The very fact that Badarayana wants Brahma jijnasa to be undertaken implies that ‘Only on the condition that the jiva is in truth Brahman, the knowledge of Brahman can be said to dispel samsara.’ How is this? All schools accept that the idea of oneself being the body-mind complex is an adhyasa. Therefore samsara is due to this fundamental adhyasa: taking the body to be the Atman. This is due to one’s not knowing one’s true svarupam. Now, if this situation is to be remedied, one logically has to get to know who one is. But the Brahmasutra says ‘enquiry into Brahman is to be undertaken.’ How can Brahma jnanam eradicate samsara? If I am ignorant of a pot, I should get to know the pot and not the cloth. Cloth knowledge will not remedy pot-ignorance. Brahma jnana cannot dispel Atma vishayaka ajnanam. Thus, the undeniable implication of Badarayana is: the Jiva is in truth Brahman. Only on this condition and on no other condition can Brahma jnanam dispel Atma ajnana engendered samsara. Therefore it is only the Advaita Bhashya that is the true commentary of the Brahma sutras. The tenets of Brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva na aparah is eminently established in the sutras.
‘शास्त्रदृष्ट्या तूपदेशो वामदेववत्’ (ब्र. सू. १ । १ । ३०) Here the sutra teaches the identity of jiva is Brahman.
‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (ब्र. सू. २ । १ । १४) This sutra teaches that the world has no existence apart from its cause Brahman.
These are only indicative; many other sutras too establish the Advaitic tenet of: brahma satyam, jagat mithya, jiva brahmaiva..
Om Tat Sat
Adbhutam's Blog 
Vinayak Sakaram Ghate of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute has done a comparative analysis of the Brahma Sutra commentaries of Nimbarka, Ramanuja, Vallabha, Adi Shankara and Madhva in detail and has written the conclusion that Nimbarka’s Bhedabheda and Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita commentaries give the closest meaning of the Brahma Sutras (taking into account of both kinds of Sutras, those which speak of oneness and those which speak of difference). As opposed to Shankara’s Kevaladvaita which as per him does not adhere to the true puroprt of the Sutras.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.283844/page/n1/mode/2up
What is your opinion on this, Sir?
By: Ravi on December 14, 2021
at 2:44 pm
नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼
I’d like to take an opportunity to answer. Based on your words, the author has concluded that rāmānuja’s viṣṇu viśiṣṭādvaitam commentary gave the closest meaning of brahmaṣūtrāṇi, Isn’t it? When one concludes this way, one should clearly understand that there are various schools of viśiṣṭādvaitam. There is Śiva viśiṣṭādvaitam, Śakta viśiṣṭādvaitam, viṣṇu viśiṣṭādvaitam & so on. The commentary on brahmaṣūtrāṇi with the basis (i.e., school of thought) as Śiva viśiṣṭādvaitam was even older to rāmānuja’s thought. The person Śrīkaṇṭhācārya has written the commentary on brahmaṣūtrāṇi. If one school of viśiṣṭādvaitam holds good, then it should hold good for other schools of viśiṣṭādvaitam as well. One should also remember that there are many authentic works in purāṇāni like Śivagītā, Īśvaragītā, gaṇeśagītā, Ṛbhugītā, aṣṭāvakragītā (which is in an itihāsaḥ) & so on.
If you base the above author, we have to consider stalwart works like appayya dīkṣita, even he has done comparative study. Where he has clearly mentioned that Śrīkaṇṭhācārya’s school of thought which is Śiva viśiṣṭādvaitam is superior to all the school of thoughts only after advaitam.
You see, even in the bhedābhedaḥ, One can/will choose the Īśvaraḥ based on one’s saṃskāraḥ. If one claims that one particular name & form of parambrahma viṣṇuḥ is superior, the other claim with the equal probability of correctness, It’s also true that the other particular name & form of same parambrahma Śivaḥ is also superior. But the point is that, one will choose the devatā like skandaḥ or gaṇeśaḥ or Āñjaneyaḥ or Śivah or viṣṇuḥ or lalitā is purely based on one’s saṃskāraḥ along with the anugrahaḥ of Īśvaraḥ.
It’s completely wrong in saying that choosing one particular name & form of Īśvaraḥ is superior when compared with choosing the other name & form of Īśvaraḥ.
Now, coming to advaitam, Dear, This purely has to do with one’s ultimate experience!
One should also understand that, many theorists like madhva, rāmānuja, bhāskara had a severe personal hatred on Śaṅkarācāryaḥ & also on bhagavān Śivaḥ (although Śaṅkaraḥ being his avatāra). It’s quite understandable from these guys’s works. Indeed It’s quite easy to disprove any theory other than advaitam. Because, if one claims that one name & form of Īśvaraḥ is supreme then what about his other name & form?
Śaiva purāṇāni/Śaiva upaniṣadaḥ claims one name & form of SAME Īśvaraḥ which is Śivaḥ is supreme & vaiṣṇava purāṇāni/vaiṣṇava upaniṣadaḥ claims the other name & form of SAME Īśvaraḥ which is viṣṇuḥ is supreme.
There is only 1 Īśvaraḥ who has taken many names & forms. It is as simple as that. One should actually ignore everyone which includes the above author & perform one’s own sādhana & realize. It takes many lives to stick to advaitam (not as a school of thought but as an experience.)
By: विवेकः (Vivēkaḥ) on December 14, 2021
at 6:16 pm
But Vaishnavas claim that the only reason Shaiva/Shakta Puranas were written is to ‘elevate’ the Tamasika/Rajasika folks to the Highest Sattvika dharma a.k.a Vaishnavism. Since Shiva is a Vaishnava, the only purpose of worshipping him as per them is to make you ‘evolve’ into a Vaishnava as well, nothing more.
By: Ravi on December 15, 2021
at 1:34 pm
नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼
Who doesn’t know about their bogus claims? Why should one even care about their bogus claims? It’s true that Śivaḥ is a vaiṣṇavaḥ & conversely viṣṇuḥ is a topmost Śaivaḥ.
You have to know that all the names of viṣṇuḥ belongs to Śivaḥ. This verse from harivaṃśa parvaḥ was quoted by Śaṅkarācāryaḥ in viṣṇu sahasranāma bhāṣyam. Indeed there are instances where viṣṇuḥ himself has done stutiḥ on Śivaḥ as namo nārāyaṇāya, ॐ viṣṇave namaḥ & so on. For hariḥ himself nārāyaṇaḥ & viṣṇuḥ is Śivaḥ
For all of their bogus claims just a simple Śivagītā from padmapurāṇam suffice.
Why do you even care their bogus claims?
As I have very clearly specified, it takes lives to stick to advaitam, Īśvarasya anugrahaḥ has to be there. (ईश्वरानुग्रहादेव पुंसामद्वैतवासना।)
By: विवेकः (Vivēkaḥ) on December 15, 2021
at 1:53 pm
The Uttara Khanda of Padma Purana has a beautiful reference to Panchayatana puja. Bhagavan Krishna says the following to Satyabhama in the 88th Chapter :
शैवाः सौराश्च गाणेशा वैष्णवाः शक्तिपूजकाः ।
मामेव प्राप्नुवंतीह वर्षांभः सागरं यथा ॥ ४३ ॥
एकोऽहं पंचधा जातः क्रीडयन्नामभिः किल ।
देवदत्तो यथा कश्चित्पुत्राद्याह्वाननामभिः ॥ ४४ ॥ ( 6.88.43-44)
Bhagvan says to Satyabhama , “As rain-water reaches the ocean, so also, the worshippers of Shiva,Surya,Ganesha,Vishnu and Shakti attain me. I am one, yet manifest in five ways. As one Devadatta is addressed in many ways, so also, I am called variously owing to my play. ”
It is noteworthy that in the above verse Krishna includes vaishnavas also along with all the other groups. This shows that being a vaishnava does not confer any special advantage for one to get moksha. Krishna clearly says it is one only appearing in different names. Also in Mahabharata Krishna says those who worship Vishnu or Shiva, both attain the same goal. Pl. check the article on this topic in my blog.
By: adbhutam on December 18, 2021
at 5:55 am