To reconcile this problem, the Dharma-Karma philosophy comes up with the concept of 'Heaven-Hell'. The point is simple: an unrighteous person may enjoy for now, but eventually he will suffer. If not in this world, then in the after-life. Similarly, a righteous person may suffer now, but eventually he will enjoy a lot. If not in this world, then in the after-life. So, Dharma-Karma has now added the Heaven-Hell to its system.
Heaven/hell is hardly a universal Hindu concept and the above is a very simplistic "karma-dharma for dummies" explanation. Most individuals are a mix of righteous and unrighteous their next life may well be enjoyment for righteous acts and suffering for unrighteous ones. A good wealthy and admired man say a very well respected professor loses his son. the explanation to rationalize the situation would be that he is both reaping benefits and paying for past unrighteousness.
It is also possible to dismiss these ideas as pure delusions to give comfort to people. If I kick a man of lower caste and tell him that I am repaying him for some unrighteousness he committed on me in a previous life. I can hide behind the excuse that all this is pre-ordained and that the fact that he was going to be born lower caste and I would be born upper caste and that I would kick him was all pre-ordained and pre-decided.
The fact is that Dharma demands that I do not hide behind this sort of bullshit rationalization. I must not do what is wrong. Whether I am gaining karma points or not is irrelevant. The idea that I am gaining karma points could simply be a fake promise like houris in heaven. This "karma-dharma" matrix business could well be a complex set of cooked up fables to make people feel better about themselves when in grief or maybe when they feel guilty about too much fun
However it is the right of people to believe this sort of stuff. It is their prerogative. I am not going to force anyone to think the way I think, but I will state my viewpoint. There may be no such thing as "truth for everyone" And it is the search for "truth for everyone" that came up with the concept of "Brahman" or "Vishnu", whatever one may choose to call it.
The concept of the universal soul/Brahman/Isvara/Vishnu is much more robust and difficult to break down than all this karma-dharma matrix business.
It was concluded that the individual soul must have come from the universal soul. Either the individual soul is part of the universal soul or the individual soul is the same as the universal soul. Either way the qualities of individual soul would be largely similar to the universal soul.
There is a problem in this statement
If the individual soul is "part of the universal soul" it cannot be the same, it is only part
If the individual soul is the same as the universal soul it is the same
So the conclusion that follows is nonsense: " Either way the qualities of individual soul would be largely similar to the universal soul." This cannot be concluded from the statements made. The expression "largely similar" is not "same". My wife is largely similar to my sister - profession, height, complexion etc. But they are not the same.
The following argument is very weak rhetoric
How was universal soul born and why? There really was no answer to the question of 'why?' The only answer could be: the world was created by the universal soul because it wanted to. Why would the universal soul want to create many individual souls? Hmm...perhaps, because it wanted company. Perhaps, it wanted to enjoy the world. So, many individual souls and the entire world was created by the universal soul out of nothing but itself. Is there any such example on the earth where something can be created out of nothing but self? Actually, there is one and only one example: Dreams.
So, is the creation of world similar to dream creation? But the dreams are merely illusions. They are not real. This was the start of Maya Vada or Theory of Illusion. It was concluded that the world was merely an illusion just like a dream.
If a dream is the creation of something from nothing it proves that something can be created out of nothing.
If a dream is nothing then the statement denies itself. Dreams do not exist. Why argue about the non existent? If dreams exist then something has been created out of nothing.
If dreams are illusions, then illusions can be created out of nothing. If dreams are reality then reality can come out of nothing
The other statement that I personally find idiotic (to be perfectly frank) is the idea that the universal soul has human or animal desires like wanting company or wanting to "enjoy the world". The same universal soul created rocks and fire and supernovas. What emotions would be needed to create those? He wanted to watch nuclear war in action for 1 million human years?
The universal soul gives no reason for creation; it gives no reason for its own existence. It just is. That is all. If something gets created out of it that creation is not because of love, lust, anger, hunger, pain, enjoyment, loneliness etc. Mapping human emotions of the Hindu concept of God looks very similar to the Christian idea of God making man in his image. That may be an attractive way of making humans understand "God for Dummies", but it is a misrepresentation of the Universal soul/Brahman
I have heard this traditional view that Vedhantha is a continuation of Vedhas. But, that doesn't seem to be the case because Vedhantha books criticize the Vedhik rites. Who said that that Vedhas are a preparation for Vedhantha? It is only Shankaracharya(and later) schools which insist on this. Did Vedhas or Vedhantha itself say that they are linked in this manner?
Vedanta is the end of the Vedas not the continuation. Vedas could not have predicted Vedanta. But if Veda did not exist there would be no Vedanta. That is the connection. The fact that the link is not claimed means nothing. Empty argumentation to reach a nonsensical conclusion that is a personal opinion.
But, if the world is an illusion, then Karma-Dharma matrix would also be an illusion. Just a farce. So, either Karma-Dharma matrix is real or illusion. If Karma-Dharma matrix is illusion, then Moksha(Freedom) is possible. If Karma-Dharma matrix is real, then Moksha(Freedom) is not possible.
The Karma-Dharma matrix is an illusion. It is a farce.
Remember what you wrote earlier
an unrighteous person may enjoy for now, but eventually he will suffer. If not in this world, then in the after-life. Similarly, a righteous person may suffer now, but eventually he will enjoy a lot. If not in this world, then in the after-life. So, Dharma-Karma has now added the Heaven-Hell to its system.
The idea of a "matrix" has simply been cooked up. In fact if you want to dig deeper into individual beliefs - refusing to give water to a man will apparently result in his being born as a lizard in his next life. Now a dog attacks that lizard and kills it. So you make up a story that in a future life the lizard is born a crocodile that eats a man who was a dog in a previous life.
These are simply rationalizations that beat about the bush. Waste of time. There is no "Karma-Dharma" matrix. It is simply a way to encourage good righteous behaviour and cannot be proven any more that you can prove the existence of a universal soul or that individual souls are parts of a universal soul. All these come mainly from the epistemology and hermeneutics of 5000 plus years of Hindu history and tradition of debate. It was never dogma and it will never be dogma. It it up to the individual to get it. He can read but he cannot be made to realize. If he gets it fine. If he does not get it, he does not get it. That's all.
Modern Hindhuism is Agama + Vedhantha(along with Yoga and Saankhya) + Puraanas.
Vedhas and Vedhik rituals are largely irrelevant to modern Hindhuism. Even the priests have moved on to Agama rituals
This is your claim - - that you know exactly what "modern Hinduism" is. I would be inclined to give your claims the same degree of weight as I did when you were insisting that incest is (or was) normal among Buddhists or a normal part of Buddhist practice