The Brahman cycle of Circular Reasoning

OK! I shall not shy away from confessing that I did not do a good job of rehashing the graphic of "Bible Cycle of Circular reasoning" from Rational Wiki

But then I am neither a good webmaster nor a good graphic designer. So this is the best I could get to it in visual appeal.

But I hope readers, critics and fellow skeptics get the point. That is, religious idiocy  is mostly rescued and shielded from scrutiny and well-deserved dismissal by rhetorical fallacies of this type.

It is called 'Circular Reasoning' or 'Tautological Arguments' or 'Begging the question' fallacy

Just because I have replaced the word Bible with Upanishads above does not mean that I am attempting to make  an invalid or unrelated comparison.

The arguments made by the Vedanta apologists to validate Brahman are just as illogical and nonsensical  as the arguments for Bible made by Christian fundamentalists.

The Biblical literalists or fundamentalists use god or Jesus, while the Vedanta fundamentalists substitute it with Brahman.

But both are nowhere close to validating their grand propositions.

Just because Badrayana wrote a treatise or exegesis on Upanishads called the "Brahma Sutra" and that Adi Sankara wrote an even longer treatise on the 'Brahma Sutra' called the 'Vedanta Sutra Bhashya' and that more commentaries were written on Adi Sankara's commentaries still does not amount to providing even a semblance of validity to Brahman or to Vedanta.

They all go round and round in the same circles that you can see in the picture above. And they used fancy Sanskrit words, phrases and verses that very few could understand, follow or rebut in those times.

But once these pompous works were translated into English and other more intelligible and unassuming languages, the cookie of the 'grandiose' and bombastic arguments of Adi Sankara and other such theological scoundrels of religious orthodoxy, started crumbling and coming apart at the seams. 

With some reading and critical insights, we can reduce most of their elaborate, fancy and deceptive arguments into the above circular chase of unrelated claims attempting to reinforce themselves on their own tails while completely failing to establish any claim or conclusion independently.