Forum

One has to go beyond Vedas means go beyond religion. Go beyond religion means, go beyond concept of god.  Thus, going beyond Veda, religion and conceptual god means going beyond illusion.   That is end of Vedas [Veda –antha]

When one goes into the annals of the history it looks like the true Advith expounded by Sri Sankara and his param guru, Goudpada was lost or mutilated by the orthodox cult, because their preaching is based on nonduality and practices are based on duality.

Sri, Sankara says in Brahma Sutras: that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya 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.

Sri, Sankara himself has warned us not to use ambiguous words, and to practice semantic analysis in his book "Definition of one's own Self. [" Page 199, v.24 of "Sankara's Selected Works]

Buddha found religion in such a worthless state, with so many vile animal sacrifices, that he attacked religion. Sri, Sankara did not seek to destroy religion like Buddha but he advocated reforming it for better. He did this because he saw that the masses
had to have some form of religion as they were not ripe intellectually for truth.

Sankara's sex experience in Benares and occupying the body of another man and then having sex intercourse with his wife, is a story created by pundits hiding the real fact. Sri, Sankara had the scientific spirit and when told by Saraswathi the woman that he was talking freely about sex, being a Sanyasi, he wanted to know the truth by having actual intercourse himself and thus learning by experiment and observation. Thus, this has to be viewed by the seeker on the rational standpoint, because the sex is part of the illusion on the ultimate standpoint.   Sri, Sankara
stressed the great importance of freeing our use of words from all ambiguity.

Buddhists and Jains did not believe in the Vedic positions, did not accept the scriptures. Hence, Sri, Sankara had to meet their objections also.  Biographical anecdotes about his persecution of Jains and Buddhists or of his challenges to self-immolation for the loser of a debate are all foolish tales fabricated after his lifetime either by his own followers who took him to be a religious propagator but  not as a  philosopher or by the dualistic cult.

The religious pundiths of Adavitic sect relate boastfully pseudo-historic stories of how Sri, Sankara's school put down, persecuted end exterminated the Buddhists, as though this was something to be proud of. However these stories are either exaggerations or false stories fabricated by pundits or priest craft. The religious pundits are mere followers of religion, never having understood the depth of Advitic philosophy. Sri, Sankara gave religion and scholasticism and yoga no less than philosophy, to the world.

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 philosophy.  North India is the home of mysticism and deification and South India of keen rational truth.

Sri, Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. His books were dictated to secretaries as he travelled. So, only few were capable of understanding his philosophy.

Sri, Sankara always traveled and he never lived in a monastery. He simply instructed his disciples to   build one here and there " and then left because he was busy spreading his doctrines.

Some who followed Sri, Sankara are mere followers of religion, never having understood the Advaitic philosophy are religious scholars not Gnanis, and they are unable to grasp the non-dual -truth.

Sri, Sankara says seeker 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.

Some thinkers hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya.  The followers of Sri Sankara have constituted a religious sect. Thus all movements ultimately degenerate.

In commentary to "Brahma Sutras Sri, Sankara writes." "The highest beatitude is not to be attained by Yoga." [Sacred Books of East Series page 298 Vol.1.]   And he also says Samadhi is the same as sleep [p.312]. ---this indicates that yoga is not the means to self-realization.  And yogic Samadhi is not non dual wisdom.

Sri, Sankara's commentary to Brahma Sutras [Chap.3.4.50] shows that the Gnani "should pass through life", not run away from life and should take a middle course between seeking worldly honor and worldly abasement.

Sri, Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never advised 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.  Sri, Sankara was extremely precise and careful in his choice of words.

Sri, Sankara did more than write books or initiate Sanyasins: He brought India into a unity as a nation. He advised the mass: Worship what they wish, remain in their particular religion, but remember also they are part of a larger whole.

Few Pundits have caught the spirit; they are merely fond of his words. Sri, Sankara’s spirit is that of an appeal to reason, with scripture dragged in as a second and lesser support afterwards.

Sri, 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.

Centuries have passed since Sri, Sankara appeared; yet it is very hard to find his true teachings understood anywhere in the world today. It is because so few could rise to his level. Hence dualistic cults and devotional sects came in existence prospered.

It may not have been possible for him to have written so many books during such a short term of existence of 32 years. The truth 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. They are merely collections of notes recorded by his disciples from his sayings, talk and discussions.

Sri, Sankara wrote his commentaries on Mandukya 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 by Advaitins. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sri, Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.

Since, the Hinduism is mixer of many ideologies one gets confused which is true philosophy, because the dual, non-dual and qualified non-dual philosophies all  are based on Vedas.  And many believe their inherited beliefs of their forefathers are pure and sacred without verifying the facts. All rituals and individualized gods are added time to time.  Only when one tries to go deeper in annals of history one will be able to find that all the present days’ beliefs and rituals are not part of the Santana Dharma /Vedic religion.

continued -in part-3