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 also necessary for 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 foreigners to know why Ancient Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma is not present in Hinduism if they are seeking truth in India. 

India is a spiritual supermarket with diverse philosophies, theories, ideologies, 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 of 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, priestcraft, offerings made in temples, 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 beliefs 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 a 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 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 forms and names 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 in truth) 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. 

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

Do not accept any other God other than the Soul. The Soul is God in truth. Nothing is real but the Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness. Nothing matters but realizing God in truth. God in truth, is everywhere and in everything. Let these words be inscribed in your subconscious.

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

Brahman is merely a word to indicate the ultimate truth or God in truth. The ultimate truth itself is God in truth.

People are not aware of the fact that there is no individual God exists, apart from the Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness.

Thus, the Soul is the true Self. If there is no Soul, then there is no physical body, no ego, no universe, no religion, and no personal Gods.

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 to 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."

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.

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 the description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not a 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.

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 prove that the form and attribute-based concepts are introduced by some sages of the past with a new belief system and code of conduct in the name of Vedas. 

Thus, it proves that Hinduism is nothing to do with the ancient Santana Dharma or Vedic religion.

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 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. 

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 spent 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 into 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."-(Yajur Veda 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 forms and names 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 Indian society of that time, 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 barred Vedas.  

 As one goes deeper into the annals of history, it indicates the fact that somewhere someone has added the Puranas in the name of Veda Vyasa the grandmaster of Vedas. It is impossible to accept and believe that Veda Vyasa authored and introduced Puranas which have 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 atheist Buddhism because the school which is based on the validity of the Vedas and rituals refutes the existence of God.

Sage Sankara endeavored 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 extraordinary 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 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 Sage 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 the methodology of Buddhism were absorbed into the Advaita thought, of course, under new labels. There is a very clear similarity between the Vedic religion of Sage Sankara and Buddhism and the Advaita School has given the world a common message. The essence of both 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 that 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, the 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 the Book of Manu, not the Vedic idea. 

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 the 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 the 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 Indians of the British dominion was belonging to the Hindu religion.

Indians populace wrongly believes that 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.:~Santthosh Kumaar

Paul Brunton’s Criticisms of Sage Ramana Maharishi. +

Paul Brunton’s Criticisms of  Sage  Ramana Maharishi 

As one goes in research  into the annals of the history:~

Paul Brunton was an English writer on spirituality and related subjects. Paul Brunton kept details of his own past as something of a mystery. Paul Brunton’s original name was Raphael Hurst. He was a London journalist.he was keenly interested in eastern spiritual teachings and thought that by an intelligent study and appreciation of it the cause of co-operation between east and west might be greatly promoted. he came to meet Sr, Ramana Maharishi after visiting many spiritual masters, swamis, and yogis.    Brunton wrote under various pseudonyms, including Raphael Meriden and Raphael Delmonte. He changed his name when he visited India and decided to write on spiritual matters. At first, he chose the pen name ~ Brunton Paul. He later changed this to Paul Brunton.

Paul Brunton was the one who made Sri, Ramana Maharishi well-known to the western world. Paul  Brunton met  Sri, Ramana Maharishi in 1931,  and in 1934, he published a book about his meeting with Sri, Ramana Maharishi. The book was called A Search in Secret India.   people all over the world refer to Brunton’s works. 

Now it is interesting that Brunton had very similar criticisms of Ramana. Excerpts of Brunton’s book A Search in Secret India are still published and distributed by Ramana's ashram. What the ashram does not say is that Brunton had a profound disagreement. Brunton says that there were threats of violence against him. In fact, he says he felt forced to leave the ashram. He says he left “abruptly" (32).

Brunton says that he did not see Ramana at all in the 12 years before Ramanaˆa’s death, even though he passed within a few miles of the ashram (33). 

In a book written in 1941, The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga, Brunton refers to “threats of physical violence” and "malicious lying ignorance." He speaks of being “harshly separated by the ill-will of certain men.” He speaks of “hate” and “low manners”, which he attributes to jealousy over his success The main problems were:  In March 1939, Brunton arrived at Tiruvannamalai, where he stayed at Ramana's ashram, not for the expected three months, but for three weeks. Brunton describes the situation at the ashram as: ... a highly deplorable situation in the Ramana ashram which represents the culminating crisis of a degeneration which has been going on and worsening during the last three years. And he complains that Ramana was not exercising any control over the ashram: But during my last two visits to India it had become painfully evident that the institution known as the Ashram which had grown around him during the past few years, and over which his ascetic indifference to the world rendered him temperamentally disinclined to exercise the slightest control, could only greatly hinder and not help my own struggles to attain the highest goal, so I had no alternative but to bid it an abrupt and final farewell (Hidden Teaching, p. 18)

It is clear that there were disagreements between Brunton and Ramana's brother, who was in charge of the ashram. Masson says that Brunton had given interviews in the Indian papers about Ramana which the brother had not found satisfactory. Were these disagreements even earlier than 1939? Brunton had not been at the ashram since early 1936. In September  1936, Ramana was asked about "some disagreeable statements by a man well known to Maharshi." Ramana replied  I permit him to do so. I have permitted him already. Let him do so even more. Let others follow suit. Only let them leave me alone. If because of these reports no one comes to me, I shall consider it a great service done to me. Moreover, if he cares to publish books containing scandals of me, and if he makes money by their sale, it is really good. Such books will sell even more quickly and in larger numbers than the others (…) He is doing me a very good turn. (36B).

Now Brunton is not specifically identified here. But the dates fit with Brunton leaving for the Himalayas "in exile."

A legal action had been commenced for control of the ashram. Some people said that Brunton was involved. Brunton felt he had to deny this allegation.

4. Brunton complained that Ramana didn’t impart to him the guidance that he was seeking (Hidden Teaching, p. 15). 

Now what did Brunton want? He certainly had Ramana's instruction of the method of self-enquiry. It seems that perhaps he wanted the magical powers or siddhis associated with yoga. Examples are the power of telepathy or of foreseeing the future. We know that Brunton was interested in such powers. And he refers to the "higher mysteries of yoga." It seems he wanted some kind of initiation from Ramana. But Ramana never initiated anyone. And although such powers may arise in the course of enlightenment, the Hindu traditions state that it is a mistake to seek these powers in themselves. Interestingly enough, Brunton himself was criticized by his own followers for not following through on his promises. Brunton told his own young disciple Jeffrey Masson about his powers. Masson says that Brunton always carried a magic wand or glass rod. Masson was disappointed that he did not get these powers.

Brunton says that meditation apart from experience is “inevitably empty” (Hidden Teaching, p. 19). The illuminations gained by yoga or by trance states are always temporary ones. Although a trance may produce a feeling of exaltation, this feeling goes away and one must repeat the experience daily. He cites the Hindu philosopher/sage Aurobindo: Trance is a way of escape–the body is made quiet, the physical mind is in a state of torpor, the inner consciousness is left free to go on with its experience. The disadvantage is that trance becomes indispensable and that the problem of the waking consciousness is not solved, it remains imperfect. (Hidden Teaching, p. 27).

Brunton refers to the “sheer shriveled complacency” of some of Ramana's followers, and their “hidden superiority complex.” He refers to this mystical attitude as a “holier than thou attitude,” and an assumption that total knowledge had been reached when in fact it was only a partial knowledge (Hidden Teaching, p. 16). He says that without the healthy opposition of active participation in the world’s affairs, they [mystics] have no means of knowing whether they were living in a realm of sterilized self-hallucination or not. (Hidden Teaching, p. 19).

Brunton had ethical disagreements with Ramana. For Brunton, it was not sufficient for a realized person to meditate. Interaction and involvement with the outside world is necessary. He felt that Ramana took no stand on issues like the coming war. Brunton seems particularly upset by an incident when news was brought to the ashram that Italian planes had gunned undefended citizens on the streets of Ethiopia (the Italians invaded Ethiopia in October 1935).

Brunton reports that Ramana said: The sage who knows the truth that the Self is indestructible will remain unaffected even if five million people are killed in his presence.

Remember the advice of Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield when disheartened by the thought of the impending slaughter of relatives on the opposing side (38)

Now I believe that Brunton's criticism of Ramana is correct, at least with respect to ethics. Ken Wilber also says that, however, realized Ramana was, he had ethical shortcomings (39). I see the problem as an inconsistency in Ramana's teachings between different views of the self. On the one hand, the self is seen as static and unmoving, uninvolved in the world. On the other hand, there is the view of the self as dynamic and participating in the world. Brunton says that the field of human activity is meant to be not in the trance world, but in the external world, this “time-fronted and space-backed world.”

 Brunton's previous experiences of yoga and meditation. In Hidden Teaching, Brunton says that he still regards Ramana as “the most eminent South Indian yogi.” But he also says something quite surprising: that he had known about meditation and yoga before he came to Ramana's ashram, and that his experience with Ramana was no new experience.

He makes the “confession” that when he first came to India, he was no novice in the practice of yoga. Even as a teenager …the ineffable ecstasies of mystical trance had become a daily occurrence in the calendar of life, the abnormal mental phenomena which attend the earlier experience of yoga was commonplace and familiar, whilst the dry labors of meditation had disappeared into effortless ease . (Hidden Teaching, p. 23).

Brunton claims that he not only had practiced yoga but that he had experienced the abnormal phenomena  or siddhis. He refers to the experience of being seemingly extended in space, an incorporeal being. What I omitted to state and now reveal was that it was no new experience because many years before I had met the saintly yogi of Arunachala, I had enjoyed precisely similar ecstasies, inward repose and luminous intuitions during self-training in meditation .- (Hidden Teaching, p. 25).

Brunton says that Ramana only confirmed his earlier experiences: When later, I came across translations of Indian books on mysticism, I found to my astonishment that the archaic accents of their phraseology formed familiar descriptions of my own central and cardinal experiences…(Hidden Teaching, p. 23).

This last statement is almost exactly what Ramana claimed for himself–that his experience was direct, and that the later books that he read were only "analyzing and naming what I had felt intuitively without analysis or name." Is Brunton being honest here? Or has he invented this story of the previous experience in view of his disenchantment with Ramana? Surprisingly, the independent record seems to show that Brunton may be telling the truth. There is evidence that Brunton had had earlier experiences. A 1931 report of his first meeting with Ramana reports Brunton (then known as Hurst) as telling Ramana that he had earlier experienced moments of bliss. (41)

Brunton says that his experiences with Ramana brought back these earlier experiences. This may be true, but what Brunton says about his first book, A Search in Secret India, must give cause for great concern insofar as it relates to the record of Ramana. Brunton says that he used the story of Ramana as a “peg” on which to hang his own theories of meditation: It will, therefore, be clear to perspicacious readers that I used his name and attainments as a convenient peg upon which to hang an account of what meditation meant to me. The principal reason for this procedure was that it constituted a convenient literary device to secure the attention and hold the interest of western readers, who would naturally give more serious consideration to such a report of the “conversion” of a seemingly hardheaded critically-minded Western journalist to yoga (Hidden Teaching),

God as an illusion. Brunton also criticizes Ramana’s view that even God is an illusion: The final declaration which really put me, as a Western enquirer, off Advaita came later: it was that God too was an illusion, quite unreal. Had they not left it at that but taken the trouble to explain how and why this all was so, I might have been convinced from the start. But no one did.

This is a rather strange criticism  and reflects a rather naïve view of Vedanta. Brunton’s own later teaching moves from a personal to an impersonal Absolute.

Finally, Brunton seems to criticize Ramana for a lack of originality. He says, "some years after I met Maharishi I discovered in an old Sanskrit text the same Who Am I method." Part 2 of Lecture.

Part -2

The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga (1941)

In Hidden Teaching, Brunton changes the question “Who am I?” to “What am I?” He says that "Who Am I" was a question which emotionally pre-supposed that the ultimate 'I' of man would prove to be a personal being, whereas "What Am I?" rationally lifted the issue to scientific impersonal enquiry into the nature of that ultimate 'I.' (Hidden Teaching, 17).

In Hidden Teaching, Brunton says that he still regards Ramana as “the most eminent South Indian yogi.” But he also says something quite surprising: that he had known about meditation and yoga before he came to Ramana's ashram, and that his experience with Ramana was no new experience. He makes the “confession” that when he first came to India, he was "no novice in the practice of yoga," Even as a teenager …the ineffable ecstasies of mystical trance had become a daily occurrence in the calendar of life, the abnormal mental phenomena which attend the earlier experience of yoga was commonplace and familiar, whilst the dry labours of meditation had disappeared into effortless ease (Hidden Teaching, 23).

Brunton claims that he not only had practiced yoga but that he had experienced the abnormal phenomena or siddhis. He refers to the experience of being seemingly extended in space, an incorporeal being.

What I omitted to state and now reveal was that it was no new experience because many years before I had met the saintly yogi of Arunachala, I had enjoyed precisely similar ecstasies, inward repose and luminous intuitions during self-training in meditation (Hidden Teaching, 25).

Brunton says that Ramana only confirmed his earlier experiences. Is Brunton being honest here? Or has he invented this story of the previous experience in view of his disenchantment with Ramana? Surprisingly, the independent record seems to show that Brunton may be telling the truth. There is evidence that Brunton had had earlier experiences. The 1931 independent report of his first meeting with Ramana reports Brunton (then known as Hurst) as telling Ramana that he had earlier experienced moments of bliss (94). 

It is in Hidden Teaching that Brunton says that he used the story of Ramana as a “peg” on which to hang his own theories of meditation:-

It will, therefore, be clear to perspicacious readers that I used his name and attainments as a convenient peg upon which to hang an account of what meditation meant to me. The principal reason for this procedure was that it constituted a convenient literary device to secure the attention and hold the interest of western readers, who would naturally give more serious consideration to such a report of the “conversion” of a seemingly hard headed critically-minded Western journalist to yoga (Hidden Teaching, 25).

It is also in Hidden Teaching that Brunton made public his criticisms of Ramana. Brunton says that there were “threats of physical violence” against him. He says he left the ashram “abruptly.” He refers to “threats of physical violence” and "malicious lying ignorance." He speaks of being “harshly separated by the ill-will of certain men.” He speaks of “hate” and “low manners”, which he attributes to jealousy over his success (Hidden Teaching, 18). Brunton did not return to see Ramana at all in the 12 years before Ramana’s death, even though he passed within a few miles of the ashram (Notebooks 8, s. 6:233.) 

Brunton had many disagreements with Ramana.   An article in The Maharshi gives the following reason for Brunton’s disagreements with the ashram. It says that after the success of his book A Search in Secret India, Brunton had published many books without acknowledging that Ramana was the source of his ideas.

As we have seen, there certainly appears to be truth in the allegation that Brunton did not sufficiently acknowledge Ramana as his source for many ideas. Chadwick says that Brunton was “a plagiarist of the first water” (Chadwick, 16). But there were also other disagreements with Ramana, at least as noted by Brunton. 

Brunton disagreed with Ramana's brother, who was the Sarvadhikari in charge of the ashram. Brunton describes the situation at the ashram as: ... a highly deplorable situation in the Ramana ashram which represents the culminating crisis of a degeneration which has been going on and worsening during the last three years (96). 

He says that Ramana’s ascetic indifference meant that he could not control the ashram:

But during my last two visits to India it had become painfully evident that the institution known as the Ashram which had grown around him during the past few years, and over which his ascetic indifference to the world rendered him temperamentally disinclined to exercise the slightest control, could only greatly hinder and not help my own struggles to attain the highest goal, so I had no alternative but to bid it an abrupt and final farewell (Hidden Teaching, 18).

The ashram had turned out to be “a miniature fragment of the imperfect world I had deserted” (Hidden Teaching, 43).

 Comments made about Ramana: - Masson says that Brunton had given interviews in the Indian papers about Ramana, which the brother had not found satisfactory (Masson, 25). Were these disagreements even earlier than 1939? Brunton had not been at the ashram since early 1936. In September 1936, Ramana was asked about "some disagreeable statements by a man well known to Maharshi." Ramana replied ~ I permit him to do so. I have permitted him already. Let him do so even more. Let others follow suit. Only let them leave me alone. If because of these reports no one comes to me, I shall consider it a great service done to me. Moreover, if he cares to publish books containing scandals of me, and if he makes money by their sale, it is really good. Such books will sell even more quickly and in larger numbers than the others […] He is doing me a very good turn. (Talks, 204; paragraph 250 (Sept. 7, 1936).

What can I do? If I go off to the forest and try to hide, what will happen? They will soon find me out. Then someone will put up a hut in front of me and another person at the back, and it will not be long before huts will have sprung up on either side. Where can I go? I shall always be a prisoner .(Chadwick, 93)

Brunton says that with Ramana, he experienced intermittent satisfactions of mental peace. But these entered into conflict with “an innate, ever-enquiring rationalism” (Hidden Teaching, 21). He had hoped to obtain more guidance from Ramana: I turned in the first hope of finding clear guidance to the Maharishi. But the guidance never came. I waited patiently in the hope that time might draw it out of him, but I waited in vain. Gradually it dawned upon me as this question of obtaining a higher knowledge than hitherto rose uppermost in my mind, that so far he had never instructed any other person in it. The reason slowly emerged as I pondered the matter. From my long friendship with him it was possible to gauge that primarily this was not his path and did not much interest him. His immense attainment lay in the realms of asceticism and meditation. He possessed a tremendous power of concentrating attention inwardly and losing himself in rapt trance, of sitting calm and unmoved like a tree. But with all the deep respect and affection I feel for him, it must be said that the role of a teaching Sage was not his forte because he was primarily a self-absorbed mystic. This explained why his open disdain for life’s practical fulfillment in disinterested service of others had led to inevitable consequences of a disappointing kind in his immediate external environment. It was doubtless more than enough for himself and certainly for his adoring followers that he had perfected himself in indifference to worldly attractions and in the control of the restless mind. He did not ask for more. The question of the significance of the universe in which he lived did not appear to trouble him. The question of the significance of the human being did trouble him and he had found an answer which satisfied him. (Hidden Teaching, 16)

Paul Brunton regarded these trances as evidence of Ramana’s enlightenment. But in Hidden Teaching, Brunton criticizes trances. Brunton refers to the “sheer shrivelled complacency” of some of Ramana's followers, and their “hidden superiority complex.” He refers to this mystical attitude as a “holier than thou attitude,” and an assumption that total knowledge had been reached when in fact it was only a partial knowledge (Hidden Teaching, 16). He says that without the healthy opposition of active participation in the world’s affairs, they [mystics] have no means of knowing whether they were living in a realm of sterilized self-hallucination or not .(Hidden Teaching, 19).

Brunton cites Aurobindo with approval:~

Trance is a way of escape--the body is made quiet, the physical mind is in a state of torpor, the inner consciousness is left free to go on with its experience. The disadvantage is that trance becomes indispensable and that the problem of the waking consciousness is not solved, it remains imperfect (Hidden Teaching, 27).

Brunton refers to Zen as more sensible and practical. Young men are trained for 3 years; during that time they are given active tasks. They are not allowed to pass the day in lazy, futile or parasitical existence.” A half hour of meditation daily is sufficient after their departure from the monastery to keep them in contact with spiritual peace; their worldly life did not suffer but as enriched (Hidden Teaching, 28).

This criticism reflects a rather naïve view of Vedanta. Brunton had discussed this issue with Ramana as early as December 1935 (Talks, 106, par. 112). Brunton’s own later teaching moves from a personal to an impersonal Absolute. And instead of “Who am I?” Brunton refers to “What am I” as being more scientific (Hidden Teaching, 17).

Finally, Brunton seems to criticize Ramana for a lack of originality. He says, "some years after I met Maharshi I discovered in an old Sanskrit text the same Who Am I method" [101]. This is also a strange criticism, in view of the fact that Brunton was not really interested in Ramana’s ideas at all, except as a peg for his own ideas. Nevertheless, there is some point to the criticism, for Ramana’s disciples have often assumed more originality in Ramana than is warranted by the facts. Ramana relied on many previously written works, including some tantric works, as I have shown in Jivanmukta.

Although Brunton left the ashram and wrote publicly about his disagreements with Ramana, he nevertheless expressed his "loving devotion and profound reverence for him”: As I wrote in a London journal when he died in 1950: "He was the one Indian mystic who inspired me most…The inner telepathic contact and close spiritual affinity between us remained vivid and unbroken… (Hidden Teaching, 33).

It should be noted that even in this appreciative comment, Brunton is emphasizing special occult powers, such as telepathy.

In his Notebooks, Brunton wrote that he regretted saying some of the things he did about Ramana. He says that he regrets the criticism of Ramana, and says that this criticism was occasioned “more by events in the history of the ashram than by his own self.” [102] But although he continued to admire Ramana as a mystic, Brunton did not change his views about the importance of ethics. 

This review  from My Father's Guru: A Journey Through Spirituality and Disillusion (Paperback) by BY  E. VERRILLO

I picked up this book, not because I was interested in Paul Brunton (I'm not that kind of girl), but because I was intrigued by Jeffrey Masson. After reading three of Jeffrey Masson's controversial books on psychology, I wanted know what inspired him to challenge one of the legends of our time: Sigmund Freud. This book not only answered that question  but several others I had not thought of asking.

This book, unlike Masson's others, is a personal memoir. It recounts the long, strange relationship Masson's family maintained with their "guru", Paul Brunton. For reasons that are not entirely clear, though tantalizingly hinted at, Masson's father "adopted" Brunton, inviting him into their home, and becoming his disciple. Eventually, every member of the family ended up walking Brunton's "Path to Enlightenment." Ultimately, the family's association with Brunton proved disastrous, involving financial loss, a precipitous move to Uruguay to avoid "WWIII", and the permanent estrangement of Masson's uncle, Bernard. Although having Brunton as a live-in guru was not ultimately as harmful as joining the Moonies or following Jim Jones to South America, Masson does point out the similarities.

In his Epilogue, Masson writes: "To see deep into the structure of one tyranny is to understand something basic about all forms of oppression. It is totalitarian. Like other authoritarian systems, it requires a suspension and suppression of critical questioning, it demands unquestioning submission to a rigid hierarchical structure, it centers on a cult of personality, and it engenders personal intrusion and abuse." This was the point of Masson's memoir, and it completely explains why Masson joined the Freudian cult of psychoanalysis, and why he ultimately rejected it. In Freud, Masson saw a reflection of Brunton's appeal but found himself unable to suppress his critical faculties yet again. One charlatan in Masson's life was enough. 

We can, and should, apply Masson's object lesson whenever we encounter anyone who requires that we suppress inquiry--whether he be a priest or a president. Such "gurus", according to Masson, always lead us down the primrose path to disaster. It is a lesson worth bearing in mind, and one which Masson's personal experience so amply demonstrates.

Paul Brunton's contribution is very valuable to the seeking world. People all over the world long enjoyed Paul Brunton's book ‘A SEARCH IN SECRET INDIA’, which was instrumental in making  Sri, Ramana Maharishi famous, Meher Baba wince. This book is an all-time bestseller at the time and continues to sell to this day.

In the 1940s and 1950s, Brunton lived with American author and former psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson, the son of a Jewish American friend of Brunton,^[10] as Masson's parents were among a handful of Brunton's close disciples. Masson published a memoir of his childhood under the title My Father's Guru. Initially influenced by Brunton, Masson gradually became disillusioned with him. According to Masson, Brunton singled him out as a potential heir to his spiritual kingdom. In 1956, Brunton decided that a third world war was imminent and the Massons moved to Montevideo since this location was considered safe. From Uruguay, Masson went at Brunton's bidding to study Sanskrit at Harvard. Brunton himself did not move to South America, instead of spending some time living in New Zealand.^[11] Masson subsequently became proficient at Sanskrit and realized that Brunton did not have the facility with the language that he claimed.^[12]wiki

Paul Brunton's books can still be read with merit, but one should not ignore  Masson’s expose simply because we have accepted Brunton’s writing as a yardstick in our pursuit of truth. Everything has to be verified before accepting anything as truth. 

C/N

The 'I' is an obeject to the Soul, which is the subject. The ‘I’ hides the Soul, the subject.+

The Subject is the Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness. The three states are an object to the Soul, which is the subject.  

The world in which we exist is the dualistic illusion created out of single clay. That single clay is the Soul, the subject, and the dualistic illusion is an object to the formless, timeless, and spaceless subject. 

The seeker must know ‘what is the subject and ‘what is an object?' within the dualistic illusion, to unfold the mystery of our existence. 

In reality, the subject and object are one in essence because the object is created out of the subject. Therefore, the subject alone is real and the object is merely an illusion created out of the subject.

The 'I' appears as the world is an object to the Soul, which is the formless subject.

Holding the 'I' as the subject is a great error.

That is why Bhagavad Gita: ~ “The permanent (consciousness) is always there, only the transient ‘I’ comes and goes. (2.18)

The ‘I’ hides the Soul, the Subject.

As a person perceiving the world, one is unaware of the fact that he and his experience of the world are within the object. He as a person is completely unaware of the fact that he is not the subject at all. The subject is formless and it is apart from the three states (object).

The subject is not an entity or identity within the three states. Therefore, judging the truth on the base of the object as the Self is erroneous. Such judgment leads to all sorts of speculation, doubts, and confusion. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar

Those who propagate the individual Gods as the real are ignorant of their true existence.+

The Soul, the  ‘Self’ is the ultimate truth or Brahman or God. The Soul, the fullness of the consciousness, the nature of the Soul is absolute Existence.  The Soul is not an individual it is not within the body but the hidden by the illusory world in which you exist. In reality, the world in which you exist is non-existence itself. 

Advaita means the Soul, the Self, which is second to none. The Soul, which is present in the form of the Spirit or consciousness, is the ultimate truth or Brahman or God in truth. Advaita is the nature of God, the  Self. Advaita is God. Advaita is the fullness of consciousness.

Knowledge of the individual God is not Advaita.  Those who propagate the individual Gods as the real God are ignorant of God in truth. 

The Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness, is the true existence.  The true existence is God in truth. Advaita is the nature of true existence. Advaita is the nature of God in truth. Advaita is God itself.

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

When Vedas itself says consciousness itself is Brahman or God in truth then all other Gods you believe and worship are not Gods in truth.

Even Bhagavad Gita says: ~ 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).

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. 

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

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

Even 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)

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

Bhagavad Gita Chapter:~ All those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires, they worship many God s. (7- Verse -20) 

Kena Upanishad (6) Chapter I: ~  “That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is apprehended-That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship.

Kena Upanishad (7) Chapter I:~  That which cannot be perceived by the eye, but by which the eye is perceived-That alone know as Brahman  and not that which people here worship.

Kena Upanishad (8) Chapter I:~  That which cannot he heard by the ear, but by which the hearing is perceived-That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.

Kena Upanishad (9)- Chapter I:~ That which cannot be smelt by the breath, but by which the breath smells an object-That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship.

How can you worship the Absolute? That implies two ~ the worshipper and the worshipped, whereas the Absolute is nondual. One can worship his idea of the Absolute only or realize his unity with it when he can’t worship it as a part.

Upanishads say in effect that: ~ If you believe that the ‘the Soul, the innermost Self’ is one and God (Brahman) is another you cannot understand truth.

Consciousness is ever-present. Without consciousness the world, in which you exist cease to exist. 

Consciousness is Self-evident. It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny consciousness because it is the very essence of the one who denies it. Consciousness is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions, and proofs. Consciousness is everything. Thus, consciousness is the ultimate truth or Brahman or God in truth. 

Knowledge of the Soul, the Self, is Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. Atma Gnana is knowledge of God in truth. Realizing God in truth in this very life is your goal. God realization is real worship.:~Santthosh Kumaar