Does Brahman in Shankara Advaita Vedanta know, perceive and act?

Question

In Kena Upanishad we see it is Atman that does all the action, it is the one who forces the mind to think, eyes to see, ears to listen, and so on.

केनेषितं पतति प्रेषितं मनः। केन प्राणः प्रथमः प्रैति युक्तः। केनेषितां वाचमिमां वदन्ति। चक्षुः श्रोत्रं क उ देवो युनक्ति ॥ ||१||

श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं मनसो मनो यत्। वाचो ह वाचं स उ प्राणस्य प्राणः। चक्षुषश्चक्षुरतिमुच्य धीराः। प्रेत्यास्माल्लोकादमृता भवन्ति ॥ ||२||

But all the Shankara Advait Vedantins I have met so far claim that Brahman cannot be an actor, perceiver, or knower. Is there any truth to this claim? Does Adi Shankara ever say this?

I saw this question Advaita : Does Brahman remain actionless?

It says Brahman is actionless in Advaita Vedanta, but it doesn't provide any citation. Therefore I'm asking the question again, this time asking for citation because the Upanishads directly contradict this claim by Shankara Advaita Vedantins.

Answer 1

Other answers have already provided sufficient citations for Brahman is actionless, like Nishkalam Nishkriyam Shaantam Niravadyam Niranjanam (SvetUp- 6.19)

An action's relativity, and its continuity presupposes an actionless absolute Brahman (which Kenopanishad refers to).

Also ,श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं , मनसो मनो यत् is One, This same idea is found in CU 6.2.1

sadeva somyedam agra āsīd ekamevādvitīyam | taddhaika āhurasadevedamagra āsīd ekamevādvitīyaṃ tasmādasataḥ sajjāyata || 6.2.1 || one without a second

so, how come this perception of Brāhmaṇa not being an active agent enter into the mind of later Advaitins, because it surely wasn't Śaṅkara's view at all. (@Bingming, how is this reconciled?)

This may not be the case, as we find in several Prakarana Granthas by Shankaracharya say, Atma bodha verse 37, Vivekachudamani 491

Nirguṇo niṣkriyo nityo nirvikalpo nirañjanaḥ. Nirvikāro nirākāro nityamukto’smi nirmalaḥ..AB34..

Indeed, I am other than the seer, hearer, speaker, doer and Experiencer. I am eternal and unbroken, beyond activity, boundless, unattached and infinite, the essence of knowledge. VC491

world is an effect of Brāhmaṇ as in CU 6.1.4 could be the basis of Vivarta vada.

yathā somyaikena mṛtpiṇḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syādvācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyam || 6.1.4 ||
O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, in name only. But earth is the reality.
vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ all changes are mere words, in name only; mṛttika iti eva satyam, the earth is the reality.

As there is no other entity other than Brahman, Brahman by whose inscrutable power Maya, appears as creation. It is understood as Vivarta Vada of Advaita.

All duality which Ś clearly declared to be merely imaginary (kalpita) now came to be viewed by his commentators as a very real and existent duality.

Vivekachudamani 109 says

Maya is neither existent nor non-existent nor partaking of both characters; neither same nor different nor both; neither composed of parts nor an indivisible whole nor both. She is the most wonderful and cannot be described in words.”

Maya (the word occurs in (Svet. Up 4.10)) the anirvachaniya (either real or non real), explained as part of BG 2.16, cannot be a second real entity, (Sat) so as to say real and existent duality.

Is Advaita refuted by Brahma Sutras?

It is as though the commentators were off the track, and fell in line with sankya (where Prakrithi is a separate entity other than Brahman, creates its own evolutes, with the power received from purusha who is non-attached to the creation).

In the perspective of Gita,

What does Actionlessness connote

कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः। स बुद्धिमान् मनुष्येषु स युक्तः कृत्स्नकर्मकृत्।। He who finds inaction in action, and action in inaction, he is the wise one [Possessed of the knowledge of Brahman] among men; he is engaged in yoga and is a performer of all actions! (Swami Gambirananda) BG 4.18

Shankaracharyas Commentary

the trees on the shore which are motionless? appear to move in the opposite direction to a man who is in traveling. Moving objects that are very far away appear to be stationary or motionless. Even so in the case of the Self inaction is mistaken for action and, action for inaction.The Self is actionless (Akarta or nondoer? Nishkriya or without work).
(Translation Swami Gambirananda)

In the context of the analogy, one is well aware of the absolute stand point (that the tree or the post does not move, though it appears so). In reality the absolute stand point is not known. Hence, it is hard to accept the action is an illusion.

न मां कर्माणि लिम्पन्ति न मे कर्मफले स्पृहा। इति मां योऽभिजानाति कर्मभिर्न स बध्यते।।4.14।

Her , the omniscient Supreme reality, though creates sustains and dissolves the universe, identifies with the Self (Brahman), and not with the action (karma phale na sprha, there is no hankering for the results, hence not tainted by the action - karmani limpanti).

In the same way, the actions do not taint a Jiva (Actionlessness) who does not hanker for karma phala, by identifying with the action (rather who identifies with the self) and what follows is, jñānāgniḥ sarva-karmāṇi bhasma-sāt kurute tathā

Answer 2

Brahman is not an anthropomorphic deity. It can't be defined, has no mind and so It does not act. It is described as neti neti. This is made clear both in the Upanishads, in the Itihasas and in the Puranas.

Nature of Brahman

When men shall roll up space (akasa) as if it were a piece of hide, then there will be end of misery without one's cultivating the knowledge of the Lord, who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, blameless, unattached, the supreme bridge to Immortality, and like a fire that has consumed all its fuel

Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.19-20

Manu said, ‘Brahman is not an object of touch, or of hearing, or of taste, or of sight, or of smell, or of any deductive inference from the Known. Only the Understanding (when withdrawn from everything else) can attain to it. All objects that the mind apprehends through the senses are capable of being withdrawn into the mind; the mind can be withdrawn into the understanding; the Understanding can be withdrawn into the soul, and the Soul into the Supreme.’

Mahabharata, Santi Parva, Section CCIV

Yajnavalkya said: O Gargi, it is the supreme being that the non-yogins call gross but, in fact, that is eternal and wonderful lord; one that is not long, not red, that has no head, that has no setting, hence that has a lasting taste, that has no contact, no smell, no juice, no eyes, no ears, neither speech nor mind, no brilliance, no proof [or magnitude], no (worldly) happiness, no name, no race, no death, no age, no ailment; that is nectarine, that is expressed by the word Om, that is immortal, that has neither a predecessor nor a successor, that is endless and non-external. It eats something. It does not eat anything. ..

Linga Purana II.9.53–54

Sri Sankaracharya has also stated the same idea in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

But that Brahman (is known from the Upanishads), (It) being the object of their fullest import.

Brahma Sutra I.i.4

...for in all the Upanishads the texts become fully reconciled when they are accepted as establishing this very fact in their fullest import. (As for instance): "O amiable one, this universe, before its creation, was but Existence, one without a second" (Chandogya Upanishad VI.ii.1), "Before creation this universe was but the Self that is one" (Aiterya Upanishad I.i.1), "That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior (i.e., homogeneous and without a second). "This Self, the perceiver of everything is Brahman" (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.v.19), "All that is in front is Brahman the immortal" (Mundaka Upanishad II.ii.11), etc. Besides, when the words in the Upanishadic sentences become fully ascertained as but revealing the nature of Brahman, it is not proper to fancy some other meaning; for that will result in rejecting something established by the Vedas and accepting some other thing not intended by them. And it cannot be held that those words have for their ultimate purpose only a delineation of the nature of the agent (viz the performer of the rites), for there are such Vedic texts as "(But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self) then ... what should one see and through what?" (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iv.14), which deny action, instrument and result. .....

Brahma Sutra Bhasya I.i.4 of Sri Sankaracharya translated by Swami Gambhirananda