Evidently no one cared to know what the Vedas or the Upanishads really had to say; everyone imposed his own interpretations on them with impunity. So Shankara interprets the Upanishads in one way and Nimbarka interprets just the contrary way. So Dayananda interprets the Vedas to conform to his own ideas, and Arvind does it quite differently to suit his beliefs, which are different from Dayananda’s. They have made a mess of these great scriptures; they have virtually debauched and defiled them. The Vedas, the Upanishads and the Brahmasutra have suffered terribly down the ages at the hands of their interpreters. The same has been the fate of the Gita. Whoever wants to have his say claims the support of these scriptures, and does everything in his power to impose his meanings on them.
In my view this is nothing but intellectual prostitution, and it has existed in India for thousands of years. Because no one had the courage to say his thing, on his own authority, they had to take shelter in the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Gita. And this dishonest practice stemmed from a lack of self-confidence on the part of the great minds of India. Honesty demands that if Arvind has stumbled upon a truth, he should say it on his own regardless of what the Vedas say. Even if all the scriptures say the opposite, he should fearlessly state his own vision. But if he is not certain of his own ideas, he has no way but to seek the support of the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Gita. Then he will have to use them as his soldiers to win the battle of debates.
Please bear in mind that the seers of the Vedas and the Upanishads do not seek any such support for themselves, they say on their own whatever they have to say. Their statements are straight, bold and emphatic. The author of the Brahmasutra does not quote authorities to support his viewpoint; he says positively this is his vision of truth. But after the Vedas, Upanishads and the Brahmasutra, the intellectual standard of India began to decline and it makes a long, sad story spanning thousands of years. Since then no one dared say his thing on his own authority as the seers of old had. Then everyone sought the support of the trinity of the Upanishads, the Brahmasutra and the Gita. Straightforward and honest utterances became rare. And Arvind is the last link in that long chain of India’s intellectual decline.
For this reason, I say Raman and Krishnamurti are much more honest; they don’t seek support from the Vedas or anything else. Honesty means that when you err you take the responsibility, instead of passing it on to others, to the Vedas. Honesty means that when you find some right thing, some truth, you say it even if the whole world is against it. Only then will posterity be in a position to judge if there is substance in what you have known. But until recently, utter confusion has prevailed in the world of philosophical ideas and concepts.