How India received Prophetic Truths in its ancient past & what happened to them in later Hinduism?

Dr. P.R.Palodhi Remote antiquity of Indias religious past comes into light when Prophet Mohammad informs about Adams descent in India (Swarandip); his famous saying: Qala ehbetu Adama be-Dahna ardil Hind - (Tafsir-e-Ibne Kasir). We cannot probe into pre-Flood world of humanitys first Prophet Adam; our discussion is limited in the events of post-Flood world when Abrahamic monotheism sets out to remove the darkness of old world paganism. In legendary hubs of pagan gods and goddesses of Indus/Harappa in North and megalithic builders of South, for a while Indias religious perspective turned towards monotheism by the arrival of Sivas mission followed by the eastern Zoroastrians; and thereafter chaos of heterodoxies escalated with the rise of deva centric Vedism, Jainism and Buddhism etc. Scientific investigations have unveiled three waves of Indo-Iranian speakers who entered Indian sub-continent at the end of mature Harappan phase. The first two waves are dated c. 20001800 BC (time of Prophet Abraham) which came through the Murghamu and the VakhshBishkent cultures, whereas the third one took place around 1400 BC which came with the actual Rig Vedic people who were the authors of Swat V cultures and gave rise to Painted Grey Ware culture (PGW). Rajesh Kochhar [1] in his book (p. 194) has elucidated the reasons why the preVedic Murghamu and Vakhsh-Bishkent cultures are more affiliated to Indo-Iranian speakers: (i) they represent a discontinuity from the previous cultures in the region. (ii) They contain parallels from the Bronze age steppe cultures. (iii) They occupy regions which in later times were occupied by Iranian speakers. These Indo-Iranian cultures are seen to share a number of common features: the cult of fire; burial of burnt bones and ashes or of the body in a flexed position; poor pottery, whether handmade or wheel made; and extensive use of handmade pottery. It is noteworthy that the two earthen vessels, Ukka and Mahavira, used in Vedic ritual were explicitly required to be handmade. The Indus civilization presided over by iva depicts Neolithic-Chalcholithic character which has evolved much later than Cretan, Egypt and Mesopotamian civilizations (Biswal, 1988, p. 27) [2]. Many archeological findings and research papers worldwide concluded that Saivism was more ancient than Vedic religion, but the date of its origin is yet to be identified accurately. The famous Pnini (a follower of Siva) mentioned that iva was outside the pantheon of Vedic gods. Pre-Vedic Saivites neither worshipped the Vedic devas; nor were they accepted cordially by the settling Vedic Aryans (Rig Veda, 7. 21-5). One of the chief followers of iva, Nandisvara expressed: let the enemies of Hara (Siva), whose minds are disturbed by the strong spirituous odour and the excitement of flowery words of the Vedas, become deluded (Bhagabat Purana. iv.2.21ff). After Saivism came Zoroastrians; the Kambojas were Indo-Iranians and in the early Vedic times they had formed an important section of the Vedic community. Paraskara Grhyasutram (v 2.1.2) mentioned the Kambojas, as scholarly people, have been classed with the Vasishthas the cultural heroes of ancient India, and have been counted amongst the six great scholarly houses of Vedic India. The social and religious customs of the Kambojas (Zoroastrians) and Vasishthas (Saivites) are stated to be identical [3]. These combating non-Vedic heritages are also corroborated from Mahbhrata (7.12.43-44), Markandeya (58.3032), Vishnu-Dharmottara (1.9.6), Garuda (1.15. 13) etc Puranas. Before deva centric Vedic religion took absolute control of Hinduism, India had religious past when Sanatan Dharma (i.e. eternally pre-existing religion) existed with the foundation of Prapatti (surrender to the will of God). This we come to know from Alvar Tamils like Nath-muni (who recovered 4000 Alvar

hymns in 10th century), his successor Ramanuja (1017-1137), and his follower Venkatanatha (b.1268) they all belong to ancient Alvar race (Alvar literally means devoted to God) in South India. Ramanuja has informed that Sanatan Dharmic Prapatti constituted of five principles: (i) intention of submitting to God; (ii) the surrender of resistance; (iii) the belief in Gods protection; (iv) the prayer for salvation; (v) and the consciousness that: one is helpless to attain salvation on ones own [4]. The protracted struggles between Vedic Aryans and pre-Vedic Saivites and Zoroastrians are now bygone past; eventually all began to merge together. Following development of classical Sanskrit, at a comparatively early date all religious imports were brought under Vedic corpus newer versions of Itihasas, epics, Purans, Upahishads and even Alvar accounts were written by obfuscating the truths of Indias pre-Vedic religion. Thereafter Hinduism turned out to be an epitome of obscurantism via contradiction than conformity, anachronism than chronology and syncretism than sagacity. Yet it is after this cultural syncretism between non-Vedic and Vedic religions, several common words of Prophetic religion have been reintroduced in Hinduism from legacies of pre-Vedic India. We began to hear a name of the God Ishvara (Ish: Who commands) who commands; Shruti (shru: to hear) - revelation; Smriti traditional remembering (smri: to remember); and also Avatar Prophets (prefix: aba down; tri: to come) recorded first in Saivite Pninis sutra (3.3.120) - not found in the early Vedas. Bur when non-Vedic religious ideas were reinterpreted in terms of Vedic Hinduism, contradictions became rampant. On one hand the essential elements of Prophetic monotheism e.g. Prapatti (submission to God), Ekam-evadvaitham (God is one without second), and Purusha (God essentially a masculine gender) etc remained traceable with difficulty; on the other hand, vast volumes of Hindu commentaries continued to grow fat by directing its followers toward submission for innumerable gods, mother-goddesses and even willy-nilly gurus instead of submitting to One Supreme God. As we notice carefully, God is never found to be One without second in any expert commentaries of Hinduism including the very Chandogya Upanishad that has imported the word Ekam- evadvaitham? The religious explanations of these words in Hinduism are found very opposite to Prophetic teachings. After Vedic Aryans Sanskrit became the sole vehicle of scriptural writing, champions of Hinduism could freely twist the meanings of Prophetic imports in order to derive aesthetic pleasure (rasa) by equating their cherished icons/gurus etc with the Supreme God. Thus we find that from Smriti of Indias past, Sankarachrya composing Gitas version by syncretizing Ishvara with sectarian lord Krishna (Shri-madbhagavat: Krishnantu Bhagavan Swayam - Krishna himself is the God). While Mahbhratas Krishna acknowledges that he has no supernatural power saves righteousness: Aham hitat karishyami param purusakaratah; Daivam tun moya sakyam karmakartum kathanchan (MBh. Udjog Parva, chap 78). Likewise, truths of ivas identity and his religious stand for asuras in fighting Vedic devas - were obfuscated and even reversed by mystifying him into Maha-deva (greatest god) for the first time in Brahminical Taittirya Samhita. God-denying Buddha has been made Avatar who claims: Outside Buddhas dispensation there is no saint (Dhammapada 254); and Buddhism militates against an idea of a personal active God and His Prophets [5]. Pagan myths of Harappan mother goddesses had been reanimated via newer versions of Shakti cults. This Femininity has no connection to the Creator God or heavenly aspects; God created females only in this earth primarily for the purpose of multiplying living beings with diversity. Creator God is Purusha in all Prophetic religions Who neither begets and nor is begotten. Thus, denying and defiling sacred imports of Indias pre-Vedic past, innumerable post Vedic sages, mystics, bards and philosophers could manage to reach the peak of worldly glories but their profane manipulations only aggravated religious darkness and led successive Hindu generations more towards irreligion of weird practices and contradictions without any conformity with God and His Message.

HOW PROPHETIC TRUTHS COULD ENTER IN ANCIENT INDIA? According to Revelation, in every nation God had raised Messenger proclaiming: serve God and shun falsegods (Quran, 16:36); hence India has also received the Prophetic truths. This becomes conceivable when Bible (Gen, 25: 6) tells us: Then Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bares him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan (Gen, 25:1-3); And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. As regard the migration of Abrahams Prophetic heritage, role of north-west Kashmir region has remained pivotal. In search of Indias early Prophetic imports via east bound descendants of Abraham - Indus Siva demands special attention. The scholars of Saivism informed that before Vedic usurpation early Saivism was centered on monotheistic principles of Oneness [6] which was contrary to Vedic polytheism and deva worship. Brahminical account (and also Tamil texts e.g. Vedapuristhalapurana and Kancippuranam) recorded that iva was on the side of asura-priest Sukra and was against the deva-priest Brihaspati. ivas religious stand came into light when iva-Bhagavatas introduced in Upanishads several monotheistic principles: He is One without a second (Ekamevaditiyam - Ch.U 6:2:1) Quran, 112:1. There is no image of Him (Na tasya pratima asti - Svetasvara.U 4:19) Q, 112:4. Of Him there are neither parents nor any Lord (Na casya kasuj janita na cadhipah Svetasvara.U 6, 9) Q, 112: 3 Since these tenets are part of Abrahamic monotheism, question arises: if Hindus iva, the son of Brahma (Mahbhrata. XIII, 3.39.64, 67) has any connection to Prophet Abraham whose identity has been obfuscated in Hinduism by mystifying him as Brahma? There are striking similarities between Abraham and Brahma; the Jesuit missionaries in India were the first to notice this. Let us cite only a few from the innumerable other evidences. Brahma is derived from the word root Sanskrit Brh- meaning to grow, increase. So the word Brahma stands for one who spreads forth and gains strength. And the great Rabai, the translator of Tora writes: Ab means father and raham means multitude. God promised Abraham: I have made you a father of many nations (Gen; 17:5). Brahmins call Brahma as Prajapati, and Christians call Abraham as Patriarch; both implying father of many nations. Abrahams wife Sarah was very white complexioned in Bible. Brahmas (Sarasvati-kanta in Brahma-Vaivarta Purana I: 3. 34) wife Sarasvati is Suvra or white. Brahma was alone without issue and desired to have a son like him, so prayed to God in right earnest (Gopath Brahman 1.1); and Bible recorded the similar story of Abraham (Gen; 15:1-4). Both were blessed with Divine favour, whereby both Abraham and Brahma in two traditions had children born in the old age (Gen; 15: 2-4; Gopath Brahman: 1:1). Brahmas meditation, Brahma-shila (MBh. Banparva, chap: 87) circum-ambulation, holy well-water and practice of shaving head have striking similarity to Abrahams great sacrifice, Tawaf of KaBa, water-well of Zam-Zam and rite of shaving head after Haj or Umra at Makka. Puran has narrated that during ivas marriage Brahma acted as Purohita and served as charioteer during ivas attack of Tripurasura (Rajani Mishra) [7]. There are records that many iv-Brahmins have paid visits to Mokhsya Iswar Ashram (which is none other than Makka) and other holy sites of Arabia, where Prophet Abraham re-established Gods religion by eradicating the flourishing idol worships. Dr. Suniti Chatterji has written at length about Mokeswar Siva in his book Ashastrya Puran. Hymns of Taittirya Samhita (4.5.7) have mentioned that iva was from Nisadabhumi and had traveled through the Indus region on pilgrimage.

(i) In search of Sivas identity: There are three possible cognates of Siva in the Bible: Prophet Syuib of Median race, who is but identified with Jethro the father-in-law of Moses. Another Sheba and Dedan mentioned together in Ezekiel 27 belongs to a different age and of a different lineage from Raamah (cf. v. 22) the son of Cush. And the third is Sheba (son of Jokshan). Bible informed that Jokshan produced two sons, Sheba and Dedan (Gen. 25:2-3; 1Chr. 1:32). Also Sheba was the name given generations earlier to one of thirteen sons of Jokshan (or Joktan). Various descendants of Keturah always did not speak the early forms of East Aramaic; some spoke the South Semitic languages such as Sabaic (from Sheba), Minaic, Qatabanic and Hadramatic etc (cf. article Arab on Wikipedia). Josephus tells us about a branch of Keturahs descendants settled in India who called themselves as Brahmins after name of their ancestral father Abram and those sons of Joktan who settled along the River Cophen (ANTIQUITIES I, VI, 4): "These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river, and in part of Asia adjoining to it." The modern name of Cophen is Kabul. It is located in Afghanistan! The sons of Joktan (Yoktan in Hebrew) were the founders of the recently discovered great Indus Valley civilization in India. In India one branch of Keturahs children form the highest caste and call themselves Brahmins after their fathers original name, Abram. As regard the original Brahmins, Hinduism has a relevant mention of how the Yaksha Brahm was superior to Vedic devas (see: Kena-Upanishad: III.1, 2, 11, 12; IV.1) which indicated that the early Brahmins ensuing from Brahma were entirely a different lot from that the later Vedic Brahmins who worshipped deva Indra as highest god with one forth citations of Rig Vedic hymns. Among Keturahs descendants who later went north were the "Letushim" (Gen.25:3). They are along the shores of the Baltic Sea in Russia where a number of Keturahs sons are found. (i) Linguistic science gives deeper insight into Abraham/Brahmas role: As we go back to emerging newer world of 2000 BC in Abrahams time, especially the Semitic (custodians of Prophetic religion) and the miscellaneous Aryan heritages began to spread all over by replacing the older cultures of more ancient generations. Semitic languages have origin in the Prophetic tradition; while Aryans and Dravidians are basically connected to the ancient paganism which reflects in their languages even when they adopt from the Semites. Hence findings of scientific linguistics are especially important in identifying the Prophetic trails distinguishable by its clear Semitic trends. Indus script died like Egyptian hieroglyph, both of which were not found in later cuneiform. The earliest preserved undisputed historic script of India is Brhm although its exact point of origin has remained unknown. Linguistic research did not find continuity between Indus script and historic script Brhm (except isolated case of weight systems). Brhm-script rather has strong connection to Semitic script (10 out of 22 Semitic characters closely resemble Brhm both in form and sound). It certainly differed from all other Indic scripts in that it retained the Semitic characteristic of being written from right to left. Before advent of Vedic Aryan language, Dravidian language family formed the majority of the greater Indus valley population (Asko Parpola, pp. 160-168) [8]. From among antique Dravidian language family an early record in Old Tamil is short inscriptions from around the 2nd century BC in caves and on pottery these are written in a variant of the Brhm script called Tamil Brhm (Mahadevan, pp. 90-95) [9]. Among north Dravidian linguistic branches, Brahui speaking people still exists as one of the Baluchi tribes of Afghanistan (>95% Brahuis and Baluchis are now Sunni Muslims, and onethird of their vocabulary consists of Persian and Arabic loanwords). The word Brahui is derived from braho, the local form of Ibrahim who dwelt amongst the Jatts of Awaran in Pakistani Makran (Elfenbein, Studia Iranica 16: 215-33) [10]. Thus the earliest preserved scripts Brahui and Brhm are named after Abraham. A connection between Abraham/Ibrahim/ Brahma and those ancient Indian languages is never out of the context especially after knowing that Abrahams descendants from Keturah (Gen. 25: 1-3) entered into India with religious gift

from Abraham quite long before the advent of Vedic people. And modern genetic research has clearly corroborated the Biblical purport. Two different adaptations of Semitic consonantal alphabet are used in the earliest directly preserved archives of India, Asokas inscriptions dated 250 BC. One is Kharosthi - based on Semitic Aramaic script of Achaemenid empire extending from the Nile to the India (520-330 BC). The other is Brhm - ultimately based on West Semitic alphabet. The recent archaeological evidence in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu suggest the dates for the earliest use of Brhm to be around the 6th century BC, using radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating methods. Since beginning from Kharosthi and Brhm, the consonants of Semitic language have been the model for Indian alphabets; all modern Indian scripts go back to Brhm (Asko Parpola, 1997). This Brhm script is found ancestral to most of the scripts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, and perhaps even Korean Hangul. The Brhm numeral system is the ancestor of the Hindu-Arabic numerals, which are now used worldwide. Brhm became extinct by about the middle (300-350 AD) of the Sassanian Dynasty. Yet it retained the distinct Indian ways in the use of the consonants, double consonants and the vowels. Sanskrit in Brhm script slowly gave place to Prakrit in Devangar script. As Brhm changed into the Devangar group of Indic languages the Kharosthi script gradually died out about 305-325 AD. As regard the linguistics of related ancient generations, the Aryan or Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European language family is classified into: Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Nuristani. It is now agreed that only Mitanni Aryan is related to Vedic Indo-Aryan (both invoked Indra, Varuna, Mitra etc pagan gods) rather than Iranian or Nuristani branch. Indo-Aryans Vedic Sanskrit (deva-vasa or language of gods) was introduced to India through Vedic heritage, script of which was called Devangar (which literally means: town of the gods). And Vedic accounts (Rg Veda, I. 130:8; and Satapatha Brahmana III. 2.1.23-24) made it clear that Vedic deva Indra stole the language from the asurians (Semites), and then changed it because he considered asurians language as singly, turned back, and indistinct: Maitrayani and Taittirya Samhita writes: it was Indra the deva king of Vedic Aryans made their language distinctive by way of transforming Asuras language which originally was singly(ekadha), turned back (pratici), and indistinct (avyavrtta or avyakrta). [Truth of this could be corroborated by the hundreds of words in Sanskrit language which are found just reversed form of Semitic language, e.g. (Father = Sem. Ab, Skt. Ba) / (Mother = Sem. Am, Skt. Ma) / (Head = Sem. Ras, Skt. Sir) / (Eye = Sem. Ain, Skt. Nain) etc]. Linguistic science confirmed that Old Indo-Aryan is a branch of Indo-Iranian language. Now as we turn to Brahmas descendant Siva, linguistic past of 2000 BC has remained obscured. Early accounts of iva came from Pnini (around 500 BC) who was a Saivite; a treatise called Astadhyayi (or Astaka) is Pninis major work. It is not certain whether Pnini used writing for the composition of his work, though it is generally agreed that he knew of a form of writing, based on his references to words such as script and scribe in Ashtadhyayi. These must have referred to Aramaic or early Kharosthi writing. At this time Brhm or Kharosthi was the language of sacred texts. India in its golden ages used to write in a much simpler Brahmi script. During early first millennium BC the younger Vedic texts covered ever-widening areas of north India; after cultural fertilization with the non Vedics of India their dialects gradually approached towards the Prakritized Sanskrit (400 BC). The Siddham (Sanskrit, accomplished or perfected) is said to have descended from the Brhm script via the Gupta script (5th century AD), which promoted the use of Devangar script as well as a number of other Asian scripts such as Tibetan script. The complex Devangar and related scripts began to flourish and were more introduced from the 12th century onwards. It may not merely be a historical coincidence that it was also the beginning of decline of India and its perpetuated slavery to invaders then onwards (at the time of independence, literacy in India was only 12%). Imposition of complex script systems added much religious confusions and chaos in already heterogeneous population

of India. All these historical findings indicate that Prophetic monotheism could enter into India only from two successive Semitic sources: first, via Abrahams east bound descendants (Gen. 25:6) when language was more pictorial than alphabetic. And second, afterwards from asurians via Persian Prophet Zoroaster who condemned Vedic devas and preached the religion of One God Ahura (Asura in Vedic tongue). (ii) ivas role in scriptural context: This suggestive in several contexts of Puranas and Tamil texts; the Matsya Purana (47th section) says: Asuras priest Sukra in order to win the battle between asuras and devas clans, went to Mahadeva (Siva) and asked for the Texts more powerful that those possessed by devas priest Brihaspati. This again reminds us Abrahams religious gifts for the east-bound Keturahs descendants. Persian scripture Dasatir (Namah-i-Sasan) mentioned that Sankara Kash and Vyas after many discussions among them began to preach religion in India (Vidyarthy, p.26) [11]. Mahabharatas Adi-Parva introduces us with a laconic but very significant statement that Brahma advising Vyas to write the huge texts through Ganesha; and obviously this happened long before the advent of Vedic heritage in India and formation of its Sanskrit language. If Brahma is mythical abstraction of Abraham, he is the great grandfather of Ganesha. Both iva and Ganesha were adversaries of Vedic yajnas, thus famous Vedic rishi Jagyobalka at first tried to vilify Ganesha as Spoiler (Siddhi-nasak demon) but they had to reverse their stand and accept Ganesha as Provider (Siddhi-data Ganesh) because of his matchless popularity [12]. From allusions in Bible, Persian Dasatir, Puran and Mahabharata we have reasons to posit that among the east bound descendants of Prophet Abraham, iva (the preacher of monotheism in India), his son Ganesha (the translator), Vyas (the scripture bearer) and Abrahams erudite first wife Sarah (Sara-svati) played the vital most roles in introducing into India the immensely vast scriptural contents (only possible in pictorial symbols) of both pre and post Flood worlds. Mahbhrata (Bhandarkar Oriental Res. Inst) begins by offering prayer to Sarasvati (Brahma is Sarasvatikanta i.e. consort of Sarasvati in the Brahma-Vaivarta Purana I: 3.34) and mentions a mysterious scripture Jaya (Jaya Grantha) comprised of Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Vishnu-dharma, and Siva-dharma but does not include Vedas. Only in late Sanskrit these Sanatan Dharmic imports (traceable sporadically amidst Puranas and epics beside Manu-Smriti, Brahma Sutra, Siva Dharma and Vishnu Dharma etc) gradually could come to light but after thorough transmutation in Brhaminical fold. Absurdity of Brahminical claim to associate Vyas with arrangement of the Vedas and Puranas has been shown by Rajesh Kochhar (p.21), Wilsons Vishnu Puran (see Preface) and Muirs OST (Vol.3, pp. 43-55) [13].

B. FATE OF PROPHETIC IMPORTS IN UPDATED HINDUISM Scientific linguistics dated Rig Vedic language 1200-1000 BC. Then came late Vedic (1000-800 BC) when other three Vedas were written. In this context one must be aware that the origins of Saivism and Vaisnavism lay outside the systems of Vedic religion where devotional Tamil poems of Alvars and Nayanmars remained an authority equivant to what Vedas were to Brahmins. The early Tamil saints compositions were devotional and not philosophical abstractions (e.g. ancient Tamil Sitthar padalgal), who were non-Brahmins, used ordinary Tamil words without technical meaning, though Sanskrit ideas eventually crept in because Tamil received double dose of Sanskrit words from north and south. Gradual stages by which Sanskrit became powerful in the South is best described by Dr. Filliozat (See: Nair. B. N. The Dynamic Brahmin, pp. 77-78). The post Vedic/early Sanskrit (800-300 BC) came after cultural syncretism between Vedic & non-Vedic, where a sign of religious rectification (towards God and monotheism) is noticed primarily due to the iva-Bhagavatas. After Panini (500 BC) introduced

grammarian and literary standards in Sanskrit, suddenly huge volumes of religious texts including epics (500-400 BC) and Puranas (100-700 AD) started coming out from obscurity when Vedic devas lost focus. The religious imports from Tamil were reinterpreted later as Vedantic, and awarded the status of Vedas. Tamil was used more till Sankara began to write from around 800 AD. Following historical admission of cultural syncretism we found that Brahmasutra, Gita and Upanishads were brought into Vedic fold by forming the triple canon (prasthana-trayi) of Vedanta. Consequently Vedic yajna was replaced by a different religious ritual called the puja. The ritualistic purva mimamsa was replaced by the speculative philosophies of Vedanta also called the uttar, or later, mimamsa. Extensive investigation on Puranas by F.E. Pargiter [15] indicated that once there was some original source or sources (coming from Vyas); and from which Bhavishya Puran was composed early enough for its account to be drawn from Kharoshti MSS and was put together in upper India. Thus Matsya, Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas declare by a common statement that their accounts are based upon Bhavishya Puran: Bhavisye te prasankhyatah Purana-jnaih srutarsibhih. Here Bhavisye can only mean Bhavishya Puran has been testified by two MSS of Matsya which read the next as: purane sruti-sarpibhih. Matsya, Vayu and Brahmanda Purana texts are in Sanskritized version of older Prakrit slokas. Vayu and Brahmanda are twice as long as Matsya, hence a large volume of addition has been made. Original Bhavishya accounts have been lost but these three latter Puranas have collected the Prakrit metrical chronicles and converting them in to Sanskrit. He wrote: It was the Brahmins who probably improvised the older compositions into Sanskrit and afterwards perceiving that what an excellent means they provided for reaching popular thought, made use of them to propagate their own views and doctrines by freely augmenting them with Brahminical fables, philosophical discussions, and ceremonial expositions which were enforced with authority of Vyas. Due to obscurantism of original sources, in fact all existing Puranas and epics are copiously tampered with various fancies; but Brahminical tradition continue to brand only those Puranas as unauthentic and tampered which do not comply their own objectives of tampering. (i) What happened to Sivas truth? The first mention of aiva sects known as ivaBhagavatas has come in Patanjalis commentary on the Panini Sutra (V, 2.76). Only in later ages they divided into two different sects (Saivism & Vaisnavism). On recorded texts of later ages, the Svetasvatara Upanishad enunciates adopted Saivism, and Agamas, Tantras etc are other obscured sources. From scholars of Saivism we hear that: in present Hinduism All forms of Saivism outside the basic Upanishad appear as cultish attempts and continued under false pretext (B. Bhattacharya. 1993, vol.1, p. 100, op.cit). It is evident that from northern Indus region Saivism goes to southern Tamil land. Tamilian race of people belongs to an ancient stock. The Tamilians are traditionally inheriting the legacies of pagan gods since unfathomable antiquity; after ivas mission only a fraction of Tamils received a new religion. Early Tamil writings mostly come to us from the time when they began to practice twin form of spirituality namely Saivism and Thirumalismuntil, the incremental invasion of the Aryans. The fusion of different pagan concepts grew by leaps and bounds in classical Sangam poetry since 100 AD. After Sanggam period came Sangga maruviya kaalam about AD 300. Then came wars of Irundha Kalaam (darkness period) between Saivite Tamilians and non-Saivites. The enemies destroyed all iva identities and demolished Siva temples. But at this juncture the Saivites like Sambantar, Appar and Sundarar appeared and began to spread Saivism; it was thus restored again between 700- 1200 AD. The Alvars of Vaishnavism were not known during this movement; they did not go through hard times like Appar or Sambanthar. This evidence is clearly stated in the Aalwargal Sarigai published by Lipco Company. They came after Saivism was rescued from the clutches of Jainism. After appearance of Thevaram and Thiruvasagam Saivism began to flourish again; and it was during this florishing period Adi Sankara appeared in

8th centuries AD. Another era of confusion started. It all started from the question: what is the actual meaning of Advaitam? What is One without second (Ekam Evadvaitham) in Chandhogiya Upanishad? When a group of saints and scholars from south of India decided to answer this question, four different religious faiths (samayam) were founded: i) Neelakanda Sivachariar from Karnataka in 700 AD who made a bhasyam; ii) Adi Sankarar who came in 800 AD; iii) Ramanujar 1017 to 1137; and iv) Madvacharya 1199 to 1272. (These saints are found to give explanations not in their own mother tongue but all come to us in Sanskrit. Now the question remains: did the original mentions of the four saints remain same in principles as per its claims in Sanskrit versions?) Various scholars began to give various explanations based on their own understandings and such philosophical abstractions only gave rise to more perjuries in Saivism which originated from Tamil Nadu itself. The theological interpretation of Svayam Bhagavn (The Lord or Lord Himself) began to differ with each rival sect solicitous of own ascendancy; later Vaisnavite sects chose to apply these terms to Vishnu, Narayana, Krishna and many of their associated Avatars. Thus literal translation of the term was explained in several distinct ways by the whims and fancies of respective sects. Even once antagonist Buddhism, at its second phase became parasitic upon popular Saiva deities. All Buddhist deities turn into aiva deities, with which idolatry has spread as far as China and Japan. First such deity may be Kicakesvari of Maurbhanja district, which afterwards has been Brahmanised and Sanskritized. Abstract paganism began to rise by defiling Sivas truth. Wikipedia informed: Smartism of philosopher Adi Sankara invokes the five deities Siva, Ganesha, Vishnu, Dev, and Srya (Flood. 1996, p. 113) [14]; Smartism is a denomination of Hinduism that places emphasis on a group of five deities rather than just a single deity (Flood. 1996, p. 17, op.cit). The monistic philosophy preached by akarcrya made it possible to choose one of these as a preferred principal deity and at the same time worship the other four deities as different forms of the same allpervading Brahman. After that came Saiva Siddhanta of Rishi Tirumular, like his satguru, Maharishi Nandinatha, propounded a monistic theism in which iva is both material and efficient cause, immanent and transcendent. iva creates souls and world through emanation from Himself, ultimately reabsorbing them in His oceanic Being, as water flows into water, fire into fire, and ether into ether. Again there was a new Siddhanta in the 12th century that Aghorasiva took up the task of amalgamating the Sanskrit Siddhanta tradition of the North with the Southern, Tamil Siddhanta by paving the way for a new pluralistic school (From Wikipedia). A dualistic development in the 13th century, propounds a pluralistic realism wherein God, souls and world are coexistent and without beginning. (ii) What are Shruti and Smriti of Hinduism? In updated Hinduism we find that the rti (lit. hearing or listening), often spelled shruthi, is a term that describes the sacred texts comprising the central canon of Hinduism. Present Hindu scholars claim that the initial literature is traditionally believed to be of divine origin (i.e. a direct revelation from gods i.e. devas) heard by ancient Rishis who then translated what was heard into something understandable by humans. Here Vedic sense of divine (obviously denotes devas) must not be confused with Prophetic sense of Divine (that denotes Creator God). Vedic heritage rejected Prophet Zoroasters religion of God, and began to worship devas (Indra, Agni, Varuna etc) by equating with God. Here confusions obviously arise when we find that Upanishads (came around 800 BC, long after Vedas) are also considered as Shruti; we must not forget that Upanishad versions came only in later Hinduism when Vedic devas lost relevance; in fact the Shrutis of Upanishads are evidently different from which come before in Vedic hearing from devas. This altered belief of divinity is particularly prominent within the Mimamsa tradition (Clooney, Francis X. p. 660) [16]. On the other hand, smrti (traditional remembering) refers to memories of wisdom that Indias ancient seers have passed on to their disciples in a specific body of Hindu religious scripture. But in

terms of Vedic reckoning these are not of divine origin; and in fact the purports of Smrtis indicate that these have not come from Vedic devas. The literature which comprises the Smrti was composed in classical Sanskrit (after 500 BC) after the cultural syncretism between Vedism and Saivism/Vaishnavism - for example, commentaries such as Laws of Manu, and the six Vedangas, the Ithihasas: the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, as well as, the Puranas (Lingat, Ch. 1, pp. 910) [17]. Smriti is still only considered a second authority after Sruti and becomes relevant only when Sruti provides no answer. The present general understanding of smrti consists of non-Vedic literatures that portray the rules of dharma; for example, the Dharmasastra, Itihasa, and Purana. There are two important sides of Smriti: Smriti as Tradition and Smriti as Texts. Scholars but argue about Smriti in terms of its meaning specifically in Brahminical tradition (Brick, David. pp. 295) [18]. This is understood by passages introducing the word smriti; scholars find evidence for a switch in the meaning and understanding of the term from the context in which the word is used. Let us look at passages where originally the word smriti appears. The most notable commentators like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, and Vallabha etc unanimously agreed that: by the term Smriti (mentioned first in Brahma Sutra) in fact Gita is referred to by the early authors of Brahma Sutra (Upadhyaya, p. 22-23) [19]. They showed that: mentioned smrtesca, smartyate etc in Brahma Sutra (I. 2.6, I. 3.23; II. 1.36; III. 2.17; III. 3.31; IV.1.10, and IV.2.21) as specifically referring to Gita verses XVIII.61; XV.6; XV.3; XV.7; XIII.12; VIII.26; VI.11, and VIII.23 respectively. Bhagabat-Gita (compiled earlier from obscured source by the anonymous rishis or rishi) holds the maximum degree of God-centric Essence because ancient people used to remember Gita traditionally by heart as the utterance from God Himself. But present version of Gita is not exact replica of ancient source, rather comes from Sankaracharya a prolific Vedic theologian; naturally his written Gita version in Sanskrit cannot come without syncretism of Vedic theology. Hence Brahminical interpolations are clearly evidenced in Sankaracharyas Gita version; it is hard to reconcile Gitas Isvara with Sankaracharyas Advaita Vedanta that stresses theistic God as ultimately unreal, and Nirguna Brahma (quality-less Brahman) alone is regarded as only real? This Brahma concept in Gita is an import from the leads of Brahminical Upanishads; whereby it goes to refer Brahma or Prajapati as the personal creator and preserver of the world, as also the deliverer of sacrificial injunctions of the Vedas (BG, III. 10). It also adds that Brahma has come out of the Imperishable or the Supreme Reality Brahmana (Brahmaksarasamudbhavam, BG, III.15). It is pointed by Upadhyaya (p. 401-402, op.cit) that: Gita does not regard Brahma or Brahman as the Supreme God (B.G; XI. 37: gariyase Brahmanopy adikartre); where it says: why should they not bow down to the Greatest of the great, the Creator of Brahma himself? Gitas God is Isvara, Who commands transcendentally (B.G: IX.9: udasinavad asino asaktam tesu karmasu; XV.17: yo lokotrayambishya bivartyabya Isvarah); it is the Nature that operates (B.G: V.14; IV.14; V.15) but God is the source of all, from Me do all proceed (B.G: X.8: Aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate). Gita especially condemns desires and teaches submission to the Almighty God through self-denial. In contrast Brhaminical Upanishad writes: Those who die having found the soul and their true desires, for them there is freedom to journey in all the worlds (Ch. U 8.1.6). In Vedas and most of the pantheistic Upanishads (e.g. BAU: Brhadaranyaka Up) there has always been some ulterior purpose behind their search for real and specify the fruit of knowledge He who knows the truth about the nature of the fearless Brahman, himself becomes fearless Brahman (BAU 4.4.25). He who knows the truth about the Arka sacrificial fire and the horse sacrifice, wards off the repetitions of death (BAU 1.2.7). He who knows the creation of the world from the unitary soul obtains the whole world (BAU 1.4.17). While Gita (BG. VII: 20) teaches: rather it is yoga (the way of union) for submission to the Supreme God (Ishvar). Of all yogins he who, with all his inner self

given upto Me, for Me has love and faith, him I hold to be the most united with Me in yoga the way of union. (BG, VI: 47). Concluding remark: From history of Indias religious proceedings it will not be too wild to speculate that although the ancient languages of India died out, religious legacies of Abrahams descendants could survive via various native dialects. If India had Sanatan Dharma, which literally means eternally pre-existing religion this should be religion of God (that came from Prophet Abrahams gift) rather than claims of synthetic Hinduism that neither obey God, nor has universal religious guidance. Behind sudden upsurge of vast volumes of late Hindu scriptures, undoubtedly there had been significant role of some arcane scriptural matters (basic corpus of Sanatan Dharmic imports) that remained dormant in pre-Vedic India before formation of Sanskrit language. After a gap of more than thousand years when Vedic Aryans Sanskrit was matured enough, these were transmuted into Vedic fold. Apparently many Sanatan Dharmic imports turned into rabid, raw and Rabelaisian lores and myths in Puranas and epics etc; and also have been used to invent pagan aesthetic pleasures (rasa). But truth shall come out in future and surely we shall come to know what the Prophet Abrahams gifts are. In Bible, God revealed that He shall recover the remnants of past generations: And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set His hands again the second time to recover the remnants of His people (Isa, 11: 11)). [Republished from my publication - http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/how-india-receivedprophetic-truths-in-its-ancient-past-what-happened-to-them-in-later-hinduism-6088820.html.]

References 1). Rajesh Kochhar. The Vedic People: their history and geography, p. 194, (Orient Longman) 2). Biswal, Bansidhar. 1988. Cult of Siva, Punthi Pustak, Calcutta. 3). See: Paraskara Gryya-sutram Verse 2.1.2; Commentary: Pt Harihar. 4). Encyclopedia of World Religions by Merriam Webster, (1999). p. 865 5). Dhammapada, 14:182, trans. Juan Mascaro., Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1973. 6). Bhattacharya. B. 1993. Saivism and the phallic world, Vol. 1, p. 94, (Munisram Monoharlal Pub. India) 7). Rajani Mishra. 1989. Brahma worship: Tradition and Iconography. (Kanishka Publishing House, Delhi) 8). Asko Parpola. 1997. Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0 521 43079 8. 9). Mahadevan, Iravatham (2003). Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D., Cambridge, Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01227-5 10). Elfenbein, J.H, 1987. A periplous of the Brahui problem, (Studia Iranica), 16: 215-33. 11). Vidyarthy A.H. 1990. Muhammad in world scriptures, (Adam Publisher, Delhi) 12). (See: articles by Atul Sur, Pre-Aryan elements in Indian Culture. Calcutta review, 1931-32; Indian historical quarterly, 1934) 13). Muir, John, 1872-4. Original Sanskrit Texts on the origin and history of the people of India, their religion and institution, collected, translated and illustrated, vols I-V, 2nd and 3rd edns. London. 14). Flood, Gavin (Editor) (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. ISBN 1-4051-3251-5. 15). Pargiter, F.E. (1913, reprint 1972). The Purana texts of the Dynasties of the Kali age, Motilal Banarasidass.

16). Clooney, Francis X. Why the Veda Has No Author: Language as Ritual in Early Mms and Post-Modern Theology, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter, 1987). 17). Lingat, Robert. (1973). The Classical Law of India. Trans. J. Duncan M. Derrett. Berkeley: University of California Press. 18). Brick, David. Transforming Tradition into Texts: The Early Development of Smrti. Journal of Indian Philosophy 34. 3 (2006) 19). Upadhyaya, Kashi Nath. 1998. Early Buddhism and Bhagavadgita. (Motilal Banarasidas Pub. Ltd, India).