Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

[Aupmanyav]

Human consciousness and the how the universe works are two completely different things (I am talking of 'Spooky action at a distance' - Action at a distance - Wikipedia). I am aware of what has been said by sages and scriptures, but I differ with them. They did not have the advantage of knowing what we know today. Could you tell me what this universal consciousness of yours does, why and in what way?

 

[ajay0]

I am aware of what has been said by sages and scriptures, but I differ with them.

Why is that so?

If a wise teacher or parent advises an ignoranct child on a correct course of action , such as having proper study and work habits , it is for the child's good, even if the child finds it distasteful or differ with them and wishes to play video games instead.

It hurts the parent or teacher more if the child follows an erroneous course of action than the child himself, and many children when grown up, repented their ignorant actions following their fickle likes or dislikes.

I would ask you to put faith in the sayings of these wise elders and investigate them. They obviously must not be old idiots if they are revered by so many people all over the world.

There are many saintly people in ashrams or university academicians and scholars who can properly instruct you in Advaita and get rid of your present delusions if you are earnest and eager. I wish you the very best.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Conciousness is a property of living beings. Surely my advaita differs from yours.

There is only one consciousness - yours. The concepts of yourself, others and everything else are part of this consciousness as thoughts. There is never a time when you are not conscious. If you say sleep and death, the answer is, both those states are not directly perceived as there is no one to perceive them. They are only inferences and the inference only happens when you are conscious. That is, you only know about sleep when you are awake. A sleeping person can never tell himself that he is sleeping or that he is unconscious. A dead person can never tell himself that he does not exist.This is the basis of the quote "prajnanam brahma" - if you are interested in quotes.

But until you see the role of thought and how everything is thought, you will not get this.

Is your conclusion that only Jiva exists? That Jiva is Brahman?

Why should the Jiva be something other than what it is? It is incorrect to say that only the Jiva exists. As perceived, there is a plurality of Jivas and there is also the world. They are all real and there is no need to dismiss what is perceived as unreal because some book says so.

As per Adi Shankaracharya...

To be free from bondage the wise person must practise discrimination between One-Self and the ego-self.
By that alone you will become full of joy, recognising Self as Pure Being, Consciousness and Bliss.

Who becomes full of joy? Brahman? If not, please explain how this ties in with your concept of non-dual.

Give up identification with this mass of flesh as well as with what thinks it a mass. Both are intellectual imaginations. Recognise your true self as undifferentiated awareness, unaffected by time, past, present or future, and enter Peace.

Who is this recognizer? Brahman? If not, please explain how this ties in with your concept of non-dual.

Thus one should know oneself to be of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss[Sat-Chit-Ananda].

Again, who is this knower?

 

[ajay0]

Who becomes full of joy? Brahman? If not, please explain how this ties in with your concept of non-dual.

Brahman is the Atman or true Self as opposed to the egoistic little self we commonly identify with, and which obscures the natural state of Awareness through its belief structures and consequent thoughts and emotions.
Through dissolution of the 'I' or 'me' , the natural state of Awareness is perceived clearly.

As Gilbert Schultz stated, "Drop all your concepts about 'I' or 'me' and see what is left. Naked awareness is not an object. "

Who is this recognizer? Brahman? If not, please explain how this ties in with your concept of non-dual.

As stated earlier Brahman or the true Self is one and the same, and when the egoistic little self dissolves , the Self which had been obscured till now is revealed .

The Self recognizes this fact through its clearer perception and congruent blissful state .

Again, who is this knower?

The Self cognizes this .

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Forgive me for being persistent, but hopefully you will see why soon. Once again -

Through dissolution of the 'I' or 'me' , the natural state of Awareness is perceived clearly.

Perceived by whom?

As stated earlier Brahman or the true Self is one and the same, and when the egoistic little self dissolves , the Self which had been obscured till now is revealed .

Revealed to whom? We are talking about something that was hidden and is now being revealed to someone. Obviously, we cannot say that Brahman gained a new revelation and so, it must be someone else (was was in ignorance) to whom this was revealed. But who is it?

The Self recognizes this fact through its clearer perception and congruent blissful state .

But there is only one self/Brahman. How can it gain any new understanding through recognition? Obviously, such a perception can only be possible for someone other than Brahman; someone who was previously ignorant.

Who is it?

 

[ajay0]

Perceived by whom?

Awareness which is one's true nature perceives. You are That.

Revealed to whom? We are talking about something that was hidden and is now being revealed to someone/something. Obviously, we cannot say that Brahman gained a new revelation and so, it must be something else. But what is it?

Awareness perceives. Awareness and the mind are two different things. The natural state of awareness is obscured by the incessant flow of thoughts, emotions and conceptualizations of the mind.

As Burt Harding stated, " Your true nature is Awareness and not what your mind is producing."

But there is only one self/Brahman. How can it gain any new understanding through recognition? Obviously, such a perception can only be possible for someone/something other than Brahman.

What is it?

There are two entities. The egoistic little self and the true Self.

The egoistic little self is illusory due to the fact that it is based on transient belief structures, thoughts and emotions defining it as this or that identity , of a dualistic character.

Dissolution of the egoistic little self results in unobscuring of the Self . The Self or Awareness is a constant factor in all experiences, but is not ironically recognized due to its simple and obvious nature.

As Metta Zetty stated, " Awareness is the background for all of our experiences, and yet in our ordinary day-to-day lives, it is often obscured by habituated thoughts and emotions.

Most teaching and meditation practices are designed to cut through this habituated seeing into the Background of Awareness which is our innate nature and which is, in and of itself, Clear Seeing. "

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why is that so? If a wise teacher or parent advises an ignorant child ..

What was said in BC times does not always, not always, not always, not always, hold true in 2017.

यज्ञात भवति पर्जन्य | - when we perform yajna, it rains. Rains, thunder, lightning, seasons ..
Day 111 Bhagavad Gita - Samsar as an upside down Peepal Tree

Q. I have heard people speak of four types of beings; but I am not quite clear what they are.
A. Andaja, Swedaja, Udbijja and Jarayuja.
Sathya Sai Baba - Prasnottara Vahini - VI - Obstacles to Moksha

We know better now. Hinduism moves, should move with times. We are not an Abrahamic religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is only one consciousness - yours.

I was in the 'Vyavaharika' mode.

 

[ajay0]

What was said in BC times does not always, not always, not always, not always, hold true in 2017.

We know better now. Hinduism moves, should move with times. We are not an Abrahamic religion.

So are you saying or subtly hinting that we should put up idols of Aupmanyav who taught about Brahman being physical energy in temples, instead of Rama and Krishna who 'erroneously' taught about the Self or pure consciousness and ways to attain it !

Even if you support this viewpoint, I am not sure if it is such a good idea. In retrospect, I would say that the srutis or spiritual truths are eternal, while the smritis dealing with social laws are subject to change with changing times due to the dynamic nature of the relative world. It is important to leave the srutis alone in this regard while changing the smritis is permitted.

Also there are many enlightened masters in present like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, H.W.Poonja, Annamalai Swami, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Nirmala Devi, Dada Gavand, Prem Nirmal, Anandmurti Gurumaa, Mooji, Byron Katie, Metta Zetty, Madhukar, Sailor Bob Adamson, Gilbert Schultz, John Wheeler, Charlie Hayes, Adyashanti, Jed Mckenna, Jeff Foster, Robert Adams, Douglas Harding, Eckhart Tolle, Isaac Shapiro,Dave Oshana, Jean Klein, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, Barry Long, Franklin Merrell-Wolff , Ilie Cioara, Bernadette Roberts, Jan Frazier, Adam Oakley,Scott Kiloby, Greg Goode, Jac O Keeffe, Toni Packer who after experiencing enlightenment, have validated the teachings of the ancient enlightened masters through their own statements and teachings.

With all these enlightened masters in both east and west to refute, and many more coming up, it would be doubly more difficult for you to change the core ideas or theme of Vedanta and state yourself to be wiser than Rama and Krishna.

So I would suggest you to study the vedantic teachings diligently with more rigor under a reputable guru, practice meditation and add your own name to the above list of enlightened masters of the present.

Regards and best wishes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not into teaching. I stated what I believe. How does it make a difference to me if anyone puts up my image or idol and starts worshiping me, like worshiping Buddha and not paying attention to or understanding what he said. That would be foolishness. I am an illusion unless one knows what exactly exists. What I say will be improved in time to come. I am not the end of knowledge. You have different views, that is perfectly OK. Past masters are guides, they have shown the way, and we are progressing on that. I would not have been here were it not for Buddha and Sankara. Don't dote on past masters or scriptures. That is what Buddha said in his Kalama Sutta:

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā), nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)."

"Sitāron se āge jahān aur bhī hain, abhī ishq ke imtehān aur bhī hain.
Tu shāhīn hai, parvwāz hai kām terā, tere sāmne āsmān aur bhī hain."
(Beyond the stars there are worlds more, your quest yet has more tests to pass.
You are the falcon, flying is your natural way, and you have skies more to transcend)
Allama Mohammad Iqbal

 

[ajay0]

That is what Buddha said in his Kalama Sutta:

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā), nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)."

"Sitaron se aage jahan aur bhi hain, abhi ishq ke imtehan aur bhi hain.
Tu shaheen hai parvwaaz hai kaam tera, tere saamne aasmaan aur bhi hain."
(Beyond the stars there are worlds more, your quest yet has more tests to pass.
You are the falcon, your passion is flight, and you have skies more to transcend)
Allama Mohammad Iqbal

Buddha rejected the vedas, brahminism and caste system, proclaimed universal equality of all human beings irrespective of caste or creed, and propagated his teachings through pali instead of sanskrit.

If you see Buddha as your guru, you must follow him wholeheartedly and give up your hindu conditioning, rather than taking bits from here and there as per your likes and dislikes.

If you dig a well in a hundred places, you will not get anywhere. If you dig in a single place, you can get water with the same expenditure of labour and time.

Whether it is buddhism or advaita, only a proper study of it along with practice of meditation, which buddha and shankara emphasized, can lead one to understand the import of these systems.

A superficial study of it without the guidance and company of sages, saints and scholars, is bound to result in an excess of imagination, and delusion for that matter.

 

[sayak83]

If you think you are an Advaitin, the odds are you may actually be a Bhedabhedin - without your knowledge.

1. Bhedabheda is the system of Vedanta where the Atman is simultaneously one with Brahman and also different. This allows for the Atman to be one with Brahman, while still having a distinct identity of its own, to be an experiencer and to experience oneness with Brahman. This is not possible in a strictly non-dual system such as Advaita where the concept of time itself would be a logical fallacy. This is where I see that the views of many Advaitins are more Bhedabheda than Advaita.

2. Bhedabheda says the world is real; Advaita says the world is unreal (only an appearance). Bhaskara pointed out that Advaita borrowed this concept of an unreal world from Buddhism. Indeed, Bhaskara says he wrote his commentary for the sole purpose of proving that Advaita was trying to hide the real purport of Vedanta and replace it with Buddhist ideas.

3. Bhedabheda says the relationship of Atman with Brahman is like the wave in the ocean. The wave has a distinct existence, but is yet not different from the ocean.

4. Bhedabheda says that though the clay was shaped into multiple cups, etc., they are still clay. That is, it is both cup and clay at the same time. Advaita says only the clay is real and the cup is unreal.

5. Bhedabheda rejects the concept of Jivanmukti. As long as the body is alive, pain and sorrow in some form are unavoidable.

6. Bhedabheda predates Shankara as it has been criticized in Shankara's Sutra Bhashya.

7. Vishishtadvaita is loosely based on Bhedabheda

8. Several modern scholars (Nakamura, Dasgupta, et al.,) agree that the Brahma-sutras align best with Bhedabheda than with any other doctrine of Vedanta.

Does it matter?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you see Buddha as your guru, you must follow him wholeheartedly and give up your Hindu conditioning, rather than taking bits from here and there as per your likes and dislikes.

Buddha was the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. He was a Hindu. He said do not think about creation, jnana, jnanis or Karma. He termed them as 'acinteyya' (Pali - not to be contemplated upon, Skt.: Achinteya). His injunction was OK for general ignorant public and in his time. We are now in a different age and have better knowledge. All these things must also be contemplated on. So, in a few things I differ from Buddha too. If people do not go beyond what their teachers say, then there won't be any progress.

 

[ajay0]

Buddha was the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu.

This was a conception of the brahmins who adopted him as an avatar but refuted and rejected his teachings.

He was a Hindu.

He rejected the vedas, hindu belief system, gods, idol worship,brahminism and casteism.

He said do not think about creation, jnana, jnanis or Karma. He termed them as 'acinteyya' (Pali - not to be contemplated upon, Skt.: Achinteya). His injunction was OK for general ignorant public and in his time.

Buddha's focus was on experiential understanding through meditation and not vain intellectual discussions and arguments which only served to increase the ego. Buddhism gives the greatest importance to meditation as Jainism did for non-violence and austerity.

We are now in a different age and have better knowledge. All these things must also be contemplated on. So, in a few things I differ from Buddha too. If people do not go beyond what their teachers say, then there won't be any progress.

Buddha focussed on the cessation of suffering by the elimination of the false self. First try to get rid of the false self and become a Buddha yourself by following buddhism meticulously.

Progress is attained by elimination of the false self or the egoistic little self.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This was a conception of the brahmins who adopted him as an avatar but refuted and rejected his teachings.

Ah, those ignorant brahmins, greedy for what they can get out of their clients. He was the wisest in his time, much before his age.

He rejected the vedas, hindu belief system, gods, idol worship, brahminism and casteism.

Yeah, he rejected yajnas and sacrifices. An advatist must also reject all these to be true to his belief.

Buddha's focus was on experiential understanding through meditation and not vain intellectual discussions and arguments which only served to increase the ego.

Sure, that is true for many people, but because of that we cannot leave an important field of investigation.

Buddha focussed on the cessation of suffering by the elimination of the false self. First try to get rid of the false self and become a Buddha yourself by following buddhism meticulously.

I already don't have any suffering. I am an advaitist. For me 'self' is Brahman (Ayamatma Brahman). How can I stop being that? I am following my 'dharma', that makes me a Hindu as well as a Buddhist. Buddha did not want anything more than that.

Progress is attained by elimination of the false self or the egoistic little self.

Answered above.

 

[ajay0]

An advatist must also reject all these to be true to his belief.

It is the belief systems that generate duality. If you make Advaita a belief system, you are a dualist in spirit even though you may label yourself as an advaitan or nondualist. Advaita is not something to be believed in , but acted upon.

The belief system is what has you. It makes you think you’re separate. It’s the beliefs that are creating the ‘I’.– Jac O Keeffe

Sure, that is true for many people, but because of that we cannot leave an important field of investigation.

The field of investigation should be covered only if it is complemented by meditation. Or else it is only an exercise in deluding oneself and others as the intellect cannot experience truth as it is.


As the enlightened sage Nirmala Devi stated, " Intelligence that is without the spiritual insight is your own ego, is not pure intelligence, it is just your ego, which says, “This is right”, “I say”, “I believe”, “I am like this” – that is ego. After realization the truth that comes to you is the real pure truth and is not your ego. "

For me 'self' is Brahman (Ayamatma Brahman).

The false ‘self’ is what has to be dissolved for the Self or pure consciousness within to be uncovered.

As Sri Rama himself stated, " The mistaking of the body for the Self is called Maya. This Maya is responsible for the creation of Samsara."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita is not something to be believed in , but acted upon.

If you believe in 'gods, idol worship, brahminism (?) and casteism', you are hardly an advaitist. All beliefs belong to 'Vyavaharika'. There are none in 'Parmarthika'. Keep the two level separate, otherwise you get into confusion.

The belief system is what has you. It makes you think you’re separate. It’s the beliefs that are creating the ‘I’.– Jac O Keeffe

I am all that exists. I am 'ajay0' too. Who is making a distinction? 'ajay0' too, in 'Parmarthika', is none other than me.

The field of investigation should be covered only if it is complemented by meditation. Or else it is only an exercise in deluding oneself and others as the intellect cannot experience truth as it is.

Who said that you exclude meditation? But there is a way to do it and a way to arrive at conclusions in 'Vyavaharika'. You seem to be missing that.

As the enlightened sage Nirmala Devi stated, ..

Who is this Nirmala Devi? Do you mean the woman who sold 'Sahaj Yoga'? You may think of her as an enlightened person, she is not so for me. She was one of the many commercial guru that we have in Hinduism. I will go with Yajnavalkya and Buddha, and reserve my right to differ from gurus. I will accept a thing only if it rings true to me.

The false ‘self’ is what has to be dissolved for the Self or pure consciousness within to be uncovered.

Been there, done that.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Awareness perceives. Awareness and the mind are two different things. The natural state of awareness is obscured by the incessant flow of thoughts, emotions and conceptualizations of the mind.

Obscured to whom?

And this is where your logic becomes inconsistent. According to you, there are two selves -

There are two entities. The egoistic little self and the true Self.

and

The egoistic little self is illusory

Putting them together, there are two possible answers to my question above. The natural state is obscured either to this egoistic, illusory self or to the one true self. For the former, there can be no awareness of truth as it is illusory, unreal and temporary. That is, this false self can never have a "I see the truth" moment in an Advaitic sense. If it is the latter, it is the one, permanent self and it cannot have new revelations. It is always clear, without doubt and without change.

Another inconsistency is with this concept of two selves. Since one of them is illusory, there really is only one self - the one true, single self. As this one unchanging self cannot attain moksha and there is nothing else per Advaita, there is no one else and so, no one attains moksha.

That is the problem with Advaita. The mokhsa/realization/awareness - whatever you wish to call it, is not possible for the false self (for this self cannot exist after moksha) and this moksha is also not possible for Brahman (or the true self) as Brahman cannot attain moksha. In essence, moksha is not possible for either of the two selves.

You are left with two choices here -

1. Keep the individual self/identity permanent per the Shankara quote you posted earlier -

Thus one should know oneself to be of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss[Sat-Chit-Ananda].

As explained above, for this quote to work, there has to be a knower who has to persist beyond moksha. A knower who was previously ignorant and gained new knowledge/realization. This knower cannot be illusory and therefore, this is no different from bedhabedha as we simultaneously have both a distinct identity of a realized soul and Brahman (which did not gain any new knowledge).

2. Or accept that there can be no one who gains moksha in Advaita. As the false self is illusory it does not persist after Moksha and so, it cannot be it. Brahman obviously cannot gain moksha. So, per Advaita logic, no one gains Vedantic moksha - which leads to Shunyavaada.

Another way to put this. If you agree that the 7th Century Shankara attained moksha, does he still exist now as an individual soul or not? If yes, then we have duality. If not, then we are admitting to Buddhist style nirvana, as there is no one who attained moksha (since Brahman cannot attain moksha).

As Bhaskara (8th Century CE) put it -

vigiitam vicchinna-muulam mahaayaanika-bauddha-gaathitam maayaa-vaadam vyaavarnayanto lokaan vyaamohayanti - Commentary on BSB 1.4.25

 

[ajay0]

If you believe in 'gods, idol worship, brahminism (?) and casteism', you are hardly an advaitist. All beliefs belong to 'Vyavaharika'. There are none in 'Parmarthika'. Keep the two level separate, otherwise you get into confusion.

Vyavaharika and Paramarthika are also dualistic perceptions for a true and honest advaitan, if they become mere labels or mental creations. They are useful for the dualists but not for the advaitan.

Even the dualists get it wrong at times.

Even Shankaracharya, though a propounder of Advaita, operated under these dualistic parameters, as he identified with his dualistic identity as a brahmin, and asked Shiva who came to him in the form of an untouchable to move away.

Later realizing the wisdom of Shiva, he admitted and regretted his error. The incident also paved the path for his enlightenment.

The advaitan takes into account Vyavaharika and Paramarthika more accurately than the dualist, who views things on the basis of his mental conditioning. This is because the advaitan sees them as they are, and evolves a measured response to them, than the dualist who operates under the parameters of mental conditioning, likes and dislikes.

Ramana Maharshi and Ramakrishna, though being of the brahmin caste, treated all including those of the lower strata of society, poor and underprivileged, with love and consideration. Ramana considered even animals as his fellow beings and friends, and fed them when they came to his ashram showing his nondual perception.

This is important when you take into account recent incidents of cruelty towards harmless animals arising out of a dualistic perception.

Who is this Nirmala Devi? Do you mean the woman who sold 'Sahaj Yoga'? You may think of her as an enlightened person, she is not so for me. She was one of the many commercial guru that we have in Hinduism.

I attended a session of yoga when their party came to town and I was not charged for it, even though I was ready to do so considering the operating expenses of the place they rented and food they distributed. Their teachinigs lead by female teachers, also helped a lot of women learn meditation in that area. I found it unique and inspiring considering the male-dominated nature of Hindu society with issues of dowry, bride burning, female foeticide, eve-teasing, high rape statistics and so on.

I am all that exists. I am 'ajay0' too. Who is making a distinction? 'ajay0' too, in 'Parmarthika', is none other than me.

The 'I' is either the egoistic little self or the true Self which Rama, Krishna and the sages emphasized.

The true Self makes no distinction while the egoistic little self creates labels for itself and others and creates distinctions.

As Sri Muruganar stated, " The Self, our Being, is awareness."

In awareness or pure consciousness, one sees no distinction and does not create labels.

Body or matter-consciousness results in dual perception and creation of labels, and identifying with them.

The advaitan uses labels for practical purposes but does not identify with it. He identifies only with the true Self or pure consciousness .

Who said that you exclude meditation? But there is a way to do it and a way to arrive at conclusions in 'Vyavaharika'. You seem to be missing that.

Even taking Vyavaharika into account, one has to go by the scriptural injunction of 'Prajnanam Brahman' or Brahman being pure consciousness, and not creating other perceptions out of one's conditioning.

In this regard, I know of a case study of a doctor who prescribed a medicine to a patient to apply on his forehead for headaches. The patient decided to swallow the medicine instead thinking it would be more effective and give faster results, and did not follow the doctor's prescription and advice accurately, thinking himself to be smarter.

The patient later developed health problems and complications and consulted the doctor again where he admitted his error. He was highly reprimanded by the doctor for pursuing his own self-directed course and not obeying the doctor precisely.

 

[DanielR]

Obscured to whom?

And this is where your logic becomes inconsistent. According to you, there are two selves -


and


Putting them together, there are two possible answers to my question above. The natural state is obscured either to this egoistic, illusory self or to the one true self. For the former, there can be no awareness of truth as it is illusory, unreal and temporary. That is, this false self can never have a "I see the truth" moment in an Advaitic sense. If it is the latter, it is the one, permanent self and it cannot have new revelations. It is always clear, without doubt and without change.

Another inconsistency is with this concept of two selves. Since one of them is illusory, there really is only one self - the one true, single self. As this one unchanging self cannot attain moksha and there is nothing else per Advaita, there is no one else and so, no one attains moksha.

That is the problem with Advaita. The mokhsa/realization/awareness - whatever you wish to call it, is not possible for the false self (for this self cannot exist after moksha) and this moksha is also not possible for Brahman (or the true self) as Brahman cannot attain moksha. In essence, moksha is not possible for either of the two selves.

You are left with two choices here -

1. Keep the individual self/identity permanent per the Shankara quote you posted earlier -



As explained above, for this quote to work, there has to be a knower who has to persist beyond moksha. A knower who was previously ignorant and gained new knowledge/realization. This knower cannot be illusory and therefore, this is no different from bedhabedha as we simultaneously have both a distinct identity of a realized soul and Brahman (which did not gain any new knowledge).

2. Or accept that there can be no one who gains moksha in Advaita. As the false self is illusory it does not persist after Moksha and so, it cannot be it. Brahman obviously cannot gain moksha. So, per Advaita logic, no one gains Vedantic moksha - which leads to Shunyavaada.

Another way to put this. If you agree that the 7th Century Shankara attained moksha, does he still exist now as an individual soul or not? If yes, then we have duality. If not, then we are admitting to Buddhist style nirvana, as there is no one who attained moksha (since Brahman cannot attain moksha).

As Bhaskara (8th Century CE) put it -

vigiitam vicchinna-muulam mahaayaanika-bauddha-gaathitam maayaa-vaadam vyaavarnayanto lokaan vyaamohayanti - Commentary on BSB 1.4.25

do you side more with choice 1 or 2??