Yes, I am not kidding, I have seen this argument used. In fact, Shankara has classed Rudra as a created entity in many places, a vibhUti in the praSnOpanishad bhAshya and one who is associated with tAmas in sahasranAma bhAshya (note, tAmasa guNa does not encumber his sarvajnatva which is gained by virtue of austerities only that he is not saguNa brahman according to advaita).Ģ) The ridiculous logic that since Shiva is the husband of Uma, she would not point anyone else as Brahman.

Some explanations given by these miscreants for equating yakSha to shiva/uma are:ġ) shiva being called 'sarvajnEna iSvara' by Adi Shankara - This argument is used despite the fact that even rSis are often referred to as sarvajna and iSvara is a given name for shiva as one who imparts knowledge of vishNu, which is why sri Shankara used it. And of course, these same characters will turn a blind eye to nArAyaNa being declared as parabrahman everywhere both in the veda and in the commentaries. For them, if uma points to a yakSha and says 'that is Brahman', then very strangely, uma is accorded Brahmatva and the yakSha is equated to Shiva by these people when such a precedent is neither in the Upanishad, nor in the commentary of advaitins, vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins for this Upanishad. But certain characters have the compelling tendency to ignore logic. With tamO guNa (nIla), it (the mind) envelopes (ie, obscures the knowledge) of its hated enemy (ie, the jivAtmA), whereas with rajO guNa (lOhitEna), it (the mind) clings to (vidhyatiti) the hostile (attachments of samsAric objects of enjoyment), so say the great AchAryas well versed in the knowledge of Brahman. Of this (mind), its cavity is black (nIla) signifying tamO guNa while its surface is red (lOhita) signifying rajO guNa. That is the bow (knowledge) of the excellent sattva nature (dEvEndra dhanuH). It (the mind) accepted, (ie, comprehended) a bow (ie, knowledge of the upanishads).

It is the chief (Eka) of the group of indrIyas (vrAtya). It became the ruler of the indrIyas (signified as “devAnAm” because they sport with objects of enjoyment), therefore it is present as the controller (IshAna). Vaidika Interpretation: The mind grew (ie, dharma bhUta jnAna expanded through the intellect), it became great, it sports with manifold intellect (ie, perception of all objects of enjoyment).

Dakshinamurti suta samhita