Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

[devotee]

Namaste Kalicharan,

I share your concern. People who propagate this theory, forget what Manusmriti talks about Varna and what VajrashUchikA Upanishad i.e. Shruti says about Varna. Chapter 18 of Bhagwad Gita makes it ample clear what gunas Brahman must have and what the Kshatriyas have etc. Unfortunately, it was made out to be birth-based.

Anyway, this is not the issue at hand. I have enough ammunition to keep firing on this highly flammable topic but that would certainly derail the thread. In fact, if you are interested, you can look into quite a few threads on this forum where this topic has been discussed.


********

It is quite disappointing to see that no reply is coming from Phil against my posts. That who never kept silent in spite of several requests made in the past, has gone suddenly silent and that is sad. If no reply is coming by today, I would move to another issue at hand :

"Which scriptures are actually Shruti ?" ... This was never an issue with the Hindus. No Acharya in the past raised any doubts over authenticity of Upanishads mentioned in the MuktikA Upanishad and the Upanishads listed therein. However, much has changed since the arrival of our brilliant friend on this forum who himself decides what Shruti is and what is not. I will show his different posts in different threads, his varying stands and also references from Commentaries from Shankaracharya to show how this is all nothing but Kutarka. I will also show how opportunism (like, I will consider only those texts as Shruti which support my views !) has taken tall on presentation of Truth as it is.

OM

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste Devotee-ji,

Please define "Kutarka".

Jai Sri Ram

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste Kalicharan,

I share your concern. People who propagate this theory, forget what Manusmriti talks about Varna and what VajrashUchikA Upanishad i.e. Shruti says about Varna. Chapter 18 of Bhagwad Gita makes it ample clear what gunas Brahman must have and what the Kshatriyas have etc. Unfortunately, it was made out to be birth-based.

Are you claiming Varna is not birth based? I thought this topic was discussed to death on this forum sometime ago.

"Which scriptures are actually Shruti ?" ... This was never an issue with the Hindus. No Acharya in the past raised any doubts over authenticity of Upanishads mentioned in the MuktikA Upanishad and the Upanishads listed therein.

Not raising doubts does not necessarily mean they approved the list. The first known list of Upanishads comes from Shankara. He quoted some and wrote commentaries on a few which came to be known as the major Upanishads because all his future rivals had to also comment on these Upanishads to provide their own interpretations (always remarkably coinciding with their doctrines).

Since his time, other authors have had their own lists of Upanishads and the standard pattern is, the later the author, the bigger the list. Ramanuja's list was bigger than Shankara's and Madhva's list was even longer. By the time of the Muktika (14th Century?), the list had grown quite long. Obviously, this means everyone of them introduced Upanishads, which cannot be traced to an earlier time. From this, it follows all of them can and will be accused of fabricating Upanishads in support of their positions.

[satay]

Namaste,

Are you claiming Varna is not birth based?

No, don't open that can here again.

Thanks,

[devotee]

Namaste Shiv,

Are you claiming Varna is not birth based? I thought this topic was discussed to death on this forum sometime ago.

Yes. However, let's not start discussing this issue here as it is not intended in this thread.

Not raising doubts does not necessarily mean they approved the list. The first known list of Upanishads comes from Shankara. He quoted some and wrote commentaries on a few which came to be known as the major Upanishads because all his future rivals had to also comment on these Upanishads to provide their own interpretations (always remarkably coinciding with their doctrines).
Since his time, other authors have had their own lists of Upanishads and the standard pattern is, the later the author, the bigger the list. Ramanuja's list was bigger than Shankara's and Madhva's list was even longer. By the time of the Muktika (14th Century?), the list had grown quite long. Obviously, this means everyone of them introduced Upanishads, which cannot be traced to an earlier time. From this, it follows all of them can and will be accused of fabricating Upanishads in support of their positions.

I cannot accept your statement as it is without any support. You will have to show which Acharya pushed what list (if any) and what were the new Upanishads introduced by him as you allege. Can you quote Shankara's list, Ramanuja's list and Madhava's list of Upanishads ? Are you aware that list of authentic Upanishads is already there in Muktika Upanishad and I don't think every Acharya created his own "Muktika Upanishad" ? How can you say that Muktika is of 14th Century and not much earlier ... is there any proof or is it just your guess ? Your allegation that different Acharyas "created" their own Upanishads to buttress their points is not in good taste.

BTW, as you don't subscribe to theist views and have views of an atheist, imho, it is better if we discuss this issue in a different thread so that focus of this thread is not lost.

OM

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

This thread, turned into a wasteland, brings about in my mind the image of a pensive Krishna, who sitting alone somewhere there after the Great War, is contemplating on the future and the destiny of the country called Aryavarta.

To summarise it to the audience still here, that is me,

1) Varna, in the known history, as far back as "once upon a time", does mean a birth based hierarchy. The oft argued "merit" based hierarchy is just a red herring, is so bogus. Varna, the way of works as found out by the Rsis, can only mean no hierarchy at all.

2) There is no interpolation in Manusmriti. In fact, Manusmriti is the original most literature after RigVeda. Even more pristine than RgVeda which has, in its last chapter, some very late material.

3) Upanishads started with speculating about the meaning of RigVeda, ended up in results (as they say "necessity is the mother of invention") which necessarily lead to logical conclusions as already discussed here.

4) Ram and Krishna are, what we call "miracles", but they are more like the "Neo" of "The Matrix", who can bring some hope, but is not going to win the war. They operated within an already vitiated environ.

Now, to summarise 1)-4),
1) Hopeless?

Or, as the Rsi would say, when he used to get stuck somewhere, he would sacrifice away all his previous knowledge, wipe the slate clean, shed the baggage, and start afresh.
Looks like a zero sum game, but hold on, the Rsi is smiling...

[shiv.somashekhar]

I cannot accept your statement as it is without any support. You will have to show which Acharya pushed what list (if any) and what were the new Upanishads introduced by him as you allege. Can you quote Shankara's list, Ramanuja's list and Madhava's list of Upanishads ?

Sure.

Shankara (8th Century CE) - All the old Upanishads* except Mandukya and Maitryayani. Also the section of Brahmanas known as Rahasya, Jaabaala Upanishad, Paingi Upanishad and some others whose names are not traceable are all quoted as Sruti.

Ramanuja (11th Century CE) - All the old Upanishads except Mandukya plus the Jaabaala, Garbha, Cuulikaa, Mahaa, Subaala, etc.

Madhva (13th Century CE) - A much bigger list of mostly untraceable names have been quoted as Sruti, drawing criticism from many modern scholars (Madhva's lost works, etc.). I do not have this list with me at this time. Also, the reason why his work is not taken as seriously as Shankara and Ramanuja by scholars.

Sayana (14th Century CE) - First known mention of the Muktika Upanishad, which is commonly seen as the work of an Advaitin.

As Deussen, Nakamura, et al., have noted, Vedanta students, in addition to following early age Upanishads as sacred canon were also engaged in creating new Upanishads to better convey their positions and many of these Upanishads were also eventually attached to one of the Vedas. There are over 200 known "non-early age" Upanishads. As I pointed out earlier, the list of authoritative Upanishads grows longer with time.

*Old Upanishads are again split into three groups - Pre Buddha, Post Buddha and the period in between

Pre-Buddha -> Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya
Post-Buddha -> Kathaka, Mundaka, Prasna, Shvetaswatara, Maitrayani (Maitri) and Mandukya
In between the above two -> Aitareya, Kausitaki, Taittiriya, Kena, Isa

Coming to the topic of this thread, as the Muktika was first mentioned by Sayana, an advaitin (brother of Vidyaranya), it cannot be used in discussion with other schools of Vedanta (unless they are OK with it) - just like Hare Krishnas cannot quote Tapani Upanishads or the modern Chaitanya Upanishad (modern, but part of the Rig-veda!) outside their own group.

[devotee]

Namaste Ramkrishna,

Namaste Devotee-ji,
Please define "Kutarka".

Kutarka = "Ku" + "Tarka" == "Ku" means "Bad" as used in many words e.g. KumArgI (Who goes on a wrong path), Kumati (bad buddhi), Kukarma (Bad Karma) + "Tarka" i.e. Argument ===> Bad argument/illogical argument.


Namaste Shiv,

I think it is not the proper thread to discuss all this. May be, you can find your answers in my coming post and if not, I promise that I would certainly entertain your question too in another thread. Until then, please bear with me.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Forum Members and Phil,

Till now, I have been first addressing Phil and then other forum members but please mark that in this thread, I draw attention of all other members first who consider themselves as Hindu. I will make it clear, why it is necessary.

Phil has been very aggressive in declaring the scriptures of dubious/doubtful nature citing one reason or the other once it didn’t serve his purpose. I remember when he was new on this forum, he stated something like this in one of his posts, “Not all Upanishads are genuine Shruti but only 108 Upanishads which appear in Muktika Upanishad”. I tried to locate this statement but I couldn't find it though I very well remember that he wrote this long back on this forum. Anyway, as I have no proof today, I won’t insist on this.

While discussing with me in different threads he has pushed the following arguments to discredit all Upanishads except the Major Upanishads :

The pUrva-pakshins have so far shown no interest in establishing the antiquity of these other "Upanishads" which have neither been commented on nor quoted prior to the last few centureis. Hence, we will focus our analysis on the principal upanishads, saMhitAs, brAhmaNas, and AraNyakas as well as bhagavad-gItA.

===> a) Please note how ONLY the Prinicipal Upanishads have been considered by Phil for being accepted as Shruti. However, the principal Upanishads don’t support "NArAyaNa alone as the supreme God" theory and this forced him to change his stand at later stage and he included “MahANArAyaNa Upanishad” in the list of acceptable scriptures.

b) Please also note that authenticity of an scripture has been based on this assumption, “If not commented or quoted earlier than last a few centuries, the scripture loses its value as authentic scripture”. The authenticity of a scripture has been based on its antiquity and also the dating has been based on whether or not the scripture was either commented upon or referred to in the ancient past.

We will see why this Kutarka has potential to negate authenticity of almost all our canonical texts.

I never said that "except 10 major Upanishads all are spurious and unreliable." What I have said is that there are texts of human origin that have been passed off as "Upanishads," and such texts cannot be genuine Upanishads when they are not unauthored. We know the principal Upanishads are canon because they have been commented on by AchAryas from multiple different traditions going back to 8th century, are still taught in living oral traditions today, and so no doubts exists regarding their authenticity.

In the above comments too, the authenticity of the scriptures is relied upon its dating and also being commented upon. It has been assumed that if the antiquity is not proved, the scripture is of human origin and not Apauresheya.

The same is true for a handful of other upaniShads such as the shvetAshvatara, the mahAnArAyaNa, and few others which have been quoted by pUrvAchAryas in their writings. By contrast, a large number of the so-called 108 Upanishads have never been quoted by any of the AchAryas, and it is not believable that they would have neglected to quote them when they contain such philosophically relevant material. Hence, I stated that their authority is dubious.

In the above comments, Phil has cleverly introduced MahAnArAyaNa Upanishad when he could gather that he could not bank upon Only Major Upanishads to certify the supremacy of NArAyaNa. As a goodwill gesture perhaps, he has given credit to SvetAsvatar Upanishad too. This has to be noted with concern that the authority of the Upanishads has been questioned based on the above assumptions of antiquity and commentaries by the Acharyas.

I'm waiting to hear proof of their antiquity, but until I do so, I can only assume that those who retreat into these other Upanishads do so because they cannot defend their views based on the principal ones quoted by the AchAryas. Just as an aside, several of these Upanishads contain material that does seem consistent with my position, but I am hesitant to quote them until I know for sure that they are genuine.

This is remarkable that though he has no qualms in taking the help of minor Upanishad, MahANArayana to prove his point as he has no support from the major Upanishads, he ridicules others who justify their point of views by taking the help of minor Upanishads.

If it is possible to create spurious texts and pass them off as Upanishads, then it certainly brings to question the origin of other texts like the Muktika which, strangely, does not appear to have been quoted by any major sampradaya acharya prior to the 17th century. ..... The Muktika Upanishad could be an authored text from well before the time of the Allah Upanishad, and thus might be more mature in its philosophical content - but if it is authored, then it is not shruti and hence lacks independent authority. Now, I do not know for sure that the Muktika U. is an authored text - I merely point out, as others have, that the lack of any mention to it in the ancient commentaries, and the lack of existing oral traditions in which it is being passed down, both leave legitimate doubts about its authenticity.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...tika#post92919

There is no proof that Muktika Upanishad didn’t exist before 17th century. This 17th century has come into picture by the fact that this Upanishad found to be listed by DArA Shikoh in year 1656. However, it only proves that it must have existed much before 17th century.

I'm aware of the Muktikaa Upanishad listing 108 Upanishads. But again, who knows for certain that Muktikaa Upanishad is genuine? I would like to believe that it is, but I only know of an Advaitin yogi who commented on it in the 1800's. Prior to that I know of no references to it. Perhaps there are older references that can attest to its antiquity, but I'm sure many members would appreciate knowing what those are before assuming that all these Upanishads (which none of the ancient commentators appear to have commented on) are real.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...tika#post86374

The problem is, I didn't do that. I simply asked for some reasonable standard of evidence by which I can infer that the Upanishads you quoted are genuine. Of the Upanishads you quoted, can you show where for example, they were at least quoted by Shankaracharya in his commentaries? Can you show where any of them were quoted in the writings of any acharya before, say 16th or 17th centuries? If not, then how do you know they are really shruti, as opposed to spurious texts authored in later times?

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...tika#post86374

**********************************************

Now, this is a very dangerous mentality for Hindu-Dharma as One religion. We may all note that such questioning the authority of sacred scriptures and then pushing one’s own beliefs on others, can only be done against two groups in Hindus :

a) The Non-sectarian Hindus who form the majority of today’s Hindu society. These people mostly go by what is written in the ItIhAsas, PurANAs and to some extent Bhagwad Gita and then what the Gurus say. Their philosophy matches with the SmArthas. For the SmArthas Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Mother Goddess in Durga form or Kali form, Ganesha (Some South Indian SmArtha add Skanda too in the list as the sixth deity) are all different forms/names of same Brahman. It is believed that the SmArtha tradition was propagated by Adi Shankaracharya.

These Hindus are the most liberal and tolerant and therefore you can say something against some God/scripture and still get away without any harm.

b) The other highly tolerant Hindus are the Advaitins who accept all deities as same Brahman in different forms and names. The Advaitins don’t say that any path is wrong or any form/name of God is a demi-God as long as that form/name is worshipped as the Supreme God.

The above can be noted here on this forum itself. The defence of equal status to deities has come from Sri GaneshPrasad ji (a non-sectarian Hindu whose chosen deity for worship is Lord Krishna) and myself who is an Advaitin and who pleads for equal supremacy of all deities.

If you try to push this statement ,“NArAyANa is the ONLY Supreme God and Shiva/Mother Goddess/Ganesha/Surya are demi- gods” to ShAktas of West Bengal, Ganesha worshippers of MahArAshtra (they can be highly militant on this issue), Shaivas of the south India or Advaitic Shaivas (i.e. Kashmir Shaivism) of Kashmir (propagated by Sri Abhinava Gupata) and Sun-worshippers of PurvAnchala area in East-Central India ... you are certainly asking for troubles for yourself.

Let’s remember that Hindus will not remain only Hindus but Shaiva-Hindus, Vaishnava Hindus, ShAktA Hindus, non-sectarian Hindus and Advaitin Hindus if there is meeting point in their beliefs somewhere. You start doubting the scriptures and start accepting your own chosen scripture to denigrate other Hindus’ beliefs, the Hindu Dharma falls apart as pack of cards. How ?

a) There is no scriptural authority which is not challenged by one or the other scholar at some point of time based on one or the other reason. I will show you what doubts have been raised against even the Veda-smahitAs, Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita.

b) There is no scripture in human history which is not dated and therefore, nothing remains “Apauresheya” by Phil’s logic. In fact, please see below that Veda-samhitAs are dated from as early as 6000 BCE to 200 BCE even by respected Indian Hindu scholar, like Tilak. Now, what part of the Vedas (samhitAs) should be considered as Apauresheya and what not ?

====> No. It is believed by different scholars that Rig Veda in current form has come to us by compiling texts from a few thousand years ago to as early as 4th century AD (some claim even 6th to 8th century AD). It should be noted that in all probability, Rig Veda in written form came only in 4th to 6th century AD. It has been claimed that in contrast to the earlier version of Rig Veda, Purusha Sukta has been added only in the 4th century AD. In fact, it is alleged that Mandala I and Mandala X of Rig Veda are manipulated by the Vaishnavas to show the supremacy of Vishnu over other deities. (ref : Discovering the Rig Veda by GNS Raghavan and writings of Prof MM Ninan). Ambedakar strongly believed that Rig Veda was forged by the Brahmins to give credence to “Chatur Varna” theory (Ref : http://www.am
bedkar.org/books/dob4.htm).

The above text also claims that all the Upanishads are dated later than Buddha and giving rise to doubts that the philosophy contained in the Upanishads borrowed from Buddhism and it was not “Apaurusheya” as claimed.

====> The Purusha Sukta mentioned in Yajur Veda (Chapter 31), also known as “Uttar NArAyaNa Purusha Sukta” is not the same as Purusha Sukta mentioned in Rig Veda and has been doubted to be manipulated by the Vaishnavas. The doubts have been raised due to change in sequence of the verses, mention of Atharva Veda (referred to as Chhandas) etc. as Atharva Veda is believed to have come much later than Rig Veda and Yajur Veda. It is believed that the core text of the Atharvaveda falls within the classical Mantra period of Vedic Sanskrit at the end of the 2nd millennium BCE - roughly contemporary with the Yajurveda mantras, the Rigvedic Khilani, and the Sāmaveda.The Atharvaveda is also the first Indic text to mention iron (as krsna ayas, literally "black metal"), so that scholarly consensus dates the bulk of the Atharvaveda hymns to the early Indian Iron Age, corresponding to the 12th to 10th centuries BC, or the early Kuru kingdom.

==> Even the great Indian Hindu scholar, Sri LokmAnya Tilak has estimated the dating of Vedas from 6000 BCE to 200 BCE.

**** Note : HDF members may please note that this dating makes whole of the Vedas as “Not Apauresheya” as per illogical argument pushed by Phil in his posts.

Upanishads :

Apart from the above let’s see the dating done by various scholars of the Upanishads :

The earliest of the extant Upanishads, the BrihadāraNyaka and the Chāndogya Upanishads are considered as being composed about the sixth century BCE. Three other prose Upanishads are also considered pre-Buddhist. These are the Taittiriya, Aitreya and Kausitaki Upanishads. The other “principal” Upanishads were the Kena, the Katha, the Iśā, the Mundaka, the Praśna, the Māndukya, and the Śvetāśvatara.

Bhagwad Gita and MahAbhArata :

Is Bhagwad Gita really the word of God ? Is it really a part of original MahAbhArata written by VyAsa ? How old is MahAbhArata and how old is Bhagwad Gita ? What do different scholars say ?

The Bhagavad Gita (‘The God’s Song’), widely regarded as the philosophical core of the Mahabharata, was composed much later under the realities of a new age. It was merged into the epic’s later drafts, perhaps as late as first century CE.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvin...andreality.pdf

However, Some of the historians believe that Bhagwad Gita could have been written around 5th century to 2nd century BCE.

Historian A L Bashan feels that Mahabharata war might not have been fought earlier than 9th Century BCE. It is also alleged by some scholars (V S Suktharaman, 1933) that MahbhArata was forged by the Vaishnavas much later to make it a Vaishnava scripture.

******

Now, whether do we stand ? What should be the criteria to judge an scripture as Shruti and what not ? If an scripture is revealed after 6th century AD, should we discard it as dubious and if it is written before 6th century AD, then we should accept it as authentic ? What was the date when the Shruti was revealed ? Let someone tell me a fixed date which would be accepted by all Hindus to judge the authenticity of our scriptures. Tilak dates the Ved-SamhitAs to 6000 BCE to 200 BCE. This is a very long time duration. A Phil born in 200 BCE would have questioned the authenticity of part of Veda-samhitA which was revealed during his time and may be even time within a few centuries in his life time. Another Phil born in 1000 BCE, would have questioned all SamhitAs as spurious and dubious revealed after his birth. If a Phil born in 5000 BCE would have survived till today, then he would have declared 90 % of the Veda-smahitAs and all of Upanishads as having human origin and discredited all of them. For him, even Bhawgad Gita would have no significance due to dating ! If Bhagwad Gita is dated 5th to 2nd century BCE, we will have to seriously see if vyAsa was there in that period to write this and we will also have to match the date of Kurukshetra war with this period.

The important thing to note is that there is no conclusive proof when these were really revealed and there is no conclusive proof when the so-called suspected "non-apaurusheya" scriptures actually written by a human being. Just because a certain book came into light at a later date, doesn't prove that it didn't exist in any form earlier. Moreover, the writing of scriptures came much later than the oral tradition and therefore, even if some contemporary things got mixed at the writing of the scripture, it cannot be said that the core idea came into existence at the time of writing the scripture and not earlier.

The above shows the absurdity of assuming validity of the scriptures based on dating. The commentaries or no commentary don’t prove anything. No commentaries made by the Acharaya on any scripture is no proof of its non-validity as Shruti. No Acharya would include a scripture which would not support his views. Why should a Vaishnava Acharya try to show supremacy of Shiva or Advatin's NirguNa Brahman ? If he negated one scripture as Non-shruti, there was an equal chance that his own “shruti” might have been challenged by someone else and that could have created unnecessary disharmony within Hindu Society. So, this might have been a great motive behind them not quoting the scripture even if it would have been there in his time. BTW, when assuming “dating” of an scripture as a certificate of being called a Shruti is absurd, this logic becomes even more absurd.

We must understand what “Apaurusheya” means. Apaurusheya doesn't mean that its revelation was not dated. If that was the case, there would have been no Rishi named to whom the suktAs were revealed. The fact that it was revealed to different Rishis at different point of times, dating becomes an absurd criteria to judge the authenticity of any scripture. This will be touched upon by me in my next post in further detail. Moreover, the revelation of an scripture and scripture coming into public domain may not be simultaneous ... and commenting on that by anyone can certainly not be accepted as its being genuine or not.

By such claims the whole Hindu Dharma becomes a butt of joke as neither of our scriptures remains authoritative. Also, many Hindu-sects would discard even the Vedas as the authority if such a theory is pushed too much forward. Let’s not forget that VAmmArgis, the Aghoris, the ShaktAs, the Shaivas, the Kashmir Shaivism, the Kabir Panthis etc. don’t bank too much upon VedAs for validation of their paths and their belief systems. They have their own scriptures which are revealed to various Gurus of their traditions. So, this has the potential of dividing all the Hindus into many irreconcilable sects, each one criticising the other and fighting fiercely in defense of his own beliefs. This also makes all Hindus a laughing stock in front of non-Hindu religious fanatics as we are left with no scripture which was revealed by God.

.... This issue is continued in next post ....

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Forum Members and Phil,

In my last post, I have quoted some of the objections against our revered scriptures from historians and other scholars and also shown the datings of various authoritative Hindu scriptures etc. However, the question is .... is our belief that our scriptures (Shruti) are Apaurusheya is just a child’s belief, a fairy tale ? That is the tragedy of our Hindu Dharma. Let’s compare the authorities available in Christianity and Islam versus our own Dharma :

1. Christianity :

The Christians have one book i.e. Bible and one prophet who got the revelation from God i.e. Jesus Christ. The New Testament was written in today’s form from 60-85 CE to 200 CE. It is not possible to test the veracity of what was revealed to Jesus Christ which came in the form of New Testament. It is the final word of God and if you have doubts ... the answers must be found Only in the available revelations to Jesus Christ.

2. IslAm :

The revelation of Q’uran verses to Mohammad started only in 610 AD and Q’uran in current form was canonised by Uthman Ibn Affan from 653 to 656 AD. It is not possible to test the veracity of what is written in Q’uran which was revealed to Mohammad. It is the final word of God and if you have doubts ... the answers must be found Only in the available revelations to Mohammad.

3. Hindu Dharma :

The revelations made in the scriptures have been validated by many Rishis/saints even in recent times in addition to what was revealed to our Rishis thousands of years ago. Let’s see :

Advaita Tradition :

a) RamanaA Maharishi, became self-realised by the age of sixteen without having a chance to study the scriptures in deep. In fact, in 1895 (at the age of sixteen years) he was attracted towards Shiva Bhakti by reading Periya Puranam and became an ardent Shiva Bhakta as he wanted to emulate the great Shaivas described in the book. Later that year itself he tried to act as a corpse with Self-enquiry and he had Self-realisation. This Self-realisation is in conformity with the scriptures.

b) Ramkrishna Paramahansa :

Ramkrishna Parmahansa of the scriptures, as per information available to me, was limited to PurANas (basically RAmAyaNa, MahAbhArata, Bhagwat PurANa which he learnt from wandering monks and kathaks. Ramkrishna was a Bhakta and not an Advaitin to start with. He worshipped Lord Shiva, Rama, Krishna and Goddess Kali. Later, he started seeing Goddess Kali image as his mother. One day, he had a vision of Universal form of Goddess Kali which he described in these words :

“"... houses, doors, temples and everything else vanished altogether; as if there was nothing anywhere! And what I saw was an infinite shoreless sea of light; a sea that was consciousness. However far and in whatever direction I looked, I saw shining waves, one after another, coming towards me."

This realisation validates our Scripture’s quote : Consciousness is Brahman and Mother Goddess Kali is none but Brahman alone.

Ramkrishna got his spiritual training under teachers from Tantra path, Vaishnava (Bhairavi BrAhmani who was a Gaudiya Vaishnava and practised Tantra) and VedAnta (TotApuri), Ramkrishna attained the highest state with different bhAvas (moods) i.e. dAsya as HanumAna worshipping Lord Rama ... at the end of his SAdhanA, he had a vision of SItA merging into his body. In 1864, he tried vātsalya bhāva under a Vaishnava guru Jatadhari. During this period, he worshipped a metal image of Ramlālā (Rama as a child) in the attitude of a mother. According to Ramakrishna, he could feel the presence of child Rama as a living God in the metal image. Later he also tried MAdhurya bhAva i.e. as a Gopi/RAdhA towards Lord Krishna and succeeded in having Savikapla SamAdhi with Lord Krishna. In 1865, he was trained under an Advaitic monk, Totapuri in Advaita VedAnta and by practising it he entered Nirvikalpa SamAdhi.

Therefore, Ramkrishna’s experiences validated Bhakti paths in different modes and towards different forms and names which matched the statement made in Mudgala Upanishad, “He became as he was worshipped” i.e. it is Brahman who existed in different forms depending upon the bhAva of the devotee. Ramkrishna also validated teachings of VedAnta by his attaining Nirvikalpa samAdhi with his Advaitic SAdhanA.

c) Nisargadatta Maharaj :

Born in 1897 and died in 1981. He was initiated into Navnath sampradAya (started with Yogis Matsyendra Nath and Gorakhnath). He attained Self-realisation which is mentioned in VedAnta even though he never read VedAnta. His guru told him, "You are not what you take yourself to be...".He then gave Nisargadatta simple instructions which he followed verbatim, as he himself recounted later, “My Guru ordered me to attend to the sense 'I am' and to give attention to nothing else. I just obeyed. I did not follow any particular course of breathing, or meditation, or study of scriptures. Whatever happened, I would turn away my attention from it and remain with the sense 'I am'. It may look too simple, even crude. My only reason for doing it was that my Guru told me so. Yet it worked!"

d) There have been many Advaitic Gurus who have realised Advaitic Self-realisation in the and have been known even in 2oth century. Sri Yogananda’s book “An autobiography of a Yogi” testifies this. We cannot say that this has stopped in the 21st century and will certainly continue in the coming centuries also. Anyone can get first hand experience of the enlightened spiritual Gurus by visiting various AkhArAs.

e) Matsyendra Nath, Gorakh Nath, Raja Bhartrihari have been well known Nath Samprdaya Yogis who were all God-realised/Self-realised. I had a chance to visit, Raja Bhartrihari’s SamAdhi place in the fort of ChunAr (He was king of ChunAr), near Varanasi recently. At SamAdhi place, there is a Official Order written in Urdu language issued by Aurangjeb. When Aurangajeb successfully won the war in ChunAr, he tried to desecrate teh samAdhi place of Bhartrihari which is there in the fort itself. He was warned by the priests that it was highly sacred place of SamAdhi of RAjA Bhartrihari and it would be sheer foolishness to desecrate this place. However, Aurangjeb was a hardliner Muslim and he believed in other religious faiths only if there was some visible miracles. He tried to desecrate the place by destroying that place when millions of honey bees of extra ordinary size attacked his people. He tried to kill them by burning fire, pouring hot oil into the hole from where they were coming in thousands. However, nothing worked and he accepted defeat. Thereafter, in the honour of the great yogi, he issued an order that this place may not be disturbed by people from any faith whatsoever. This order was issued in Urdu/Persian and still hangs above his samAdhi.

Bhakti

Bhakti Marga was validated by many saints in Hindu Dharma. Apart from the well known Acharyas there were many who experienced one-ness with God as described in scriptures by following their paths and worshipping their chosen deities. The Shaiva Nayanars of South India (3rd to 10th century AD) like Kannappa Nayanar (Shiva Bhakta), Sundarar Nayanar etc. who followed Shaiva Sidhhanta which is considered by them essence of VedAnta as Bhagwad Gita is considered the essence of VedAnta. In Vaishnavas, SAdhana KasAi (SAdhana, the butcher), Biharindeva ji (Haridas ji sampradaya), Tulsidas, Chaitanya MahAprabhu, Sant Ravidas etc. have been considered God-realised saints.

Kashmir Shaivism

Kashmir Shaivism can neither be considered Advaita of Shankara nor Bhakti of Vaishnavas. It is essentially an Advaitic Shaivaites’ tradition started by Sri Abhinava Gupta. His writings more or less match the Advaita philosophy with some differences.

*******
I am not that knowledgeable on stories of great God-realised Bhaktas/Self-realised Advaitins but the above examples shows how the Truth which is there in the scriptures is realised by our many saints of different traditions. The core philosophy of the eternal Truth which is experienced by great saints of different paths is not much different from what is taught in the VedAs (including VedAnta). First of all, God realisation has been in Shaiva, Vaishnava, ShAkta traditions even though the paths appear to be different. Also, Non-duality has been experienced not only by the Advaitin Gurus but also by the saints who were bhaktas to start with. Thus the message of Veda-samhitAs, Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita must accommodate all the different paths and yet communicate the One Unchanging Truth at the end. This also proves that taking any meaning out of the scriptures which could not accommodate all the validated paths has to be erroneous interpretation of the scriptures.

******

What is the message for all of us ? The Truth which is expressed in the Vedas showing equal supremacy of Vishnu and Shiva and also the Advaitic Truth has been realised and experienced by our saints from the ancient times to even today. That is the great test of eternal Truth and that is the hallmark of Apurusheya and eternal Truth and that is why the Vedas are considered Apaurusheya and eternal.

What I am saying that the Truth which is accepted in Hindu Dharma is not dependent on mere writings in scriptures or something which is told by someone in ancient times, as conveyed to him by God Himself and after that no one can verify that with his own experience, as is there in AbrAhimic religions. The Hindu Dharma doctrines are realised and validated again and again in different ages by incarnating sages. I can say with confidence that such sages exist even today in front him ... all scriptures become secondary as they themselves are God-realised/ Self-realised.

That is the greatness of our Hindu Dharma. Please don’t accept anything as Truth just like that ... tread a path which is shown by your Self-realised/God-realised Guru of your tradition and see for yourself. It is unwise to fight with arguments and counter arguments just to win an argument. The Truth in Hindu DharmA is open to be experienced. Just find a True Guru who can show you the right way.

In the light of above, it appears to test the validity of our scriptures based on their antiquity or whether anyone commented upon them or not. The real test is the test of the Truth by personal experience. Pratyaksham kim PramAnam ? A direct experience needs no proof. You cannot cajole a Bhartrihari or a Sundarar Nayanar or an Abhinava Gupta or a Ramana Maharishi or a Matsyendra Nath to accept “Vishnu is the only God” by your twisting arguments in whatever clever manner. Why ? You can’t define God to anyone who knows what God is as you can't teach Newtonian Mechanics to Newton.

OM