365betÓéÀÖ

68
system. We can not yet conclude, however, that the critique
of non-dualism by the theistic Vedantins is entirely without
basis. To be sure, some of their polemics miss the point.
Åšamkara's position may well be a subtle one requiring much
sympathy to penetrate, but he was neither a Buddhist nor a
devil, nor even as anti-religious as some have made out.
This, I think, has been sufficiently established.
Nevertheless it does remain that, while the structures
necessary for bhakti are present in Advaita and devotion is
therefore possible, the element of ultimacy has been removed
from both the devotional experience and its object. This
leaves bhakti in a precarious position, in danger of losing
much of its compellingness.
Consider, for example, the following passage:
The Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his
omnipotence, and etc. all depend on the limitation due
to the adjuncts whose Self is Nescience; while in
reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose
true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all
adjuncts whatever.
The Vedanta texts declare that
for him who has reached the state of truth and reality
the whole apparent world does not exist. 39
The Advaitins' tendency to keep the distinction between the
higher and lower Brahman in abeyance while they are speaking
of conventional religious notions does not mean that they
have forgotten it. On the contrary, they reassert it
dramatically, as Åšamkara does here, as soon as they begin
thinking in terms of moká¹£a, their final goal. When this
happens, ordinary piety is forgotten in the quest for what