It is also necessary for the foreigners to know why Ancient Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma is not present Hinduism if they are seeking truth in India.
It is very much necessary for the foreigners to know why Ancient Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma is not present Hinduism if they are seeking truth in India. India is a spiritual super market with diverse philosophy, theories, ideology, and yoga and beliefs. If they are not searching truth only attracted to Indian culture and tradition then choose their path whichever satisfies them. The path wisdom is the Atmic path.
Sage Sankara’s wisdom bifurcated from Advaitic orthodoxy is ‘Self’-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. The serious seeker must follow the Atmic path save their time and effort in their pursuit of truth.
Hinduism indulges non-Vedic beliefs such as idolatry, ancestor worship, pilgrimages, priest craft, offerings made in the temple, the caste system, untouchability, and child marriages. All these lack Vedic sanction therefore Hinduism is not Ancient Vedic religion or Santana Dharma.
Hinduism is the museum of diverse belief and dogmas. Hinduism is not the means to ‘Self’-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana All Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practice barred by the Vedas introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism at different time, whereas the Vedic religion or Santana Dharma is ancient and has no founder.
Hinduism is not Santana Dharma or Vedic religion. Hinduism is not a religion. Rather it is a group of religions found within India that share common beliefs while still remaining very different.
Hinduism it is not a religion but more a way of life. The term "Hinduism" is used for labeling the entire Indian people.
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.
When the religion of the Veda knows no idols then why so many gods and goddesses with different form and name are being propagated as Vedic gods. Why these conceptual gods are introduced when the Vedic concept of God is free from form and attributes.
The 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 because there is no second thing exists other then the consciousness.
The Vedas confirms God is Atman (Spirit), the ‘Self’.
Rig Veda: ~ The Atman is the cause; Atman is the support of all that exists in this universe. May ye never turn away from the Atman, the ‘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 and Y.V 32-1 clearly mention that God is “One”.
Rig Veda declares God is ‘ONE’ and God is Atman, then why believe and worship in place of real God.
Brihad Upanishad: ~ “If you think there is another entity, whether man or God there is no truth."
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 distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes. The Nirguna Brahman of Sage Sri, Sankara is impersonal.
Who introduced the concept of God with attributes and attributeless gods, when Yajur Veda says: ~ those who worship visible things, born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like), in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness. Therefore, all these add-ons proves that the form and attribute based concepts are introduced by some sages of the past with a new belief system and code of conducts in the name of Vedas.
Thus, it proves that the Hinduism is nothing to do with the ancient Santana Dharma or Vedic religion.
The Hinduism does not consist in struggles and attempts to believe a certain doctrine or dogma. From the high spiritual flights of the Vedanta philosophy, of which the latest discoveries of science seem like echoes, to the low ideas of idolatry with its multifarious mythology, the agnosticism of the Buddhists, and the atheism of the Jains, each and all have a place in the 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 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 heart in its original form in the same old measure.
That is why Swami Vivekananda~
The masses in India cry to sixty million gods, and still die like dogs. Where are these gods? - Swami Vivekananda (Delivered In San Francisco, on May 28, 1900) -The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 1/Lectures And Discourses/The Gita II
As indicated in ISH Upanishads: - By worshipping gods and goddesses you will go after death to the world of gods and goddesses. But will that help you? The time you spend there is wasted, because if you were not there you could have spent that time moving forward towards ‘Self’-knowledge, which is your goal. In the world of gods and goddesses you cannot do that, and thus you go deeper and deeper into darkness.
It clearly indicates that:-If the human goal is to acquire ‘Self’-Knowledge then why one has to indulge in rituals and glorifying the conceptual gods, goddesses and gurus to go in to deeper darkness. Instead spend that time moving forward towards ‘Self’-knowledge, which is one’s prime goal.
Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedic religion, through the various yogas, is to realize that the consciousness (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman.
The Vedic pantheon of gods is said, in the Vedas and Upanishads, to be only higher manifestations of Brahman. For this reason, "ekam sat" (all is one), and all is Brahman.
One must remember that for all periods the Vedas are the final goal and authority, and if the Puranas differ in any respect from the Vedas, that part of the Puranas is to be rejected without mercy.
If Hindus believe in one God, why do people worship so many Gods? There are 33,000,000 Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.
It is very unfortunate that Hindus have started worshipping so many idols. In fact Vedas specifically say that idols have not to be worshipped. Here are quotes from the principal Scriptures which say that Idols shouldn’t be worshipped
Yajur Veda indicates that: ~ They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol etc. - (Yajurveda 40:9)
Those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time."-(Yajurveda 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 form and name are being propagated as Vedic Gods. Why these conceptual gods are introduced when the Vedic concept of God is free from form and attributes.
Vedic religion was modified and reintroduced with new add-ons by Sri, Sankara a great Advaita Master to uplift the Vedic culture and Santana Dharma , which were in ruins in the clutches of Buddhism. 18 puranas are introduced in the name of Veda Vyasa not by Sri, Sankara but someone else because the Puranic gods are non-Vedic Gods. Worship of Such gods are barred Vedas.
As one goes deeper in the annals of the history, it indicates the fact that somewhere someone has added the puranas in the name of Veda Vyasa the grand master of Vedas. It is impossible to accept and believe that Veda Vyasa authored and introduced puranas which has all conceptual gods because:~
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 has 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 Santana Dharma or 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 the atheist Buddhism because the school which is based on the validity of the Vedas and rituals refutes the existence of God.
Sage Sankara endeavoured towards establishing 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 Santana Dharma or Vedic religion. Though the Santana Dharma or 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 Santana Dharma or Vedic Religion should be grateful to Sage Sankara.
The brilliance shown by Sage Sankara, a man of wonderful genius, a matchless speaker and an extra-ordinary dialectician is really a great spectacle in history. In his time, there was a severe conflict between Buddhism and the atheist Santana Dharma or 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 a proof enough for the great achievement of Sage Sankara. This indeed is a historical miracle.
One can see in the Santana Dharma or Vedic religion expounded by Sri 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 methodology of Buddhism were absorbed into the Advaita thought, of course, under new labels. There is very clear similarity between the Vedic religion of Sage Sankara and Buddhism and the Advaita School have given world a common message. The essence of both the schools is:-
The entire world which man 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".
The term Hindu religion is totally a new name which cannot be found in any Indian literature prior to 1794 A.D. Out of the five Indian religions of Buddhism, Jainism, Saivism, Vaishnavism and Sikhism; Saivism and Vaishnavism were brought under the Varnashrama principle.
After naming the discriminating principle of casteism of Manu Dharma as Hinduism, the religions of Saivism and Vaishnavism, which were enslaved to the caste discriminating principles, were given a new name as ‘Hinduism’! Thus, Hindu religion is different from Santana Dharma or Vedic religion.
The term Hinduism came into existence in British rule. Hinduism is caste discriminating principle of Varnashrama Dharma based on of the Book of Manu.
After 1750 A.D., Europeans captured certain parts of India and started ruling those areas. The capital of the then British India was Calcutta the present day Kolkata.
The Britishers were duty bound to administer justice to the people living within their dominion. Thus, they set up courts of justice. They needed laws to administer justice through the courts.
To administer justice to the Christian citizens of India living within their dominion, there was Christian Law, based on Biblical principles.
To administer justice to the Muslim citizens of India living within their dominion, there was Islamic Law, based on Quranic principles. But to administer justice to non-Christian and non-Islamic citizens living in British dominion, there was no law book. This created problems for the Britishers.
As we peep into the annals of religious history of India we find that Santana Dharma or Vedic religion was not the religion of the Hindus: ~
Every one of the great religions in the world, excepting our own, is built upon such historical characters; but ours rests upon principles. There is no man or woman who can claim to have created the Vedas. They are the embodiment of eternal principles; sages discovered them
Santana Dharma or Vedic religion was not the religion of the Hindus, nor were the Vedic people Hindus, nor will the Hindus of today approve the replacement of the term ‘Hinduism’ with Santana Dharma or Vedic Religion. None can say exactly when the Aryans became Hindus because neither the name Hindu nor its major beliefs and practices existed in the Vedic times.
To this one must add the marginal place the Vedic gods occupy in today’s Hindu pantheon. In addition, as we have seen, the Vedas themselves are not attractive to most of today’s Hindus as sacred texts. The Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavad-Gita, Puranas and Manusmriti, may have more to do with the Hinduism of today than the Vedas.
Thus, it is clear that there is no direct ancestry of modern Hinduism traceable in the Vedas, though it does have some influence on it “The Vedic corpus reflects the archetypal religion of those who called themselves Aryas, and which, although it contributed to facets of latter day Hinduism, was nevertheless distinct”.
In British Raj, Sir William Jones was appointed as the chief justice of the Supreme Court at Calcutta. Local pundits made Sir William Jones believe that the book of Manu was the law book for the people of India.
Sir William Jones believed pundits and translated the book of Manu from Sanskrit to English. Thus, on the basis of the laws of Manu, a law was formed for administering justice to non-Christian and non-Muslim Indians of the British dominion and this law was called as the Hindu law.
The principles of the book of Manu which was used for drafting the Hindu Law were called as Hinduism. The basic principle of the book of Manu is caste discrimination.
The name coined by Sir William Jones to denote caste discriminating principles is Hinduism. It is not a religion. It is a way of Life. It is the way of life of the Indus people.
In this a historic false perception crept in. That is, when they called the terms Christian Law, Muslim law and Hindu Law, both Christian Law and Muslim Law were associated with Christian religion and Islamic religion. But in respect of Hindu Law, a false perception of religion was wrongly attributed to it as if it was also associated with a ‘Hindu religion’ which was not there.
This false perception developed a false notion that non-Christian and non-Muslim Indian of the British dominion was belonging to the Hindu religion.
Indians populace wrongly believe that the Hinduism is an ancient religion because they are unaware of the fact that Hinduism is not the Santana Dharma or Vedic religion. The people in India believe in Varnashrama Dharma or caste discrimination.
The people of India have to liberate from the stranglehold of casteism to realize their original religion is not Hinduism which is full of different caste and creeds but the Santana Dharma or Vedic religion. The people should be educated about the historic truth of the religion of the Santana Dharma or Vedic religion.
Out of the five Indian religions, since Saivism and Vaishnavism were already enslaved to Varnashrama Dharma i.e. caste discrimination. The people of India began to use the newly originated common name of ‘Hinduism’ to denote Saivism and Vaishnavism. The context and substance of the term Hinduism; coined by Sir William Jones is different from the context and substance of this term ‘Hindu religion’, which was substituted erroneously and used by the people to denote Saivism and Vaishnavism.
The term Hinduism came into existence in British rule. Hinduism is the caste discriminating principle of Varnashrama Dharma based on of the Book of Manu.
After 1750 A.D., Europeans captured certain parts of India and started ruling those areas. The capital of the then British India was Calcutta the present day Kolkata.
The Britishers were duty bound to administer justice to the people living within their dominion. Thus, they set up courts of justice. They needed laws to administer justice through the courts.
To administer justice to the Christian citizens of India living within their dominion, there was Christian Law, based on Biblical principles.
To administer justice to the Muslim citizens of India living within their dominion, there was Islamic Law, based on Quranic principles. But to administer justice to non-Christian and non-Islamic citizens living in British dominion, there was no law book. This created problems for the Britishers.
At this time, Sir William Jones was appointed as the chief justice of the Supreme Court at Calcutta. Local pundits made Sir William Jones believe that the book of Manu was the law book for the people of India.
Sir William Jones believed pundits and translated the book of Manu from Sanskrit to English. Thus, on the basis of the laws of Manu, a law was formed for administering justice to non-Christian and non-Muslim Indians of the British dominion, and this law was called as the Hindu law.
The principles of the book of Manu which was used for drafting the Hindu Law were called as Hinduism. The basic principle of the book of Manu is caste discrimination.
The name coined by Sir William Jones to denote caste discriminating principles is Hinduism. It is not a religion. It is a way of Life. It is the way of life of the Indus people.
In this a historic false perception crept in. That is, when they called the terms Christian Law, Muslim law and Hindu Law, both Christian Law and Muslim Law were associated with 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.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 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.:~ Santthosh Kumaar
