!

AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
“CONDEMNATION OF ADVAITHA
BY
AADHI SHANKARA HIMSELF”

A BOOKLET WRITTEN BY
HH, VIDYAMAANYA THEERTHARU,
BHANDARA KERI
by Padmanabha Rao (Paddy Rao)
New Jersey, USA

1 of 22
 PROLOGUE

It is a great honor to be in a position of translating works of Yati

like
HH Vidyaamaanya Theertharu. He has been very focused and
active in propagating and defending Tatava Vada in his long
journey in this world. He has mentored several other Yatis when
they were young.

This small booklet,” Shri Aadya Shankaracharyarindale Advaithada

Khandane” was published in 1964 by HH with a view of
demonstrating Shri Adi Shankaracharya himself was Vaishnava,
dwaithi and was intent on condemning Advaitha philosophy. Based
on this unorthodox and daring approach, HH develops his
arguments to establish his case.

He takes a position that Aadi Shankaracharya did not intend to

propagate ‘Aikya’ or Unity of jIva with Brahaman and it was an
insertion from the scholars & Yatis who followed him. HH
Vidyamaanyaru goes to the extent of concluding that Aadi
Shankara was actually condemning such concepts of unity that
some of his predecessors were propounding.

In order to prove his case, HH Vidyamanyaru uses a ‘what if’

analysis to show how unity argument would negate Aadi
Shanakara’s other view points as a negative proof ; he takes some
of the statements of Aadi Shankara to provide posotive proofs for
his hypothesis that Aadi Shankara was actually condemning the
Unity argument.

In this intriguing approach HH quotes extensively without

providing elaborate explanations. This was probably intentional as,
written words can be and are open for interpretation that takes the
reader away from the intended meaning. This becomes clear when

2 of 22
we see HH asking people who are confused or disagree to meet him
personally to discuss and get clarifications.

It must be pointed out that my translation of this Kannada works is

just that and not my interpretation or acceptance.

As a student of Indian philosophy for well over 30 years, I am more

than convinced that both Tatvavada & Advaitha are relevant tools
in human endeavor in spirituality. Both the Acharyas,
Shankaracharya and Shrimd Ananda Theertha, have taken breath
taking dive into the complex questions around Life, Universe and
Evolution. The intellectual outpouring that these Great souls
triggered has unleashed unbelievable array of points & counter
points with blazing logic that modern day logicians will struggle to
comprehend. This booklet published by HH Vidyamanya TTheertha
is a part of that continuum.

As a person who believes in the validity of Advaitha philosophy, I

have tried my level best not to let that influence the translation. We
all recognize that languages differ in structure and rules. I have
tried not to interpret but try to just give the meaning of the
statements made by HH.I do fervently hope that readers will
recognize that.

An effort like this will certainly have a few errors and misses,
contributed by limitations in linguistic skills, ability to understand
original author’s intentions and subject matter expertise. I seek
forgiveness from HH Vidyamanaya Theertharu for such errors.

3 of 22
 GURU VANDANE

At the outset I pay my obeisance to Guru Saarvabhauma Rayaru &

my spiritual mentor Shri Abhinava Vidyatheetha Mahaswaminah,
Sringeri Shankaracharya.

“Poojyaaya Raaghavendraaya Sathya Dharma rathaya ca

Bhajadaam Kalpavrukshaaya namataam kaama denave”
“I revere, celebrate and worship Shri Raghavendra Yati,
who harnessed sathya and dharma and
grants what we seek and wish for.

4 of 22
 िववेिकनंमहाप्रज्ञं धैयौर्दायर्क्षमािनिधम् ।
सदािभनवपूवर्ं तं िवद्यातीथर्गुरुं भजे ॥
I worship my Guru Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha; Endowed with
discrimination; Great perception, a repository of courage,
Forgiveness and generosity.


5 of 22
 CONDEMNATION OF ADVAITHA BY AADHI SHANKARA
HIMSELF
- VIDYAMAANYA THEERTHARU, BANDAARIKERE

FOREWORD

Seeing this small booklet with the name “ Condemnation of

Advaitha by Shankara Himself," it is likely that many will raise
critical questions. It is possible that some may think this has been
written to mock, while others may think that this is a satire. But in
reality this was not written with such intentions. This was written
with the intention of sharing the analysis of Tatva.

The line of enquiry followed in the booklet has been in accordance

with the guidance of our most reverent Guru, famous as Prativaadi
Kaanteerava, most reverential Shri108 Shri Sathyadhyaana
Theertha; as well as validation from Padma Purana. Hence, it is
hoped that the intellectually curious will view this as authentic
document. If any doubts or questions arise, it is suggested to
directly meet me and get the clarifications.

In Vedas one finds statements that are clear, unquestionable,

deliberate, and with validity that advocate Dwaitha in 95% cases;
this being so, some Advaithi, relying on a tiny minority of
statements that don’t even have advaitic meaning, declare that vast
majority of Dwaithic statements in Veda have no relevance for
Dwaitha, and interpret that Vedas advocate Advaitha. They need
not feel ridiculed or surprised by this booklet – after all we are
using their own technique here.

We have analyzed Shankara Bhashya in similar lines. Our stance

that Shri Shankaracharya’s statements condemn Advaitha is
legitimate and reasonable. Our view is that Shri Shankra
interpreted very many statements in Advaitha way first only for the
purpose of rejecting them. The Advaithis have no history of
accepting our arguments and if they have any objections to this

6 of 22
booklet, they need to meet us and get an understanding of our
viewpoints. I am prepared to substantiate views in this booklet
word by word.

- Vidyamaanya Theertharu

7 of 22
CONDEMNATION OF ADVAITHA BY AADHI SHARNKARA HIMSELF
Hari Om

Narasimho Akhila JnAna matadhwaantha divaakraha

Jayatyamita satjnaana sukha shakti payonidhihi

Every one knows that Shri Adi Shankaracharya wrote a grantha

called Upadesha Sahasri. In that book there is apart called Padya
Prabanda in which he says-
“ Aham Brahmaasmi kartaa ca bhoktaa ca asmiiti ye viduh
Te nashtaa jnaana karmabhyaam naastikaa syuna sashayah”

This means : “ Those who say they are Brahma and feel they are
the doers and enjoyers become not only violators of Karma &
Jnaana but also do they become a Naasthikya . There is no doubt
at all in my mind” .

From this statement we discern that Shri Shankarachraya was not

keen on Advaitha Vaada; it is clear that he himself was condemning
Advaitha.

Bit the Advaithis elucidators explain that what he was condemning

was ‘having I am brahma knowledge along with I am the doer &
enjoyer feeling’; he was not ship’ & ‘enjoyer-ship’ alone are Mithya
or a lie ; the jiva brahma aikya unity alone is real. Hence the Aham
Brahmaasmi knowledge can not (should not) co –exist with
“doership” and ‘enjoyership’.

This is their argument.

But this was not the opinion of Shri Shankaracharya and this can
be ascertained from his Sutra Bhashya (Brahma Sutra Bhashya) .
While commenting on the Sutra “Bhogenatvitare kshapayitvaa
atha sampatsyate”, Shankaracharya opines that even after Brahma
Gnaana , one retains praarabda karma ‘doership’ & ‘enjoyership’.

8 of 22
But, if bhoktrutva (enjoyership) is a mithya (lie)- as claimed by
Advaithins- it should have been impacted by the attainment of
Brahma Gnaana .

But- as given in the sutra comment above- if the bhoktrutva

doership continues even after brahma saakshatkaara , one needs
to accept that brahma gnaana does not have any impact on that.
This means, bhoktutva or doesrship becomes a Real entity (& not
a lie as claimed by advaitins).

Further , while commenting on Gita statement , ‘ kaschit kshanam

api jaatu karma krut’, Shankaracharya writes that every one, at
every moment, is doing some action. This implies that he agrees
that even Brahma Jnaanis have the kartruta ‘doership’.
Therefore it is clear that brahma Gnaana does not impact the
kartrutva ‘doership’ in any manner. This means Shankaracharyaru
accepts that Kartrutva ‘doership’ is also a real entity (not a lie
Mithya as advaitins say).

All advaitis agree that Shankaracharya is a Brahnma Gnaani. They

also agree that Shankaracharya has the ‘doership’ of Brahma Sutra
Bhashya. Not only this, they concede that Shankaracharya himself
recognized the karturtva ‘doership’ for Brahma Sutra Bhashya and
Brahma Sakshaatkara (Brahma realization). This means that
Brahma realization that he had did not eliminate or impact the
kartrutva ‘doership’ of sutra bhashay in any way. Therefore the
Kaartrutva is real.

Let us assume for argument sake that Advaithi say that

Shankaracharya did not have the Kartrutva of Brahma Sutra
Bhashya. In the ultimate judiciary of Yama Dharma Raja, if the
advaithis are asked by Yama to spell out the Validation / proof for
the Advaitha that they espouse, what will they say? They will have
to say “ Our reverend guru Adi Shankaracharya taught us
Advaitha. His teaching is the validation or basis for our conviction
and practice”. If the supreme dharma Raja Yama were to call Adi

9 of 22
Shankaracharya to come to the court and provide testimony for
this, Shankaracharya will have to say that he did not preach
Advaitha. In such a situation what is the fate of the followers of
Advaitha?

If Adi Shankaracharya were to confirm to Yama Dharma Raja that

he was indeed the teacher of Advaitha, with the intention to save
his followers who have said so ? Yama Dharma Raja can turn back
and declare that Shankaracharya was a Naasthiks by his own
admission in view of his shloka “Aham Brahmaasmi kartaa ca
bhoktaa ..” in upadeshs sahasri. Based on this if Yama Dharma
Raja were to condemn Shankaracharya and his followers to Naraka
, what is the fate of the followers?

The rhetorical interpretation that Shankaracharya rejected the

concept of ‘ doership prevalent unity with Brahman’, as this causes
him to go to Naraka, will not be acceptable to the knowledgeable
persons who analyze. Hence it is established that Shankaracharya
was condemning the Aham Brahasmi concept in that shloka.

Shri Shankaracharyaru has condemned the idea that world is a

mithya ‘lie’ in the same manner.

While commenting on Brahma Sutra “ Vaidhramaaccha na

svapnaadivat” , Shankaracharya writes “Na evam Jagrat
upalabdam sthambhatikam vastu kasyaam cit apyavasthaayaam
baadhyam dhrushtam” . This means ‘ The world we see in waking
state does not get negated in any sate as we see”. This means he
says world we see holds for all times and is a superior reality
(paramaarthika satya).

Further, even after Brahman saakshatkara , prarabda karma –

accumulated impact of past actions) continues (as per Shankara);
this means that five elements that is the cause of births continue at
all times.

10 of 22
So, Karma, Sharira, Panch bhoota ( Actions, Body and Five
elements) are not negated by the Brahma Saakshatkara and hence
we can conclude that they are all superior reality as per
Shankaracharyaru.

If Advaitins propose that the world does not get negated from a
general Brahman Saakshatkara but only gets negated after the
maturity of the Brahma Gnaana, it does not stand as
Shankaracharyaru has rejected this. ( How so ?)

The advathins may argue that per Advaitha Brhama is Nirguna,

Nirakara , sarvata Angeya ( attributless, formless and unknowable
ever) and so the mature brhman ganna means that there is no
‘brhama gnaana’ at all ( Brahma is agneya , unknowable , after
all). But this tantamount to saying my mother is barren. This is
Shankaracharyaru’s opinion. (How so?) . Shankaracharya has said
“Santaabhaadikam vastu na kasyaancidapya vasthaayaam
baadhyate” – the objects do not get negated in any state of
consciousness.

Further, though it appears that Shankaracharya was advocating

Advaitha in his Sutra Bhashya, he was not convinced about
advaitha. On the contrary his intention was to be critical of
Advaitha. One can say that this is why he took Advaitha for
discussion in the first place. When advaithis take up the various
references in Vedas that preach dwaitha for analysis , they say that
this does not mean that they support Dwaitha; the same way one
can say in this case as well that advaitha oriented statements do
not corroborate Advaitha.

There are several evidentiary material in this regard.

11 of 22
 Evidences:

1) Panchvaadika is a commentary on Shankaracharya’s Brahma

Sutra Bhashya. The mangalaacharana sloka of that
commentary mentions : “ naamaabhya bhogi parivaara
sampadam nirastha bhutim anumaagha vigraham’. In this
the words nirsatha bhutim indicates that Shankaracharya
was not adorning bhasma on his forehead. Even the
commentator of this shloka has written that
Shankaracharyaru was not given to having bhasma. But we
see that in all the portraits artists have presented
Shankaracharya adorning bhasma . Shri Padma Paada was
one of the four direct disciples of Shankaracharya and the
author of Panchavaadika. When such a person who has send
Adi Shankaracharya directly writes that he was not adorning
Bhasma, this is very believable. What we learn from this is
that Adi Shankaracharya was not Advaithi at all.

If advaithis contend that as a sanyasi, Adi Shankaracharya

was not obligated to do any karma ansuhtana and so was not
having Bhasma dharane, it is not correct. This is due to the
fact that wee all the advaithi sanyaasi applying bhasma ,
while they should not if the above argument is correct. Hence
the argument that advaithi sanyasis are not obligated to
perform karma anushtana does not stand.
The advaithis may explain it away by saying that Adi
Shankaracharya was not an ordinary sanyasi but a Brahma
Gnaani too and hence karma anushtaana was not applicable
for him and so he was not applying Bhasma. But this
argument would not be correct as Lord Krishna says in Gita
that even Brahma gnaanins should indulge in Karma for the
sake of welfare of the world. “Loka sangarahameva api
sampashyan kartrumarhasi”. Therefore , if Adi

12 of 22
 Shankarachraya was truly an Advaithi, he would have
compleied with karma anushtana and applied Bhasma for
the welfare of humanity.

If Adi Shankaracharya was not bound by any karma

anushtana rules , then why did he wear ochre, carry Danda,
Kamandala that are meant for sanyasis? If he carried all
these but did not wear only bhasma, we can conclude he
must have adorned Gopichandana ( urdwa pundara) . There
is yet another evidence in this regard. Adi Shankaracharya
gave Shri Narayana Dikshe , ahstaakshara mantra upadesha
to another direct disciple Shri Hasthamaalakaacharya and
sent him to propagate Vaishnavism. Hasthamaalka
performed Tapta Mudra Dharane to his disciples as he went
on his Vaishnava Prachaara. These are mentioned in
Shankara Vijaya.

2) The Upanishad statement,”paramam brahma veda brahmaiva

bhavati” (the knower supreme brahma becomes a brahma)
appears to teach Advaitha . While many advaithis have
written commentaries stating that this propounds Advaitha,
shri Adi Shankaracharya alone chose to comment in a
dwaitha way. He writes,’paraatparam purusham upaiti
divyam’- brahma gnaani gets close to para brahma. {Why ? }

Adi shankaracharya elaborates in the commentarty.

‘Shreayamsi bahu vignaani’ - one faces several hurdles in the
quest of shreyas. So there is a chance that even para brahma
gnaani may face some hurdle in getting the proximity of the
lord and hence this statement of assurance, write Adi
shankaracharya. If this were to hold, the root of the word
‘bhavti’ , ie, ‘Bhuu’ has been taken to mean ‘praapti’ by him
on the basis of ‘Bhuu praaptau’ proposition. That is why
‘brahaiva bhavati’ has been taken as ‘brahma praapnot eva’
though the usage ‘brahma bhavt eva’. Hence what

13 of 22
 Shankaracharaya interprets Brahma veda brahma eva
bhavati as Brahma Gnaani gets closer to parabrhama.

3) For the vedic statement ‘aham brahmasmi’, Adi

Shankaracharya seems to understood as I will perform veda
adhyayana ( study & contemplation). How do we say this?
Upanishads provide an insight into the kind of advice a
father, in his deathbed, provides to his son. ‘Tvam brahma,
Tvam yagnah, tvam lokah..’ it goes. This means ‘ You need
to do veda study, you need to perform yagna, you need to
attain superior world’. The son replies to the dying father in
similar lines: ‘aham brahma, aham yagnah, aham loakh..’,
meaning ‘I will study Vedas, I will perform yagnas and I will
strive for superior world’. This is what he has written in his
commentary. Hence this is what Shankaracharya must have
thought about when he said aham brahmasmi.

4) Even in the statement ‘Tatvamasi’, Shankaracharyaru has

meant to split the word as ‘tatvam’ and ‘asi’ {as against tat
tvam asi as mentioned by advaithis) as he comments .
Shankaracharyaru implies that Uddalaka tells his son
‘shvetaketu you are one of the tatvas ; paramaatma is
paratatva while you are apara tatva. So shankaracharya
meant this in tatvamasi.

5) Even for the shruti vaakya ‘ekam eva adwiteeyam brahma’ - ‘

Brahma is one only and not second’- Shankaracharyaru was
commenting about the time before creation- ‘sva kaaryam
pateetam anyannasti svaprati dwindvi bhuutam dwiteeyam
naasthi’ . ‘ Before creation, beyond me there was nothing to
create, and no one to challenge’. This was his explanation.
From this we can infer that Shankaracharya was of the
opinion that immortal entities like Nature, Time, Pursha,
Vedas -noncompeting entities –were present. As
Shankarachraya has commented on advaita sounding shruti
statements in this manner, ie, dwaitha oriented way, he has

14 of 22
 indicated that there are no unquestionable evidence in favor
of advaitha for advaithins.

6) Shri Shankaracharyaru has condemned all other

philosophical view points (matha). If he were an Advaithi, he
would not have got a sense of difference of ‘my matha’ and
‘other mathas’. If he did not have the sense of differences, he
could not possibly condemn ‘other’ philosophies. Once he has
had the sense of ‘his’ and ‘other’ it meant he had a clear sense
of ‘difference’. In such a case how can he be an Advaithi?

7) In addition, while commenting on Sutras , ‘Om Bheda

vyapadeshat Om’, ‘Om bheda vyapadeshaaccanya Om’, ‘Om
shariiraascabhayepihi bhedenainamadhiiyate Om’,
Shankaracharyaru has explained only in the context of
difference between jiva and Ishwara .

8) While explaining the last sutra of Brahama sutra - ‘

anaavrittihi shabdaath, anaavritti shabdaath’ –
Shankaracharya has written that Dwaitha Gnaana by itself is
capable of obtaining the Moksha , with no recurrent births. If
he had thought that jiva- ishwara bheda (difference) was a
mithya –lie, he would not have said that this ‘bheda –
differnce’ knowledge was a means of attaining moksha.

Shankaracharyaru has accepted that Veda Vyasa has

focused on and stressed that Dwaitha Gnaana is the source
of great result of Moksha, in his summarization sutra. It was
Shankaracharya’s opinion that “we need to take all other
sutras in conformity with the summarization sutra and they
all convey only Dwaitha gnaan”.

9) Advaithis interpret the Gita shloka “ kshetragnya ca api

maam viddhi..” as Krishna saying that “ the Jiva and I are
one and the same ”, taking the meaning of word as
Kshetragnay as Jiva here. They say that this is the essence of

15 of 22
 Bhagvat Gita. But Aadi Shankaracharya does not interpret
the word keshtragna as jiVa but as ‘parabrahma’, ie, Krishna
says “I am parabrahma” , in his interpretation.

10) In the Gita Bhashya , while discussing the statement

‘dwaavimau purushau loke’, Adi Shankaracharya has written
that Shri Krishna is the highest Supreme entity and also that
this is the essence of all Shahstras including Vedas.

11) While commenting on the Gita vaakya ‘ mayi sarvaani

karmaani sanyasya adhyaatma chetasa’ , Shri
Shankaracharyaru has written that ‘adhyaatma chetasa’
means ‘adhyaatma gnaana’; and ‘adhyaatma gnaana’ is
recognizing that Paramaatma is the Lord and jiVas are his
dependents. In the same manner, while taking up
‘adhyaatma vidhya vidhyaanam’, he has said that adyaatma
vidhyaa is the highest knowledge.

This means Shankaracharyaru held the view that the this

adhyaatma vidya, ie dwaitha vidya is the highest knowledge
{ ie, recognizing that Paramaatma is the Lord and jiVas are
his dependents }

12) While discussing the Gita shloka , ‘ Maam apraapyaiva

kaunteya tato
Yaantyadhamaam Gatim’ , Shankaracharyaru has written “
those hate Paramaatma will never be able to reach him. Only
some will be able to have the blessings of his Rupa that will
deliver them into Moksha. Contrarily several will not be able
to attain moksha. This means Shankaracharayru agrees with
the Dwaitha View that there are differences among jivas and
there are multitude of them.

From all these we see that Shankaracharya did not have the
Advaitha view , though it appears so at times in his writings.
Advaitha slant was introduced by the first of his commentators

16 of 22
{Vacaspati Mishra}, in Bhamati, which was not a true reflection of
Adi Shankaracharya’s views.

In addition, the Hole Narasimhapura swamiji, who wrote a

Kannada translation of Shankara Bhashya, has said that Bhamati
author was the first commentator who wrote an interpretation of
Shankra philosophy that was different from the views of
Shankaracharya.

Hence it is my opinion that Shankara Bhashya was not propagating

Advaitha; rather it lays out the Advaitha viewpoint for the sole
purpose of condemning it.

17 of 22
 MUTUAL CONTRADICTIONS IN VARIOUS ADVAITHA
BRANCHES

1. Adavaithis say that Brahman is the form of knowledge,

gnaana rupi, but it is not any different from entities like Pot
or Fabric. Just as Pots etc do not have cognition of other
entities, so does Brahman do not cognize. This is so self-
contradictory. It is like saying, this person walks, sees , hears
but he does not have legs, eyes or ears .

2. Brahman is all intelligent and Knowledge but he suffers

ignorance {undergoes a mistaken notion } is what they say.
This is self contradictory as it is like saying Sun is very bright
but has darkness in it.

3. They also say that Brahman is full of Ananda Bliss , but add
that this bliss is not different from sorrow. They are scared
that they will be seen as accepting Bheda differences if they
say that bliss and sorrow are different.

4. They say that Brahman has the form of bliss but he does not
enjoy bliss. If they agree that Brahman enjoys bliss they will
have to agree that Brahman has the attribute of desire and
this violates their contention that Brahman is attributeless
nirguna. This scares the pitiable advaithis.

5. They claim that Brahman is Sat existence; but deny that

Brahman has ‘Satva’ nature /conduct, as that would go
against their definition that Brahman is beyond any nature.
But this is like saying some is a Brahmin without the nature
of Brahmins or some one is a wealthy man but does not have
any wealth.

18 of 22
 6. They say Brahman is ‘Sat-existence’ but this is no difference
from ‘asat-non existence’ . This is like saying that my mother
is barren.

7. They say Brahman is all pervading but that the ‘all places’ he
pervades is mithya lie ? This is like saying that some one is a
Maharaaja but he does not have even a village to rule .

8. They claim that there are no relationship between their

concept of Brahman and the word “brahman’ used as they
need to defend their definition Brahman as non-associative.

9. The Advaithins have a strange line of argument. On the one

hand they say that Pramanaas ( validation references) do not
have serious locus standi. If so , one can not draw any
conclusion from Direct perception, Inferences, Aagama books.
But they selectively accept them for proving their Brahman
concept but reject the world whose reality is established from
the very same pramaanas as unreal mithya

10. They say that Shastraas do not reject Brahman in spite of gaps
in the validity from pramanaas; but they are quick to reject
other concepts for the same reason. Is it not double standards?

11.They say that Jiva-Bahma united entity and Brahman are not
different. They are same. However, they say that even if we are
able to visualize Brahman, the united jiva-brahman is not
discernible. Is this not a strange argument?

12.They are reluctant to teach ‘tatvamasi’ to all knowing Brahma

and jiVas with limited knowledge fearing that it might remind
them of the directly perceivable reality of ‘ I am not all
knower’;they don’t hesitate to introduce new category
jahadajahlakshanaa {co existence of General and Instance
attributes}. But they are not scared in denying the validity of
direct perception we have in proving reality of word, and are

19 of 22
 comfortable in calling the universe as a lie mithya. What kind of
validator are these and how shall we call them?

13.They say that this universe is unreal mithya; but also say that
mithya concept itself unreal. If mithya as a concept is unreal,
should we not then infer that universe is real ? But they don’t
agree to this inference. What a strange argument is this !

14.They claim that Shruti vakyas in Veda support their contention

that universe is mithya. If we adopt this logic , should we not
conclude that every one is dumb as there is a shruti vakya
‘mookoham – I am dumb’ ?. But their logic does not conclude
thus they say !

15.They argue that direct perception has validity only ‘Present

time’, no direct perception has the potency to validate all three
times , viz, past-present –future ; but in another place, they
claim shruti rejects the concept of ‘validity in all three times’,
even though {their cognition of the vakya } was result of direct
perception.

16.They say that universe status is indeterminate anirvachanIya

{undescribable} and so it is unreal Mithya; but they also say that
though Brahman is also anirvachanIya, it is not Mithya.

17.A person may see a puddle of water due to mirage and approach
it ;but once he realizes it is a mistaken perception due to false
interpretation , he will never again go near that mirage puddle. If
so, once brahma gnaani realizes that this world is unreal, why
should he continue to strive for the welfare of this world?

18.It is said that if one claims to be a King, one is put to jail; but if
one goes ahead and claims to be Brahman , one gets liberated
with Mukti !

20 of 22
19.Ishwara is a creation of our mind and does not really exist for
advaithins; but the same people condemn Chaaruvaakas when
they say that god does not exist!

20. They say Gods & God’s greatness are all mithya, and yet the
very same worship Gods. We need to learn from Advaithis how to
develop devotion to some one who does not have any greatness.

21.In Advaitha, the ultimate truth is unknowable, but they are sure
Tatva Gnaani Knower of ultimate truth somehow !

22. According to them Vedas are not means of Truth realization,

but they sure are means of Validation!

23. One does not mistake sugar cane for silver as they don’t seem
alike ; but for them, world is a mistaken notion of Brahman,
even though Brahman and this world do not look similar.

24. As per them , when one’s devotional practice of saguna

Brahman { Brahman with attributes like Gods} gets firm , one
gets direct perception of Nir Guna Brahman { attribute less
entity}.

25.When one mistakes pearl Oyster shell as silver and then gets
the truth that it is Pearl Oyster shell, the mistaken silver
understanding is negated BUT cognition of Pearl Oyster Shell
remains. But advaitins claim that while Brahamn Sakshatkara
{ Brahman}negates the Brhama Sakshatkara {World},
brahmasakshatkara does not remain.

This writings may appear to throw up several attacks, ridicules.

ShrimaAchAryaru has said ,” anantha dosha dushtan ca heyam
maaya matam shubhaih” – let the unlimited mistakes ,slurs in the
maaya matham vanish for good. Likewise, an attempt has been
made in this write up to show that Shri Adi shankaracharya did
not try to establish this faulty, obstructionist Adviatha matha; on

21 of 22
the contrary, he just laid it down to analyze and condemn it.
Stating this is being more respectful for Shri Adi Shankaracharya.

It is hence hoped that the followers of Shri Shankaracharya will

appreciate this write up.

SHRI MADHWAARPANAMASTU

22 of 22