Fwd: Vedanta as Purvapaksha in Buddhism

[V Subrahmanian]

The translation may be avoided if one can directly get the purport from the verses. Here is a presentation of the verses, as given in the pdf downloaded from: http://lib1.org/_ads/33B3597A5CF7CEF5EEFE88DE7AFFB04A   I have merely given indicators and not any detailed explanation. The verses are a perfect representation of Vedanta. There is correspondence with Gaudapada karika too, which are traceable to some (minor) upanishads. 

vedantavadinah prahur atmavid durlabho bahih / 

kuta atmadvShaaam mokshah sunyasamskaravadinam / / 1

Vedanta vaadins say: the Jnani is extremely rare. Actually, the Vedantic Jnana is not found in doctrines outside of Vedanta.  The first shloka itself is a criticism of non-Vedantic doctrines:  How indeed will someone who hates the Atman (denies the atman, as in Buddhism) become liberated, corrupted as he is with the shunya, nihilism samskaaras? This is the objection from Vedanta. In the sequel the Buddhist delineates Vedanta doctrine, through key points in Vedanta, and later will give his reply.  Here just the presentation of Vedanta is given, up to verse 17.

tamaHparastat puruSham mahantam suryavarcasam /

mrtyum at yeti matiman matvatmanam mahesvaram / /   2

[Aditya varNam tamasH parastAt, etc. is annotated here. One who realizes the Self as beyond ignorance, Chit, Effulgence, goes beyond death. The term Mahesvara denoting Brahman is used in Shvetashvatara, Bh.Gita, etc.] 

rukmavarNam,am yada pasyan pasyet kartaram lsvaram /

vihaya papam puN,am ca param saamyam tadapnuyat / /  3

[Mundaka dva suparna...   यदा पश्यः पश्यते रुक्मवर्णं कर्तारमीशं पुरुषं ब्रह्मयोनिम् । 

तदा विद्वान्पुण्यपापे विधूय निरञ्जनः परमं साम्यमुपैति ॥ ३ ॥

Bhashya: अन्योऽपि मन्त्र इममेवार्थमाह सविस्तरम् — यदा यस्मिन्काले पश्यः पश्यतीति विद्वान् साधक इत्यर्थः । पश्यते पश्यति पूर्ववत् , रुक्मवर्णं स्वयञ्ज्योतिःस्वभावं रुक्मस्येव वा ज्योतिरस्याविनाशि ; कर्तारं सर्वस्य जगतः ईशं पुरुषं ब्रह्मयोनिं ब्रह्म च तद्योनिश्चासौ ब्रह्मयोनिस्तं ब्रह्मयोनिं ब्रह्मणो वा अपरस्य योनिं स यदा चैवं पश्यति, तदा स विद्वान्पश्यः पुण्यपापे बन्धनभूते कर्मणी समूले विधूय निरस्य दग्ध्वा निरञ्जनः निर्लेपो विगतक्लेशः परमं प्रकृष्टं निरतिशयं साम्यं समतामद्वयलक्षणाम् ; द्वैतविषयाणि साम्यान्यतः अर्वाञ्च्येव, अतोऽद्वयलक्षणमेतत् परमं साम्यमुपैति प्रतिपद्यते ॥

Here the upanishad teaches that Brahman is the JagatkaaraNam, by the word kartA. So, it is not that Brahman is endowed with kartrutva/bhoktrutva. 

bhutam bhavad bhavishyayac ca sarvam purusha ishyate /

so 'ntar bahis ca dure ca so 'nti.ke sa ca karmakrt / /  4

[ All past, present, future is Brahman: yadbhutam, yaccha bhavyam...refer Purusha sukta, mandukya first/second mantra/bhashya, Bh.Gita, Ishvasya: TaddUre tadu antike..]

visve bhavas tato jata UrNanaabhad ivamsavab /

tasmin pranna vidvamso napnuvanti punarbhavam / /  5

[This one is fine: Spider - thread - world creation - Atmavit merges in the source: Brahman - no more samsara] 

amrtatvam na martyasya vahneb sa it yam ive~yate /

tasmad amrtatayuktaprabodhat puru~e 'mrte / /  6

[The above is in essence: Only by Jnana there is Kaivalyam.]

yatab param param nasti yato jyayan na vidyate /

aNIyaan vapi tenedam visvam ekena sarntatam / / 7

[ Taittiriya Aranyaka: aNoraNeeyaan mahato mahiiyaan... यस्मात्पां नापरमस्ति किञ्चिद्यस्मान्नाणीयो न ज्यायोस्ति कश्चित् वृक्ष इव स्तब्धो दिवि तिष्ठत्येकस्तेनेदं पूर्णं पुरुषेण सर्वम् --न कर्मणा न प्रजया....]

8th verse not decipherable as it is in Tibetan (?)  Going by translation: animAdi siddhi for Jnani. Dakshinamurti stotram last shloka.

tasmin sarvaNi bhutani bhavanty atmaiva pasyatab /

bala-paNDita-cala-vipradInAm ca tulyata / /   9

[ Ishvasya 'yasmin sarvANi bhUtAini.....vision of equality. Gita: pandita samadarshinah - vidya vinaya sampanne.  ]

ghatotpattau vinase va nakasasya tadatmata /

tadatmatatmano 'pista na dehadyuda yavyaye / /  10

[When a pot is born and destroyed, the space does not undergo birth and destruction. So too is the Atman not born or destroyed when body is born or destroyed.] See Gaudapada karika. 

ghatakasavad ekasya nanatvam ced abhedatab /

ghatabhedena caikatvam saamyam sarvasya yan matam / / 11

[Quite alright: One is seen as many just as pot-space is many though space is one only. Thus all jivas, Atman, is one only, though in different bodies.]

yatha ghatadibhede 'pi mrdbhedo nasti kas cana I   12

[Even though clay-products are varied, there is no variation in the cause, clay; it is one only. Only manifestations are many.]

ghatakase yathaikasmin rajodhumadibhir vrte I

tadvatta na hi sarvesaam sukhader na tathatmanah I I  13 |

This very closely corresponds with Gaudapadakarika:

यथैकस्मिन्घटाकाशे रजोधूमादिभिर्युते । 
न सर्वे सम्प्रयुज्यन्ते तद्वज्जीवाः सुखादिभिः ॥ ५ ॥   3.5  [It is most probably in a minor Upanishad]

aprabodhaad anatmajnah svapne bhogabhimanavat I

cinoti karma bhurikte ca tatphaIam yacchubhasubham I I

[An ignorant man experiences bhoga, sukha and duhkha, just like a man in dream experiences bhoga. The idea is: in truth no real bhoga for the knower of the self. In other words, in truth the Atman is not a bhokta.] 

dehasamstho 'py asarigatvad bhunjano nopalipyate I

rajavat kamacarl ca papenanaparadhy asau I I   15

This corresponds with the Bh.Gita 

सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्ते सुखं वशी । 
नवद्वारे पुरे देही नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन् ॥ १३ ॥ 

This is perfectly Advaita:

ekam sarvagatam nityam param brahmacyutam padam I

yOgI yunjan yada vetti na tadaiti punarbhavam I I  16

[This is fine: One, all-pervading, eternal, supreme, brahman, achyutam (immutable), state. The aspirant upon realizing this no more comes to samsara.] 

nityarm tad avikalpam ca yatra vacam agocarah /

giras tatra prayujyante bhedapahrtabuddhibhih / / 17

[This is the paramarthika sthiti. It is beyond words. Words operate only in the realm of ignorance.]

Thus, the Buddhist text has correctly represented Advaita as taught by Gaudapada, Shankara sampradaya. The translation given in the pdf is not very clear/reliable. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Kalyan K]

It is not clear to me that the vedAntic position being presented and criticized by bhavya is advaita or bhedAbheda or some other school. On page 81 of the above document, bhavya's uttarapaksha criticism of vedAnta is presented, where he covers both identity and difference between individual Self and supreme Self.



//52. [If it is said that the individual Self and the supreme Self are both diffe-
rent and non-different, this should be examined in the following way:]
If the individual [mortal] Self (antarlitman) is different from the Self
[which rests in the supreme] (parames.thlitman), your assertion: "All
is the 'Person' (purusa)", 63 is rendered invalid, because the indivi-
dual [mortal] Self, is different from the Self [which rests in the
supreme. And:]
53. If the individual- [mortal] Self is non-different from the Self [which
rests in the supreme], [then] your assertation is [once again] rendered
invalid, since the [supreme] Self does not at all experience pleasure and
pain, etc. It (i.e. the mortal individual Self) could [therefore] not be [identical with] the supreme [Self.]//

[Kalyan K]

I also invite your attention to pages 101-104, where it is mentioned that Bhavya thinks vedAntins have stolen from the Buddhists.

[Kalyan K]

(I have intermittent net connectivity. I am trying to post, but not sure if my posts are going through. Posting this again.)


//Here the upanishad teaches that Brahman is the JagatkaaraNam, by the word kartA. So, it is not that Brahman is endowed with kartrutva/bhoktrutva.//


If you look at bhavya's uttarapaksha, he criticizes the positions that the Self is a kartr or bhoktr. If vedAntins at the time of bhavya were not really holding this position, one wonders why bhavya would criticize it.

[Kalyan K]

//Here the upanishad teaches that Brahman is the JagatkaaraNam, by the word kartA. So, it is not that Brahman is endowed with kartrutva/bhoktrutva. //


If you look at the uttarapaksha of Bhavya, he criticizes the position that the Self is a kartr or bhoktr. If vedAntins at the time of bhavya were not really holding this position, then one wonders why bhavya would have criticized it.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:31 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

I also invite your attention to pages 101-104, where it is mentioned that Bhavya thinks vedAntins have stolen from the Buddhists.

I copy here some observations on pages 17 and 18 of the text (not pdf page) , on the above topic:

Going by this, if one says 'Vedanta has borrowed from Buddhism', the term Vedanta has to be clarified: According to the present text it means: Brahma sutras, Vakyapadiya and Gaudapada Karikas.  The above observations propose that the Brahmasutras have been influenced by Buddhistic thought. The core are of difference between the two schools is the 'affirmation of the Self (by Vedanta) and the negation of the Self (by Buddhism). According to this author the common area of these two schools is: the illusory nature of the phenomenal world. From this it follows that the Brahma sutras accept the idea of the mithyAtva of the world. Surely, such a conclusion would not be acceptable to non-Advaitic Vedantic schools. Even for Advaita, the idea of the Brahma sutras being influenced by Buddhism on this idea is unacceptable. And it has to be borne in mind that all schools of Vedanta of the present and the pre-Shankara strands, have not denied the eternality of the Atman (called svabhava' in Buddhist terminology) in this book. 

These two footnotes on p 18 of the text are important, especially the first one which admits that there is no finality on who borrowed/stole from whom. Thus, Bhavya's opinion does not carry much weight in such matters. 

 

On p.104 the observation, a reiteration of the one made at the beginning of the book (cited above):  The Brahmasutras have been influenced by Buddhism:

  

If they have said that Vedanta has stolen from Buddhism, those on the Vedanta side too have not remained silent spectators to the charge:

मत्तविलासप्रहसनम्’ '

वेदान्तेभ्यो गृहीत्वार्थान् यो महाभारतादपि ।
विप्राणां मिषतामेव कृतवान् कोशसञ्चयम् ॥ 

Mahendravarman in his work 'mattavilAsaprahasanam' says this about the coming into being of the Buddhistic system:

//Taking material from the UpaniShads and also from the MahAbhArata (which includes the BhagavadgItA), Buddha, even as the brAhmaNa-s (vaidika-s) were wide awake, accomplished a great fortune - literally filled up his coffers - (of establishing a vibrant system).// 

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

//If they have said that Vedanta has stolen from Buddhism, those on the Vedanta side too have not remained silent spectators to the charge://


I think I have not made myself clear. Sometime back when we were having a similar discussion on this forum, Sri Venkataraghavanji (if I remember correctly) implied that on the issue of similarities between Buddhism and Vedanta, Bhavya took a favorable view of vedAnta. (Sri Venkataraghavanji was only echoing the position of some other scholars.) The present reference that you have given, puts Bhavya's words in context. Bhavya actually meant that vedAntins have stolen from Buddhism. Hope that clarifies things.

[Kalyan K]

Here I am reproducing part of the post of Sri Venkatraghavanji from 29th May -


//In one of the chapters of the Madhyamakahridaya dealing with the hInayAna objections to mahAyAna, the hInayAna-buddhist criticises the mahAyAna buddhist saying;
न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसंग्रहात् |
मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम् ||
The mAhAyAna teaching was not spoken of by the Buddha, either because it is not included in the sUtrAntas, or because like the vedAnta darshana, it teaches heretic paths to salvation.

To this attack, the mahAyAnist replies
वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् |
दृष्टान्तन्यूनता तस्मात् संदिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम् ||
Whatever is well said in the vedAnta (upaniShads) has been taught by the Buddha. The various examples cited by the hInayAna are faulty and what is doubtful must be examined.

Here is an example of pre-Sankaran Buddhist work where the opponent criticises the mahAyAna school as being similar to vedAnta! The reply of the mahAyAna buddhist is even more remarkable - there is a concession that the best elements of the upaniShads have been taught by the Buddha himself.//

My post about Bhavya's actual intentions should be seen in this context.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The self-contradiction in Olle's book HPBP is self-evident in his words:

The indebtedness of BS, VP and GK to Mahayana philosophy was probably not limited only to logic and epistemology. Even in an ontological

sense the MadhyamakaIY ogacara influence may be discemable. Despite the doctrinal differences between BS, VP and GK, all postulate in one way or

another the relative or illusory nature of the phenomenal world. The fundamental reason for such an ontological reflection is, however, completely

different in Mahayana and in Vedanta. Whereas the former postulates the illusory nature of the phenomenal world on the basis of its dependent

origination, the latter tradition takes such a stand on the basis of the assumption that the world is produced by a single, all-pervading and self-

containing reality. (highlighting mine)

While noting such a fundamental difference, how can one talk of "The indebtedness of BS, VP and GK to Mahayana philosophy" ?

He expresses his awareness of this fundamental difference in the immediately following paragraph too : 

The doctrinal assimilation in Vedanta systematic philosophy therefore did not result in the eradication of the fundamental difference between

Buddhism and Brahmanism which had existed from the time of the early scriptures of the respective traditions and of which these traditions had been well aware.  (Highlighting mine) 

Yes, historically interesting aspect of Bhavya's book probably is that it documents a pre-Sankara awareness in Bauddha-Vedanta discussions about the perceived commonalities between the two. 

For example, 

वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् |  

 may provide a clue to the need for the clarification

नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितं 

in GK. 

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

Another methodological flaw in Olle's analysis is that he takes BS as an Advaitic text , disallowing the scope within the text for non-Advaitic interpretations by post-Sankara schools of Vedanta.

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

He looks at BS as being in communication with Buddhism whereas the well known correspondence of BS is with JS (Jaimini Sutras).  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director,  Inter-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Thank you Sri Paturi ji for the post (below), highlighting the various points. Very recently in a Buddhism related seminar in Bengaluru, organized by the KSU at the IIWC, B.P.Wadia Road, Dr.D.Prahladachar (now pontiff of Vyasaraja MaTha), in his address, had made the distinction very clear:

While both Buddhism and Advaita hold the world to be illusory, the latter hold that the world is a superimposition on the substratum Brahman while the former do not accept an eternal substratum. 

This point is very important for in the 'नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम्' statement of Gaudapada, as brought out by Shankara in the Bhashya, the eternal Consciousness of the Upanishad has not been admitted by the Buddha even though he came very close to the Upanishads by accepting the illusoriness of the world. 

Seen in the light of these facts, the charge of 'borrowing' from Buddhism is very flimsy, not at all holding water.

For that mater, there will be many points of agreement across various opposing schools. Late  Polagam Rama Sastry in his thesis has listed some 50 points of agreement across the three schools of Vedanta - Advaita, Vishistadvaita and Dvaita. One can also point out instances of commonality across Sankhya, Vaisheshika, Yoga, etc. on the one side and non-Advaitic schools on the other, on the basis of 1.acceptance of the reality of the world and 2. on the nAnAtva of jivas. Yet the non-advaitic schools have refuted the former set of schools even as Advaita has refuted them.  

warm regards

subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:31 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the purvapaksha shlokas that I have presented with translation, there is no mention of the bheda-abheda strand of Advaita.  Even Shankara, in the BSB 2.1.14, has refuted the bheda-abheda doctrine as not supported by the Upanishads and logic. 

In the Purvapaksha the pot-space analogy has been stated clearly and I have also shown the Gaudapada verse that is on the topic. The bheda-abheda doctrine cannot use this analogy to their advantage for in their system bheda is absolutely real in samsara and abheda is also absolutely real in moksha, as delineated by Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14. The pot-space analogy is advanced to show that even in vyavahara the difference between one jiva and another is not real as, in the analogy, it is just one space that appears limited and many by the pot-upadhi.    

regards

subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 9:02 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Here the upanishad teaches that Brahman is the JagatkaaraNam, by the word kartA. So, it is not that Brahman is endowed with kartrutva/bhoktrutva. //


If you look at the uttarapaksha of Bhavya, he criticizes the position that the Self is a kartr or bhoktr. If vedAntins at the time of bhavya were not really holding this position, then one wonders why bhavya would have criticized it.

If Bhavya has said this in the context of bheda-abheda, then that is right in the sense that the Self is karta bhokta. But this position is also not available in the purvapaksha delineation by Bhavya. He might be saying that in relation to the Dva suparna mantra of the Mundaka that I have cited. But then, the bhokta-bird later identifies itself as non-different from the witnessing bird and hence the bhoktrutva is wrongly assumed by it in the state of ignorance. Thus Advaitins have not held the position that Bhavya appears to be criticizing. 

[Kalyan K]

//In the purvapaksha shlokas that I have presented with translation, there is no mention of the bheda-abheda strand of Advaita.//

As far as I understand, bhedAbheda is not a strand of advaita.


//Even Shankara, in the BSB 2.1.14, has refuted the bheda-abheda doctrine as not supported by the Upanishads and logic.//


If Shankara talked ("refuted" is probably condescending, but I am not surprised by the usage) of bhedAbheda, then bhedAbheda must have already existed by Shankara's time.


//In the Purvapaksha the pot-space analogy has been stated clearly and I have also shown the Gaudapada verse that is on the topic.//


I am aware of this. But are we sure that Gaudapada preceded Bhavya? Or that the pot-space analogy is Gaudapada's invention?


//The bheda-abheda doctrine cannot use this analogy to their advantage for in their system bheda is absolutely real in samsara and abheda is also absolutely real in moksha, as delineated by Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14.//


If you ask me, I dont think even an advaitin can use the pot-space analogy to his or her advantage. I would never say that pot space = overall space or that pots are unreal. And I would actually try to investigate bhedAbheda by digging into its original sources, rather than purely relying on Shankara.


//The pot-space analogy is advanced to show that even in vyavahara the difference between one jiva and another is not real as, in the analogy, it is just one space that appears limited and many by the pot-upadhi.//


I would never say pot1 space = pot2 space, so I would doubt the usefulness of the analogy to the advaitin.

All this is digressing from the main point. Bhavya himself treats the cases of difference and identity of individual and supreme selves. So I doubt if vedAntins of his time were unanimous on this issue.

[Kalyan K]

//While noting such a fundamental difference, how can one talk of "The indebtedness of BS, VP and GK to Mahayana philosophy" ?

He expresses his awareness of this fundamental difference in the immediately following paragraph too :

The doctrinal assimilation in Vedanta systematic philosophy therefore did not result in the eradication of the fundamental difference between

Buddhism and Brahmanism which had existed from the time of the early scriptures of the respective traditions and of which these traditions had been well aware. (Highlighting mine) //


Sri Paturiji, if we read slightly further, after your quotation, this "fundamental" difference is stated as the assertion and negation of Self/intrinsic nature. I wouldn't think this difference is so fundamental as to prevent one school from being influenced by the other.


Having said that, it is news to me that there are some scholars who consider the BS to be influenced by Buddhism. I need to investigate this aspect.

[Kalyan K]

//Thus Advaitins have not held the position that Bhavya appears to be criticizing.//


That means you are acknowledging that the pUrvapaksha of Bhavya is not advaita. At best, it may have some common points with advaita (and other schools too).

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The word 'fundamental' is by the author who is being discussed here. That is why I said self-contradiction is self-evident .

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 9:39 AM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

All this is digressing from the main point. Bhavya himself treats the cases of difference and identity of individual and supreme selves. So I doubt if vedAntins of his time were unanimous on this issue.

In the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya 2.1.20 Shankara says   सर्वोपनिषत्सु हि विज्ञानात्मनः परमात्मना एकत्वप्रत्ययो विधीयत इत्यविप्रतिपत्तिः सर्वेषामुपनिषद्वादिनाम्  [In all the Upanishads the teaching that comes out is the identity of the jivatma with the paramatma. There is no disagreement on this among 'all' adherents to Upanishads.]

For Shankara the Brahmasutra-based purvapakshins are all bheda vadins such as Sankhya, Vaisheshika, Yoga, even Bauddha and Jaina, Pancharatra, etc. The aspect common in these schools is the bheda. According to Shankara the Vedanta is the only school that accepts abheda and all others are thereby opponents to Vedanta. He has given expression to this in the Taittiriya bhashya too. 

You may have your own views but Shankara's statement in the above bhashya is the guiding factor for those who want to know the position that prevailed in those days. 

[Kalyan K]

//You may have your own views but Shankara's statement in the above bhashya is the guiding factor for those who want to know the position that prevailed in those days.//


I am not giving my own views, but merely quoting Bhavya, that too from a reference that you yourself have given. Bhavya preceded Shankara by about 200 years, so Shankara is irrelevant for this discussion.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:24 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//You may have your own views but Shankara's statement in the above bhashya is the guiding factor for those who want to know the position that prevailed in those days.//


I am not giving my own views, but merely quoting Bhavya, that too from a reference that you yourself have given. Bhavya preceded Shankara by about 200 years, so Shankara is irrelevant for this discussion.

But there is nothing that we have in those 200 years to rely upon. So, Shankara is the closest to Bhavya. Gaudapada could be a closer contemporary of Bhavya. So the view of the Vakyapadiya and Gaudapada apart from Brahmasutra are called into the discussion by the author of this pdf. The pdf itself mentions Gaudapada and a verse of Bhavya is present in the GK with very minor variation.   You have quoted Bhavya's supposed bhedAbheda criticism. This school is criticized in BSB 2.1.4.   Bhavya devotes several verses in the purvapaksha for the pot-space analogy and states the position of the analogy there as ekataa, samataa. He paraphrases the Mundakopanishad mantra first and uses the mantra-word saamyam later in the pot-space context. He also gives the analogy of the clay unity in the face of the clay-product diversity. All this in the purvapaksha is applicable for Advaita. Thus, whether one likes or not, without resorting to Shankara it would be impossible for anyone to connect with Bhavya.   

[Kalyan K]

//Bhavya devotes several verses in the purvapaksha for the pot-space analogy and states the position of the analogy there as ekataa, samataa. He paraphrases the Mundakopanishad mantra first and uses the mantra-word saamyam later in the pot-space context. He also gives the analogy of the clay unity in the face of the clay-product diversity. All this in the purvapaksha is applicable for Advaita.//


"All this is applicable to advaita" is different from "All this can only be applied to advaita". If your position is former, then no disagreement. But then, most of this is applicable to bhedAbheda too. In any case, based on Bhavya's uttarapaksha, it can be said for sure that vedAntins of that time had different opinions on the relation between individual and supreme self.


//Thus, whether one likes or not, without resorting to Shankara it would be impossible for anyone to connect with Bhavya.//


Gaudapada yes, but Shankara, I dont see much connection, except the absence of his trademarks like adhyAsa, avidya, mAyA in Bhavya's pUrvapaksha.