This is according to Padma Purana 6.236.7 which reads:
Mayavada or Advaita philosophy is an impious, wicked belief and against all the conclusions of the Vedas. It is only covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in Kali-Yoga I assume the form of a brahmana (Adi Shankara) and teach this imagined philosophy.
So according to Padma Purana Advaita philosophy is wrong, so how do Advaitans refute this claim along with the stance of Adi Shankaracharya?
The Purported verses Go as follows-
Padma Purana, Uttara, 236 (Lord Shiva Speaks to Mata Paravati)
māyāvādamasacchāstraṁ pracchannaṁ baddha ucyate mayaiva kathitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇarūpiṇā 7
apārthaṁ śrutivākyānāṁ darśayanlokagarhitam svakarmmarūpaṁ tyājyatvamatraiva pratipādyate 8
sarvakarmmaparibhraṣṭairvaidharmmatvaṁ taducyate pareśajīvapāraikyaṁ mayā tu pratipādyate 9
brahmaṇosya svayaṁ rūpaṁ nirguṇaṁ vakṣyate mayā sarvasya jagato ‘pyatra mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge 10
vedārthavanmahāśāstraṁ māyayā yadavaidikam mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi jagatāṁ nāśakāraṇāt 11
The doctrine of Māya (illusion) is a wicked doctrine and said to be pseudo-Buddhist. I myself, of the form of a brāhmaṇa, proclaimed it in Kali (age). It shows the meaninglessness of the words of the holy texts and is condemned in the world. In this (doctrine) only the giving up of one’s own duties is expounded. And that is said to be religiousness by those who have fallen from all duties. I have propounded the identity of the Highest Lord and the (individual) soul. I stated this Brahman’s nature to be qualityless. O goddess, I myself have conceived, for the destruction of the worlds, and for deluding the world in this Kali age, the great doctrine resembling the purport of the Vedas, (but) non-Vedic due to the principle of Māya (illusion) (present in it).
Actually, The Above verses, if held as true would be A denigration of Veda Vyasa's own teachings in the puranic corpus.
To begin with, the above is contradicted by these statements from the other puranas-
श्रौतस्मार्त्तप्रतिष्ठार्थं भक्तानां हितकाम्यया । उपदेक्ष्यति तज्ज्ञानं शिष्याणां ब्रह्मसंज्ञितम् । सर्ववेदान्तसारं हि धर्मान् वेदनिदर्शितान् ।। सर्ववर्णान् समुद्धिश्य स्वधर्मा ये निदर्शिताः।
Nilalohita Siva , For the establishment of Srauta(Vedic) and Smarta dharmas and for the welfare of devotees shall incarnate on earth.He will enlighten his his devotees on the gist of Vedanta,and the dharma related in vedas.
(कूर्म पुराण 30/34-35)
Which says the purported incarnation of Shiva would incarnate to elighten people on vaidika dharma and not delude them.
At the same time, There are several verses across the puranas which declare the world to be mAyA, and endorse Brama - atama -aikyam. Of course, One might have one's own interpretation of these concepts and that is how we have so many schools of thought, each vehemently condemning the other and holding one's own as the çorrect . Here is one such, from the srImadbhAgavatapurANam:-
यदिदं मनसा वाचा चक्षुर्भ्यां श्रवणादिभिः । नश्वरं गृह्यमाणं च विद्धि मायामनोमयम् ।। ११-७-७ ।।
Whatever is perceived by mind, speech, eyes, ears (and other cognitive and congitive senses), know that it is a product of Māyā and manomaya (product of the mind).
~ Bhagavatam 11.7.7
श्रीधर-स्वामि-टीका -
ननु गुणदोषाभ्यां विषमे लोके कुतः समदृष्टिः स्यामत आह – यदिदमिति । मन आदिभिर्गृह्यमाणं मनोमयत्वान्मायेति विद्धि । तदपि न स्थिरं, किंतु नश्वरं विद्धि ।। ७ ।।
Here is the declaration of Brahmatmaikyam in the same puranam.
सर्ववेदान्तसारं यद् ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वलक्षणम् । वस्तु अद्वितीयं तन्निष्ठं कैवल्यैकप्रयोजनम् ॥ १२ ॥
The Bhagavata's main theme is the quintessence of all the Upaniṣads (which form the last division of the Vedic texts) which is characterised by (the declaration of) complete one-ness, identity between the absolute Brahman and the ātman. It is one without a second. And its only object is to secure Mokṣa.
~ Bhagavatam 12.13.12
आत्मनश्च परस्यापि यः करोत्यन्तरोदरम् । तस्य भिन्नदृशो मृत्युः विदधे भयमुल्बणम् ॥ २६ ॥
If a person makes even a slight difference between himself and the Supreme Self (Paramātman), I, who am Death, create a big fear for him who entertains the idea of difference.
~ Bhagavatam 3.29.26
Repeated From the very padmapurana itself.
मन्यंते ये स्वमात्मानं विभिन्नं परमेश्वरात् । न ते पश्यंति तं देवं वृथा तेषां परिश्रमः ३८।
Those who consider themselves as different from Parameshwara do not realize the Truth; their effort is a waste.
~ Padmapurana , Svargakhanda, Ch 60
So, here is another 'self-contradiction' across VyAsa's own works, vyAsa declaring his own work as mAyAvadam and that it is ásacchAstram'' And one can point out verses from puranas of vyAsa himself which teach 'jivaparyoraikyam', etc. stated above. And one can argue that such verses are not of that meaning etc. And eternally go on such debates..
Here is a sample of citations of Puranas themselves Giving out the unambiguous teaching of Advaita at several places where it is taught as a valid path to liberation.
आत्मज्ञानं प्रवक्ष्यामि शृणु नारद तत्त्वतः । अद्वैतं साङ्ख्यमित्याहुर्योगस्तत्रैकचित्तता ॥ १,२३६.१ ॥ अद्वैतयोगसम्पन्नास्ते मुच्यन्तेऽतिबन्धनात् । अतीतारब्धमागामि कर्म नश्यति बोधतः ॥ १,२३६.२ ॥
Hear from me the discourse on Atma Gyana. There are two kinds of yogas i.e. Advaita Yoga and the Samkhya Yoga.Practisers of Advaita-Yoga become free from the Shackles of existence. Past, present and future karma is destroyed through knowledge
~ Garuda Purana I.236.1-2
अद्वैतं परमार्थो हि (०९६-०१९)
द्वैतं तद्भेद उच्यते (०९६-०१९)
Advaita is Paramartha Tattva (Absolute Reality), Dvaita (Duality) is not Paramartha.
यश्च द्वैते प्रपञ्चः स्यान् (०९६-०२४)
निवर्त्योभयचेतसः (०९६-०२४)
The cognition of the dualistic world ends with the Abhaya Buddhi, realization of the Fearless Brahman. (In this is hidden the Upanishadic saying ‘Dvitiiyaad vai Bhayam Bhavati’)
मनोवृत्तिमयं द्वैतम् (०९६-०२४)
अद्वैतं परमार्थतः (०९६-०२४)
Dvaita, difference, is a mental construct. Advaita is the transcendental truth.
यावत्स्याद्गुणवैषम्यं तावन्नानात्वमात्मनः नानात्वमात्मनो यावत्पारतन्त्र्यं तदैव हि ३२
So long as the unbalanced condition of guṇas prevails, manifoldness (and difference) will be projected on Ātman (which, as a matter of fact, is one). As long as the (apparent) multiplicity in the Soul remains, the state of dependence (of the Jīva) shall persist.
~ Bhagavatam 11.10.32
Garudapurana-
ब्रह्मात्मनोर्यदैकत्वं स योगश्चोत्तमोत्तमः । बाह्यरूपैर्न मुक्तिस्तु चान्तस्थैः स्याद्यमादिभिः ॥ १,२३५.५३ ॥
ब्रह्मात्मनोर्यदैकत्वं स योगश्चोत्तमोत्तमः । बाह्यरूपैर्न मुक्तिस्तु चान्तस्थैः स्याद्यमादिभिः ॥ १,२३५.५३ ॥
The Yoga that establishes non-difference of Brahman and Atman is the greatest yoga.
~ Garudapurana I.235.53
The non-difference of Brahman and Atman is the greatest yoga.
Furthermore, the purprted padmapura verses allege-
कर्मस्वरूपत्याज्यत्वमत्रैव प्रतिपाद्यते॥ ६-२३६-८ ॥
सर्वकर्मपरिभ्रष्टैर्वैधर्मत्वं तदुच्यते।
In Mayavada (Advaita) alone the giving up of karma by their very nature is taught.
One can easily see how this is a denigration of what Krishna has said in the Bhagavatam.
तस्मात्त्वमुद्धवोत्सृज्य चोदनां प्रतिचोदनाम्। प्रवृत्तिं च निवृत्तिं च श्रोतव्यं श्रुतमेव च १४। मामेकमेव शरणमात्मानं सर्वदेहिनाम्। याहि सर्वात्मभावेन मया स्या ह्यकुतोभयः १५।
14-15. Hence, O Uddhava, (transcending everything) ignore Vedic injunctions and prohibitions, renounce both Pravṛtti and Nivṛtti types of karmas, and give up what is learnt and what is to be learnt. With exclusive devotion to me seek shelter in me only who am the Soul of all embodied beings. Protected by me, you will have no fear from any quarter i.e.. you will attain Mokṣa)
~ Bhagavatam 11.12.14-15
So, the Lord himself is asking Uddhava to give up enjoined work. This is nothing short of Sarva karma sannyasa. The purport of the Bh.Gita famous verse: sarva dharmaan parityajya.. is echoed here. The commentary of Sridhara Swamin is below:
यस्मादेवंभूतो मद्भजनप्रभावः तस्मात् त्वं चोदनाम् = श्रुतिं, प्रतिचोदनाम् = स्मृतिं च | यद्वा विधिं च निषेधं च उत्सृज्य मां शरणं याहि |
[Since such is the power of being devoted to Me, Uddhava, give up the veda and smriti. Or, having given up the injunctions and prohibitions take total refuge in Me.]
Thus while Veda Vyasa himself has taught the giving up of karma the Padmapurana allegation on Advaita is quite preposterous.
As far as Advaita being pseudo buddhism is concerned, An interesting counterpoint can be found in the work मध्यमकहृदयम् by भव्यः, a माध्यमक-बौद्धः (a pre शङ्करः), Prof V.V. Gokhale in a paper titled "The Vedanta Philosophy described by bhavyaḥ in his मध्यमकहृदयम्" (Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1958) presents a description of vedānta (pre-Śaṅkaraḥ) that was available during bhavya's time. He also refers to a situation where the mahāyānam school is criticised as being similar to vēdāntaḥ. In reply, bhavyaḥ generously says that whatever is good in the vedanta has also been taught by the buddha.
In one of the chapters of the मध्यमकहृदयम् dealing with the hīnayāna’s objections to mahāyānam, the hīnayāna-buddhist criticises the mahāyāna Buddhist saying:
न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसङ्ग्रहात्। मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम्॥
The māhāyāna teaching was not spoken of by the buddha, either because it is not included in the sūtrāntas, or because like the vedānta-darshanam, it teaches heretic paths to salvation.
To this attack, the mahāyānist replies:
वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तं तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम्। दृष्टान्तन्यूनता तस्मात् सन्दिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम्॥
Whatever is well said in the vedānta has been taught by the buddha. The various examples cited by the hīnayānam are faulty and what is doubtful must be examined.
Here is an example of pre-Śaṅkaran Buddhist work where the opponent criticises the mahāyāna buddhist school itself as being similar to vedānta! The reply of the mahāyāna buddhist is even more remarkable - there is a concession that the best elements of the upaniṣads have been taught by the Buddha himself.
In the Following work, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, A renowned purvacharya of the Chaitanya vaishnavite school, despite being an Avid critic of the Advaita philosophy states - Adi Shankara followed the siddhanta of the likes of Dattatreya, Ashtavakra, Durvasas and other maharsis.
Source :- Sriman Mahaprabhura Siksa, By Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Chapter 9
Here, We have someone even from one of the Rival schools of Advaita who accepts that Shankara did not 'concoct' a new system of philosophy like what is being alleged in the above verses.
Based on the above two conclusions can easily be drawn.
Advaita as a philosophy far pre-exists Shankaracharya, so the claim of it being created solely for deluding the people of kaliyuga becomes invalid.
If Advaita is held as wrong and pseudo buddhist, one would have to hold the gyana-margi maharsis such as dattatreya,durvasa etc. were pseudo-buddhist as well
From a historical POV. Puranas are smriti-based texts that were composed mostly from 350 C.E. to 750 C.E. They weren't carried through words to words like Vedanta (or Shrutis or Upanishads), but rather from whatever the scholars had remembered through memory. Therefore they contain a huge number of interpolations, glorification of sectarian deities, and contradictions within themselves to other Puranas.
The verse cited by the OP above is believed to be a later addition by scholars such as Dr. Rajendra Chandra Hazara who is a very renowned Puranas scholar.
Renowned Puranas researcher Dr. Rajendra Chandra Hazara states about this chapter, "Though the absence of such verses subjects the above information to doubts, there is a chapter (263) which seems to have been interpolated by someone belonging to the Śrī or Madhva sect."
Source: StackExchange
Traditional scholars too like Pandit Jwala Prasad Mishra too have discussed the historical details of later revisions of Padma Purana.
It should not be very surprising for the corruption of smriti-like texts like Puranas to undergo many other sectarian-based opinions. Other philosophers like - Madhvachara too have been described in other puranas in great detail.
In a manner similar to the above verses, in the Saura Purana, A Shaivite text, some chapters, most probably inserted by Shaivas, assert that,
प्रच्छन्नोऽसौ महादुष्टश्चार्वाको मधुसंज्ञकः भविष्यति कलौ विप्राः शिवनिन्दाप्रवर्तकः (४१.६१) मधुदर्शितमार्गेण पापिष्ठा वैष्णवाः कलौ भविष्यन्ति ततो म्लेच्छाः शूद्रा यूथबहिष्कृताः (३९.७७)
Madhva, known as Madhu in the text, is depicted as a Carvaka, an extremely malevolent, covert disseminator of the slander of Siva. His Vaisnava adherents are malevolent beings; they are mlecchas, sudras, and should be ostracized from the community.
A lot of scholars, including Madhva scholars have accepted numerous later interpolations in Puranas such as Bhavisya Purana. Christian missionaries have their own interpolations in the same too.
Thus the authority of Upanishads (as shrutis) remains unchallenged over smirits.
Original Question: Influence of Abrahamism in hinduism through Puranas
Let us first See the Words of The Dharma Shastra Which Holds a much higher authority than any purana.
Amongst Dvaita, Advaita and Dvaitadvaita, there is no duality and this is the ultimate knowledge. I am not, and neither am I, nor do I have any relation with anyone, but I am situated in the form of the immutable Brahman; The Brahmapada is attained in this state. Those who are in duality have been called Dvaita Paksha and the Stance Advaita Paksha is well-determined, I say that. The one who sees nothing other than the Aatma itself, is the one who has read the scriptures and Understood the Essence of The scriptures.
~ Daksha smriti 7.49-52 (quoted by Adi shankracharya in vishnu sahasranama bhasya)
The smriti shastra mentions the fact that the ultimate truth is that no duality exists at the ultimate level and this is what the essence of all scriptures is and so, advaita vedanta is the Sat (truth) that is the base reality of the entire creation and the Message of all scriptures. Moreover, it very much proves that Both Dvaita and Advaita paths have always existed since times immemorial.
A few things are worth analysing about the two purported chapters (235 and 236) of the uttarakhanda of the padmapurana which contain verses derogatory to Advaita so as to point out why they are worth being rejected.
According to the purported verses not just Advaita, But Nyaya,Vaishisheka, Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa,Shaiva-Pasupata paths are all heretic.
शृणु देवि प्रवक्ष्यामि तामसानि यथाक्रमम् २। तेषां स्मरणमात्रेण मोहः स्याज्ज्ञानिनामपि । प्रथमं हि मयैवोक्तं शैवं पाशुपतादिकम् ३। मच्छक्त्यावेशितैर्व्विप्रैः प्रोक्तानि च ततः शृणु । कणादेन तु संप्रोक्तं शास्त्रं वैशेषिकं महत् ४। गौतमेन तथा न्यायं सांख्यं तु कपिलेन वै । धिषणेन तथा प्रोक्तं चार्व्वाकमतिगर्हितम् ५। दैत्यानां नाशनार्थाय विष्णुना बुद्धरूपिणा । बौद्धशास्त्रमसत्प्रोक्तं नग्ननीलपटादिकम् ६। मायावादमसच्छास्त्रं प्रच्छन्नं बौद्ध उच्यते । मयैव कथितं देवि कलौ ब्राह्मणरूपिणा ७। अपार्थं श्रुतिवाक्यानां दर्शयन्लोकगर्हितम् । स्वकर्म्मरूपं त्याज्यत्वमत्रैव प्रतिपाद्यते ८। सर्वकर्म्मपरिभ्रष्टैर्वैधर्म्मत्वं तदुच्यते । परेशजीवपारैक्यं मया तु प्रतिपाद्यते ९। ब्रह्मणोस्य स्वयं रूपं निर्गुणं वक्ष्यते मया । सर्वस्य जगतोऽप्यत्र मोहनार्थं कलौ युगे १०। वेदार्थवन्महाशास्त्रं मायया यदवैदिकम् । मयैव कल्पितं देवि जगतां नाशकारणात् ११। मदाज्ञया जैमिनिना पूर्वं वेदमपार्थकम् । निरीश्वरेण वादेन कृतं शास्त्रं महत्तरम् १२।
O goddess, listen. I shall tell you about the vicious texts in a sequence. By merely remembering them even the wise ones would be deluded, First I myself proclaimed the Śaiva, Pāśupata (texts) etc. Hear about the ones which were proclaimed by the brāhmaṇas into whom my power had entered, after that: Kaṇāda proclaimed the great Vaiśeṣika text. Similarly Gautama (proclaimed the doctrine of) Nyāya, and Kapila (proclaimed) Sāṃhkhya. Dhiṣaṇa (Bṛhaspati) in the same way (proclaimed) the much censured Cārvāka (doctrine); Viṣṇu of the form of Buddha proclaimed the false Buddhist doctrine and those of the naked and wearing dark blue garmentsfor the destruction of the demons. The doctrine of Māya (illusion) is a wicked doctrine and said to be pseudo-Buddhist. I myself, of the form of a brāhmaṇa, proclaimed it in Kali (age). It shows the meaninglessness of the words of the holy texts and is condemned in the world. In this (doctrine) only the giving up of one’s own duties is expounded. And that is said to be religiousness by those who have fallen from all duties. I have propounded the identity of the Highest Lord and the (individual) soul. I stated this Brahman’s nature to be qualityless. O goddess, I myself have conceived, for the destruction of the worlds, and for deluding the world in this Kali age, the great doctrine resembling the purport of the Vedas, (but) non-Vedic due to the principle of Māya (illusion) (present in it). By my order formerly Jaimini propounded the great doctrine of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, stating godlessness and making the Veda meaningless.
So It's not Just Advaita one has to reject as per these verses. Nyaya,Samkhya,Mimamsa (All of which play a vital role even in the Vedantic schools) are heretic doctrices which delude ones who even think about them once.
Let us see some of the verses of the chapter (235).
काणादं गौतमं शक्तिमुपमन्युं च जैमिनिम् कपिलं चैव दुर्वासं मृकंडुं च बृहस्पतिम् । भार्गवं जामदग्न्यं च दशैतांस्तामसानृषीन् भावशक्त्या समाविश्य कुर्वता जगतो शिवम् । त्वच्छक्त्या च निविष्टास्ते तमसोद्रिक्तया भृशम् २८। तामसास्ते भविष्यंति क्षणादेव न संशयः । कथयिष्यंति ते विप्रास्तामसानि जगत्त्रये २९।
Kaṇāda, Gautama, Śakti, Upamanyu, Jaimini, Kapila, Durvāsas, Mṛkaṇḍu, Bṛhaspati, Bhārgava and Jāmadagnya are the ten (?) tamasika sages. Desiring to do the good of the world, approach them with your power of suggestion (bhāvaśakti?). By your power increased in viciousness infused into them they will be tamasika in a moment. There is no doubt about it. Those brāhmaṇas with greater viciousness caused by you, will narrate the vicious Purāṇas and doctrines in the three worlds.
So According to this section, Not just Advaitins, But the sages who founded the samkhya, nyaya vaishikeska doctrines such as Kanada, Gautama, Kapila etc. are all Tamasika whose minds were all 'corrupted' by the power of Shiva. Not only that, but this purported 'list' even includes the likes of Durvasa and Bhargava Jamdagnya (Parashurama) in this list of 'Tamasika rishis'!
As per the Mimamsa Aphorism, 'हेतुदर्शनाच्च' (मीमांसादर्शन १.३.४ ) smritis can be treated as apramana whenever factors like lobha, dvesha etc. are seen. The verses 'मायावादमसच्छास्त्रं प्रच्छन्नं बौद्धमुच्यते' etc. can therefore be rejected as apramanika due to it's hetu being in nothing more than dvesha. Not to mention, depiction of the purpose of that avatara of shiva is fully contadictory in other puranas as other answers have already shown.
Another point to note is that in the other chapters of the padmapurana we find ample verses stating the oneness between Vishnu and Shiva. Take for instance-
शिवे विष्णौ न वा भेदो न च ब्रह्ममहेशयोः । तेषां पादरजः पूतं वहाम्यघविनाशनम् ६९।
There is no difference between Śiva and Viṣṇu; so also between Śiva (or Viṣṇu) and Brahmā. I carry (on my body) the dust particles of their feet, which are pure and which destroy sins. Those men, for whom Pārvatī, Gaṅgā, Mahālakṣmī, do not exist separately
(Patalakhanda Ch 10)
यथा विष्णुस्तथा शर्वो नांतरं वर्त्तते क्वचित् । एवं ज्ञात्वा तु भो देवि ह्युभयोर्मूर्तिकल्पनम् २८।
As is Viṣṇu, so is Śiva. There is absolutely no difference between the two. O goddess, knowing like this, the fashioning of the images of both should be done.
(Uttarakhanda Chapter 82)
शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे १४। नांतरं देवि पश्यामि श्रीविष्णोश्च प्रसादतः १५।
He who would bathe here and offer worship, is freed from all sins, and goes to the highest position of Viṣṇu, (and reaches) Śiva of the form of Viṣṇu, and Viṣṇu of the form of Śiva. Due to Viṣṇu’s grace, O goddess, I do not see any difference (between the two).
(Uttarakhanda Ch 138)
समानं ये च पश्यन्ति त्वां च मां च महेश्वरम् । कुर्वन्ति पूजामतिथेर्ज्ञेयास्ते वैष्णवा जनाः ८६।
Enumrating the qualities of Vaisnavas, Vishnu says to Brahma:- Those who look upon you, me and Śaṅkara as equal, and who honour a guest, should be known as Vaisnavas.
(Kriyayogasara Khanda Ch 2)
But this purported section, completely Contradicting these very own verses of the padmapurana, states-
यस्तु नारायणं देवं ब्रह्मरुद्रादिदैवतैः सममन्यैर्निरीक्षेत स पाषंडी भवेत्सदा
He who looks upon god Viṣṇu as equal to other deities like Brahma, Rudra, would always be (called) a Pasandi (heretic).
(Uttarakhanda, Chapter 235)
Here is another instance of how those verses of the padmapurana are refuted by the padmapurana itself.
भीष्म उवाच निर्गुणस्याप्रमेयस्य शुद्धस्याथ महात्मनः कथं सर्गादिकर्त्तृत्वं ब्रह्मणो ह्युपपद्यते १
How is it possible for Brahman, the quality-less(nirguna), unlimited, pure and great, to be the author of the creation etc.?
(Srushti Khanda Chapter 3)
It is to be noted here that ‘nirguna’ is an adjective to Brahman. As to what this term means and what it does not mean is determined in this verse itself. In Advaita the functions of creation, etc. is not admitted for Nirguna Brahman. They accrue to It only through the agency of Maya. Hence, in this Padma Purana verse the mismatch between Nirguna-hood and creator-hood is highlighted. Non-Advaitins give the meaning ‘devoid of inauspicious attributes’ to the term Nirguna. However, the term ‘shuddha’, pure, in the verse rules out this meaning for the term Nirguna. Thus, it is noteworthy that this Padma Purana verse admits of the same meaning as Advaitins hold for the term Nirguna.
Bhishma’s question is answered by Sage Pulastya:-
पुलस्त्य उवाच शक्तयः सर्वभावानामचिंत्या ज्ञानगोचराः यत्ततो ब्रह्मणस्तास्तु सर्गाद्या भावशक्तयः २
As the potentialities of all objects are inconceivable and inapprehensible, so are those powers of creation etc. of Brahman.
The ‘inconceivable’, ‘achintya’, of the verse finds validation in the Advaitic texts: Says Shankara in the Chandogya Bhashya: -
अचिन्त्यानन्तशक्तिमत्या देवतायाः बुद्ध्यादिसम्बन्धः चैतन्याभासः देवतास्वरूपविवेकाग्रहणनिमित्तः ..6.3.2 The erroneous connection between the inconceivable power of Brahman and the buddhi, intellect, expressing itself as sentience (in intellect) is due to the non-apprehension of the true nature of Brahman.
Anandagiri in his gloss says:
ननु चिदात्मा कूटस्थोऽसङ्गोऽद्वितीयश्चेष्यते स कथं बुद्ध्यादिभिर्भूतमात्रादिभिश्च चिदात्मनः संसृज्यते तत्राऽऽह – अचिन्त्येति । सत्त्वादिप्रकारैरशक्यचिन्तनीयाऽनादिरनिर्वाच्या सम्यग्ज्ञानमन्तरेण नाशशून्या दण्डायमाना या मायाशक्तिस्तस्या विषयत्वेनाऽऽनाश्रयत्वेन च …
achintya shakti = anadi anirvachya…
One can make a comparison of the meaning of the term nirguna in the above cited verse of the Padma Purana with the following popular verses of the same Purana of the uttara khanda:-
मायावादमसच्छास्त्रं प्रच्छन्नं बौद्ध उच्यते मयैव कथितं देवि कलौ ब्राह्मणरूपिणा ७ अपार्थं श्रुतिवाक्यानां दर्शयन्लोकगर्हितम् स्वकर्म्मरूपं त्याज्यत्वमत्रैव प्रतिपाद्यते ८ सर्वकर्म्मपरिभ्रष्टैर्वैधर्म्मत्वं तदुच्यते परेशजीवयोरैक्यं मया तु प्रतिपाद्यते ९ ब्रह्मणोस्य स्वयं रूपं निर्गुणं वक्ष्यते मया सर्वस्य जगतोऽप्यत्र मोहनार्थं कलौ युगे १०
Shiva addresses Parvati about the ‘maayaavaada’ which is only Buddhism in disguise, is propagated by Him through the instrumentality of a Brahmana. The censurable interpretation of the Shruti, renouncing the actions enjoined, non-difference of the jiva and Supreme, ”the nirguna nature of Brahman’ – are all tenets aimed at the destruction of the world.
One can now see how the very Padma Purana has refuted the above tenet that caricatures Advaita by adducing that very meaning to the term nirguna unmistakably, which is censured in the just cited verses.