The Part 2 of the above series is available for reading here:

The Part 2 of the above series is available here for reading:

The book titled ’srI-dakShiNAmUrti-stotram’ authored by Rev. (late) Sri D.S.Subbaramaiya, in English, is a very detailed exposition of the famous hymnal work of Sri Shankaracharya.  The exposition is an extensive study based on the commentaries ‘mAnasollAsa’ and ‘tattvasudhA’ supported by a number of citations from very important and rare classical Sanskrit texts on Advaita.  Every such citation is given with the English translation. The work has received great appreciation from scholars, researchers and sAdhakas.  It covers the entire range of topics in Advaita Vedanta, with authority from the commentaries of Sri Shankaracharya too on the upanishads, brahmasutras and the Bh.GeethA.

Om Sri ParabrahmaNe namaH

In the 11th canto of the srImadbhAgavatam is contained a profound teaching, in discourse form, called ‘uddhavagItA’.  It is a teaching by the Lord Sri Krishna to His devotee Uddhava.  Here is a verse occurring there which says that the objective world grasped by the senses is but a phantom creation of the mind, illusory:

यदिदं मनसा वाचा चक्षुर्भ्यां श्रवणादिभिः ।

नश्वरं गृह्यमाणं च विद्धि मायामनोमयम् ।। ११-७-७ ।।

श्रीधर-स्वामि-टीका -
ननु गुणदोषाभ्यां विषमे लोके कुतः समदृष्टिः स्यामत आह – यदिदमिति । मन आदिभिर्गृह्यमाणं मनोमयत्वान्मायेति विद्धि । तदपि न स्थिरं, किंतु नश्वरं विद्धि ।। ७ ।।

Gita Press translation – Completely shaking off all attachment for your own people and kinsmen and fully concentrating your mind on Me, for your part, go you about the earth looking upon all with an equal eye (6). Whatever is being apprehended with the mind, speech, eyes, ears etc., know it to be a creation of the mind and therefore (merely) illusory and transient (7).

The above teaching comes as a possible question that is contained in the exhortation of the Lord to Uddhava to renounce everything and take to total commitment to spiritual sAdhana:

त्वं तु सर्वं परित्यज्य स्नेहं स्वजनबन्धुषु ।

 मय्यावेश्य मनः सम्यक्समदृग्विचरस्व गाम् ।। ११-७-६ ।। 

The Lord says: …be a man of equal-vision.  To a question: how indeed can one have such a vision of a world which is characterized by distinctions based on merit and demerits of objects/persons?, the first cited verse comes as a reply:

The objective world grasped by the senses is a mere phantom mind-creation and therefore mAyA: illusory.  So, there is this twin method of developing samadRShTi, equal vision with respect to the objective world:

1. Everything is no different from the mind-stuff, manomayam, which is only another word for mAyA/avidyA.  So, that mAyAmanas is the ‘material’ the objective world is made of.  No object is different from another since every object is the same basically. Every object/person witnessed in a dream is made of the dream-material.  They have the common upAdAna kAraNam. The jaDa-jaDa bheda and also the other bhedas, by extention, encountered naturally is being refuted here by the Lord by saying that all the jaDa/assumed chetana vastus are no different from one another.

2. The objective world, being the projection of the mAyAmanas, has the Consciousness, Atman, as its adhiShThAnam, substratum.  It has no existence-reality, sattA, apart from the Existence-Reality of Atman, the dRk.  So, on the irrefutable rule of ‘dRshyam mithA, svapnAdivat’, the dRshyam, the observed objective world, has no reality; it appears to exist on the borrowed sattA of the dRk.  This paratantrasatyatva is also hinted by the Lord in the above verse, by the word samadRk.  Thus, the objective world having paratantra satyatva is being stated by the Lord as mAyAmanomayam, illusory, not having a reality apart from the dRk, seer.

In the Advaitic guruparamparA order we have …….vyAsa – shuka – gauDapAda…  What vyAsa has said above is only what the Lord says and the whole teaching is a narration of shuka.  Sri GaudapAda says the same in these verses, among many:

मायया भिद्यते ह्येतन्नान्यथाऽजं कथञ्चन |

तत्त्वतो भिद्यमाने हि मर्त्यताममृतं व्रजेत् ||३.१९||

 19 The unborn Atman becomes manifold through mAyA and not otherwise. For if the manifold were real, then the immortal would become mortal. [This is because the Atman will be deemed to undergo transformation, vikAra, and therefore the vikArI will be anitya.

मनोदृश्यमिदं द्वैतं यत्किञ्चित्सचराचरम् |

मनसो ह्यमनीभावे द्वैतं नैवोपलभ्यते ||३.३१||

31 All the multiple objects, comprising the movable and the immovable, are perceived by the mind alone. For duality is never perceived when the mind ceases to act.

The twin-method can be complementary too to each other.  

Om Tat Sat

Part 3 of the above series is available for reading here:

Namaste

In the Bhagavadgita chapter 2 the verse 16 reads:

The talks cover certain hymnal/vedantic works of Shankaracharya on Sri Dakshinamurti.  More uploads are to be announced.

Part 9 of the Article series on the Kena and the Mundaka Upanishads can be read in the following URLs:

http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/NewSingleArticle.aspx?ContentId=2107

http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/NewSingleArticle.aspx?ContentId=2106

In the blog comments available in the URL below, the pseudo vaishnavas concoct a multi-deity advaitic tradition:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html?showComment=1411093441998#c4323709618934694320

They say:

//Clarification… By the word “tradition”, I mean the original Vaishnava-advaitic tradition of Shankara and his ancient followers, clearly evident in their authentic works. Not the popular shaivAdvaitic / shAktAdvaitic one that Subbu claims to have been favored by Shankara.//

Response:

There is no such thing as any ‘original Vaishnava-advaitic’ tradition and nowhere can one see such queer names given in the Shankara- Gaudapada or any later literature.  With the sole ulterior motive of selling their vaishnava-wares they hatched a plan to rope-in the Advaita Acharyas whom their own vaishnava Acharyas have severely condemned to eternal hell.  If the Advaita tradition was Vaishnava, why would the vaishnavas even refute it and start their own ‘vedantic’ schools?

And these people go further to produce other names like shaiva advaita and shAkta advaita and who knows what other names they will come up with?  Let it be known to them that whatever deity they prefix to ‘advaita’, the essential Advaitic character of ‘brahma satyam jagan mithyA, jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH’ will not be absent in any of their combinations.  For, the very nature of Advaita is to transcend all deity-devotee duality.  Not realizing this, they try to create confusion among their gullible readers.

They also propagate their own theory that ‘vaikuntha’ and other lokas are admissible in Advaita as ‘eternal loka-s’.  Shankara has vehemently condemned such ideas of any loka-s existing eternally where liberated beings reside.

In the Mundakopanishad 3.2.6 bhashya Shankara says:

परामृताः परम् अमृतम् अमरणधर्मकं ब्रह्म आत्मभूतं येषां ते परामृता जीवन्त एव ब्रह्मभूताः, परामृताः सन्तः परिमुच्यन्ति परि समन्तात्प्रदीपनिर्वाणवद्भिन्नघटाकाशवच्च निवृत्तिमुपयान्ति परिमुच्यन्ति परि समन्तान्मुच्यन्ते सर्वे, न देशान्तरं गन्तव्यमपेक्षन्ते । ‘शकुनीनामिवाकाशे जले वारिचरस्य वा । पदं यथा न दृश्येत तथा ज्ञानवतां गतिः’ (मो. ध. १८१-९) ‘अनध्वगा अध्वसु पारयिष्णवः’ (?) इति श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्याम् ; देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव, परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन गन्तव्यम् । यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात्, मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति । अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥

The liberated do not travel to any other place/loka, for any such travel will imply that the jiva is still in samsara. Since Brahman is infinite, the jnani who has realized his identity with Brahman, also being the Infinite Brahman alone, does not go anywhere upon death.  For, Brahman is not a finite place to be reached/attained.  If Brahman were located in a place then Brahman, being no different from any formed object, will have to have a beginning and end, and be dependent on something else, be made of parts, and ephemeral, and a produced one.  Brahman can never be of this nature.  Thus, the ‘attainment’ of Brahman cannot be involving any locating in some other place.

Thus, there is no need for Shankara to deny any eternal loka be it vaikunTha or any other.  For, anything that is not brahman is bound to dissolution.  Madhusudana Saraswati in the Advaita siddhi has also shown that there is no such thing called ‘aprAkRta’ which is outside the realm of prakRti.  The Laghuchandrika clarifies that what is commonly called ‘aprAkRta’ is still within prakRti but that which is not produced in the pancha bhUta transformation process, but bypasses the process.

All non-advaitic moksha is of the nature of traveling to some other loka and remaining there.  Their Brahman will have to be of the above description involving finitude.

While the bloggers have tried to create an impression among their gullible readers that Advaitins too admit of a loka like themselves, they provide various quotes from Madhusudana Saraswati, Sridhara Swamin, etc. to buttress their claim and draw support to their funny ideas.

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html?showComment=1411093441998#c4323709618934694320

// Three advaitins have accepted the existence of saguNa-brahman, Vishnu, in Vaikuntha. Also, Madhusudana and Sridhara say that Vaikuntha is eternal.//

They have not known that no true Advaitin will contradict the ShAnkaran position stated above.  Madhusudana Sraswati, in the Advaita Siddhi, refuting the claims of the Dvaitin, concludes:

[Pariccheda 2, p.745 of the Edition published by MM Ananthakrishna Shastry]:

//etena bhagavallokaaderapi nityatvam apAstam.  Na cha ‘ato hi vaiShNavA lokAH nityAste cetanAtmakaaH. matprasAdAt parAm shAntim sthAnam prApsyasi shAshvatam’ ityAdyAgamavirodhaH, tasya avaAntarapralayasthatvaparatvAt. TasmAt nirguNam nirAkAram brahma iti siddham.  Iti advaita siddhau brahmaNo nirAkAratva siddhiH//

[Thus (in view of the foregoing arguments), the ‘eternality’ of divine/lordly/worlds too stands negated.  One aught not to raise an objection that the following scriptural passage is contradicted by the above conclusion:  ‘Therefore indeed the VaishNava loka-s are eternal and are sentient in nature.  By My grace you shall attain the state of great and eternal peace.’  The ‘eternality’ stated in this passage has its purport in the ‘avAntara pralaya’, intermediary dissolution.  Thus stands established that Brahman has no form in the work called ‘Advaita siddhi’.]

The ‘LaghuchandrikA’ gloss by GaudabrahmAnanda adds:

‘There is no pramANa for the existence of a VaikunTha loka which is not a product of the pancha bhutas.’ [abhautika-vaikunThaloke mAnAbhAvAt.’

Thus, whatever has been stated by Madhusudana in his commentary to the Bhagavadgita or any other commentator for any other work like the SrimadbhAgavatam on the topic of ‘eternal loka’, stands overruled by the above statement of the Advaita Siddhi.

In the Kathopanishad bhashya for 2.3.16 Shankara cites a Vishnu purana verse:

तया नाड्या ऊर्ध्वम् उपरि आयन् गच्छन् आदित्यद्वारेण अमृतत्वम् अमरणधर्मत्वमापेक्षिकम्  ‘आभूतसम्प्लवं स्थानममृतत्वं हि भाष्येत’ (वि.पु. २.८.९७) इति स्मृतेः । ब्रह्मणा वा सह कालान्तरेण मुख्यममृतत्वमेति भुक्त्वा भोगाननुपमान्ब्रह्मलोकगतान् । विष्वङ् नानागतयः अन्या नाड्यः उत्क्रमणे उत्क्रमणनिमित्तं भवन्ति संसारप्रतिपत्त्यर्था एव भवन्तीत्यर्थः ॥

which says: ‘Eternality’ means that state/position that will exist till the dissolution takes place.

Thus, the term ‘Eternal’ is not absolute existence but only relative existence.  The ‘eternality’ of all lokas is of this category alone.

There is no change, therefore, in the traditional Advaitic stand that the ‘brahmaloka to which upAsaka-s go after death and get the Advaitic realization there and thereafter become liberated upon the dissolution of that brahma loka’ stands firm.

OM

VASTU-PARICCHEDA, ETC.

Here is a comment the blogger ( http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/04/sarvajnatmans-sankshepa-shariraka-lucid.html?showComment=1411093441998#c4323709618934694320 )  has sent to me in response to my article on ‘The names Vishnu, vAsudeva, etc. in the specific instances refer to Nirguna brahman only’. Having no arguments to counter mine, he is using all sorts of abusive language to fill his page. That is what his lot is. My responses are in between [ ]

Good to see you contradicting the Chandrika and openly challenging Sridhara.

[First of all, someone who wants to learn Advaita will not be looking into the commentary for the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi for the invocatory or mangala shlokas or the Śrīmadbhāgavatam. Regarding the Chandrikā, I have only shown how his commentary contradicts Shankara’s commentary on ‘tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam’ of the Kaṭhopaniṣat and that the Chandrikā is not to be relied upon in understanding what Shankara comments on that expression: viṣṇnoḥ paramam padam.]

Fact is, it is impossible to deny that the Chandrikā compares Shiva and Adi Shankara, and openly makes reference to their yoga sAmarthya, so your logic is to simply say you know more than Jnanottama.

[No one has denied that the Chandrika makes that comparison. Even without the Chandrika that is evident from the original verse of Sureshwara. ]

Thanks for that, just what we wanted to prove…that you have no link with ancient advaitins!

[You are only proving your pseudo vaishnavism and fanaticism and nothing more and want to somehow make Shankara your brand ambassador. Stop doing that.]

So, one by one you are discarding Jnanottama Misra, Sridhara, Mahesvara Tirtha and several advaitins in desperation…guess you will soon discard Shankara from your “tradition” as well.

[It is evident that you are replying to my post only in desperation. Maheswara Tirtha and ‘several advaitins’ that you have lined up are only commenting on the Ramayana which is hardly a text someone will look for studying Advaita. Their comments on vaikuntha etc. are only text-specific and do not constitute the authority on the topic in Advaita.]

Your statement: If Vishnu is not Shiva, then Vishnu loses the epithet ‘ananta’ since there will be ‘vastu pariccheda’, limitation due to object, in Vishnu.”

You statement on Ananta – clearly shows your ignorance. In the vyAvahArika sath, “ananta” only refers to him being infinite in the sense of pervading everywhere, at all times and all states.

[You are only proving your ignorance of Advaita. First undertake a thorough study under a qualified Advaita Acharya, if you want to verify if your funny claims about ‘ancient advaitins were vaishnavas’ has any bearing in the bhashyas. Also, know that the ‘ananta’ epithet is a svarupa lakshana of Brahman and is not just a vyāvahārika satya. ]

Identity and lack of existence of two entities is not a prerequisite for anantatvam.

[Who told you? Show me where Shankara says this in the Taittiriya Bhashya for the word ‘anantam’. In the Tai.up. 2.1: आकाशो ह्यनन्त इति प्रसिद्धं देशतः; तस्येदं कारणम् ; तस्मात्सिद्धं देशत आत्मन आनन्त्यम् । न ह्यसर्वगतात्सर्वगतमुत्पद्यमानं लोके किञ्चिद्दृश्यते । अतो निरतिशयमात्मन आनन्त्यं देशतः । तथा अकार्यत्वात्कालतः ; तद्भिन्नवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च वस्तुतः । अत एव निरतिशयसत्यत्वम् ॥]

Brahman is ananta vastutaḥ because there is no object that is different from It.]

Shiva is not Vishnu, but Shiva’s very existence depends on Vishnu’s pervasion.

[This is the first hand proof of your ignorance of vedanta. And it reveals your non-advaitic origins. For a jiva’s existence there is no need for any dependence on an external entity. Subjects, for example, depend on a King for their survival. Jivas can at best be said to depend on Ishwara for their karma phala bhoga/bhogya vastu. Even this is based on their karma and Ishwara is a mere passive agent here. The BG 5.14 says:

न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः ।
न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ १४ ॥

न कर्तृत्वं स्वतः कुरु इति नापि कर्माणि रथघटप्रासादादीनि ईप्सिततमानि लोकस्य सृजति उत्पादयति प्रभुः आत्मा । नापि रथादि कृतवतः तत्फलेन संयोगं न कर्मफलसंयोगम् । यदि किञ्चिदपि स्वतः न करोति न कारयति च देही, कः तर्हि कुर्वन् कारयंश्च प्रवर्तते इति, उच्यते — स्वभावस्तु स्वो भावः स्वभावः अविद्यालक्षणा प्रकृतिः माया प्रवर्तते ‘दैवी हि’ (भ. गी. ७-१४) इत्यादिना वक्ष्यमाणा ॥

The Atman does not do anything. It is only māyā that does everything. So, there is no dependence on the jiva for anything on Ishwara, excepting the chaitanya sānnidhyam to activate māyā.

Thus, there is no way Shiva is dependent on Vishnu for his very existence. Only a superimposed snake has to depend on the substratum rope for its very existence. On that ground, Vishnu has to depend on the Nirguna Brahman (and māyā) for his very existence. The BG 2^nd chapter says:

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च ।
नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥ २४ ॥

The Atman is all-pervading. All jivas are all-pervading. Shiva and Vishnu are all-pervading. To be all-pervading one need not depend on another. It is one’s svarūpa. Also, one’s all-pervading nature will not grant any existence to anyone. So, put an end to your ‘Shiva dependent on all-pervasive Vishnu’ theory.

‘jagadvyāpine namaḥ, jagadgurave namaḥ, sāttvikāya, shuddhavigrahāya, anantāya, haraye..etc. are just a few names of Shiva in the aṣṭottaram. None of these ‘depend’ on Viṣṇu’s vyāpakatvam. ]

Bheda is upheld in the dependence of one entity on another. A table is not dependent on a stool, but the existence of shiva depends on Vishnu just as a body is ashes without the Atma.

[In the Taittiriyāraṇyaka occurs the mantras ‘sadyojātam…etc.’ among them is ‘jyeṣṭhāya’ for which sāyana comments: sarvajagadutpatteḥ pūrvabhāvitvāt jyeṣthaḥ’ (Because Shiva exists even before the creation of the entire world, He is called jyeṣṭha, the ‘elder’.) ‘Iśvaraḥ sarvabhūtānām – akhilaprāṇinām Iśvaraḥ, niyāmakaḥ’ (Shiva is the Lord/controller of all beings)..’brahmaṇo’dhipatiḥ – Shiva is the Overlord of brahmā’. He has never said that these mantras are about Viṣṇu which the vaiṣṇava would desperately try to twist and impose.

If Shiva has to depend on Vishnu for his existence, Vishnu has to depend on Nirguna Brahman for his very existence. Without that sattā of Nirguna Brahman, Vishnu has no independent sattā. All entities in creation derive their sattā from NB alone. This is the basis for holding the world to be mithyā; svasattāshūnyatvāt. Even ashes have an existence and that sattā is of NB.]

Stop confusing your half baked knowledge of advaita with random trash.

[Stop confusing others with your zero knowledge of advaita with random trash.]

First understand what vastu pariccheda means in vyAvahArika sath of advaita and also in VA and Dvaita traditions.

[Go to an advaita scholar to study this.]

“Parabrahman” in advaita only means that the entity which is nirguNa, the paramArtha tattva,is vAsudeva (saguna brahman) under suddha sattva upAdhIs.

[The paramārtha tattva of Advaita is NB and not any saguṇa deity. In BSB 2.1.14 Shankara has denied all attributes like sarvajnatva, essentially effects of sattva upādhi, as avidyākalpita in the paramārtha tattvam. In BG 2^nd chapter Shankara says: ‘I am non-different from Vāsudeva.’

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । श्लोक ६१ – भाष्यम्

तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य संयमनं वशीकरणं कृत्वा युक्तः समाहितः सन् आसीत मत्परः अहं वासुदेवः सर्वप्रत्यगात्मा परो यस्य सः मत्परः, ‘न अन्योऽहं तस्मात्’ इति आसीत इत्यर्थः ।

A jiva can never identify himself with the shuddha sattvopadhi vāsudeva. The identity in Advaita is only with the shuddha nirupādhika chaitanyam.]

The term “Parabrahman” denotes the dual state of nirguNa brahman and saguNa isvara. When Shankara says “vAsudeva is the paramArtha tattva”, he means that the paramArtha tattva is verily vAsudeva because it is nirguNa brahman under suddha sattva upAdhIs.

[Surely Shankara never confuses his students like the way you are confused. All this is a result of reading the bhāṣya all by oneself, without the guidance of a qualified teacher. The paramārtha tattvam can never be sopādhika brahman. You will never understand this since you can never go beyond sopādhika brahman. That alone is paramārtha for you.]

Madhusudhana clearly establishes that it is the lord of vaikunta. Since the upAdhIs are sattva, there is no scope for ignorance and hence, saguNa brahman is verily the dual state of “dvirUpa paramEsvara” in advaita.

[There is no such a ‘dvirūpa’ parameshwara in advaita. Do not invent weird things from your hotchpotch thinking. If Madhusudana says that he is referring to only māyopādhika brahman and not the NB.]

Similarly, nArAyaNa parO vyaktAt only means that saguNa brahman, nArAyaNa, whose essential nature is nirguNa, is beyond prakrti.

[In advaita, Ishwara and avyakta are non-different. I have already pointed out this in an earlier post comparing BG 10^th ch and 8^th ch. verses on the Lord saying He is the cause of everything and also that avyakta is the cause of everything. Again, the Mānḍūkya sixth mantra dealing with Ishwara is overruled by the seventh mantra that negates the Iswara status as belonging to the cause-effect duality. Whichever is the seed of creation is within creation and not transcending it. In the bhāṣya for the very opening mantra of the māṇḍūkya, Shankara says, at the end: ओङ्कारविकारशब्दाभिधेयश्च सर्वः प्राणादिरात्मविकल्पः अभिधानव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) ……भूतं भवत् भविष्यत् इति कालत्रयपरिच्छेद्यं यत्, तदपि ओङ्कार एव, उक्तन्यायतः । यच्च अन्यत् त्रिकालातीतं कार्याधिगम्यं कालापरिच्छेद्यमव्याकृतादि, तदपि ओङ्कार एव ॥ [All that is a superimposition on Atman is not existent as apart from the word that is used to denote it. That which is beyond time but inferred as a cause through the effect, and which is not delimited by time such as avyākṛta, that too is omkāra alone. That means, Ishwara, who is beyond time, but inferred to be a cause of the world, and is not delimited by time, is also omkara alone. Just before that the bhāṣya says: रज्ज्वादिरिव सर्पादिविकल्पस्यास्पदमद्वय आत्मा परमार्थतः सन्प्राणादिविकल्पस्यास्पदं यथा, तथा सर्वोऽपि वाक्प्रपञ्चः प्राणाद्यात्मविकल्पविषय ओङ्कार एव । स चात्मस्वरूपमेव, तदभिधायकत्वात् । ओङ्कारविकारशब्दाभिधेयश्च सर्वः प्राणादिरात्मविकल्पः अभिधानव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) (All that is denoted by words is non existent, as they do not exist apart from the word that denotes them. Thus, avyākṛta, Iśwara, is non-existent apart from the word that denotes it.)

So, the Brahman that is beyond avyakta is decidedly NB, Turiya, in advaita. Do not mix up non-advaitic trash with advaita and pollute advaita. That which is beyond prakrti can be only NB in advaita. Ishwara is inseparably united with prakriti. Even the BG has several verses on this. Without prakrti Iswara can not even create anything. His dependence on prakrti is well established in the BSB 1.4.3 too. There तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् ॥ ३ ॥ Shankara says: we have to admit the pradhāna-like nascent state (seed state also called avyakta). For, otherwise, He says, the Vedantic अत्रोच्यते — यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम, प्रसञ्जयेम तदा प्रधानकारणवादम् ; परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या ; अर्थवती हि सा ; न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति, शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः । brahman cannot do anything without it.

So, do not bring in your non-advaitic stuff to salvage Vishnu from the throes of prakrti and sully the advaitic waters.]

“visnor paramam padam” – even sarvajnAtma uses the term “bhagavatO visnoH paramam padam” and “murArEh paramam padam” for which you have no answer to Ramatirtha and Nrsimhasrama’s commentary.

[First improve your fundamental grammar. It is awful to see you repeating endlessly / visnor paramam /. It is visnoḥ paramam.

Let them use it that way. None can deny what Shankara has said in the Kaṭha bhāṣya which I have cited. To know the ultimate meaning of that expression of the Kaṭha shruti, one has to go with the bhāṣyam and not any other contextual references. Viṣṇu and his supreme state are not two different things as per the upaniṣad. ]

They equate Murari with Krishna openly. The subodhini also says “jagatpAlaka vishNu” and uses the “sattva upAdhi” term as well. Hence, “visnor paramam padam” only means, “the supreme (nirguNa) state of the all-pervasive saguNa isvara (vishNu)”. This vishNu is identified as the deity of pAncarAtrikas, ie, nArAyaNa everywhere by Shankara. That is why the Chandrika says that the AdhiSthAna or base of the vyapanashIla jagat kAraNa saguNa brahman (deva vishNu) is nirguNa brahman.

[Let them equate the way they want. That is not the point here. Ignorance (in advaita) is dispelled by Nirguṇ brahma jñānam alone. I have provided the BG quote too. The all-pervasive saguṇa Iswara is also pervaded by NB in Advaita. Shankara has refuted the pāncarātra as the one (Śāṇḍilya) who rejected the veda in the BSB विप्रतिषेधाच्च ॥ ४५ ॥ वेदविप्रतिषेधश्च भवति — चतुर्षु वेदेषु परं श्रेयोऽलब्ध्वा शाण्डिल्य इदं शास्त्रमधिगतवानित्यादिवेदनिन्दादर्शनात् । तस्मात् असङ्गतैषा कल्पनेति सिद्धम् ॥ ४५ ॥

and the only part that is admissible for him is that they hold Vāsudeva is the abhinna nimitta upādāna kāraṇam of the jagat (which only Advaita vedanta holds) and that that is the paramartha tattvam. In advaita the paramārtha tattvam is NB. So, Shankara admits that system, in part, only because their parmārtha tattvam, called ‘Vāsudeva’ is the Vedantic Brahman which is not saguṇa.]

nirguNa brahman does not pervade the deva vishNu, you clumsy moron.

[You dull headed creature, NB is the substratum for the entire creation including deva viṣṇu which is a superimposition on NB.

तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थतो विद्यया अपास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपे आत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते ; तथा चोक्तम् — ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा’ (छा. उ. ७-२४-१) इति ; ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) इत्यादि च ; एवं परमार्थावस्थायां सर्वव्यवहाराभावं वदन्ति वेदान्ताः सर्वे ; तथेश्वरगीतास्वपि — ‘न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः । न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते’ (भ. गी. ५-१४) ॥ ‘नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः । अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः’ (भ. गी. ५-१५) इति परमार्थावस्थायामीशित्रीशितव्यादिव्यवहाराभावः प्रदर्श्यते ;

The highlighted part means: Ishwaratvam characterized by omniscience and omnipotence are products of avidyā and its resulting finitizing. Thus, according to Shankara, the Ishwara (whichever deity it might be) if endowed with omnipotence, etc. is a paricchinna entity only of NB. Of course, this finitizing is not real, since it is caused by the ignorance-upādhi.   If deva Viṣṇu is Ishwara, he cannot escape being a paricchinna entity as per Shankara. Non-advaitins can never digest this. That is why the founders of those schools severely criticized Shankara for virtually bulldozing all kalyana gunas from Ishwara and declaring an ashabdamasparsham…etc. brahman as the Supreme Reality. ]

That would mean you are admitting two entities (the pervaded deva and the pervading nirguNa brahman) while acknowledging paramAthika sath, which is impossible. Neither can nirguNa brahman pervade for it is all in the sense of being the only one (sarvam).

[This is another standard misconception of non-advaitins. Whenever such expressions as ‘adhiṣṭhāna – āropita, vyāpya – vyāpaka’ type of relations are used in Advaita, it is not any duality but only ādhyāsika sambandha. No one would count the superimposed snake as a second entity after the underlying rope. So too the vyāpya (pervaded) deva Viṣṇu is an adhyasta vastu on the vyāpaka NB. Hence the defect of two entities is never there in Advaita. Any number of āropita objects on the adhiṣthānam NB will not render the latter devoid of its innate advitiya nature. Shankara has said this in the adhyāsa bhāṣya and also in the māṇḍūkya kārikā bhāṣya 2.17 (आत्मा एतेष्वनुगतः, सर्वत्राव्यभिचारात्, यथा सर्पधारादिभेदेषु रज्जुः ।.The Atman, which is only one, is immanent in all creation just as the one rope is immanent in all the various superimpositions possible on a rope like snake, a streak of water, etc.   Dunces who do not understand fundamentals of Advaita take up positions to argue. It is time they shut up and mend their brains. ]

Jnanottama clearly attributes vyapanashIlatva to the deva vishNu only.

[If he has not attributed all-pervading nature to Brahman it is his folly. Shankara never commits such a folly. ]

The devas – vishNu, shiva, etc are all nirguNa in essence, but under upAdhIs they are differentiated. Shiva, Brahma, etc are under rajO and tamO guNa upAdhIs. Thus, they are objectionable objects for upAsaNa.

[Just becuase you are full of rajo and tamo guṇas do not superimpose them on Shiva.

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.6.49

Brahmā addresses Shiva:

bhavams tu pumsah paramasya mayaya

durantayasprsta-matih samasta-drk

taya hatatmasv anukarma-cetahsv

anugraham kartum iharhasi prabho

SYNONYMS

bhavan — Your Lordship; tu — but; pumsah — of the person; paramasya — the supreme; mayaya — by the material energy; durantaya — of great potency; asprsta — unaffected; matih — intelligence; samasta-drk — seer or knower of everything; taya — by the same illusory energy; hata-atmasu — bewildered at heart; anukarma-cetahsu — whose hearts are attracted by fruitive activities; anugraham — mercy; kartum — to do; iha — in this case; arhasi — desire; prabho — O lord.

TRANSLATION

My dear lord, you are never bewildered by the formidable influence of the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore you are omniscient and should be merciful and compassionate toward those who are bewildered by the same illusory energy and are very much attached to fruitive activities.

Here is a fine dhyaṇa shloka on Shiva:

॥ शिवध्यानम्‌॥

शान्तं पद्मासनस्थं शशधरमुकुटं पञ्चवक्त्रं त्रिनेत्रं
शूलं वज्रं च खड्‌गं परशुमभयदं दक्षिणांगे वहन्तम्‌।
नागं पाशं च घण्टां डमरुकसहितां चांकुशं वामभागे
नानालंकारदीप्तं स्फटिकमणिनिभं पार्वतीशं नमामि॥

I prostrate myself before the five-faced Lord of Parvati, who is adorned with various ornaments, who shines like Sphatika jewel, who is seated peacefully in lotus pose, with moon-crested crown, with three eyes, wearing trident, Vajra, sword and axe on the right side, serpent, noose, bell, Damaru and spear on the left side and who gives protection from all fears to His devotees.

‘upāsakānām yadupāsanīyam…’ is a famous hymn on Dakṣiṇāmūrti by Shankara. Just because some fanatics do not know this, the advaitins who know this will not subscribe to your clumsy ideas. ]

Sanātana dharma is full of methods of obtaining the grace of Shiva for a person’s spiritual sādhana.]

VishNu is nirguNa under sattva upAdhIs and hence he alone is free of mAya; he is the mahEsvara who controls mAya and is worthy of upAsaNa.

[No one is free of māyā. Even sattva is within māyā alone. Krishna says in the BG that all three worlds are within the grip of māyā’s three guṇas.

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.48 Summary

In this chapter Lord Sri Krishna first visits Trivakra (also known as Kubja) and enjoys with her, and then He visits Akrura. The Lord sends Akrura to Hastinapura to satisfy the Pandavas.

After Uddhava had related to Sri Krishna the news of Vraja, the Lord went to the home of Trivakra, which was decorated with diverse ornamentation conducive to sexual enjoyment. Trivakra welcomed Krishna with great respect, giving Him a raised seat and, together with her female companions, worshiping Him. She also offered Uddhava a seat, as befitted his position, but Uddhava simply touched the seat and sat on the floor.

Lord Krishna then reclined on an opulent bed as the maidservant (of Kamsa) Trivakra elaborately washed and decorated herself. Then she approached Him. Krishna invited Trivakra to the bed and began to enjoy with her in various ways. By embracing Lord Krishna, Trivakra freed herself of the torment of lust. She asked Krishna to remain with her for some time, and the considerate Lord promised to fulfill her request in due course. He then returned with Uddhava to His residence. Apart from offering sandal paste to Krishna, Trivakra had never performed any pious acts, yet simply on the strength of the piety of this single act she attained the rare personal association of Sri Krishna.

Krishna’s tricking Vṛnda (Tulasi) and robbing her chastity is another instance.

When Krishna does this, it is ‘shuddha sattvopādhi’. If any other, say, Brahma or Shiva were to do this, it is under the influence of rajas/tamas/ignorance!! Hell with your fanaticism.

As I pointed out above, ‘sāttvikāya namaḥ, shuddhavigrahāya namaḥ, shāśvatāya namaḥ’ etc. are some of the names of Shiva. If all these accrue to Shiva through Viṣṇu as per your fractured logic, then the advaitin will quickly point out that all the gunas of viṣṇu ( if he is the Iswara) too are superimposed by avidyā as per Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14. In any case, Viṣṇu is not the sole agent to ‘give’ all gunas to others. Stop your fanatical utterances which only make you a laughing stock.]

The Chandrika clearly points this out and so do Shankara and Anandagiri, and yet you can only rile against Jnanottama mishra in your ignorance.

[Shankara and Anandagiri never do this. I have studied the Prashnopanishad bhāṣyam. If any, the upaniṣad and the bhashyam only say that ‘one entity (prāṇa), as Rudra engages in the world-dissolution activity and as rakṣitā, in the sustaining activity.

प्रश्नोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयः प्रश्नः । मन्त्रः ९ – भाष्यम्

किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण । त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव च सर्वेषां ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥

The mantra and the bhāṣyam bring out the sāmānādhikaraṇyam among all the entities there: prāṇa, rudra and the pālayitā. This is a fine instance of the Upaniṣadic hari-hara aikya concept.

In the BG 11^th chapter, Arjuna, unable to tolerate the terrible form of Krishna, wants Him to revert to the sowmya form. The Lord Himself says that is His ‘ghora’ rŪpam. It is one Lord who showed His terrible form (kālo’ṣmi lokakṣyakakṛt..). It is this very idea in the above bhashyam: One entity as vīrya form for one function and another soumya form for another function. Hence, all murti-s can be meditated upon by discarding the aspect that is not relishable and retaining the one that is pleasant for the upāsaka.]

Shiva is described as the Jagadguru in the Bhāgavatam. The same work also has the Kashyapa prajāpati giving out the glories of Shiva’s vairāgyam to his wife, Diti who sought gratification of her carnal desires in the evening time. Someone who is endowed with so many glories is ‘tama upādhi’ only for you, a tāmasic being. ]

Do not bring in Shiva-Viṣṇu issues while responding.  I am least interested in them. I mentioned some instances above only because you raised that topic. There was no provocation on my part in my earlier blogs on this.  Limit your responses to mere advaita and Shankara’s bhashya.

The release of a new publication (in Sanskrit) with the above title is announced in the following URL::

Comparison of Advaita, Visistadvaita and Dvaita Sanskrit Talk at UC Berkeley

by Sri Bannanje Govindacharya – (a well-known scholar of Dvaita Vedanta)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qLZP56Tzks

I viewed the video and the talk. As could only be expected, the speaker, Sri Bannanje Govindachrya (BG) has largely misrepresented Advaita and taken that opportunity to caricature Advaita and present Dvaita as the flawless system.  Some, of the many, ‘highlights’ of his talk are:

1. Those who follow Shankara are doing that blindly and only those who are buddhijeevi-s (beings endowed with the thinking faculty) follow Ramanuja and Madhva.
2. Historically, when Shankara arrived, the damage to the Vedic tradition was already done by the Buddhists, with royal patronage like that of Ashoka.  People in India were waiting for a ‘saviour’ and Shankara arrived.  Naturally he gained great following.  Anyone in that place would have achieved that (implying that there is nothing special about Shankara).
3. People in India have the tendency of blindly following a ‘pūrva Āchārya’ without questioning.  They would simply tap their cheeks (an act of expressing devotion/respect among Indians).  Such was Shankara’s following.  Even after Ramanuja and Madhwa came and questioned and finished off Advaita, that blind following continues.
4. BG: That the  Atman is all-pervading is not supported by the Upanishad.  That was the prevalent view among Naiyāyikas and Sāṅkhya-s.  Shankara endorsed that alone with some modifications. That Atman is atomic, aṇu, alone is the vedic view.
5. BG: When this view was brought out by Ramanuja and Madhva, Advaita met its end.
6. BG: For Shankara, women are not eligible for mokṣa; they have to be born as men, and then become sannyasins and then alone get mokṣa.

[I am just pointing to Shankara’s commentary here:

māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye’pi syuḥ pāpayonayaḥ |

striyo vaiśyāstathā śūdrāste’pi yānti parāṁ gatim || Gītā – 9-32

9.32 For, O son of Prtha, even those who are born of sin – women, Vaisyas, as also śūdras, even they reach the highest Goal by taking shelter under Me.

Sri Shankara’s commentary –

मां हि यस्मात् पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य माम् आश्रयत्वेन गृहीत्वा येऽपि स्युः भवेयुः पापयोनयः पापा योनिः येषां ते पापयोनयः पापजन्मानः । के ते इति, आह — स्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः तेऽपि यान्ति गच्छन्ति परां प्रकृष्टां गतिम् ॥

//English translation by Swami Gambhirananda (on Sri Sankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary)
9.32 Hi, for; O son of Prtha, ye api, even those; pāpayonayah syuh, who are born of sin;-as to who they are, the Lord says-striyah, women; vaisyāḥ, Vaisyas, tathā, as also; śūdrāḥ, śūdras; te api, even they; yānti, reach, go to; the parām, highest; gatim, Goal vyapāśritya, by taking shelter; mām, under Me-by accepting Me as their refuge.//

It should not be thought that Shankara is implying here that the above category of people will attain male, brāhmaṇa body and sannyāsa āśrama in a later birth and then attain the highest (mokśa).  If such were the case, the very verse of the Lord will be useless, conveying nothing.

The Br.up. 6.5.1 refers to Maitreyī as a brahmavādinī मैत्रेयी ब्रह्मवादिनी बभूव.  There is also the well-known case of Vācaknavī Gārgī (Br.up.5.1.1) referred to by Shankara in the Sūtrabhāṣya 3.4.9.36: रैक्ववाचक्नवीप्रभृतीनामेवंभूतानमपि ब्रह्मवित्त्वश्रुत्युपलब्धेः । The ‘api’ in the Bh.Gī.9.32 is significantly reflected in this sentence, where it is said ‘even’ those who have no eligibility for sannyāsa āśrama are known from the śruti to have attained the liberating knowledge.

In the Bh.Gītā 4.24 Shankara says that for some reason a Knower of the Self, is not able to leave his āśrama (e.g. household), he can continue there itself and still be a non-doer as his ignorance-born doership/enjoyership ideas have been destroyed by Knowledge:

त्यक्त्वा कर्मफलासङ्गं नित्यतृप्तो निराश्रयः ।
कर्मण्यभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि नैव किञ्चित्करोति सः ॥ २० ॥

भाष्यम्

त्यक्त्वा कर्मसु अभिमानं फलासङ्गं च यथोक्तेन ज्ञानेन नित्यतृप्तः निराकाङ्क्षो विषयेषु इत्यर्थः । निराश्रयः आश्रयरहितः, आश्रयो नाम यत् आश्रित्य पुरुषार्थं सिसाधयिषति, दृष्टादृष्टेष्टफलसाधनाश्रयरहित इत्यर्थः । विदुषा क्रियमाणं कर्म परमार्थतोऽकर्मैव, तस्य निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् । तेन एवंभूतेन स्वप्रयोजनाभावात् ससाधनं कर्म परित्यक्तव्यमेव इति प्राप्ते, ततः निर्गमासम्भवात् लोकसङ्ग्रहचिकीर्षया शिष्टविगर्हणापरिजिहीर्षया वा पूर्ववत् कर्मणि अभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि निष्क्रियात्मदर्शनसम्पन्नत्वात् नैव किञ्चित् करोति सः ॥

7. BG says: Shankara was a Vaishnava.  He never donned the bhasma.  It is only those who follow him, out of delusion/ignorance, mouḍhya, don bhasma and portray Shankara in pictures as donning the bhasma.
8. BG: In the explanation of Tat tvam asi, the meaning of Tat as Brahman is completely out of place; grammatically wrong.  ‘Sa ātmā’ is in masculine and therefore, the ‘tat’ there can never be brahman which is neuter.

[Here are some comments on the above observation of BG:

It can be noted that that very section of the Chāndogya upaniṣad (chapter 6 where occurs the teaching of the Sadvidyā by Uddālaka to his son Śvetaketu)  refers to the Supreme Brahman in all the three genders:

1. सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्  Ch.up. 6.2.1.  Here the words ‘Sat’, ‘ekam’ and ‘advitīyam’ , all in the neuter gender, refer to Brahman.

2.  सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपें व्याकरवाणीति ॥ २ ॥ Ch.up. 6.3.2.  Here the word ‘Seyam’ is a conjunction of two words ‘sā’ and ‘iyam’, both in the feminine gender, referring to the word ‘devatā’ contained in the conjunction ‘devataikṣata’.  This word ‘devatā’ in the feminine, is referring to the Supreme Brahman, the creator of the Universe and who has entered the created universe as the jīva.

3. स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो

The commentary of Shankara for this is:

स यः सदाख्यः एषः उक्तः अणिमा अणुभावः जगतो मूलम् ऐतदात्म्यम् एतत्सदात्मा यस्य सर्वस्य तत् एतदात्म तस्य भावः ऐतदात्म्यम् । एतेन सदाख्येन आत्मना आत्मवत् सर्वमिदं जगत् । नान्योऽस्त्यस्यात्मासंसारी, ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति श्रोतृ’ (बृ. उ. ३-८-११) इत्यादिश्रुत्यन्तरात् । येन च आत्मना आत्मवत्सर्वमिदं जगत्, तदेव सदाख्यं कारणं सत्यं परमार्थसत् । अतः स एव आत्मा जगतः प्रत्यक्स्वरूपं सतत्त्वं याथात्म्यम्, आत्मशब्दस्य निरुपपदस्य प्रत्यगात्मनि गवादिशब्दवत् निरूढत्वात् । अतः तत् सत् त्वमसीति हे श्वेतकेतो इत्येवं प्रत्यायितः ..

The words highlighted in pink color show the Upanishadic and Shānkaran commentary for the reference to Brahman, Sat, in the masculine.  It can also be noted that even Shankara uses the word ‘Sat’ alone, a word used by this very Upanisad to refer to Brahman.

Thus, the Upaniṣad itself is using, alternatively, the three genders to refer to the same entity, Brahman. In fact, the upaniṣad never uses the word ‘Brahman’ in this entire discourse.  The words it uses to refer to Brahman are: Sat (neuter), Ātmā (masculine) and Devatā (feminine).  So, there is absolutely nothing wrong in Shankara taking the word ‘tat’ in the above cited mantra as Brahman.  It is quite correct grammatically.

Another instance of an Upaniṣad using two genders in the same mantra is found in the Māṇḍūkya upaniṣad 7th mantra:

नान्तःप्रज्ञं नबहिःप्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं नप्रज्ञानघनं नप्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् । अदृश्यमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥ ७

The mantra started off in the neuter gender and ends with the masculine. The word highlighted in pink is Ātmā in the masculine.  All the other words used above to denote Brahman are in the neuter.  Thus, just because two or three genders are found in a mantra there is no way they should refer to different entities alone.  The above two instances are a glaring example for such a case. ]

9. Shankara was a crypto buddhist.  Madhva has proved this with several quotes from Buddhistic sources and compared them with Advaita.

[Questions to be asked:  How can a ‘Vaiṣṇava’ be a Buddhist in disguise?  How can the two co-exist in a person?  And, will a Vaiṣṇava deny Omniscience and Omnipotence to Brahman (see BSB 2.1.14 of Shankara)?  Did Madhva accept Shankara as a Vaishnava?  Obviously no, since Madhva held Shankara to be a demon who was out to destroy Vaishnava dharma. No true Madhva would call Shankara a Vaishnava, in gross disobedience to his Acharya, (whether Ramanuja or Madhva).]

See this article on the subject: ‘Did Shankara prefer any deity?’ here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/z3kwt9h1kr87fem/Shankara+pref+deity.pdf

1. Shankara composed many hymns on Vishnu.  All the other works that go by that name of Shankara are by his followers who also called themselves Shankaracharya.  So, whether these are works of ‘mūla Shankaracharya’ or ‘nirmūla Shankaracharya’ is not known to anyone.  (The sarcasm and the tone of caricature is so open for all to see in BG’s face when he says this.).
2. BG: The development of Vedanta is akin to the development of Science. A scientist establishes a theory and a later theory replaces/ denounces that.  So too in Vedanta.  Advaita was first established only to be undone by the later Acharyas.

[ The case of science is different as it is based on tarka and pratyaksha alone.  On the other hand Vedanta has the solid base of the Veda/upaniṣad.  Veda Vyasa has aphorized ‘tarka apratiṣhṭhāmāt…’ 2.1.3.11 only to show that a conclusion based on mere tarka is always shaky, to be replaced by those more adept in tarka.  But Vedanta doctrine, basing itself primarily on the Veda is not so.]
What was presented was only lopsided view of Advaita to the scholar-audience at the University.

Adhyāsa and an example thereof

Shankaracharya has defined what adhyāsa is in the preamble to the Brahmasūtra bhāṣyam, both in an elaborate manner and also in a succinct way. The latter is cited here for it is more easily grasped by most people than the first one which involves greater effort. The second occurrence is: अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिन्स्तद्बुद्धिरित्यवोचाम [ ‘We have said that adhyāsa (superimposition/error) is the cognition of something as some other thing.’ In the same document Shankara has also summarized the various views on adhyāsa pointing to a common feature among all those views: सर्वथापि तु अन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासतां न व्यभिचरति । तथा च लोकेऽनुभवः — शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवदिति ॥ [‘From every point of view, however, there is no difference as regards the appearance of one thing as something else. And in accord with this, we find in common experience that the nacre appears as silver, and a single moon appears as two.’]

One comes across a fine example that demonstrates what adhyāsa is in the following page:

Dvaita-Advaita QA    https://sites.google.com/site/madhwaprameyaqa/home/dvaita-advaita

The following is a part of the above page:

QUOTE

// Q: #2 Prayatna is of no use, because it depends on the Lord who is sarva-prEraka.

KT: Prayatna is always of use and it must always be done. Note that if your swarupa-yOgyata compels you to do prayatna, you will be compelled to do so. Isn’t it? The sarva preraka Lord will do preraNa as per one’s swarupa-yOgyata and engages one to do prayatna.

In fact, Prayatna is of no use in case of Advaita -where jIva is God and so where is the need for Prayatna? If Advaita claims that Prayatna is to make the jIva realize that he is God, then it is biting its own tail. If jIva is omniscient God, then he must know that even without any prayatna. If not, he is no omniscient God.

Q: #3 There’s no way of knowing one’s swaruupa, so the jiiva could become confused about its saadhana.

KT: Firstly, what is the correlation between “knowing one’s swaruupa” and “the jiiva could become confused about its saadhana”?

Secondly, there is a way of knowing one’s swarUpa. That is what is aparoxa j~nAna. One must strive for that. There is at least some evidence for that and it is not hard to conceive that. What is impossible and what does not have evidence is “an ordinary soul becoming into God”. Even Sankaracharya has not achieved this even as per Advaitis.

The amount of confusion of a jIva is dependent on the yogyata of jIva.

In case of Advaita, there’s no way of knowing one’s swaruupa. In Advaita, knowing one’s swarUpa is realizing that one is God. This is most ridiculous because this entails that “there are so many Gods floating around, who did not realize that they are God.”

God always knew that He is God and specific to our context, when He incarnated on earth, He knew that He is God. No ordinary jIva, no matter what he does, can ever become God. So, Advaita is an untenable position.

Q: #4 No incentive for action, because swaruupa determines the outcome, so if you’re saatvik, you’re going to be liberated, so why break your head over this?

KT: Because that is your swaruupa. Can you go against your swaruupa? If you think you can, then that is not your swaruupa. If it is your swaruupa, then you can’t go against it.

Otoh, in case of Advaita, there is no incentive for action. If you are God, nothing can change the outcome, so why break your head over this? If you are not God, then you are no Advaitin. What is worse is that in case of Advaita, even the most despicable jIva is non-different from God. //

UNQUOTE

The ‘repḷies’ by the blogger form a fine example of adhyāsa. From the replies it is evident that what is not Shāṅkara Advaita is wrongly seen/understood to be so.

Here are parts of the ‘replies’ (quoted between // – //) and rebuttals to them by citing / stating what Advaita taught by Shankara through the bhāṣya-s :

// In fact, Prayatna is of no use in case of Advaita -where jIva is God and so where is the need for Prayatna? If Advaita claims that Prayatna is to make the jIva realize that he is God, then it is biting its own tail. If jIva is omniscient God, then he must know that even without any prayatna. If not, he is no omniscient God. //

The fact is Shānkaran Advaita never claims ‘Jiva is God’. The word ‘God’ is a little misleading here for it may usually mean the Omniscient, etc. Lord or by some stretch, the Nirguṇa Brahman. But by the emphasis found in the ‘reply’ the word ‘God’ is taken as the Omniscient Lord alone. Why does Advaita not propose to equate the jīva with the Omniscient God? The reply is: In Advaita, both the entities jiva and God (Iśwara) are in truth the Pure Consciousness, nirupādhika chaitanyam, appearing as sopādhika ones, that is, they are endowed with upādhis. The jiva is endowed with the pancha koshas (annamaya, etc. which Advaita holds as anātman) as upādhis and God/Ishwara is endowed with sarvajñatva, sarvaśaktitva, etc. upādhis, going by the translated words ‘Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc.’ In Advaita these are all adjuncts superimposed on the Nirguṇa Brahman which is ever free of any upādhis. Thus, there will be no use, and also not possible, to unite or identify or equate the jiva with Ishwara.

Says Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14:

// तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थतो विद्यया अपास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपे आत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते ; तथा चोक्तम् — ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा’ (छा. उ. ७-२४-१) इति ; ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) इत्यादि च..//

[Iśwara’s Lordship, Omniscience and Omnipotence are caused by limitations born of upādhis which have ignorance for their root. They do not subsist in the absolute sense when Atman is realized to be free of all upādhis (limiting adjuncts) through right knowledge, vidyā when the vyavahāra involving omniscience, omnipotence do not remain. Hence is stated by the Chāndogya upaniṣad 7.24.1: When one does not see another, hear another, knows another, that state is Infinite, bhūmā. And the Br.up. 4.5.15 says: when for one all has become the Self then with what does he see what? Etc.]

Thus, according to Advaita, when the attributes such as Omniscience and Omnipotence are not absolutely real, there is no way the jīva is taught to be non-different from Iśwara. Another misconception of the blogger that ‘Ishwara has to know his true self through prayatna, effort’ is also not what Advaita teaches. Advaita holds Ishwara to be ever sarvajna and never bound requiring Him to put efforts to know Himself. In fact, in advaita, Ishwara is the one who graces the jiva with the Advaitic knowledge:

BSB 2.3.41:

// कर्माध्यक्षात्सर्वभूताधिवासात्साक्षिणश्चेतयितुरीश्वरात्तदनुज्ञया कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वलक्षणस्य संसारस्य सिद्धिः ; तदनुग्रहहेतुकेनैव च विज्ञानेन मोक्षसिद्धिर्भवितुमर्हति । कुतः ? तच्छ्रुतेः ; यद्यपि दोषप्रयुक्तः सामग्रीसम्पन्नश्च जीवः, यद्यपि च लोके कृष्यादिषु कर्मसु नेश्वरकारणत्वं प्रसिद्धम्, तथापि सर्वास्वेव प्रवृत्तिष्वीश्वरो हेतुकर्तेति श्रुतेरवसीयते ; तथा हि श्रुतिर्भवति — ‘एष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषते । एष ह्येवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमधो निनीषते’ (कौ. उ. ३-७) इति, ‘य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्नात्मानमन्तरो यमयति’ इति च एवंजातीयका ॥ ४१ ॥

[It is by His, Ishwara’s grace alone the vijñāna, realization, arises which results in liberation.]

The Advaitic realization of ‘I am Brahman’ is possible only when both the jiva and Ishwara are shorn of the upādhis and the unnegatable Pure Consciousness alone is recognized and realized as one’s true self. Evidently, the blogger has not understood this fact of Shānkaran Advaita and expresses that ignorance/confusion in the ‘reply’ cited above. No jiva, when in the state of bondage and in the state of liberation, claims he is Ishwara/God who is the Omniscient one. Hence, there is no situation where one is ‘biting his tail’ as envisaged by the blogger. Also there is no situation in Adviata where ‘”there are so many Gods floating around, who did not realize that they are God.”’ for the reason stated above. In Advaita there is only one Ishwara for all the jiva-s who are subject to Him. The jiva-jiva, jiva-Iśwara bheda is admitted in Advaita too in vyāvahārika. “an ordinary soul becoming into God”. is also not an Advaitic position for the same reason given above. The blogger’s observation ‘Even Sankaracharya has not achieved this even as per Advaitis.’ needs a little clarification from the Advaitin:

Traditional advaitins hold Shankaracharya as Lord Shiva alone. So, there is no question of Shankaracharya ‘achieving’ Ishwarahood. The concluding verses of the Mādhavīya Shankara vijaya say:

At the end of Shiva’s role as the Acharya, His ascension to His abode is described thus:

इन्द्रोपेन्द्रप्रधानैः त्रिदशपरिवृढैः स्तूयमानः प्रसूनै-

र्दिव्यैरभ्यर्च्यमानः सरसिरुहभुवा दत्तहस्तावलम्बः ।

आरुह्योक्षाणमग्र्यं प्रकटितजटाजूटचन्द्रावतंसः

शृण्वन्नालोकशब्दं समुदितमृषिभिर्धाम नैजं व्रजस्थे ॥ (sarga 16, verse 107)

[Praised by Indira, Viṣṇu and other gods and worshipped with divine flowers, and led by Brahmā who was born in a lotus, taking His hand, that Yatīśwara wearing the crescent moon and the weight of the matted hair, taking His own divine form, ascending on the vṛṣabha, hearing the round of applause of the group of Munis arrived at His abode.]

Thus, there is no question of Shankaracharya attaining any new status. On another count, Shankaracharya, being brahmajnāni, is also Brahman itself.

Since the blogger is not aware of the correct position of Advaita regarding the Jiva, Ishwara, realization, etc. he has given expression to his confusion in those ‘replies’ which are meant to ‘clarify’ doubts raised by a sincere seeker!! As another example of this confusion and the resultant misrepresentation of Advaita by the blogger, here is another instance:

// Q: He says in this dream world, he is different from the Vishnu he’s worshipping. Which makes all people caught in bondage dvaitins. Out of bondage, there’s only oneness.

KT: In other word, the Advaitin claims that the jIva has at least some existence in samsAra and in Mukti, the jIva ceases to exist. In other words, the purpose of sAdhana is to achieve extinction! Mukti seems really scary!//

Alas! The confusion of the blogger has led him to conclude the extinction of the Advaitic jiva as the consequence of realization!! The Upaniṣad declares: ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति (’The knower of Brahman is Brahman alone’ – Munḍaka. 3.2.9) So, even going by the Upaniṣad, there is no extinction of the knower of Brahman. See what Shankaracharya says in the Brahmasutra bhashya as the mode, prakāra, of such realization:

सूत्र( 4.1.9.13)भाष्यस्थवाक्यम् -

पूर्वसिद्धकर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वविपरीतं हि त्रिष्वपि कालेषु अकर्तृत्वाभोक्तृत्वस्वरूपं ब्रह्माहमस्मि । न इत: पूर्वं कर्ता भोक्ता वा अहमासं, न इदानीं, नापि भविष्यत्काले इति ब्रह्मविदवगच्छति ।

[ Quite contrary to what had been previously regarded as agent and enjoyer, I am verily that Brahman, which, by nature, is neither agent nor enjoyer at all in all the three periods of time.  Even earlier I was never an agent or enjoyer, nor am I so at present; nor shall I be so in future – such is the realization of the knower of Brahman.]

So, where is the question of the Advaitic jīva becoming extinct upon realization of his Brahman-nature? The Lord says in the BG 2.16: na abhāvo vidyate sataḥ. The Existent Brahman never becomes non-existent. So, the jiva who has realized his true nature as Brahman never goes into extinction. What, however, goes into extinction, is his wrongly held jīvatva, samṣaritva bhāva.

In the BSB 3.2.4 सूचकश्च हि श्रुतेराचक्षते च तद्विदः ॥ ४ ॥ [This is a sutra in the svapnādhikaraṇa which says: the dream is an indicator as the shruti says so and the knowers say so.]   Shankara says:

इहापि ‘य एष सुप्तेषु जागर्ति’ (क. उ. २-२-८) इति प्रसिद्धानुवादाज्जीव एवायं कामानां निर्माता सङ्कीर्त्यते ; तस्य तु वाक्यशेषेण ‘तदेव शुक्रं तद्ब्रह्म’ इति जीवभावं व्यावर्त्य ब्रह्मभाव उपदिश्यते — ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६-९-४) इत्यादिवत् — इति न ब्रह्मप्रकरणं विरुध्यते ।

//Here too the shruti ‘he who is awake in deep sleep (kaṭhopaniṣad 2.2.8) by the alluding to the popular experience of the deep sleep state, declares that the jiva alone is the creator of the objects of desire in the dream and by the rest of that shruti passage ‘he is pure, he is brahman’ it (the shruti) teaches the Brahman-nature of the jiva after negating his jiva nature, just as the Chandogya 6.9.4 teaches ‘Tat tvam asi’. Therefore the sutra (which is dealing with dream) does not restrict itself to the nature of the jiva, but it is non-contradicting with the context of Brahman too. //

Thus, in Advaita, there is no room for the extinction of the svarupa, which is Brahman, the Pure consciousness, of the jiva; there is an end, however, to the erroneously held jivabhāva alone. It is akin to Karna’s wrongly held notion of ‘Rādheya’ (son of Rādha) coming to an end when he realized that he is indeed Kaunteya, Kunti’s son upon being informed/instructed/revealed by the Lord. Karna himself does not come to an end, only his wrong identity vanishes.

This is only a sample to show that the blogger’s fundamental misconception of advaitic concepts reflects in all his ‘replies’. The same is the case with all the Acharyas of the non-advaitic schools who raised objections against Advaita, only based on their wrong understanding of Advaita. If Advaita is correctly understood, none will have anything to object. One may not accept Advaita as the path suited for oneself, but going about misrepresenting Advaita and misleading the questioners and unwary readers of their blogs is what is unfortunate.

It is enough to show just one or two instances to prove that the entire QA document is flawed.

The document has a fine example in it for the idea of adhyāsa: mistaking Shankaran Advaita to mean so many things that it is really not.

The above article is available for download here:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/3mmna73kfpf1an4/Adhyāsa_and_an_example_thereof.docx

श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः

प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या, स्मृत्या तथा सूत्रेण बाधः

अद्वैतिनः प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणस्य व्याप्तिं व्यावहारिकदशायां नैव निराकुर्वन्ति । यतो हि लौकिकशास्त्रीयव्यवहारस्य प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणं विना असम्भवं अभ्युपगच्छन्ति । कर्मयोगभक्तिध्यानश्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनगुरुशुश्रूषादि- मोक्षमुद्दिश्य क्रियमाणं कर्म प्रत्यक्षमवश्यमपेक्षते । यत्र दशायां सर्वव्यवहारस्य बाधः श्रुतिप्रामाण्यादङ्गीकुर्वन्ति, तस्यामेव अवस्थायां प्रत्यक्षादिसर्वप्रमाणबाधम् इच्छन्ति अद्वैतिनः । केयमवस्था कथं तस्यावगतिः इति पृष्टे सति इदमुच्यते प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या, स्मृत्या तथा सूत्रेण बाधः यथा सम्भवति तथा वक्तव्यम् इति । तदेवात्र प्रदर्श्यते ।

श्रुत्या बाधः – बृहदारण्यकभाष्ये तावत् कांश्चन श्रुतीनामुल्लेखः क्रियते –

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १० – भाष्यम्

// सर्वं हि नानात्वं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितमेव ‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-२०) ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-१९) ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) इत्यादिवाक्यशतेभ्यः, सर्वो हि लोकव्यवहारो ब्रह्मण्येव कल्पितो न परमार्थः सन्…//

तत्र इयं श्रुतिमादाय प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुत्या बाधः प्रतिपाद्यते – ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५) अस्याः श्रुतेर्मन्त्रवर्णः एवं भवति –

// यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति तदितर इतरं रसयते तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर इतरं शृणोति तदितर इतरं मनुते तदितर इतरं स्पृशति तदितर इतरं विजानाति यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्तत्केन कं रसयेत्तत्केन कमभिवदेत्तत्केन कं शृणुयात्तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं स्पृशेत्तत्केन कं विजानीयाद्येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्स एष नेति नेत्यात्मागृह्यो न गृह्यतेऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यतेऽसङ्गो न हि सज्यतेऽसितो न व्यथते न रिष्यति विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादित्युक्तानुशासनासि मैत्रेय्येतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति होक्त्वा याज्ञवल्क्यो विजहार ॥ १५ ॥ //

अत्र पूर्वभागे प्रत्यक्षमनूद्यते श्रुत्या यत्र द्वैताङ्गीकारावस्थायां अन्यस्य अन्यदर्शनघ्राणादिज्ञानेन्द्रियव्यापरः तथा वदनादिकर्मेन्द्रियव्यापारः मनोबुद्धिव्यापारः चोपलक्षणत्वेन अनूद्यते । अस्मिन्नुदाहरणे सर्वोऽपि प्रत्यक्षसाध्यव्यवहारो गृहीतो वर्तते । ततः परं ’यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्’ इत्यंशेन तुशब्दप्रयोगेण पूर्वोदाहृतप्रत्यक्षव्यवहारं पूर्वपक्षं व्यावृत्य सर्वात्मदर्शनावस्थायां सर्वस्यापि प्रत्यक्षसाध्यव्यवहारस्य असम्भवं ब्रुवन् श्रुतिः आत्मनोऽद्वैतादिस्वभावं बोधयति । एतेन उदाहरणत्वेन दर्शितैकेन श्रुतिवाक्येन प्रत्यक्षस्य श्रुतिकृतबाधः प्रदर्शितः ।

स्मृत्या बाधः

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतायां श्लोकमिमं स्मृतिकृतप्रत्यक्षबाधाय उदाह्रियते –

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् ।
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥ ४.२४ ॥

भाष्यम्

// ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति । ‘ब्रह्म अर्पणम्’ इति असमस्ते पदे । यत् अर्पणबुद्ध्या गृह्यते लोके तत् अस्य ब्रह्मविदः ब्रह्मैव इत्यर्थः । ब्रह्म हविः तथा यत् हविर्बुद्ध्या गृह्यमाणं तत् ब्रह्मैव अस्य । तथा ‘ब्रह्माग्नौ’ इति समस्तं पदम् । अग्निरपि ब्रह्मैव यत्र हूयते ब्रह्मणा कर्त्रा, ब्रह्मैव कर्तेत्यर्थः । यत् तेन हुतं हवनक्रिया तत् ब्रह्मैव । यत् तेन गन्तव्यं फलं तदपि ब्रह्मैव ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव कर्म ब्रह्मकर्म तस्मिन् समाधिः यस्य सः ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिः तेन ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव गन्तव्यम् ॥ //

अत्रापि पूर्वोदाहृतश्रुतिवाक्ये यथा तथैव प्रत्यक्षसाध्यहविरर्पणादिव्यवहारोऽनूद्यते । सर्वोऽपि तद्व्यवहारो ब्रह्म साक्षात्कृतवतः पुरुषस्य ब्रह्मातिरेकाभावो गृह्यत इत्येतदुपदिश्यते भगवता । अन्यदपि वाक्यजातमस्ति गीतायामेव – तथा हि ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येत्’ (भ. गी. ४-१८), ’ विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि । शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः ॥ ५.१८ ॥ या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी । यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा पश्यतो मुनेः ॥ २.६९ ॥ इत्येवंजातीयकं स्मृतिनिर्वर्तितप्रत्यक्षबाधविषये योजयितव्यम् ।

सूत्रेण बाधः

श्रीबादरायणकृतब्रह्मसूत्रेषु द्वितीयाध्यायगतप्रथमपादे ४५. आरम्भणाधिकरणम् तावत् प्रत्यक्षेण गृह्यमाणजगदाख्यकार्यस्य ब्रह्माख्यकारणव्यतिरेकेणाभावशब्दितमिथ्यात्वप्रतिपादनाय विशेषतः प्रवृत्तम् । इदमेवानन्यत्वं कार्यस्य कारणात् ।

तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः ॥ २.१.१४ ॥ भाष्यम्

भावे चोपलब्धेः ॥ १५ ॥ भाष्यम्

सत्त्वाच्चावरस्य ॥ १६ ॥ भाष्यम्

असद्व्यपदेशान्नेति चेन्न धर्मान्तरेण वाक्यशेषात् ॥ १७ ॥ भाष्यम्

युक्तेः शब्दान्तराच्च ॥ १८ ॥ भाष्यम्

पटवच्च ॥ १९ ॥ भाष्यम्

यथा च प्राणादि ॥ २० ॥ भाष्यम्

एवं च प्रस्थानत्रयगतप्रमाणेन प्रत्यक्षस्य बाधो दृष्टः । अस्मिन् सन्दर्भे बाधशब्दस्यार्थः सम्यग्गृहीतव्यः । बाधो नाम न बाधप्रतियोगिनोऽदृश्यत्वम् अपि तु तन्मिथ्यात्वनिश्चय एव । मरुमरीचिकां दृष्ट्वा तत्र उदकबुद्धिर्यस्य जायते तस्यैव तत्समीपं गत्वा नास्त्यत्र जलम् इति सम्यग्ज्ञानं प्राप्य पुनः यत्र यत्र मरुमरीचिकादर्शनं भवति तत्र तत्र उदकाभासदर्शनसमकाले एव तोयसत्वं न कलयति । तथैव प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणजनितविषयप्रमितिवेलायामपि ‘नैव किंचित्करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित्। पश्यन् श्रृणवन्स्पृशञ्जिघ्रन्नश्नन्गच्छन्स्वपन् श्वसन्।।५.८।। प्रलपन्विसृजन्गृह्णन्नुन्मिषन्निमिषन्नपि।

इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्त इति धारयन्’ (५.९), ’गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते’ (३.२८) इति न तत्र सत्यत्वबुद्धिं भजति । भगवद्गीतायामेव त्रयोदशाध्याये ’इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते । एतद्यो वेत्ति तं प्राहुः क्षेत्रज्ञ इति तद्विदः ॥ १ ॥ इत्युपक्रम्य क्षेत्रविवरणावसरे महाभूतान्यहंकारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च । इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः ॥ ५ ॥ इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं संघातश्चेतना धृतिः । एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥ इति कृत्स्नस्य प्रमातृ-प्रमाण-प्रमेय-प्रमितिजातस्य क्षेत्रकुक्षिपतितत्वं दर्शयन् तस्य दृश्यत्वमपि, वेद्यत्वमपि, ज्ञापयति भगवान् । एवं च यथा प्रथमस्तरे इन्द्रियाणि प्रति शब्दादिविषयाः विषयत्वम्, वेद्यत्वं, दृश्यत्वं भजन्ते, तथैव तदुत्तरस्तरे इन्द्रियाणामपि तद्विषयैः तज्जनितप्रमितिभिः सह वेद्यत्वम्, विषयत्वम्, दृश्यत्वं च बोधयति भगवान् । दृश्यस्य वेद्यस्य मिथ्यात्वमपि ज्ञापयति अध्यायान्ते – क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरेवमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्षुषा। भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते परम्।।13.35।।

तत्र भाष्यम् -

// — -क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः यथाव्याख्यातयोः एवं यथाप्रदर्शितप्रकारेण अन्तरम् इतरेतरवैलक्षण्यविशेषं ज्ञानचक्षुषा शास्त्राचार्यप्रसादोपदेशजनितम् आत्मप्रत्ययिकं ज्ञानं चक्षुः, तेन ज्ञानचक्षुषा, भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च, भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या, तस्याः भूतप्रकृतेः मोक्षणम् अभावगमनं च ये विदुः विजानन्ति, यान्ति गच्छन्ति ते परं परमात्मतत्त्वं ब्रह्म, न पुनः देहं आददते इत्यर्थः।।//

।।13.35।।एवंप्राप्तक्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविवेकः प्रत्यक्षप्रमाणग्राहिप्रपञ्चस्य इन्द्रियैः सह वेद्यतया, दृश्यतया पश्यन् तस्य मिथ्यात्वमप्यगत्य आ देहपातं कालं नयति । एतादृशपरमार्थज्ञानसद्भावेऽपि व्यावहारिकप्रत्यक्षजनितप्रमां तदुचितव्यवहारेण उपपादयन् जीवत्ययम् । द्रष्टा, क्षेत्रज्ञः, क्षेत्रवेत्ता, नैव बाध्यते, अदृश्यत्वात् [अदृष्टो द्रष्टा..इति श्रुते.: ब्.उप्.३.७.२३], यथा आत्मा, इति अनुमानेन द्रष्टुरबाध्यत्वमपि सिद्ध्यति ।

इति प्रत्यक्षस्य यद्यपि उपजीव्यत्वं श्रुतिस्मृतिसूत्राणि प्रति तथापि तैरेव तस्य बाधो बहुधा उपदिश्यते इति सर्वमनवद्यम् ।

This article can be downloaded from:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/2cxwgh1d2m3agru/pratyakshasya+baadhah.docx

The Sanskrit-English version is available here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/qcbwd8q040bwqqm/Pratyaksha+English-Sanskrit.docx

श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु

’

THE CONCEPT OF KRAMA MUKTI IN ADVAITA

In the following blog there is a supposed analysis of the concept of krama mukti in Advaita with the ulterior motive of somehow, desparately, bringing in the idea of ‘vishnu alone is the saguna brahman in advaita according to Shankara':

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2011/12/saguna-brahman-and-krama-mukti-in.html

The blogger commences thus:
Quote:

Vishnu as Saguna Brahman and Krama-mukti in Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya: Part I – The kAryAdhikaraNa section

In this section, the nature of destination of the “devAyana” (path of the deities) described in the Upanishads is explained. This is the path by which the mukta (liberated jIvAtmA) travels. Shankara explains that the goal of these muktas is the satya-loka of the four-faced Hiranyagarbha/Brahma. From there, upon the dissolution of satya-loka at the end of the kalpa, they reach the Supreme abode of Vishnu which is the abode of krama-mukti. In turn, they achieve final liberation in Vishnu’s abode, which is the realization of the essential nirguNa nature of saguNa brahman Vishnu, the Lord of the Universe.//

unquote

The fundamental misconception of advaita by the blogger is revealed by his words:  //This is the path by which the mukta (liberated jIvAtmA) travels. Shankara explains that the goal of these muktas is the satya-loka…//

In advaita, the mukta never ‘travels’ anywhere. The devayāna path is for those sagunopāsakas (also called apara brahma upasakas) who not having gained the nirguna brahma jnanam in this life, by the strength of their saguna/apara brahma upasana, travel to brahmaloka through a nāḍi in the body.  For the nirguna jnaani there is no travel, not even utkrānti (their sukshma sharira does not even leave the gross body, ‘na tasya prāṇā utkrāmanti atraiva samavanīyante’ of the Br.up. which means ‘his (the jnani’s) sukshma sharira does not leave the body; it dissolves here itself.)  The saguna/apara brahma upasaka travels to brahma loka, attains nirguna jnana there (and in that instant is a mukta) and then at the time of dissolution of that loka, along with the lord of that loka, Brahma, the sagunopaska, now nirguna jnani, attains ultimate videha kaivalya, never to return to samsara. Even here, the one who has gained nirguna brahma jnaanam in Brahma loka does not travel anywhere.  This is the position in advaita.  The blogger has not understood this fundamental difference and goes on a long tour of misconceived ideas, only to confuse and mislead the unwary readers, in the guise of bringing out the truth about advaita.  And what all he says in the above paragraph is not at all supported by the Shankara bhashya/s.

The blogger has a confused understanding of the terms ‘aparabrahman’ and ‘sagunabrahman':

//The word ‘but’ indicates the setting aside of the doubt.–As Brahma, who is not para or saguNa brahman (aparasya brahmaNa) is in proximity (sAmIpyAt) //

He thinks, obviously erroneously, that the two are different and hence takes pains to differentiate apara from saguna brahman.  However, for Shankara they are synonymous as brought out in the bhasyas, a few examples of which are:

In this BSB 3.1.14 Shankara says:

// किंविषयाः पुनर्गतिश्रुतय इति, उच्यते — सगुणविद्याविषया भविष्यन्ति । तथा हि — क्वचित्पञ्चाग्निविद्यां प्रकृत्य गतिरुच्यते, क्वचित्पर्यङ्कविद्याम्, क्वचिद्वैश्वानरविद्याम् ; यत्रापि ब्रह्म प्रकृत्य गतिरुच्यते — यथा ‘प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (छा. उ. ४-१०-५) इति ‘अथ यदिदमस्मिन्ब्रह्मपुरे दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म’ (छा. उ. ८-१-१) इति च, तत्रापि वामनीत्वादिभिः सत्यकामादिभिश्च गुणैः सगुणस्यैव उपास्यत्वात् सम्भवति गतिः । न क्वचित्परब्रह्मविषया गतिः श्राव्यते । तथा गतिप्रतिषेधः श्रावितः — ‘न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-६) इति । ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (बृ. उ. २-१-१) इत्यादिषु तु, सत्यपि आप्नोतेर्गत्यर्थत्वे, वर्णितेन न्यायेन देशान्तरप्राप्त्यसम्भवात् स्वरूपप्रतिपत्तिरेवेयम् अविद्याध्यारोपितनामरूपप्रविलयापेक्षया अभिधीयते — ‘ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-६) इत्यादिवत् इति द्रष्टव्यम् ।//

Note the first two italicised sentences where Shankara says the satyakāmatva, etc. epithets are pertaining to saguna brahman, for the upasaka of this there is traveling from the body on death to a certain loka. He precludes the traveling for parabrahma (obviously nirguna brahma) jnani-s in the other italicised sentence above.

The blogger makes another statement, revealing his confusion:

//Purvapaksha - Brahma is said to be proximate to Parabrahman because he is saguna brahman who is rooted in Nirguna brahman.//

What he thinks is a purva paksha, is actually the position of the siddhānta.  Apara brahma or saguna brahma or kārya brahma or saviiśeṣa brahma or sopādhika brahma (all synonyms in shānkara advaita: तत्र कार्यमेव सगुणमपरं ब्रह्म एनान्गमयत्यमानवः पुरुष इति बादरिराचार्यो मन्यते BSB 4.3.7) [In this one sentence Shankara has categorically specified that the three terms ‘kārya brahma’, ‘saguṇa brahma’ and ‘apara brahma’ are synonyms] is actually very proximate, not spatially, but conceptually, to Para/nirguna brahman.  One example to understand the term ‘sāmīpya’ is from shankara’s Chandogya bhashya 8.12.3:
आत्मभावेन वा आत्मसामीप्येन जायत इत्युपजनमिदं शरीरम्,

Here Shankara is saying that the gross body is very proximate to the Atman.  Now, in advaita the Atman is non-different from Brahman, all-pervading.  How can the all-pervading Atman be an object of anything else in creation, proximate spatially?  That is not the idea:  the idea of taking the body to be the atman is what is meant by ‘the body being very proximate to the Atman.’  In the same way the apara/saguna/kārya brahma is taken to be the supreme by the upasakas.  Shankara in the introduction to the prashnopanishat says:  the six jignāsus who had regarded the apara brahman as lofty had come to sage Pippalada to know exactly the nature of para brahman: ते ह एते ब्रह्मपराः अपरं ब्रह्म परत्वेन गताः, तदनुष्ठाननिष्ठाश्च ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः, परं ब्रह्म अन्वेषमाणाः …

It may be again seen that the blogger is confused regarding what is parabrahman in advaita:
He says:
// The word ‘but’ indicates the setting aside of the doubt.–As Brahma, who is not para or saguNa brahman (aparasya brahmaNa) is in proximity (sAmIpyAt)  to the highest brahman (parabrahman), there is nothing unreasonable in the word ‘Brahman’ being applied to the former (Brahma) also.//

I included this portion of the blogger at this juncture just to show that as stated in the aforesaid Prashnopanishat bhashya, the term Parabrahman means Nirguna Brahman.  They  are the aspirants who are already adepts in the meditation of saguna/apara brahman and now are on the enquiry of the nirguna brahman and also ultimately attain that knowledge as per this very upanishad.  The blogger is mistaken in thinking that Parabrahman means Vishnu, the one superior to Brahma.  He uses the adjective superlative ‘highest’ which in advaita will only mean nirguna brahman.

And also:

// Secondly, if brahmA is saguNa brahman “rooted” in higher nature of nirguNa,  it would make Shankara’s bhAShya for the next sUtra nonsensical, where the AcArya says “after pralaya,  they along with hiraNyagarbha proceed to the param parishuddham viShNoH paramaM padam“. Because, here another “paramaM padam” is used which would make the previous “parabrahmasAmIpya” redundant.//

Here the blogger is under the mistaken idea that Shankara is differentiating between Vishnu (the saguna brahman as per the blogger) and vishnu’s ‘paramam padam’.  Such is not at all the case with Shankara.  Nor is it that for Shankara the sāmīpya of brahmaa the four-faced is with vishnu the parabrahma.

Reverting to the concept of proximity…

In the karika bhashya 4.99 too Shankara says that the Buddha had come very close to the ‘advayavastu’ (which is the all-pervading brahman/atman): यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् ।  There are other examples from the bhashyam for the usage of ‘sāmīpya’ in similar vein:  अतिशयसामीप्येन द्रष्टृत्वात् उपद्रष्टा स्यात् । (BGB 13.22), etc.

This following conclusion of the blogger is nowhere substantiated in the bhashya:

//Having established that the souls reach Brahma who is in proximity with saguNa brahman,//

Brahma is not admitted to be in proximity with saguna brahman by the bhashya. The blogger is imposing the theistic idea of Vishnu > brahma which is not what is considered in the bhashya.  In the BSB 4.3.9 परब्रह्मसामीप्यात् अपरस्य ब्रह्मणः, तस्मिन्नपि ब्रह्मशब्दप्रयोगो न विरुध्यते । परमेव हि ब्रह्म विशुद्धोपाधिसम्बन्धं क्वचित्कैश्चिद्विकारधर्मैर्मनोमयत्वादिभिः उपासनाय उपदिश्यमानम् अपरमिति स्थितिः ॥ ९ ॥ the word ‘para brahma’ denotes the nirguna chaitanyam and the apara brahma denotes the saguna / karya brahma.  In the next sentence, by defining saguna brahman by the term upādhi (sopādhika brahman), Shankara is implying that the nirguna brahman is nirupādhika brahman.

The blogger also knows the above sentence where Shankara differentiates between the para and apara brahman.  The sentence is very clear that Para brahman has no (not even) vishuddhopādhi sambandha and such an attribute is superimposed only to derive an apara brahman.  But, strangely, obviously confusedly, the blogger identifies the Para brahman with Vishnu, the saguna brahman where he says the brahmaloka residents along with brahma will go/reach upon dissolution of that loka.  Also, when the spoke of the ‘proximity’ concept, he identifies the deity Vishnu (who is endowed with vishuddopādhi according to the blogger) as the one to whom brahma is proximate.  Such ideas have no basis in the bhashya whatsoever.

BSB 3.4.9 सम्भवति च सोपाधिकायां ब्रह्मविद्यायां कर्मसाहित्यदर्शनम् ;(this is the same as  sagunopasana)

Kaṭhopaniṣad bhashya 2.3.13:  ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) इति श्रुतेः, तदा तस्य निरुपाधिकस्यालिङ्गस्य सदसदादिप्रत्ययविषयत्ववर्जितस्यात्मनस्तत्त्वभावो भवति । तेन च रूपेणात्मोपलब्धव्य इत्यनुवर्तते । तत्राप्युभयोः सोपाधिकनिरुपाधिकयोरस्तित्वतत्त्वभावयोः where both the terms sopādhika and nirupādhika are used to denote the latter means nirguna / para brahman and the former the saguna/apara brahman.  There are innumerable instances of the usage of these two terms in the bhashya.

Thus ‘saguna brahman is no different from apara brahman’ and ‘kārya brahman’ in shānkara advaita.  And therefore the blogger’s following conclusion is flawed as it is based on the misconception stated earlier:

//When the reabsorption of the effected Brahma’s world (kAryabrahmaloka) draws near, the souls in which meanwhile perfect knowledge has sprung up proceed, together with Hiranyagarbha (the aforesaid Brahma) the ruler of that world, to ‘what is higher than that i.e. to the pure (as it is beyond prakrtri) highest place (as it is the abode of saguNa brahman) of Vishnu (saguNa Ishvara).//

The abode of saguna brahman is brahma loka which is very much within prakriti, as it undergoes pralaya when the lord of that loka along with the muktas there will become videha mukta-s.

It is also to be noted that if Vishnu, the  deity with Lakshmi, conch, etc. is admitted to be ‘saguṇa brahman’ to please the blogger, then the inevitable, undesirable for the blogger, conclusion would be that such a vishnu is kārya brahman, which is effected and therefore subject to perish in pralaya.

And not stopping with that he desperately brings in Ramanuja to support his view.  Nowhere in the Shankara advaita is the idea of the sagunopasakas, after having reached Brahmaloka, going to yet another saguna brahma (vishnu loka) admitted.  Why is this flawed?  Shankara very clearly specifies that those upasakas who reach brahma loka gain the liberating knowledge there, in brahma loka.  And having become nirguna brahma jnanis in brahma loka, upon that loka getting dissolved in pralaya, they attain the Supreme kaivalya.  In fact they are mukta-s, in the advitic connotation, there itself in the brahma loka, just like jivan muktas in this loka. There is no room, need, for these jnanis to go to a separate vishnu loka, which is a pure imagination of the blogger, to somehow sneak in the idea of vishnu supremacy/vishnu-saguna brahman into Shānkara advaita.

It is also to be very clearly understood and remembered that in Advaita the supreme position is:
न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिः न बद्धो न च साधकः ।

न मुमुक्षुर्नवै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ G.K. 2.32

There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and

none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation

and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.

Since there is no creation (ajāti) and no dissolution, there are no jivas. Since
there are no jivas, there is none in bondage. Hence, there is no one seeking
liberation and therefore no sādhaka. Thus there is none who is a mukta since there is no

such thing as bondage first of all. The advaitic realization confers upon one the

knowledge that one is the Nirguna Brahman, the sole absolutely real in Advaita. With such
a realization there is no way anyone can go to and stay eternally in any loka such as
vaikuntha. The concept of vaikuntha is relevant in Dvaita and VA since the jivas

in their systems are eternally jivas, even in moksha. That is the reason in Advaita

no such loka as vaikuntha is admitted as the residence of liberated jivas. There is no
concept of ‘liberated jiva’ in advaita for the jiva bhāva itself is realized to be
mithya. Not understanding these fundamentals of advaita, the bloggers desparately

labour to impose a vaikuntha, vishnu loka, vishnu-supreme, etc ideas that are completely
alien to Vedanta.
See this: BSB 4.3.10

कार्यात्यये तदध्यक्षेण सहातः परमभिधानात् ॥ १० ॥

कार्यब्रह्मलोकप्रलयप्रत्युपस्थाने सति तत्रैव उत्पन्नसम्यग्दर्शनाः सन्तः, तदध्यक्षेण हिरण्यगर्भेण सह अतः परं परिशुद्धं विष्णोः परमं पदं प्रतिपद्यन्ते.

To buttress his funny claims the blogger gives an ‘explanation':

//Some object here that in advaita-bhAShyas, “viShNoH paramaM padam” refers only to the nirguNa state and has nothing to do with Lakshmipati-Chaturbhuja Vishnu, the deity of the Vaishnavas. We will now show why they are wrong:

1. Shankara’s qualification of “Vishnu” as “vAsudevAkhya” in Kathopanishad 1.3.9 itself is enough to stop such nonsensical claims. There is only one entity, the caturbhuja Vishnu that has “vAsudeva” as samAkhya in all shruti, smR^iti, purANa, nikaNDus, etc. Amarakosha says “(1\.1\.42)  padmanAbho madhuripurvAsudevastrivikramaH (1\.1\.43)  devakInandanaH shauriH shrIpatiH puruShottamaH”. Shruti says “brahmaNyo devakIputraH brahmaNyo madhusUdanaH” (Narayanopanishad).//

I have rebutted his claim in an earlier blog of mine.  Yet just this one mantra which comes soon after the one the blogger cites above is enough to show that his position is faulty:

महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः ।

पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥ ११ ॥

….

//Beyond the Purusha there is nothing: this is the end, the Supreme Goal.//

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । अष्टमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक २२ – भाष्यम्

पुरुषः पुरि शयनात् पूर्णत्वाद्वा, स परः पार्थ, परः निरतिशयः, यस्मात् पुरुषात् न परं किञ्चित् ।

In the above BGB 8.22 too Shankara echoes the above Kathopanishad usage of the term ‘purusha’ as being the ultimate, nothing excels It or exists beyond It.

Now, if as the blogger’s claim ‘there is a state/tattvam beyond ‘Vishnu’ of the 9th mantra which he says is ‘the paramam padam’ of vishnu, thereby differentiating ‘vishnu’ from ‘his superior state/abode’, then the ‘Puruṣa’ of the 11th mantra has to be seen as something different from ‘Vishnu’.  This is because the 11th mantra says ‘there is nothing beyond the Puruṣa’. And the 9th mantra means to the blogger there is something beyond vishnu. Obviously, the vishnu of the 9th mantra will be some state/entity that is lower/different from Purusha. [ Nowhere have we heard of any aparamam/nikṛṣṭam padam of Vishnu for the Kathopanishad to differentiate from it and state a paramam padam of vishnu.] That will be absurd for no school admits that Vishnu and Purusha are different entities or of different levels.  So, the ‘vishnoḥ paramam padam’ is nothing but ‘vishnu the supreme abode’ just as in the expression ‘rahoḥ śiraḥ’ where rāhu and the head are non-different.  The Gopalayatindra commentary to the Kathopanishat bhashya for that mantra alternatively states this ‘rahoḥ shiraḥ’ example and says: it is aupacharika ṣaṣṭhī for the word vishnu.

Incidentally, in the commentary to the Kathopanishat by Madhva, he gives a verse specifying the hierarchy to identify the word ‘vishnu’ and ‘purusha’ of the mantras concerned:

…. तस्याश्च पुरुषो विष्णुः पूर्णत्वान्नैव तत्समः ।

कश्चित्कुतश्चिच्छ्रेष्ठस्तु नास्तीति किमु सा कथा ॥

He does not identify any such as ‘vhnu’s superior state/abode’ as something different, higher, than Vishnu.

And on the ‘support’ of amara kosha, let it be known that there are several usages of the term / name ‘Shiva’ in the bhashya:

प्रश्नोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । चतुर्थः प्रश्नः । मन्त्रः १ – भाष्यम्

अथेदानीं साध्यसाधनविलक्षणमप्राणममनोगोचरमतीन्द्रियमविषयं शिवं शान्तमविकृतमक्षरं सत्यं परविद्यागम्यं पुरुषाख्यं सबाह्याभ्यन्तरमजं वक्तव्यमित्युत्तरं प्रश्नत्रयमारभ्यते ।

माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम् । मन्त्रः १२ – भाष्यम्

प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवः अद्वैतः संवृत्तः एवं यथोक्तविज्ञानवता प्रयुक्त ओङ्कारस्त्रिमात्रस्त्रिपाद आत्मैव ;

सर्वद्वैतोपशमत्वादेव शिवः । for karika word in 1.29

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । तृतीयं मुण्डकम् । द्वितीयः खण्डः । मन्त्रः ७ – भाष्यम्

त एते कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा उपाध्यपनये सति परे अव्यये अनन्तेऽक्षये ब्रह्मणि आकाशकल्पेऽजेऽजरेऽमृतेऽभयेऽपूर्वेऽनपरेऽनन्तरेऽबाह्येऽद्वये शिवे शान्ते सर्वे एकीभवन्ति अविशेषतां गच्छन्ति एकत्वमापद्यन्ते जलाद्याधारापनय इव सूर्यादिप्रतिबिम्बाः सूर्ये, घटाद्यपनय इवाकाशे घटाद्याकाशाः ॥

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । पञ्चमोऽध्यायः । प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १ – भाष्यम्

सर्वसमाप्तौ तु कस्य विरोध आशङ्क्येत अद्वैते केवले शिवे सिद्धे..

In the amarakosha the word ‘shiva’ is listed as one of the many names of Lord Shiva in about 10 verses starting from 59. None of these will suit the word ‘shiva’ found in the above instances of the bhashya for the simple reason that these several names of Shiva refer to the individual God, shūāpāṇin, and the usage of that word in the bhashya is referring to the nirguna brahman.  Similar is the case with the kārikā/bhashya usage of the word ‘shivā’ in the feminine.  As per the amarakosha it refers to one of the several names of Parvathi.  Hence, bringing in the amarakosha for the names vāsudeva, vishnu, etc. will be absurd and a futile exercise.  Also, there are usages, in the Vivekachudamani etc.: नारायणोऽहं नरकान्तकोऽहम्…[I am Narayana, the slayer of ‘naraka’ used in the context of the aspirant’s expression of his realization of the supreme.  The vākyavṛtti of Shankaracharya [which work the Panchadashi cites]  opens with the verse: यस्य प्रसादात् अहमेव विष्णुः मय्येव सर्वं परिकल्पितं च  [’I prostrate to my Guru by whose grace I have realized that I am Vishnu indeed and everything is an appearance in Me.]  Such usages are purely in the nirguna context and bringing in the saguna vishnu, narayana will be absurd.  The aspirant in Advaita will not realize his identity with the consort of lakshmi, holding conch, etc. in his hand, residing in a limited world like vaikuntha.  These are all avidya-born upadhis as per advaita, used for upasana and not for realization.  So too the word Vasudeva.  See these sample sentences:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । प्रथमः अध्यायः । चतुर्थः पादः । वाक्यान्वयाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् २२ – भाष्यम्

अतश्च विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मनोरविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपरचितदेहाद्युपाधिनिमित्तो भेदः, न पारमार्थिक इत्येषोऽर्थः सर्वैर्वेदान्तवादिभिरभ्युपगन्तव्यः …स्मृतिभ्यश्च — ‘वासुदेवः सर्वमिति’ (भ. गी. ७-१९) ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत’ (भ. गी. १३-२) ‘समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम्’ (भ. गी. १३-२७) इत्येवंरूपाभ्यः ;

Here Shankara is giving pramāṇas for the advaitic nirguna jnanam.  The BG 7.19 usage of the word ‘vāsudevaḥ’ is hardly the vaikunṭhavāsin.  The Vishnusahasranama bhashya of Shankara too does not give any saguna-favoured meaning for the name ‘Vāsudeva’ by citing several puranic verses. The Parameshwara word too is hardly the saguna Ishwara.

This instance, however, will surely mean the deity vāsudevaḥ':

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । चतुर्थः पादः । ऐहिकाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ५१ – भाष्यम्

इत्यर्जुनेन पृष्टो भगवान्वासुदेवः ‘न हि कल्याणकृत्कश्चिद्दुर्गतिं तात गच्छति’ (भ. गी. ६-४०) इत्युक्त्वा,

On the contrary, this instance is not at all the saguna vāsudevaḥ:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । श्लोक ६१ – भाष्यम्

तानि सर्वाणि संयम्य संयमनं वशीकरणं कृत्वा युक्तः समाहितः सन् आसीत मत्परः अहं वासुदेवः सर्वप्रत्यगात्मा परो यस्य सः मत्परः, ‘न अन्योऽहं तस्मात्’ इति आसीत इत्यर्थः Here, the jnani’s identity with the Para tattvam vāsudeva is stated.  This can never be the saguna brahman in advaita.  This instance is also not saguna brahman: Introduction to the BG 4th ch. त्वयि सति ‘वासुदेवः सर्वम्’ इति ज्ञानेनैव मुमुक्षवः सन्तः

In this instance we have two usages, the first one is nirguna and second one saguna:
श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १७ – भाष्यम्
तस्मात् ज्ञानिनः आत्मत्वात् वासुदेवः प्रियो भवतीत्यर्थः । स च ज्ञानी मम वासुदेवस्य आत्मैवेति मम अत्यर्थं प्रियः ॥
Here Shankara himself settles the issue:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १८ – भाष्यम्
‘अहमेव भगवान् वासुदेवः न अन्योऽस्मि’ इत्येवं युक्तात्मा समाहितचित्तः सन् मामेव परं ब्रह्म गन्तव्यम् अनुत्तमां गन्तुं प्रवृत्त इत्यर्थः ॥ The word param brahma differentiates the apara brahma vasudeva from the nirguna brahman.

Here is another fine example:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । नवमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १ – भाष्यम्
इदमेव तु सम्यग्ज्ञानं साक्षात् मोक्षप्राप्तिसाधनम् ‘वासुदेवः सर्वमिति’ (भ. गी. ७-१९) ‘आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (छा. उ. ७-२५-२) ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यः   Here Shankara very clearly precludes the saguna meaning for the name vasudeva.  He calls this samyagjnanam and supports it with other shruti passages.  The sagunopasaka’s jnanam is not admitted to be samyagjnanam in advaita.  He calls it ‘the direct means to moksha’.  This can never be sagunopasana/saguna vasudeva.

Madhusudana says in the BG 7.19:

वासुदेवः सर्वमिति ज्ञानवान्सन्मां निरुपाधिप्रेमास्पदं प्रपद्यते सर्वदा समस्तप्रेमविषयत्वेन भजते। सकलमिदमहं च वासुदेव इति दृष्ट्या सर्वप्रेम्णां मय्येव पर्यवसायित्वात्। अतः स एव ज्ञानपूर्वकमद्भक्तिमान्महात्मात्यन्तशुद्धान्तःकरणत्वाज्जीवन्मुक्तः सर्वोत्कृष्टो न तत्समोऽन्योऽस्ति,

The realization ‘Vasudeva is all this and me’ can never mean a saguna Ishwara identification.  In advaita the individual and the entire universe is a superimposition on nirguna brahman and the realization takes the above form of identifying oneself and the entire world with/as Brahman.  Such a brahman can never be the deity vasudeva because that is also avidya kalpita as per advaita.  Also, on the same lines of the Bhashya of Shankara, Madhusudana too comments on the BG 4.24 (brahmārpaṇam…’):
तत्सर्वं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितत्वाद्ब्रह्मैव रज्जुकल्पितभुजङ्गवदधिष्ठानव्यतिरेकेणासदित्यर्थः। This substratum Brahman is not at all any saguna Vasudeva but the Nirguna chaitanyam which is what is called by the term Vasudeva in the BG and the bhashyam.  In that BGB 4.24 Shankara gives the vivarta vāda example:

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । चतुर्थोऽध्यायः । श्लोक २४ – भाष्यम्

ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति ।   

This is called ‘bādhāyām sāmānādhikaraṇyam.’  That which was wrongly seen as the world is now realized to be Brahman just as that which was wrongly seen as silver is realized to be nacre.  The absence of the world is what is indicated in the bhashya.  Since the saguna vasudeva is also part of the world, there can be no identification with it in the true realization.

In the VS bhashya Shankara cites a Vishnupuranam verse that gives the nirguna meaning of Vasudeva:

सकलमिदमहं च वासुदेवः

परमपुमान्परमेश्वरः स एकः ।

इति मतिरमला भवत्यनन्ते

हृदयगते व्रज तान्विहाय दूरात् ॥ 3.7.32 ||

The verse may mean something else to the non-advaitin but
the advaitin sees this as the expression of the advaitic
realization of the Truth. The Vasudeva here is by no means
the saguna brahman but the Nirguna Tattva. In the VS bhashya for the word Vasudeva,

Shankara cites four verses all of
which are nirguna specific alone. In short, all these
four verses only say that the entire creation is having
the Vasudeva for its support/substratum. So also Shankara cites a verse regarding Vishnu:

‘नाविष्णुः कीर्त्तयेद् विष्णुंनाविष्णुर्विष्णुमर्चयेत् ।नाविष्णुः संस्मरेद् विष्णुंनाविष्णुर्विष्णुमाप्नुयात् ॥ From the Mahabharata, karmadāṇḍa. This means: Let one who is not Vishnu himself sing praises of Vishnu, perform worship, engage in remembering Vishnu and none who is not Vishnu himself shall ‘attain’ Vishnu. This is the essence of the Advaitic realization of the Truth.    ऒम् तत् सत्

In the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya for the very first sutra, Shankara says:

http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kshemendra/index.html

Kshemendra (c. 990 – c. 1070 CE) was a Kashmirian poet of the 11th century, writing in Sanskrit.

Born into an old, cultured, and affluent family, both his education and literary output were broad and varied. He studied literature under “the foremost teacher of his time, the celebrated Shaiva philosopher and literary exponent Abhinavagupta”. He also studied — and wrote about — both Vaishnavism and Buddhism. His literary career extended from at least 1037 (his earliest dated work, Brihatkathāmanjari, a verse summary of the lost “Northwestern” Bṛhatkathā; itself a recension of Gunadhya’s lost Bṛhatkathā — “Great Story”) to 1066 (his latest dated work, Daśavataracharita, “an account of the ten incarnations of the god Visnu”). In addition to the genres listed below, Kshemendra also composed plays, descriptive poems, a satirical novel, a history, and possibly a commentary on the Kāma Sūtra (all now known only through references in other works).

Abridgements

• Ramāyaṇamanjari — Verse abridgement of the Ramayana (Sanskrit)
• Bhāratamanjari — Verse abridgement of the Mahabharata (Sanskrit)
• Brihatkathāmanjari — Verse abridgement of the Brihatkatha (Sanskrit)
• Daśavataracharita — Ten incarnations of Vishnu (Sanskrit)

The Bhāratamanjarī (BM) is available in pdf, clear prints from the famous ‘kāvyamālā series’ printed by Nirnayasagar Press, 1898:

http://ia700702.us.archive.org/0/items/Kavya_Mala_Series_Of_Nirnaya_Sagar_Press/KavyamalaVol_65-BharatamanjariOfKshemendra1898.pdf

This is a searchable resource of the text which contains spelling mistakes:
http://sanskrit-books.blogspot.in/2013/09/bharatha-manjari-of-kshemendra.html

At the end of the BM, Kṣemendra gives a brief bio-data of himself.  He has studied the Bhagavatam under a teacher and other disciplines too under different guru-s. He writes, in poetry, that when he decided upon his work on the Mahabharata, he received the blessings of Veda Vyasa in a dream.  He has expressed his happiness and satisfaction of his present work and even composed a hymn to Veda Vyasa.  From his verses it is discernible that his supreme devotion was to Vishnu.  He writes of himself as ‘nārāyaṇaparaḥ’. His purity and sincerity is visible all over his narratives.

Some salient features of the work BM:

• His verse style is sweet and simple at the same time lofty, a treat to the scholarly readers.
• In short verses he is communicating the purport of the original MB
• He has even condensed the 18 chapters of the Bhagavadgita occurring in the MB, in about 100 verses, chapterwise.
• His knowledge of Advaita Vedanta comes to the fore when the philosophical dialogues are retold.  Terms like jivanmukta, brahmamayam, creation is māyā, the knower jiva realizing himself as non-different from Brahman, ‘all this is an appearance in me and I am everywhere’ ( a rephrasing of what is contained in the BG, Isha. up. etc.)
• This work, the BM, is perhaps the oldest extant work (11 century) on the MB which preserves the entire episode about Upamanyu instructing Krishna on the method of propitiating Shiva, along with the thousand names. (The Andhra MB part of this episode was composed in the 14th century)
• Kshemendra gives the complete details, as now found in the Kumbhakonam, Nilakantha, etc. editions/recension, of Krishna being asked for progeny by one of his wives, his meeting Upamanyu, the latter telling him his and another Tandi’s story and then giving out the Shiva sahasranama.  It appears that the southern, western and northern recension of the Mahabharatha have this episode.
• Having devoted quite a number of verses for the story part of this episode, Kshemendra condenses the 1000 names in his own words in verse form, sampling some specific names of Shiva that occur in the extant sahasranama in the original MB. Those who are familiar with the Shiva sahasra nama (‘sthiraḥ sthāṇuḥ..) can immediately recognize those names he has versified. These names were paraphrased by the Andhra Bharatamu too.
• He has also done a similar condensation when it comes to Bhishma giving the 1000 names of Vishnu to Yudhishtira.
• One can access these parts easily in the searchable pdf by giving the name ‘vashat’, upamanyu, for example, of course in devanagari.
• Just as the Andhra Mahabharatamu has paraphrased the OMB verse on ‘One principle alone appearing in the twin form of Shiva and Vishnu’, Kshemendra too does that, of the same verse.
•  Kshemendra maintains the OMB instance of Bhishma having Krishna give out the 1000 names of Shiva to Yudhishthira.
• He has included the Shivastuti of Daksha.

While trying to get information of the total verses in the Bharatamanjari, this resource came up which may be looked into to have some more information on Kshemendra and his works:

http://tinyurl.com/p2ocaxt

It is not known whether there is any translation of the Bharatamanjari, the Ramayanamanjari and the Dashavataracharita, in any Indian language, including English.

The latest parts of the Upanishad article series are available for reading in the following URLs:

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-muNDakopanishad—Part-13.ashx

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-Prashnopanishat—Part-3.ashx