How India received ‘Prophetic Truths in its ancient past & what happened to them in later Hinduism?
Author: Dr. P.R.Palodhi
By Dr. P.R.Palodhi
Remote antiquity of India’s religious past comes into light when Prophet Mohammad informs about Adam’s 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 humanity’s 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 India’s religious perspective turned towards monotheism by the arrival of Siva’s mission followed by the eastern Zoroastrians; and thereafter chaos of heterodoxies escalated with the rise of 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. 2000-1800 BC (time of Prophet Abraham) which came through the Murghamu and the Vakhsh-Bishkent 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 pre-Vedic 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 Śiva 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. Pānini mentioned that Śiva 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 Śiva, 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 Grhya-sutram (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 by Mahâbhârata (7.12.43-44) and also Markandeya (58.30-32), 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 God’s protection; (iv) the prayer for  salvation; (v) and the consciousness that: one is helpless to attain salvation on one’s 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 India’s 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 Pānini’s 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 India’s past, Sankarachrya composing Gita’s version by syncretizing ‘Ishvara’ with sectarian lord Krishna (Shri-madbhagavat: ‘Krishnantu Bhagavan Swayam’ – Krishna himself is the God). While Mahâbhârata’s 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 Śiva’s 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 Buddha’s 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 India’s pre-Vedic past, innumerable post Vedic sages, mystics, bards and philosophers could manage to reach the peak of worldly glories – but their unreligious whims and fancies only aggravated religious darkness and led successive Hindu generations more towards religious contradictions than 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 (Qur’an, 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 Abraham’s Prophetic heritage, role of north-west Kashmir region has remained pivotal. In search of India’s 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 Śiva was on the side of asura-priest Sukra and was against the deva-priest Brihaspati. Śiva’s religious stand came into light when Śiva-Bhagavatas introduced in Upanishads several monotheistic principles:
‘He is One without a second’ (‘Ekamevaditiyam’ – Ch.U 6:2:1) ↔ Qur’an, 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 Hindu’s Śiva, the son of Brahma (Mahâbhârata. 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’.  Abraham’s wife Sarah was very white complexioned in Bible. Brahma’s (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). Brahma’s meditation, Brahma-shila (MBh. Banparva, chap: 87) circum-ambulation, holy well-water and practice of shaving head – have striking similarity to Abraham’s 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 Śiva’s marriage Brahma acted as Purohita and served as charioteer during Śiva’s attack of Tripurasura (Rajani Mishra)[7]. There are records that many Śiv-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 God’s 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 Śiva was from Nisadabhumi and had traveled through the Indus region on pilgrimage.
(i) In search of Siva’s 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 Keturah’s 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 Keturah’s children form the highest caste and call themselves Brahmins after their father’s 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 Keturah’s 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 Keturah’s sons are found.   
(i) Linguistic science gives deeper insight into Abraham/Brahma’s role: As we go back to emerging newer world of 2000 BC in Abraham’s 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 Brāhmī – although it’s exact point of origin has remained unknown. Linguistic research did not find continuity between Indus script and historic script Brāhmī (except isolated case of weight systems). Brāhmī-script rather has strong connection to Semitic script (10 out of 22 Semitic characters closely resemble Brāhmī 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 Brāhmī script called Tamil Brāhmī (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 one-third 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 Brāhmī 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 Abraham’s 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, Asoka’s 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 Brāhmī – ultimately based on West Semitic alphabet. The recent archaeological evidence in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu suggest the dates for the earliest use of Brāhmī to be around the 6th century BC, using radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating methods. Since beginning from Kharosthi and Brāhmī, the consonants of Semitic language have been the model for Indian alphabets; all modern Indian scripts go back to Brāhmī (Asko Parpola, 1997). This Brāhmī script is found ancestral to most of the scripts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, and perhaps even Korean Hangul. The Brāhmī numeral system is the ancestor of the Hindu-Arabic numerals, which are now used worldwide. Brāhmī 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 Brāhmī script slowly gave place to Prakrit in Devanāgarī script. As Brāhmī changed into the Devanāgarī 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 Devanāgarī(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 asurian’s 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 Asura’s 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 Brahma’s descendant Siva, linguistic past of 2000 BC has remained obscured. Early accounts of Śiva came from Pānini (around 500 BC) who was a Saivite; a treatise called Astadhyayi (or Astaka) is Pānini’s major work. It is  not certain whether Pānini 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 Brāhmī 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 Brāhmī script via the Gupta script (5th century AD), which promoted the use of Devanāgarī script as well as a number of other Asian scripts such as Tibetan script. The complex Devanāgarī 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 Abraham’s 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) Śiva’s role in scriptural context: This suggestive in several contexts of Puranas and Tamil texts; the Matsya Purana  (47 th 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 Abraham’s religious gifts for the east-bound Keturah’s 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]. Mahabharata’s ‘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 Śiva 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, Śiva (the preacher of monotheism in India), his son Ganesha (the translator), Vyas (the scripture bearer) and Abraham’s 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. Mahâbhârata (Bhandarkar Oriental Res. Inst) begins by offering prayer to Sarasvati (Brahma is ‘Sarasvati-kanta’ 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. Baseless claim to associate Vyas with arrangement of the Vedas and Puranas has been shown by Rajesh Kochhar (p.21), Wilson’s Vishnu Puran (see Preface) and Muir’s 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 Śiva-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] has shown 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 etc 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 Siva’s truth? The first mention of Śaiva sects known as Śiva-Bhagavatas has come in Patanjali’s 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 Śiva’s 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 Tamilians and non Tamilians. The enemies destroyed all Śiva 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 8 th 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 Bhagavān (‘The Lord’ or Lord Himself) began to differ with each rival sect solicitous of own ascendancy; later Vaishnavite sects chose to apply these terms to Vishnu, Narayana, Krishna etc. Thus literal translation of the term was explained in several distinct ways by the whims of respective sects. Even once antagonist Buddhism, at its second phase became parasitic upon popular Saiva deities. All Buddhist deities turn into Śaiva 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 Siva’s truth. Wikipedia informed: Smartism of philosopher Adi Sankara invokes the five deities Siva, Ganesha, Vishnu, Devī, and Sūrya (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 Śaṅkarācārya 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 all-pervading Brahman. After that came Saiva Siddhanta of Rishi Tirumular, like his satguru, Maharishi Nandinatha, propounded a monistic theism in which Śiva is both material and efficient cause, immanent and transcendent. Śiva 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 12 th 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 13 th 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 śrúti (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 Zoroaster’s 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 India’s 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. 9–10) [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’ (mentionedfirst 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 Sankaracharya’s Gita versio. It is hard to reconcile Gita’s Isvara with Sankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta that stresses theistic God as ultimately unreal, and Nirguna Brahma 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 (Brahma’ksarasamudbhavam, 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 Brahmano’py adikartre’); where it says: why should they not bow down to the Greatest of the great, the Creator of Brahma himself? 
Gita’s 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 India’s religious proceedings it will not be too wild to speculate that although the ancient languages of India died out, religious legacies of Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s 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; 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 Abraham’s 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)).
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 Mīmāṃsā 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). 

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ezine/6088820