All the orthodox views have to be bifurcated to get the pure essence of Sage Sankara’s Advaitic wisdom.+

All the orthodox views have to be bifurcated to get the pure essence of Sage Sankara’s Advaitic wisdom.

The interpretation of Sage Sankara's writings by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus, they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.

Sage Sankara wrote his commentaries on Manduka Upanishad's commentary first, and then, as this revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his Gurus requested him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work universally studied by Advaitins. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there, Sage Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.

Sage Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras is not on a philosophical basis, but on an orthodox and mystic basis, with an appeal to the Vedas as the final authority.

In the Brahma Sutra, Sage Sankara takes the position that there is another entity outside us, i.e., the wall really exists separately from the mind. This was because Sage Sankara explains in Manduka Upanishad that those who study the Sutras are orthodox minds, and intellectual children, hence his popular viewpoint to assist them. These people are afraid to go deeper because it means being heroic enough to refuse to accept Sruti and God's authority, in case they mean punishment by God. A Gnani says the scriptures are for children, but wise seekers will think rationally.

In Brahma Sutras, Sage Sankara takes for granted and assumes that a world was created: He there mixes dogmatic theology with philosophy.

That God created the world is an absolute lie; nevertheless, one will find Sage Sankara (in his commentary on Vedanta Sutras) clearly says this! He has to adapt his teachings to his audience, reserving the highest for philosophical minds.

The text of the Brahma Sutras is based on religion and dogmatism, but in the commentary, Sage Sankara cleverly introduced some philosophy. If it is objected that many Upanishads are equally dogmatic because they also begin by assuming Brahman, only a few Upanishads do not, but prove Brahman at the end of a train of proof.

Scholars' translation of the Brahma Sutras in the Sacred Books of the East must be read cautiously, as he has not understood its highest sense, e.g., for Advaita, they wrongly put "Unity" instead of “Non-duality."

Sage Sankara gave religion and scholasticism, and yoga, no less than philosophy, to the seeking world. He was great enough to be able to do so. His commentary on Mandukya is pure philosophy, but many of his other books are presented from a religious standpoint to help those who cannot rise up to philosophy.

Sage Sankara's commentary on Manduka Upanishad is pure philosophy, but many of his other books are presented from a religious standpoint to help those who cannot rise up to philosophy. North India is the home of mysticism and deification, and South India is keen on rational truth.

Sage Sankara says in Brahma Sutras: “Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Manduka he denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth of non-causality can be revealed. :~Santthosh Kumaar