Sage Sankara said: ~Liberation comes only through the realization that Atman and Brahman are one in no other way.+

The Self is not you, but the Self is the invisible Soul, which is hidden by the illusory form, time, and space.

If the Self is the invisible and unborn Soul, then: ~

Where is the yogi? Where are his chakras? Where is the world in which he exists? Where is the divine light? Where is the divine sound? Where is the divine vibration? What needs us there to say more? Noting from the Soul because whatever seems to emanate from it is non-different from itself.

There is no second thing other than the invisible Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness. One should not mistake the invisible Soul, the Self, for the ‘I’.

Those who assert the world is a reality are still in the elementary stages of the preliminary analysis. The world is a reality within the waking experience, but the waking experience is merely an illusion. Similarly, the dream world was a reality within the dream experience. The dream became unreal when the waking took place. In the same way, the waking becomes unreal when Advaitic wisdom dawns. :

The Self is not you, but the Self is the invisible Soul. Yoga is based on you. You are the false self within the false experience.

The invisible Soul is the Self. The invisible Soul is present in the form of consciousness. If the Self is not you, then what is the use of arguing about yoga, which is based on the false self (you) within the false experience (waking)?

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

Those who have a firm conviction that yoga is final, then they must continue with the yogic pursuit. The path of wisdom is not for those who believe the Self is within their body.

The Self is not within their body, but the Self is the invisible Soul hidden by the illusory world in which they exist.

The invisible Soul is the Self. The invisible Soul is present in the form of consciousness. Consciousness is one and undifferentiated. The dual and non-dual experiences (waking or dream (duality) and deep sleep (nonduality)) are merely an illusion created out of consciousness.

In Self-awareness, the invisible Soul withdraws the three states into itself and remains in its awareness in the midst of the dualistic illusion or Maya. The Soul is indeed the Self —luminous. : : ~  Santthosh Kumaar

all the Puranic Gods, which are of the form and attributes, are not Vedic Gods. +

With respect to this, what does the Bhagavad Gita say about idol worship?

About the impersonal mode of worship, the Bhagavad Gita says that the progress for those who worship the “unmanifest” is very troublesome and hard. They have to undergo severe tests and austerities, whereas one who worships Krishna's form makes progress very easily and naturally.

Similarly, why do we worship idols? Why do people worship idols when they know there's a true God who created them? People who ”worship idols" believe that they are worshipping their God, not an object, whether they believe that God is present in that object or that the graven image is a focal point for their worship.

In this regard, what do Hindus say about idol worship?

Idol actually means the statue of Inspiration, spirituality, and true faith. The Hindus who worship idols are actually worshiping god's divine form. Hindus concentrate on the Faith that imagining god's form enlightens spirituality in us. These are just ways of remembering one's form to describe his glorious personality.

How did idol worship start in Hinduism?

It probably started long after the Greeks and Indians came into contact with each other. Greeks worshiped their Gods and Goddesses' likenesses in stone. The cultural interaction between the Greeks and Indians brought the concept of idol worship.

With respect to this, what does the Bhagavad Gita say about idol worship?

About the impersonal mode of worship, the Bhagavad Gita says that the progress for those who worship the “unmanifest” is very troublesome and hard. They have to undergo severe tests and austerities, whereas one who worships Krishna's form makes progress very easily and naturally.

Similarly, why do we worship idols? Why do people worship idols when they know there's a true God who created them? People who ”worship idols" believe that they are worshipping their God, not an object, whether they believe that God is present in that object or that the graven image is a focal point for their worship.

In this regard, what do Hindus say about idol worship?

Idol actually means the statue of Inspiration, spirituality, and true faith. The Hindus who worship idols are actually worshiping god's divine form. Hindus concentrate on the Faith that imagining god's form enlightens spirituality in us. These are just ways of remembering one's form to describe his glorious personality.

How did idol worship start in Hinduism?

It probably started long after the Greeks and Indians came into contact with each other. Greeks worshiped their Gods and Goddesses' likenesses in stone. The cultural interaction between the Greeks and Indians brought the concept of idol worship.

Remember:~ 

Max Müller says ~ “The religion of the Veda knows no idols; the worship of idols in India is a secondary formation, a degradation of the more primitive worship of ideal Gods.

Remember:~

The Vedas do not talk about idol worship; the followers of the Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma never worshipped idols.

Thus, all the Puranic Gods, which are of the form and attributes, are not Vedic Gods.

Hinduism is not the ancient Vedic religion or the Santana Dharma. Hindus do idol worship, while the Vedas bar idol worship.

The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, until about 2000 years ago, followers of Vedism never worshipped idols. Idol worship was started by the followers of Buddhism and Jainism.

There is logic to idol worship. Vedas speak of one God that is the supreme ‘Self’ in i.e., Atman or Soul, but Hinduism indulges in worshiping 60 million Gods. All these 60 million Gods are non-Vedic Gods based on their beliefs.

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

Rig Veda: ~ The Atman (Soul or Spirit) 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 the real God?

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

Chandogya Upanishad: ~ 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).

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, the Puranas are to be rejected without mercy.

If you feel the Puranas say something and the Vedas say something else, reject the Puranas and believe in the Vedas. The Puranas are just a myth.

Even Sage Sankara declares: ~ Supreme Brahman (God in truth) is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal, and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as it is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside it. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described because description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is no distinction between substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitutes the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just its attributes. The Nirguna Brahman of Sage Sankara is impersonal.

God is a formless, timeless, and spaceless existence. Thus, according to the Vedas, God neither has any image nor does God reside in any particular idol or statue. God cannot be seen directly by anyone. God pervades all beings and all directions.

From a Vedic perspective, Lord Krishna has been just a Mahan yogi and not God himself. Because the Bhagavad Gita itself says: ~

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

Lord Krishna says Ch ~V: ~ “Those who know the Self in truth." The last two words (tattvataha) are usually ignored by pundits, but they make all the difference between the ordinary concept of God and the truth about God.

So, from a Vedic perspective, Lord Krishna is not a Vedic God because the Rig Veda says: May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?"

All Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practices barred by the Vedas, introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism at different times, whereas the Vedic religion, or Santana Dharma, is ancient and has no founder.

Hinduism is not a Vedic religion or the Santana Dharma. Hindus do idol worship, while the Vedas bar idol worship.

Sage Sankara: ~"That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman (God in truth).":~Santthosh Kumaar 

Sage Sankara himself said: ~ A Gnani "bears no outward mark of a holy man.+

Sage Sankara himself said: ~ A Gnani "bears no outward mark of a holy man." Select Works of Sankara" also his commentary on Brihad: ~ “Though I wear these robes of a Sanyasin, it is only for the sake of bread."

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

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

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

Remember:~

Religion encourages one who can induce himself to feel convinced that he has realized the Self, or has an admirer who believes that he has done so, then it opens up for him the way for the founding of a new sect based on Guru-worship.

People, too, have developed curious credulousness. Often, they would install an earnest seeker and devotee, or a pious saint, on the throne of God and begin to offer him worship and homage, even if he protested and resisted such acts. They would lie prostrate, sing hymns, wave lights (arati) and burn incense before him, and present to him food which was to be returned by him as Prasada, wash his toes, and sip the wash. At times, the disciple would go to the length of getting food, fruit, or a betel-nut leaf chewed by him, and taking the morsel back from it.

They would place his photo in the private temples of their homes and perform all these rites and ceremonies that are usually offered to temple idols. In this way, there might be at present in our country scores of individuals who are worshiped as living God, with the following varying in numbers.

If one is seeking truth, one has to drop all the religious dogmas and blind beliefs, ritualistic baggage, and move forward in their pursuit of truth.  

Remember:~

Vedas bar human worship. There is no need for the seeker of truth to indulge in glorifying the Gurus and worship them as Gods.

The seeker has to go beyond religion. Going beyond religion means going beyond the belief in a religious God to realize the real God hidden by ignorance.

When one goes into the annals of history, it looks like the true Advaita expounded by Sage Sankara and Sage Goudapada was lost or mutilated by the orthodoxy because the orthodoxy's preaching and practice do not match. Orthodoxy talks of Advaita, but their practice is dualistic.

The orthodoxy has nothing to do with Advaita because they are based on the experience of birth, life, death, and the world, whereas Advaita is based on the Soul, which is ever birthless and deathless, and wordless.

There is no use of prostration to holy sandals of the Guru or indulging in Pada Pooja (feet worship) when the inner Guru is the invisible Soul, the Self, which is ever formless.

The guru who identifies with his experience of birth, life, death, and the world, and the disciple who worships his guru’s body, will remain ignorant of the truth beyond form, time, and space.

Without getting rid of ignorance, they will never get freedom from experiencing the dualistic illusion as reality.

People think that prostrating to a religious Guru, adoring which the worst poverty-stricken have turned out to be great possessors of wealth, and even the mutes have turned out to be great masters of speech, are ideas based on the dualistic perspective is meant for the ignorant populace that accepts the world as a reality.

From the standpoint of the invisible Soul, the Self, the world in which birth, life, and death take place is merely an illusion.

People think that prostrating to the physical Guru, which serves as the downpour of water to put out the fire of misfortunes, removes the groups of distress of those who prostrate to them.

The devotion to the physical Guru and grace with the valuable dominion of renunciation is the religious idea.

All religious beliefs have nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman.

The devotion to the physical Guru and the grace with the valuable dominion of renunciation is the religious idea.

A person who realizes the ultimate truth or Brahman will throw off his religious robe and his religious identity and become free from experiencing the illusory duality as a reality.

Why worship and glorify the Gurus and Yogis when Vedas bar human worship: ~

Yajur Veda

Translation 3

"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, But 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."- [Yajur Veda 40:9.]

Then why worship and glorify the GURUS and YOGIS (human form) in place of God when the Veda bars such activities, and it also warns people who indulge in such activities 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. :~Santthosh Kumaar

Max Müller says: ~ "The religion of the Veda knows no idols.+

Max Müller says: ~ "The religion of the Veda knows no idols; the worship of idols in India is a secondary formation, a degradation of the more primitive worship of idol gods."

Hindus are idol worshipers of a large number of Gods and Goddesses, whereas in the Vedas the God has been described as: ~

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

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

Do not accept any other God other than Atman, nor worship other than Atman. Let these words be inscribed in your subconscious.

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

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

Rig-Veda 1-164-46 and Y.V 32-1 clearly mention that God is “One”.

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, 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 the Supreme Spirit, has no ‘Pratima’ (idol) or material shape. God cannot be seen directly by anyone. God pervades all beings and all directions.

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

It refers to a formless and attriubuteless God, which is the Atman (Soul), the innermost Self within the false experience.

Thus, it indicates clearly all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imaginations based on the false Self. Thus, Atman or Soul, the ‘Self’ is God in truth.

The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago followers of Vedism never worshipped idols. Idol worship was started by the followers of Buddhism and Jainism.

There is logic to idol worship. Vedas speak of one God that is the supreme Self, i.e., Atman or Soul, but Hinduism indulges in worshiping 60 million Gods.

That is why Swami Vivekananda: ~ The masses in India cry to sixty million Gods and still die like dogs. Where are these Gods?

Knowing this, stand up and fight! Not one step back, that is the idea. ... Fight it out, whatever comes. Let the stars move from the sphere! Let the whole world stand against us! Death means only a change of garments. What of it? Thus fight! You gain nothing by becoming cowards. ... Taking a step backward, you do not avoid any misfortune. You have cried to all the Gods in the world. Has misery ceased? The masses in India cry to sixty million Gods and still die like dogs. Where are these Gods? ... The Gods come to help you when you have succeeded. So what is the use? Die game. ... This bending the knee to superstitions, this selling yourself to your own mind does not befit you, my Soul. You are infinite, deathless, birthless. Because you are an infinite spirit, it does not befit you to be a slave. ... Arise! Awake! Stand up and fight! Die if you must. There is none to help you. You are the entire world. Who can help you? - Swami Vivekananda (Delivered In San Francisco, on May 28, 1900) -The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 1/Lectures And Discourses/The Gita II.

When the religion of the Veda knows no idols, then why are so many Gods and Goddesses with different forms and names being propagated as Vedic Gods? Why are these conceptual Gods introduced when the Vedic concept of God is free from form and attributes?

Hindus are idol worshipers of a large number of Gods and Goddesses, whereas in the Vedas, the God has been described as:-

The Vedic Culture and Vedas are complete in themselves, but Hinduism, which is a non-Vedic belief system with all rituals and conduct-oriented practices, has been largely contributed to by the orthodox priests to suit their convenience!

The Hindus believed in polytheism, believing all of their Gods to be separate individuals, which was introduced much later by the founders of Hinduism, which contains diverse beliefs, caste, and creeds.

The word Hinduism was first used by the English writers in the 19th century to describe the multiplicity of faiths of the people of India.

In Encyclopedia Britannica, it says: ~ The word Hinduism was first used by the British writers in the year 1830 to describe the multiplicity of the faiths of the people of India, excluding the converted Christians. (Volume- -20, Reference -581)

Swami Vivekananda says: - The word Hindu is a misnomer; the correct word should be a Vedantin, a person who follows the Vedas.

The word Hinduism is a misnomer.
  
Aryans were an ancient people who originally inhabited Central Asia and later migrated southwards to the regions stretching from Iran to northwest India. These early Aryans had a similar language, race, culture, and religion with many variations. 

The Aryans were influenced by the Dravidic culture, and in later centuries, other peoples also invaded and migrated to India, bringing other influences and mixing many cultures' ideologies and beliefs.

Ancient peoples of India belonged to the Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma; therefore, they have nothing to do with present-day Hinduism.

Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma is not Hinduism. The word Hindu originated from the word Sindhu, which is another name for the river Indus. Maybe people who stayed along the Sindhu (Indus) valley came to be known as Hindus.

An exact date of the birth of Santana Dharma cannot be given. They say that Santana Dharma is as old as planet Earth. Some claim it is 5000 to 7000 years old. Ancient India consisted of indigenous people. 

Aryans, Dravidians, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have invaded India, and all ingenious people were converted to different faiths from time to time. Thus, Hinduism is a group of different castes, creeds, and faiths.

The Hindus believed in polytheism, believing all of their Gods to be separate individuals, which was introduced much later by the founders of Hinduism, which contains diverse beliefs, cast, and creed.  

The DaVita, Vedanta borrows a concept from Abrahamic religions, such as Eternal Damanation (of certain Souls destined to hell forever), which goes against the belief of most Vedanta schools, which states that the invisible Soul attains liberation.

Hinduism is based on myths, and thus, people of India are unaware of the facts of their inherited religious history.

The Vedic system did not have the caste system. The caste system was a fake created in the name of Hinduism. This non-Vedic belief system called Hinduism created hatred among the lower caste Hindus for the higher caste.

 

Hindu idol or deity, or temple, has nothing to do with the Vedic Religion. Vedic people ate beef. The Hindu practices of idol worship and temple worship ban beef-eating, which was introduced many centuries later.

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 the 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 hearts in its original form in the same old measure.

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 has been influenced by other religions that have 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 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 atheist Buddhism because the school, which is based on the validity of the Vedas and rituals, refutes the existence of God.

It is also necessary for the people to know why the Ancient Vedic Religion or Sanatana Dharma is not present in Hinduism if they are seeking truth in India.

It is very much necessary for the Indian populace to know why the Ancient Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma is not present in Hinduism. India is a spiritual supermarket with diverse philosophies, theories, ideologies, and yoga and beliefs.

Hinduism indulges non-Vedic beliefs such as idolatry, ancestor worship, pilgrimages, priestcraft, offerings made in temples, the caste system, untouchability, and child marriages. All these lack Vedic sanctions; therefore, Hinduism is not the Ancient Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma.

Hinduism is the museum of diverse beliefs and dogmas. Hinduism is not the means to Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. All Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practices barred by the Vedas, introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism at different times, 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 is not a religion but more a way of life. The term "Hinduism" is used to label the entire Indian people, irrespective of any religion.

The new religion was introduced with new add-ons by Sage Sankara, a great Advaitic Sage, 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 Sage Veda Vyasa, not by Sage Sankara but by the saints or founders of different castes, because the Puranic Gods are non-Vedic Gods. Vedas bar worship of non-Vedic Gods of Hinduism.

As one goes deeper into the annals of history, it indicates that somewhere someone has added the Puranas in the name of Sage Veda Vyasa, the grandmaster of the Vedas. It is impossible to accept and believe that Sage Veda Vyasa authored and introduced the Puranas, which have all conceptual gods because ~

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-The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 1/Lectures And Discourses/The Gita II:~ Santthosh Kumaar

The word Hindu is a misnomer. The correct word should be a Sindhu the people belongs to the Indus valley.+

A great majority of Hindus are not in contact with their religious history; therefore, they believe their inherited beliefs as the ultimate truth.

In Encyclopaedia Britannica, it says: - The word Hinduism was first used by the British writers in the year 1830 to describe the multiplicity of the faiths of the people of India, excluding the converted Christians. (Volume- -20, Reference -581)

That is the reason today, the majority of scholars say that the word Hinduism is a misnomer.

The correct word should be Santana Dharma, the eternal religion, or the Vedic Dharma, the religion of the Vedas.

Swami Vivekananda says: - The word Hindu is a misnomer; the correct word should be a Vedantin, a person who follows the Vedas.

Hinduism incorporates a vast pantheon of deities, some of whom are manifestations or combinations of others. Most of the deities mentioned in the Vedas are no longer worshiped; much of today's popular devotion centers around the major deities of Shiva, Vishnu, and the Goddess.

Hinduism is not the Ancient Vedic religion or Santana Dharma. And all Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practices barred by the Vedas introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism at different times, whereas the Vedic religion, or Santana Dharm, is ancient and has no founder.

Thus, to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana, the seeker has to realize his inherited religion is adulterated in the past, and it becomes a great obstacle in realizing the ultimate truth or Brahman or God in truth.

While they do not accept the texts past the Vedas, they are still monists and uphold other Hindu views. In their reformations, they rejected Brahminical control, and they are open to all castes and women.

Hinduism is based on myths, and thus, people of India are unaware of the facts of their inherited religious history.

The Vedic culture and Vedas are complete in themselves, but Hinduism, which is a non-Vedic belief system with all rituals and conduct-oriented practices, has been largely contributed to by the orthodox priests to suit their convenience!

All the idolized are God in truth. Idolatry does not find any support from the Vedas. The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago, followers of Sanatana Dharma never worshiped idols. Idol worship was started by the followers of Buddhism and Jainism.

Vedas speak of one God that is the supreme ‘Self’ in i.e., Atman or Soul, but Hinduism indulges in worshiping 60 million Gods.

Hindus are idol worshipers of a large number of Gods and Goddesses, whereas the Vedic God is Athma.

Max Müller says: ~ "The religion of the Veda knows no idols; the worship of idols in India is a secondary formation, a degradation of the more primitive worship of idolized Gods."

Remember:~

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

The word Hindu is a misnomer. The correct word should be Sindhu; the people belong to the Indus Valley. The ancient peoples of the Indus Valley or undivided India were called Hindus by the Muslim Invaders.

The term ‘Hindu’ is originally a geographical nomenclature. In the Arabic texts where the term ‘Hindu’ is initially used, it refers to the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, the land across the Sindhu or Indus River. Al-Hind was, therefore, a geographical identity, and the Hindus were all the people who lived on this land.

Thus, the term ‘Hindu’ was used to describe those who professed a religion other than Islam and Christianity. It is also noteworthy that the use of the word ‘Hindu’ in non-Islamic sources is known probably only from the 15th century A.D.

The term ‘Hindu’ became a term of administrative convenience when the rulers of Arab, Turkish, Afghan, and Mughal origin ― all Muslims ― had to differentiate between ‘the believers’ and the rest.

The word Hindu is derived from the Indo-Aryan and Sanskrit word Sindhu, which means "a large body of water", covering "river, ocean". ... The term 'Hindu' in these ancient records is an ethno-geographical term and did not refer to a religion. The Arabic equivalent Al-Hind likewise referred to the country of India.

Origin of the word 'Hindu'. Many scholars and historians have concluded that the word 'Hindu' was coined by the ancient invaders who could not accurately pronounce the name of the River Sindhu. According to Sir Monier Williams, the famous Sanskrit lexicographer, the words 'Hindu' and 'India' evidently do not possess ...

Interestingly, the word "Hindu" came into existence because of the mispronunciation of a Sanskrit word by the ancient Persians some 3000 to 4000 years ago. The word "Hindu" is not a Sanskrit word. It is not found in any of the thousands of native dialects and languages of India. Neither is it a religious word. It is a secular word...

Hindu means nothing. Hindu and word Hinduism were given by the Irani and Persian people, who couldn’t pronounce Sandhu, so they called the people opposite sides of the river Sandhu as Hundu & Hinduism was given by the Britishers.

The word 'Hindu' has no meaning actually. Hindu is derived from the word Sindhu in Sanskrit, the historic local name for the Indus River. The word 'Hindu' occurred first as a Persian geographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus. Hindu was a geographical term and did not refer to a religion.

The people of India are not in contact with their religious history; therefore, they believe their inherited beliefs as the ultimate truth. People of India think Hinduism is not a Vedic Religion or Sanatana Dharma, but it is not so. Vedic Religion or Sanatana Dharma is prior to Buddhism. Hinduism was established after the overthrow of Buddhism.

People of India have to liberate themselves from the stranglehold of casteism to realize their original religion is not Hinduism, which is full of different castes and creeds, but the Vedic Religion or Sanatana Dharma. The people should be educated about the historical truth of the religion of the Vedas.

People of India are not in contact with their religious history; therefore, they believe in Hinduism as their religion. People of India are sentimentally and emotionally involved with their inherited religion. They think it is irreligious to think or speak that their religion is not the ancient Vedic Religion or the Santana Dharma.

Hinduism is not a religion. Rather, it is a group of religions found within India that share common beliefs while still remaining very different. Many may even argue that it is not a religion but more a way of life. The term "Hinduism" was not developed by the practitioners, but by groups outside of the religions as a means for labeling the entire Indian people.

Some groups within Hinduism claim a sort of "going back to the Vedas". While these groups are attempting to create a bond with the Vedas, they will never be followers of the Vedic religion while they still hold their core ideals.

These core beliefs are at odds with those of the Vedas. Many followers of Hinduism translate the Vedas to fit into Hindu thought by changing the translation to reflect the beliefs of monism, reincarnation, the caste system, and the absence of animal and human sacrifice. However, these poor translators.:~ Santthosh Kumaar 

The taboo on cow slaughter and beef eating did not exist in Vedic era.+

The taboo on cow slaughter is not Vedic in origin. The taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in Vedic times. Criteria like taboo on beef-eating or belief in reincarnation might stamp the Vedic seers as non-Hindus”. The question, whether the Vedic people practiced cow slaughter is debated among Hindu traditionalists. 

The cow was a sacred animal that the authors of the Vedas sacrificed and ate beef on special occasions. This argument only substantiates the view that the cow was not an inviolable animal and that beef-eating was not taboo in Vedic times.

As is clear from the above, several aspects that are intrinsic to the Hinduism of today, such as the doctrine of reincarnation, avatars (‘descent’) of gods, the caste system, the taboo on cow slaughter, and beef-eating, were absent in the Vedic Religion. It was shown by a critical study of the Vedas that the Aryans had no developed idea of the caste system, (…) 

The taboo on the use of beef was shown to be of later origin, that the cow was freely killed for ceremonial and other purposes in ancient India”.

Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma is distinct from Hinduism. The Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma deserves to be treated on its own as a distinct religion with its own sacred texts, rites, rules of social life, beliefs, and practices, without interlinking it with Hinduism. Perhaps it is right to maintain that the Mimamsa School, which is concerned with the investigation of the Vedic texts, their correct interpretation, and the meticulous performance of the Vedic rituals and ceremonies, has preserved and defended a part of the heritage of the Vedic tradition.

The Vedanta school may also have received a part of its inspiration from the Vedas. For the rest of the Hindu philosophical schools and religious sects, the influence of the Vedas is nominal. However, inasmuch as elements from the Vedas have influenced some aspects of Hinduism, it may be considered as one of the many factors influencing modern Hinduism.

But by no means can it be maintained that Hinduism has its direct ancestry in the Vedic religion or the Santana Dharma. Therefore, the Hinduism of Vedic times is an imagined community. Hinduism is of a much later origin, and a historical view of Indian religions would endorse a dichotomy between Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma and contemporary Hinduism.

Hinduism does not have a long ancestry as is often presumed or propagated by the Hindu ideologues. In fact, historically, religions like Buddhism and Jainism can claim greater antiquity than the Hinduism of today. Hinduism began to take a systematic form from the time of Sage Sankara (8th century A.D). In this sense, he may be considered the ‘founder’ of Hinduism, but he never called it Hinduism.

Thus, Hinduism came into existence with its own code of conduct, beliefs, and rituals after the 8th century. Hinduism, as one knows it today, is of recent origin. He states: “Hinduism did not really achieve its status as a coherent, though still baffling, religious complex until after the establishment of British rule in India.

In discussing the Vedic Religion, it is also to be remembered that in the course of history, many non-Aryan elements entered into the Vedic Religion. The Vedic Aryans freely borrowed elements from the culture and the society around them. But we cannot say with precision which are the non-Aryan elements in the Vedic Religion. Therefore, the thesis of the direct ancestry of Hinduism of today from Vedic Religion is to be considered as a myth purported by orthodoxy.

Remember:~

The taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in the Vedic era.

As we peep into the annals of Indian religious history, we find: ~

Then there is clear evidence in the Rig Veda that Aryans regularly ate beef and sacrificed cows for religious purposes, which are strictly forbidden in Hinduism:~

Quoting from the Rigveda, historian H. H Wilson writes: ~ “The sacrifice and consumption of horse and cow appear to have been common in the early periods of the Aryan culture.” 

Rig Veda says:~   "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single-colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the Gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma." (Hymn CLXIX)  (The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647).

In the Rig Veda, ~ Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow," suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in the fire. (RV: VIII.43.11)

Rigveda declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage, oxen and cows are slaughtered” (10/85/13)

Rig-Veda states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse, and buffalo. (6/17/1)” 

Hindus are not in contact with their religious history; therefore, they believe their inherited beliefs as the ultimate truth.

Hindu traditionalists refuse to debate whether the Vedic people practiced cow slaughter and ate beef. They believe such a debate is irreligious.

The taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in the Vedic era. Cow slaughter and beef-eating are barred by Hinduism is influenced by the Bhakti movement.  The cow is always connected with Lord Krishna. No Hindu will eat beef because every Hindu believes the cow is the most sacred. 

All Hindus are vegetarians. Non-vegetarian Hindus eat other meats except beef.    There is no need to support cow slaughter and beef-eating, but one must know the religious history of India for his own information.

Cow slaughter and beef-eating are barred by Hinduism, but the taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in Vedic times. The taboo on cow slaughter is not Vedic in origin; it has been adopted from Jainism.   

Criteria like taboo on beef-eating or belief in reincarnation might stamp the Vedic seers as non-Hindus”.

The cow was a sacred animal that the authors of the Vedas sacrificed and ate beef on special occasions. This argument only substantiates the view that the cow was not an inviolable animal and that beef-eating was not taboo in Vedic times.

"Beef was an important part of the Vedic diet. In ancient India, cow slaughter was considered auspicious on the occasions of some ceremonies. The bride and groom used to sit on the hide of a red ox in front of the ‘Vedi’ (altar).”

Many scriptures are witnesses to such sacrifices and killings of animals for consumption. References to such commands are replete in Hindu scriptures like the Manusmriti, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmins, the Grih sutras, the Dharma-sutras, and others.

Quoting some references from different scriptures is imperative to bring home the point and clear the misconceptions:~

Manusmriti says: ~ “It is not sinful to eat the meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.” (Chapter 5 / Verse 30)

Manusmriti states: ~ When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death, he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths. (5 / 35)

 Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin:~ “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.” (3/1/2/21)

Apastamb Grihsutram says: ~ “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors, and on the occasion of a marriage.” (1/3/10)

Vasistha Dharma-sutra writes: ~ “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.” (11/34)

Swami Vivekananda said: ~ “You will be surprised to know that according to ancient Hindu rites and rituals, a man cannot be a good Hindu who does not eat beef”. (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, Vol. .3, p. 536).

Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says:~  “Bajsancyi Samhita sanctifies beef-eating because of its purity”. (Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, page 180)

Sage Sankara says: ~ ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable of producing semen. (Commentary on Brihadaranyakopanishad 6/4/18)

Renowned historian R.C.Majumdar says: ~ “This is said in the Mahabharata that King Rantidev used to kill two thousand other animals in addition to two thousand cows daily to give their meat in charity”. (Vol. 2, page 578) (‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’, published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan)

As is clear from the above, several aspects that are intrinsic to the Hinduism of today, such as the doctrine of reincarnation, avatars (‘descent’) of Gods, the caste system, and the taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating, were absent in the Vedic religion.

It was shown by a critical study of the Vedas that the Aryans had not developed the idea of the caste system. (…)  The taboo on the use of beef was shown to be of later origin, that the cow was freely killed for ceremonial and other purposes in ancient India”.

Looking at the above aspects,   the Hinduism of today is not the ancient Santana Dharma or Vedic religion.:~Santthosh Kumaar.