A trail of guidance and revelations from the higher dimensions in a continuum

“Horse Before the Cart”
First Things First

Prologue

Though there can only be one Supreme Principle, unfortunately, most of the religions have conjured up their own divinities or gods as the Supreme Principle. Keeping aside the Supreme Principle for the moment, if we tread the paths of different religions dotted by each one’s characteristic traditions, beliefs and rituals and climb up the mountain top, we will end up with the concept of LOVE as the final pinnacle of religious glory. This is the unitarian aspect that we shall end up with in following the diverse paths of religions. Mind you, we have only found the unitarian operative aspect of love and not yet the Supreme Principle. Love and compassion are the essential inherent fundamentals of all religions. Unless and until we identify ourselves with these essences of all religions, we would never be able to tread the path leading up to the Supreme Principle. We need to cultivate the divine qualities of love and compassion to self, all fellow beings, to all living beings and to the Universe in general to become eligible to pursue and attain the Supreme Principle. Without joining the universal religion of humanity armed with the divine principles of love and compassion, we are not qualified to tread the hidden path to Supreme Realization.

Fallacy

Every religion talks of God having spoken through its own messenger, which is not true. All messengers have borne the message of God for all humans and not merely to limited people.

This concept of only limited people eligible for receiving God’s messages and keeping it closely guarded as very private is a sign of myopic ignorance. Simultaneously, when the same group of believers starts looking down on other religions and their believers, it smacks of an infectious malady. Very often, religions get established based on the teachings of particular messengers and end up identifying the Supreme Lord as their own personal God. What it boils down to is that man-made religions perpetuate fanatic fallacies and keep people mired in ignorance. The custodians of these religions end up making people barking up the wrong tree. The Supreme Lord does not belong to any religion. Neither is He, as has been made to believe, the monopoly of any one religion alone. This erroneous belief, created and propagated inadvertently or advertently, needs to be eradicated to see the path clearly.

Priori

Before we launch ourselves on this journey of continuum, let us begin by answering four questions

  1. Is the Supreme Lord one or many?
  2. Were the Universe and all living beings evolved or created?
  3. Where did the creation of first humans occur?
  4. Which was the first religion that came into existence?
Answers

As the answer to the first question, I am sure that all logical people will agree that there can be only one Supreme Truth. Then how come that every faith claims that its adored God alone is the Ultimate. Moreover, polytheistic Hindu religious groups have their own personal God whom they claim as the Ultimate. I shall be addressing these discrepancies elsewhere and discuss their ill-founded belief.

Since the majority of people accept the fact that there can only be one Supreme Lord, is it not an irony that the world over different Gods are projected as the true one. Unfortunately, many of the monotheistic religions have understood the Supreme Principle as their personal God and named Him differently or have named their adored incarnations as the Supreme Lord. 

(Please look elsewhere for the description on the hierarchy of Universes and their Principles and hierarchical differences between the various Gods and terminologies – Coming soon)

As far as the second question is concerned, there are two world views on the origin of Universes and life within them. One is scientific (sic, if there is a science in it), the theory of evolution and the other, religious, the concept of creation. I for one subscribe to the idea of creation as evolution is merely a philosophical outburst with search for reasons and evidences to be.

(please look elsewhere for detailed understanding of why Darwin’s philosophy of evolution is not logically or scientifically acceptable – Coming soon)

Having subscribed to the idea of creation, we need to answer the question of where the first humans appeared on the planet.

There are different opinions regarding the place of origin of mankind as listed below.

  1. Evolutionists believe Africa to be the place of origin
  2. Some German scientists consider it to be in the middle of Germany and Russia.
  3. Some European scientists have suggested it to be in the middle of Asia.
  4. Lokmanya Tilak had said it to be in the north pole
  5. Parsis believe it to be Iranvej in Iran.
  6. Christians and Muslims believe it to be in the ‘Garden of Eden’.
  7. The perennial Hindu philosophy (Sanatana Dharma) decided it to be in Kurukshetra.
  8. According to Vedic philosophers, the original place of human creation is at the foothills of Himalaya.

Every one accepts that the humans arose at one place and then migrated to different parts of the world. However, the dispute is about deciding which is that place.

In order to decide about the place of origin of humans, there are certain criteria that need to be met. Let us look at them as below.

  1. That place has to be the highest and the oldest.
  2. That place should have both cold and hot conditions.
  3. That place should have plentiful supply of fruits and nuts.
  4. People of same form and complexion as at the time of origin should still be existing there.
  5. People should remember that place even now in one way or other.

Based on these criteria, no other place other than the foothills of Himalaya seem to qualify.

Review or critical appraisal

Africa as the place of origin of man is a concept of the evolutionary scientists having faith in Darwinian philosophy. According to them, humans evolved from monkeys and apes by undergoing changes. Most of the text books of evolution say that forms similar to modern man arose for the first time about 2 million years ago in Africa and then migrated to different parts of the world. Two kinds of evidence provided for this are archaeological and genetic. However, both these evidences are utterly incomplete and flawed. Archaeological evidences do exist (though suppressed by evolutionists) to show the existence of humans in different parts of the world like Asia, Europe, Africa, America etc., millions of years ago. Attempts are made to provide genetic evidence by analysing the differences in mitochondrial DNA from existing populations. The mitochondrial DNA shows maternal inheritance meaning it is passed on only through mother and not father. In the past, many females have died before producing children but that has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, it means that many lines of mitochondrial DNA have not been passed on to the present lot of people. So, the evidence of mitochondrial DNA, being flawed, is totally unreliable, as evolutionists generally try to conveniently ignore many facts that would go against them. In this scenario, the best evidence would be archaeological and many of these evidences (overlooked and suppressed) reveal the existence of humans millions and even billions of years ago in other parts of the world. So, the account of hardcore evolutionary scientists of humans originating fairly recently in Africa and migrating to other parts is highly questionable. Moreover, it is easy to understand the adaptational change of ancient brown skin to black or white according to the climatic condition. But a change from black to complete white is an improbable change.

  1. As far as Europe is concerned, the ancient climatic and other conditions were totally unfavourable for human origin. This is easily understandable looking to the climatic conditions and the type of food grains etc. Apparently, mammals and humans migrated to Europe later from Asia. This precludes consideration of Europe as the possible place of origin of mankind.
  2. Neither language structure nor climatic conditions as in the case of Europe favours Central Asia as the place of origin of humans.
  3. The north pole experiences heavy snow fall and freezing conditions hindering growth of vegetation and hence the origin of humans in this part can never be thought of.
  4. Parsi religion is an offshoot of Vedic philosophy and the religion as such was established by early Vedic community which migrated to Iran based on the Vedic philosophy much before the entry of Islam. Apparently, the place of origin of Vedas would be the first place for origin of human race and not Iran.
  5. In chapter VI of Genesis it is so mentioned – “And the whole was of one language and of one speech, and it came to pass as they journeyed from the east”. This mention of the early men coming from the east in Bible essentially contradicts the version of the Garden of Eden as the place of origin of mankind.
  6. Though Kurukshetra has religious and mythological significance, it can never be considered the place of origin of early men and women. At best it is a place to which the human race shifted later with increase in population at the place of origin.

This leaves the Himalaya only as the only part of the world most suited for the origin of the first humans. This part experiences 10 months of cold weather and 2 months of warm weather. There is abundant availability of fruits and food grains. It is also the highest and purest place. The skin colour of the people living here is ideal and is essentially a mix of black, yellow, red and white. A careful evaluation suggests the areas lying in Kashmir, Mansarovar and Tibet to the most ideal place for the manifestation of the first created human forms. It would be very appropriate to call the place of manifestation of first creations by the volitional power of Ādi Nārāyan (Creator God) as ‘Mansarovar’.

Testimonies

The following verses of Mahabharat afford scriptural testimony.

“himaālayābhidħāno’ayam khyātho lokeshu pāvanaha.
ardħyojan vishthāraha panchayojanamamāyathaha”.

“parimandalayormadħye meruruthama parvathaha.
thathaha sarvāha samuthpannā vrt’thayo dhvijasathamaha”.

“Aerāvathī vithasthā cha vishālā dhevikā kuhū,
prasuthiryathra viprānām shruyathe bhārathavarsham”.    (Mahabharat)

Meaning: Himalaya is famous all over the world. It has a mount known as Meru measuring about 5 km in width and a circumference of 50 km where the first humans manifested. It is from here only rivers Airavati, Vithastha, Vishala, Devikla and Kuhu etc. originate. This is also the place of origin of wise and learned (Brāhmans) “dhevikā pashchime pārshve mānasam sid’dħ sevitham”.

On the western bank of the outflow of river Devika (Sindħu) is present the Mansarovar lake. This is the place of first origin of humans and greatly inhabited by spiritual attainers.
“dhakshinena punarmerūrurmānsarasyaiva cha moordħani.
vaivaswatho nivasathi Yamaha samyamane pureha”.                                        Vāyu Purān 50/88

Vaivaswatha Manu used to reside in his abode to the south of Meru and above Mansarovar.  Similarly, it is said in Shatpat Brāhman that; “thadhapyethadhut’tharasya gireha manoravasarpanam” (1/5/16).

Meaning: Manu steered his boat to safety on to the Himalayas during the great flood*.

It is also the contention of the episode ‘vanaparv’ chapter 187 of Mahabharat that – “asmina himavathaha shrnge nāvam badħnitha māchiram”– meaning, Manu landed his boat safely on the Himalayas.

A judicious evaluation of the above contentions clearly indicates that both Swayambhuva and Vaivaswatha Manus had their residence in the Himalayan region.

The answer to the last question is definitely clear to all. It is an undeniable and unchallengeable fact that the first religion of the world is ‘Hinduism’ though it was not known so.

The first humans to appear on the earth were volitional creation of the Creator God#. Since they were volitional creation, their material bodies were not of human procreational origin. Hence, they had both a worldly gross bodied existence as well as subtle bodied existence. It is by the procreational activity of some of these first volitional creation that the human race started**.

After having appeared at the foothills of Himalayas in the precincts of lake Mansarovar, the population gradually increased. From there, they gradually migrated to the plains of the Saraswati river and established the Pre-Harapan civilization.

There was no religion to begin with and no Hinduism but ‘Sanatana Dharma’. Ṣanatana Ḍharma is not a religion, it’s not a cult, it’s not a theory, and it’s not even a philosophy.  

Sanatana Dharma was not founded by any person or human or even by a book. The very meaning of ‘sanatan’ is without beginning or end and ‘Dharma’ does not mean religion but law. Therefore, Sanatana Dharma means ‘Eternal Law’.

It does not represent any religious creed as we have in the present-day world. It merely represents a code of conduct or righteousness (all that stands for righteous living), a value system that stands for spiritual freedom.

Sanatana Dharma can be defined as the quest for cosmic truth, just as science is the quest for physical truth. The earliest record of Sanatana dharma is found in the Rigveda, the first of the four Vedas possessed by ancient sages who tried to learn the truth about the universe, and man’s relation to the cosmos. Since, Sanatana Dharma is recorded for the first time in the Rigveda, it is also known as the Vedic culture. It is this culture that got named as Hindu Dharma and then as Hinduism due to the influence of external factors and agents. The latter terms are more of relatively recent origin.

*Details of the Great flood shall be seen at another place – Coming soon
@Please see elsewhere – Coming soon
#see elsewhere for the identity of the Creator God – Coming soon
** See elsewhere for the first creations – Coming soon