. He who chooses Atman—by him alone is Atman attained. It is the Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature. (3 page-70- Mundaka Upanishad. Upanishads by Nikilanada)

The Veda serves only at the starting point. What one has to learn from Veda must be understood through the exercise of reason, as far as reason might go. And what one has understood must be realized in one’s life.

It is not that one should pore over the ancient scriptures. There is no need to study first then realize. One has to realize first then only he will know ‘what is the truth’ and ‘what is untruth’.

There are hundreds of commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. Each one goes on spinning yarns imagining as he likes what the meaning may be. But once one acquires Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana he will know what they really meant, he will see that there is only one possible interpretation, irrespective of his opinion or imagination.

Remember:~

A permanent view of the world as unreal can come only after soul-centric reasoning; such knowledge cannot change. Were the seeker who is sufficiently sharpness he could grasp the unreal nature of the world by soul-centric reasoning alone. To know the whole truth, one must know the whole universe, otherwise, he gets only a half-truth.

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, and the most advanced seeker who seeks to know 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.

As one goes deeper into the subject one becomes aware of the fact that the religion, scriptures, and concept of God is nothing to do with the religious side of Advaita, the present religious-based Advaitic knowledge and theories are meant for the ignorant mass, who hold the religion as high, not the ultimate truth because religion is based on the form (waking entity) and they view and judge and argue on the base of the waking entity(ego) as self, but Gnanic Advaita is based on the formless (soul) and it negates everything other than the formless soul, the innermost Self.

All the conceptual divisions were invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. There is no end to all his analysis.  they simply create confusion and then explain their own way. Fortunate is the man who does not lose himself in the labyrinths of philosophy but goes straight to the source from which they all arise.

Ignorance is the cause of experiencing the duality (universe or waking) as reality. Thus, eradicating ignorance completely is necessary. And this is possible only through self-knowledge. Thus, there is no other road to freedom other than Gnana. There is no other entrance other than Gnana. Ignorance will vanish only when the nondual wisdom dawns. Detachment to attachment is impossible without wisdom. Only when one realizes the fact that the 'Self' is not the form but the 'Self' is formless, then only it is possible to detach the ‘Self’ from the false attachment.

That is Sage Sankara, in Bhaja Govindam says:~ [Jnana Viheena Sarva Mathena Bajathi na Muktim janma Shatena] - One without knowledge does not obtain liberation even in a hundred births, no matter which religious faith he follows.

Thus, it proves that wisdom is universal irrespective of any religion or faith one belongs to. Thus, religion is not a means to Self-knowledge. Thus, Sage Sankara’s Advaita minus orthodoxy is true Advaita. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar 

God in truth is the only reality.+

GOD in truth is infinite. God in truth is beyond the opposites of good and bad, right and wrong, virtue and vice, birth and death, pleasures and suffering. Such dual aspects do not belong to God in truth. 

If we take God as one separate entity then God becomes one term in relational existence. Just as good is the counterpart of bad, God becomes the counterpart of not-God, and the Infinite comes to be looked upon as the opposite of the finite. 

Meher Baba: ~ When we talk of the Infinite and the finite, we are referring to them as two, and the Infinite has already become the second part of the duality. But the Infinite belongs to the non-dual order of being. 

If the Infinite is looked upon as the counterpart of the finite, it is strictly speaking no longer infinite but a species of the finite, for it stands outside the finite as its opposite and is thus limited. 

Since the Infinite cannot be the second part of the finite, the apparent existence of the finite is false. The Infinite alone exists. 

God cannot be brought down to the domain of duality. There is only one being in reality and it is the Universal Soul. The existence of the finite or limited is only apparent or imaginary.

Remember:~

The ‘Self’ is not ‘you’ because the ‘Self’ is God.  You are not the ‘Self’ therefore,  you are not God.  The world, in which you exist, is the dualistic illusion. Whatever belongs to dualistic illusion is bound to be an illusion, not God.   God in truth cannot be brought down to the domain of duality. The Soul is the ‘Self’ therefore the Soul is real God.

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

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)

Yajurveda – chapter- 32:~   God is Supreme Spirit has no ‘Pratima’ (idol) or material shape. He cannot be seen directly by anyone. He pervades all beings and all directions. 

Thus,   Idolatry does not find any support from the Vedas.

Bible says: ~ “God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24)”,

Mythreyi Upanishad 2:26 says: ~ “All those who desire to have salvation without taking several births, should worship God in spirit and truth”.  

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

Religious Gods are based on blind belief. Religious God cannot be considered as the center because the Soul and the innermost ‘Self’ is the center of all that exists. Without the Soul the world in which you exist ceases to exist, it means the religious God is dependent on the Soul for his existence.

Mythological stories are a myth. Mythological Gods are a myth. Worshipping mythological heroes as God produces only myth.  There is a need to realize ‘what God supposed to be in actuality.  Religion has been very influential. Mythology is a synthesis. They are more concerned with synthesis than with truth. The attraction for synthesis is so strong that people accept it blindly without verifying their validity.

Mythology is a hodgepodge containing everything; hence it suits everyone because there is something in it for everyone. It is difficult to find any tradition whose voice is not found in the mythology. It is difficult to find anyone who does not take solace from mythology. But for such people ‘Self’-Realization will prove very difficult.

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

 Thus, there is no other God other than Atman. Thus, on the Vedic perspective,   the Atman alone is God; never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?"

Upanishads say in effect that: ~ "If you believe that you are one and God is another you cannot understand Truth.

No conceptual God can exist, apart from consciousness. People are not aware of the fact that there is no individual God can exist, apart from the soul, which is in the form of consciousness. Thus, the soul or consciousness is the true self.   If there is no consciousness, then there is no physical body, no ego, no universe, no religion, and no conceptual God.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:~ "He who worships the deities as entities entirely separate from him does not know the truth. For the Gods, he is like a pasu (beast)". (1. 4. 10)

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?

Sickness is not cured by saying the word “medicine.” You must take the medicine. Ignorance will not vanish does not come by merely saying the word “God nor by worshiping God of belief.  First one must know what God supposed to be.  God must be realized. One must know God in truth. 

Perfect undemanding and assimilation of ‘what is what’ leads to Truth-realization, truth realization itself is Self-realization. Self-realization itself is God-realization. God-realization itself is real worship.:~Santthosh Kumaar  

The religion is meant for the ignorant populace who are incapable treading the Atmic Path.+

Religion is regarded as sacred and real by the common people, by the wise as false, and by the politicians as useful. Religion breeds superstition because religion is based on blind belief.

Bhagavad Gita Chapter:~ 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.

Bhagavad Gita: 7: 19:~ "Such a man who has attained true knowledge, the knowledge of Self, the knowledge of Atman, worships Me as~ Atman (God) alone exists~ everything is Atman, there exists nothing except Atman. Such a man is extremely rare"

Lord Krishna confesses that the oldest wisdom of India (our true Advaitic wisdom ) has been lost: people misinterpret and falsify it today as they did then. It is not yoga but the philosophic truth. But nobody knows it. The teachers of philosophy and leaders of mysticism or religion do not want to inquire into the truth and have no time for it. (Gita –Chap- IV-v.2)

In Gita Chap.IV where Lord Krishna says: ~ "This yoga has been lost for ages" the word yoga refers to Gnana yoga, not other yogas: the force of the word this is to point this out.

Lord Krishna describes some of the other yogas but devotes this chapter separately to Gnana Yoga. So one sees even in those ancient days people did not care for Advaita; they wanted religion; hence Gnana got lost. That is why Krishna calls it "the supreme secret.

The religion is meant for the ignorant populace who are incapable of treading the Atmic Path. Religion is nothing to do with Sage Sankara’s Advaitic wisdom.

Sage Sankara gave religious, ritual or dogmatic instruction to the mass but pure philosophy 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.

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

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

This clearly indicates that religion, which is based on individual conduct, prescribes karma and Upaasana to people of lower and middling intellect, therefore religion is for the lower intellect. And wisdom is for those who are capable of inquiring into their own existence to know and realize the ultimate truth, which is Brahman.

Sage Sankara said:~ Talk as much philosophy as you like, worship as many gods as you please, observe ceremonies, and sing devotional hymns, but liberation will never come, even after a hundred aeons, without realizing the Oneness.

Gaudapada says:~  The merciful Veda teaches karma and Upaasana to people of lower and middling intellect while Jnana is taught to those of higher intellect.

Mundaka Upanishad:~ The study of the Vedas, linguistics, Rituals, astronomy, and all the arts Can be called lower knowledge. The higher Is that which leads to Self-realization. The eye cannot see it; the mind cannot grasp it. The deathless 'Self' has neither caste nor race, Neither eyes nor ears nor hands nor feet. Sages say this Self is infinite in the great And in the small, everlasting and changeless, The source of life.

Sage Sankara’s notion of Maya, the dualistic illusion, must be transcended in order to realize the truth, which is beyond the form, time and space. by realizing the form, time and space are created out of a single clay and that single clay is the Soul, which is present in the form of the consciousness. the knowledge of the single clay is Self-knowledge or Bramha Gnana or Atma Gnana. 

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, and the more advanced seeker who seeks to know 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.

Those who lack the intelligence to discriminate between formless witness (subject) and three states (object) will not be able to grasp what is real and what is unreal. Both subject and object are consciousness, not subject alone. :~Santthosh Kumaar