Sri Bhagavatpaada (Br.Sutra.Bhasyam - 2.1.4) - Excerpts (Few imp topics including "Ishwara in Advaita Siddhanta")

Why this sutra ? 

In this sutra we see Advaita fundamentals explained in the direct possible terms by Sri Bhagavatpaada. Especially the Advaita position on Ishwara - remarkable clarity. 

First read the sutra (but it may not make sense, since you may not have the context, which is fine dont worry about it) 

and 

then dive into the passages that follow... to see Sri Bhagavatpaada's comments. 

SOURCE material used for excerpts : Sri Swami Gambhiranandaji's translation of Sri Sankara Bhasyam - Ramakrishna Mutt. 

-------------

Sutra 2.1.14

Tadananyatvamarambhanasabdadibhyah II.1.14 (148)

The non-difference of them (i.e. of cause and effect) results from such terms as ‘origin’ and the like.

------------

(Why we can think of Upanisads as Vedanta.... as it concludes the purpose of Vedas)

Bhasyam: Furthermore, the Upanisads are the ultimate (conclusive) means of valid knowledge, establishing the truth of the oneness of the Self, after which nothing else remains to be sought after for knowledge. Unlike the curiosity arising in common life to know "what, with what, and how" on hearing the injunction "one should sacrifice", there remains nothing more to be sought for after one is taught, "That thou art" (Ch. VI. viii. 7). or "I am Brahman" (Br. IV. iv. 5), for that knowledge has for its content the Self which is all.

EXT: This is another classic way of saying that Brahmavidya grants us knowledge of our infinite nature, after recieving which there remains nothing else to be done! This is unlike karmakanda, where the knowledge Rx prompts us to action. Also Knowledge from Veda ~ i.e. Brahma Vidya removes ignorance of our infinite self. There is no other Pramana, which can override this Brahmavidya - since it has destroyed all belief in duality as being real. So any other Pramana, only sits in duality - so it cannot overcome Brahmavidya. 

Bhasyam: Explanation of duality with Ocean analogy

As to this, the reply is: That is no defect; for earlier than the realization of the identity of the Self with Brahman, all activities can justly be true like the activities in dream before waking up. So long as the oneness of the true Self is not realized, nobody entertains the idea of unreality when

dealing with the means of knowledge, objects of knowledge, and the results; rather, as a matter of fact, all creatures discard their natural oneness with Brahman to accept through ignorance the modifications themselves as "I and mine"-that is to say, as one's Self or as belonging to oneself. Hence all common human dealings or Vedic observances are logical (and valid) prior to the realization of the identity of the Self and Brahman, just as much as knowledge with the stamp of conviction, 'supposed to be attained through direct perception, does occur, before waking up, to an ordinary man when he is asleep and dreams of things high and low. The idea that these are semblances of perceived things does not occur to him during that dream. 

Skeptical question regarding how the text (Upanisad) in the dream like world (waking state) can cause the release ? 

Opponent: But how can the true knowledge of the identity of the Self with Brahman arise from the unreal Upanishads texts? For a man does not die when bitten by a snake superimposed (by him) on a rope, nor as such needs as drinking and bathing fulfilled by the water in a mirage. 

Reply: ...that knowledge is not sublated even when he wakes up. For even when a man knows after waking that the acts of snake-bite and bathing in water etc., experienced by him in dream, were false,

he does not surely consider the knowledge of those acts to be false as well. By this--this nonsublation of the knowledge acquired by a dreamer-it is to be understood that the doctrine of the identity of the Self with the mere body is also discarded.

EXT: Just because we Rx knowledge in this unreal world, it does not make the knowledge useless. It serves its purpose of sublating the unreal world appearance and recognizing the non duality of Self. 

(Like dream experience was unreal, but the knowledge persists even upon waking. Similarly Brahmavidya is an important knowledge which is retained for others benefit, even after waking up to Turiyam)

Fruit of Non duality, is the real fruit of the Vedas, as it does not prompt you to action (which perpetuates this creation, Avidya further)

Bhasyam: Since in a context speaking of Brahman, it stands proved that the result (i.e. liberation) accrues only from the realization of Brahman, devoid of all distinctions created by attributes, therefore when in that context some other fact is heard of that has no result, as for instance, the modification

of Brahman into the world, that fact has to be interpreted as a means leading to that realization. And this has to be done on the strength of the adage, "Any act enjoined without mentioning a result, closely on the heels of some other act having a result, has to be accepted as forming a part of the latter"

EXT: This passage is very beautiful. 

Here Swami clearly says that the fruit of knowing the non-duality and attribulessness of Brahman, is the Naishkarmya Siddhi - state of actionless perfection.  Whereas hearing about the Brahman as appearing as this world of names, forms etc.... can only imply that such knowledge (duality supporting), only impels person to action, cause-effect chain etc. But since Vedas have only the good of humanity at heart, such duality passages are to be interpreted as means to arrive, eventually at non-duality. 

Ishwara in Sri Sankara Siddhanta

Bhasyam: Omniscience (of God) is contingent on the manifestation of name and form which are creations of ignorance and which constitute the seeds of the world. In accordance with the texts like, "From that Self which is such, originated space" (Tai. II. i. 2), it was asserted under the aphorism,

"That from which this world has its birth etc." (B. S. I. i. 2), that the origin, continuance, and dissolution of the world result not from the insentient PradhAna or anything else, but from God who is by nature eternal, pure, intelligent, and free, as also omniscient and omnipotent.

Name and form which constitute the seeds of the entire expanse of phenomenal existence, and which are conjured up by nescience, are, as it were, non-different from the omniscient God, and they are non-determinable either as real or unreal, and are mentioned in the Vedas and the Smrtis as the power, called Maya, of omniscient God, or as prakrti (primordial Nature). But omniscient God is different from them, as is known from the Upani~adic text, 

"That which is Space (Brahman) is the accomplisher of name and form. That in which they subsist is Brahman" (Ch. VIII.xiv. 1). 

And there are also in evidence texts like, "Let me manifest name and form" (Ch. VI. iii. 2), "The omniscient Being who creates all forms, gives them names, (and entering into them) goes on uttering these" etc. (TaL A. III. xii. 7), "He who diversifies the single seed" (Sv. VI. 12). 

Thus like space conforming to the conditioning factors like pot, jar, etc., God conforms to the limiting adjuncts-name and form--created by nescience. And within the domain of empirical existence, He rules it over the selves which identify themselves with the (individual) intellects and are called creatures, and which though identical with Himself, conform, like the spaces in pots etc., to the assemblages of bodies and senses created by name and form that are called up by nescience. Thus God's rulership, omniscience, and omnipotence are contingent on the limiting adjuncts conjured up by nescience; but not so in reality can such terms as "the ruler", "the ruled", "omniscience", etc., be used with regard to the Self shining in Its own nature after the removal of all limiting adjuncts through illumination. 

Hence it has been said, "That is infinity where one does not see anything else, does not hear anything else, does not know anything else" (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1), as also, "But when to the knower of Brahman

everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (Br. II. iv. 14, IV. v. 15), and so on. Thus all the Upanisads speak of the cessation of all empirical dealings in the state of the Highest Reality.

So also in the Song Divine: "Neither agency, nor actions does the Lord create for the world, nor (does He bring about the union with the fruit of action. It is universal ignorance that does it all). The Omnipresent takes note of the merit and demerit of none. Knowledge is enveloped in ignorance, hence do beings get deluded" (Gita, V. 14-15). In this text it is shown that in the state of the highest Reality, all

transactions as between an ordainer and things ordained cease to exist. But within the state of phenomenal existence, even the Upanisads mention such behaviour as divine rulership, as in the text, "He is the Lord of all. He is the ruler of all beings, He is the protector of all beings. He is the embankment serving as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart" (Br. IV. iv. 22). 

So also in the Song Divine: "The Lord, 0 Arjuna, dwells in the hearts of all beings, causing all beings by His Maya, to revolve (as if) mounted on a machine" (Gita, XVIII. 61). The aphorist (Vyasa) also has the supreme Reality in mind when he writes the aphorism, "It has non-difference from That (Brahman)" etc. (II. i. 14); but when he has the empirical standpoint in view, he says, "Such distinction can exist as

observed in common experience" (II. i. 13), where he speaks of Brahman as comparable to a vast ocean. 

Again, without denying the vast phenomenal creation, he resorts to the process of transformation,

in so far as this can be made use of in the worship of the qualified Brahman.