The following is a transcription of a discourse delivered by Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja in Houston, Texas, on June 16, 1996 (Bhakta Bandhav Anthology Volume 5)

 

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura said, “If there is even a word of the Māyāvādīs in this world, then it is very difficult to preach bhakti. Śuddha-bhakti will not come to this world if there is even one conception of the Māyāvādīs. Therefore, Māyāvāda should be uprooted from this world.”

Māyāvada is known as covered Buddhism; it has come from Buddhism. It is the same wine in a new bottle. Buddhism means “śūnyavāda” (voidism). But all our ācāryas beginning from Rāmānuja, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇusvāmī, Nimbāditya, Nimbārka, Vallabhācārya, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and others have refuted Māyāvada. Jīva Gosvāmī has put forward some questions to the Advaitavādīs. He has taken these questions from Madhva and the Madhva-sampradāya.

One of his questions is:

“You say that brahma is alone. He has no duality. You say that brahma is advaya-vastu (advaita). But even in the word advaita, there is dvaita (duality). So, how can you refute this argument? Everything has dvaita, yet you say, ‘brahma is advaita.’ So, you should know that there is unity in diversity.”

“Brahma is advaita” means the name is equal to Him. So, in advaita, there is arūpa (formlessness). But there is rūpa (form). Without rūpa, it cannot be. You cannot say “arūpa” without first understanding that there is rūpa. The next word is “guṇa” (qualities). The word “nirguṇa” has come from guṇa. Even the word niḥśakti has come from the word “śakti.” Niḥśakti means nothing. No word can be used to describe nothingness. So, all these terms like “nirguṇa, niḥśakti, and arūpa” have come from the root words — guṇa, śakti, and rūpa, respectively.

Therefore, Jīva Gosvāmī questions, “So, why do you say brahma is zero? You will have to take the help of dvaita. You must consider guṇa, śakti, rūpa, and everything.”

Another question put forward by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī to the Māyāvādīs is:

“Brahma is nirguṇa and advaita. He is kevala-vastu; He is alone. Then, how did māyā come?”

What is māyā? The Māyāvādīs say, “We are all brahma — sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma.” Khalv means surely. Idam refers to everything in this world, regardless of whether they have life or not. They say that all are brahma — sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. Another favourite statement of theirs is “Tat tvam asi,” which means, “You are the same as He.”

And, there is also the statement, “Satyam jñānam anantam brahma.” Brahma is satya (the truth); He is ananta and jñāna-pūrṇa. But there are three adjectives here, so how can three be one? Do you understand? Brahma has three qualities — satyam, jñāna, and ananta. So, brahma has three qualities, but the Māyāvādīs say He is nirguṇa. How can they say this? Another question Jīva Gosvāmī puts forward is:

“I will present a question. You will be in danger if you say, ‘Yes,’ to it. You will also be in danger if you say, ‘No.’ Thus, you will have to adopt duality; certainly, you must. Now, you should answer my question. You say, ‘All are brahma.’ But why are the conditioned souls so foolish? They are completely ignorant. We don’t know what will happen tomorrow. We don’t know where the ātmā is. We don’t know anything. Then, how has this ajñāna (ignorance) come?”

The Māyāvādīs say, “Due to māyā, brahma has become a jīva now and has become an ajñānī.”

Then, Jīva Gosvāmī tells them, “Oh, there are two entities — māyā and brahma. Māyā is more powerful than brahma because she makes brahma an ajñānī.”

Do you understand my argument? But, brahma is satyam jñānam anantam — He is full of knowledge. Then how has this ignorance come to brahma? Śaṅkara says, “Māyā is nothing.” Māyā means illusion, but whose illusion is this? Is there illusion in brahma? But they cannot explain this. Then what is illusion? Sat is niḥsat (without any existence). But they cannot explain what asat is. Anāditvān nirguṇatvāt (Bhagavad-gītā 13.32)  — that cannot be defined by any word. Then what is this? There must be some sat or asat; it cannot be both. Asat means nothing, and sat means everything. It is the whole thing, it is pūrṇa.

oṁ pūrṇam adah pūrṇam idam
pūrṇat pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam adaya
pūrṇam evavaśiṣyate

Śrī Isopanisad, Invocation

[The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.]

He is always pūrṇa. So, how can this illusory māyā, which is not sat, asat, or both, come in brahma? How can this ignorance come in brahma? But the Māyāvādīs say as such.

The Māyāvādīs say, “No, this māyā doesn’t touch brahma. Rather, it covers the jīvas.”

Māyā only covers the jīva. But who is the jīva? The jīva is also brahma. There were no jīvas when brahma was not covered by māyā. Then, where is your māyā? Also, Jīva Gosvāmī asked Śaṅkarācārya, “Are you liberated or not? If you are liberated, then you have become brahma. Brahma cannot speak. And if you are not liberated and are covered by māyā, then all your conceptions and arguments are like zero because you are not liberated.”

Did you understand what I just said?

Jīva Gosvāmī has effectively refuted all the Māyāvāda tattva by posing these questions.

Devotee: Mahārāja, but sometimes they say, “A realised person has given this knowledge.”

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Who says this?

Devotee: Oh, they are saying so many things anyway.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: We ask Śaṅkarācārya, “Are you liberated brahma, who is without ajñāna? Or are you covered by māyā? If you are liberated, you have become one with brahma — brahma-sāyujya. Then, you are not a jīva. But, nirguṇa brahma is out of māyā. He cannot speak. He has no qualities; he has no potency. He has nothing. He has no form or anything. Then, how can brahma say anything? And if you are not liberated, then all your arguments are false. We cannot consider your arguments.”

Devotee 2: Mahārāja, you say that if they are liberated, they are like brahman.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Not brahman, brahma.

Devotee 2: So, they have to go beyond that impersonal conception, beyond the light.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: No, they say, “Even today, even in this form, we are brahma. But we have no realisation because of māyā.” They say as such.

But, we tell them, “At the same time, you also say, ‘There is no māyā or nothing. Brahma is nirguṇa. There is no vastu other than brahma.’ Then, from where did this māyā come? What is māyā? If she is the potency of brahma, or if she differs from brahma; if she can control and cover brahma and brahma becomes an ajñānī, then she is more powerful than brahma. Māyā is an entity separate from brahma.”

So, there is duality. If brahma and His śakti, māyā, become two, then where is advaita? And if you say, “There is no māyā,” then there is no question of the existence of this material world and the souls being conditioned by māyā. Another very good argument can also be put forward here:

The Māyāvadi can be told, “If all the things in this world are brahma — sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma, then I am also brahma, he is also brahma. And it is the truth. Then there are so many truthful things in this world. There are lakhs and lakhs of truthful things in this world. So, hear what we say in a group. You are alone and say, ‘There is one brahma. This is true.’

And we all say, ‘You are asatya (false).’”

There is the statement, “Tat tvam asi.”

The Māyāvādīs say, “Tat tvam asi (you are brahma).”

But this word is not there. Rather, it is said, “Tasya tvam asi,” tat means tasya. Tasya means, “You are His. I am His servant.” This is the actual meaning. Who is saying and who is hearing the statement, “Tat tvam asi?” For whom are these three words intended? So, there must be three things. Do you understand? “Tat tvam asi” is said for someone.

The intended meaning of the Māyāvādīs is, “You are the same as He.” Tat means He, and tvam means the jivātmā (the soul). There are three intended considerations. Therefore, the Māyāvādīs are asked, “Why do you say that there is no duality and everything is one? There are so many dualities. Yet, you say, ‘You are the same; you are the same.’”

Where have the three words — you, He, and I been taken from? If everything is one, then why use these separate words? Śaṅkarācārya does not explain this; he has not explained it anywhere. His followers continually change their opinions. They don’t stick to one point. Sometimes, they say, “This world is a pratibimba (reflection), and we are the pratibimba of brahma as well.” To support their claim, they quote the example of the sun’s reflection on water.

But, Jīva Gosvāmī says, “If the sun’s reflection is seen on water, then I am seeing this occurrence. Everyone is seeing this as well. The water is there, the sun is there, and I am also there. Thus, there are three separate things there.”

So, why do the Māyāvādīs say, “Everything is one.”

Do you understand my argument? The sun, water, and the one who sees are considered here. If there is no water, then there is no reflection. There must be a seer who is seeing this reflection. So, there are three things. Where is brahma being reflected, and who is seeing this? So, there are three considerations; not just three, but lakhs and lakhs of considerations.

The Māyāvādī then says, “No. This is wrong.”

It is like śukti-rajata, where a rope is mistaken for a snake. The residents on a ship also mistake some oyster shells in the ocean for silver. One day, a person’s feet touched a rope at night. Seeing this rope, he at once cried out, “Oh serpent! Oh serpent!”

But a person came with a lamp and said, “Oh, this is just a rope.”

Then the person became calm. Otherwise, he could have gone mad. Śaṅkarācārya says that the existence of this world is like the illusion of considering a rope to be a snake. He also says that when the sun’s rays fall on the oyster shells, they glitter and are mistaken for silver. But there is no silver and the rope can never be a snake. Śaṅkarācārya has argued like this.

He says, “We are seeing all these things. But actually, everything is brahma.” He has presented these two arguments.

Jīva Gosvāmī asks, “If the rope is mistaken for a serpent, then the existence of a serpent must be considered. Also, who is looking at the rope and mistaking it for a serpent? So, there are three considerations here as well. And this is the truth. The rope is not a serpent. But you know what a serpent is; you have seen it. Only after seeing it do you imagine the rope is a serpent. Otherwise, you cannot make the mistake of considering the rope a serpent.”

Therefore, there are three perspectives: the serpent, the rope, and the seer. So, the argument of the Māyāvādīs is wrong. They make the foolish people even more foolish. They don’t say anything correctly. So, Māyāvada is not bona fide. Hence, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has refuted all the arguments of the impersonalists. If the jīva is brahma, where has this ajñāna (ignorance), come from? Because brahma is satyam jñānam anantam. He is infinite. These statements quoted from the Vedas are not complete sentences. To cheat people, Śaṅkarācārya has cleverly selected portions of various vākyas (sentences) from the Vedas.

For instance, a sentence reads, “Rāma is not a thief.”

I take only the words “Rāma” and “thief” from the sentence and exclude the other words. Thus, the sentence reads, “Rāma is a thief.” In this way, Śaṅkarācārya has very cleverly taken some portions and words from the Vedas and presented all his arguments.

It has been said, “You are brahma.”

Here, Jīva Gosvāmī tells us that this has been stated as an example.

Someone tells another person, “You are a lion because you don’t fear anyone and always speak the truth. You don’t fear anyone and are so strong.” But that person is not a lion. An example is given here: the person is compared to a lion.

When someone says, “This horse is flying in the air, ” they mean it is running so fast. The horse is not flying in the air.

A person says in anger, “Oh you are an ass.” The person who is called an ass is not really an ass. He doesn’t have four legs and he doesn’t bray like an ass. But we say, “You are a foolish ass.”

So, when we say, “You are brahma,” it means that you are a sat-cit-ānanda part of Him. You are qualitatively one with Him. You are not a worldly thing. Only this has been meant by the statement, “You are brahma.” You are not brahma in all senses. When we see any imitation gold, we may mistake it for real gold. However, it is not gold, although it does glitter like real gold. So, in that sense, it has been said that the soul is brahma. The soul has no birth and death. The soul is a part of brahma.

mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke
jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ
manaḥ-ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi
prakṛti-sthāni karṣati

Bhagavad-gītā (15.7)

[The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.]

So, the soul is like brahma, but the soul is not brahma Himself. Once, a postman came to a house and said, “This is some money sent to a person who bears the name ‘Rāma.’”

Rāma’s son at once came and said, “Yes, yes. I am Rāma.”

But this boy is not the father or the husband of his mother. However, he can inherit his father’s money because he is the heir to his father’s estate. So, the son is not actually the person, “Rāma.” He is the son of Rāma. In this way, it has occasionally been written in the Vedas. But it has also been written:

nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām

Kaṭha Upaniṣad (2.2.13)

There is one Nitya among innumerable nityas. He is the Supreme eternal being among all eternal beings. He is also the Supreme living entity of all living entities. So, who are the other eternal, conscious beings? They are the jīvas (souls).

nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām

There are so many cetanas, so many conscious jīvas. And among them, Kṛṣṇa is the supremely conscious personality. Why did Kṛṣṇa say, “mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ?”

He said, “The jīva (soul) is My part and parcel. But although the soul can forget, I cannot forget; I am brahma.”

So, Kṛṣṇa said:

sarva-dharmān parityajya
mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja
ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo
mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ

Bhagavad-gītā (18.66)

[Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.]

Why did Kṛṣṇa not tell Arjuna, “All are brahma?”

Why should all the jīvas take shelter at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa? Why? Hence, Kṛṣṇa said:

mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat
kiñcid asti dhanañ-jaya
mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ
sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva

Bhagavad-gītā (7.7)

[O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.]

Kṛṣṇa says, “Nānyat kiñcid asti  — In this whole world, no one is like Me or superior to Me. All are My subordinates. So, you should surrender unto My lotus feet.”

Why did Kṛṣṇa say this? So, we should know that brahmavāda is only made up of false statements because Kṛṣṇa instructed Śaṅkara, “You should create a philosophy based on false statements. Your explanation of Brahma-sūtra should be false as well, so that unqualified people, who want everything from Kṛṣṇa, will be cheated. They are like demons.”

Thus, the adherents to the above philosophy think, “Everything is false. The sun is false; the moon is false. Brahma is false. Nothing is true in this world.”

Then, they should be asked, “How can you be true? Why should you be true? You cannot be true.”

Devotee: According to Śaṅkarācārya, where is this jñāna coming from?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Jñāna is only coming from Kṛṣṇa.

Devotee: Yes, only from Kṛṣṇa. However, he didn’t discuss the vigraha aspect.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Yes. In the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, a very good discourse between Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya and Caitanya Mahāprabhu is recounted. You should also read the discourse between Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī and Mahāprabhu. Mahāprabhu and Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī met in Kāśī, while Mahāprabhu met Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya in Purī. Before meeting Mahāprabhu, they followed the Māyāvāda philosophy. When they tried to convince Mahāprabhu of their philosophy, Mahāprabhu defeated both of them while speaking very little. And they were bound to follow the philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya told Mahāprabhu, “I am following the Brahma-sūtra.”

Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “You are not following the Brahma-sūtra because where has it been written in the Brahma-sūtra that brahma has no form, potency, attributes, or qualities? Where has it been written like this?”

To support his claim, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya said:

arūpavadeva tat-pradhānatvāt

He said, “Here, it is written as such.”

Mahāprabhu said, “You are explaining a false statement. Kṛṣṇa is not arūpavat (formless). He is God Himself. Any vigraha of Kṛṣṇa is not a representation; the deity is Kṛṣṇa Himself. And that form is pradhāna (primary). The form is not secondary. Kṛṣṇa has a form because it has been stated in the first śloka (verse) from the Brahma-sūtra.

athāto brahma-jijñāsā

In the Brahma-sūtra and various texts of the Vedas, the form and personality of Kṛṣṇa are described. It has also been stated that:

janmādy asya yataḥ brahma

Everything is coming from brahma (Lord Kṛṣṇa). If He has no form, quality, śakti; if He is nothing, then from where has this world come? If it is not in the seed, nothing can come from it.

So, all the potencies are there in the seed. If you plant the seed of a banyan tree and nourish it with water and sunshine, it will become a very big tree with many leaves and branches. Everything is there as a potency in that seed. If there is no potency in the seed, the tree cannot grow. So, the potency of everything is in brahma. Therefore, why do you say that brahma is without any potency?” asked Mahāprabhu.

Devotee: Mahārāja, in the Bible, the formlessness of God is sometimes stated.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: No. It is especially stated in the Bible that “God created man after His image.” He has knowledge; He has everything. He has a voice. It is said in the Bible that at the end of creation, the Lord blesses and forgives everyone. It has been told there. If He is zero and formless, then He has no pity and mercy, so why should we pray to Him if He has no mercy? What is the use of a merciless, formless person?

God can define Himself, and that definition is found in our Vedas.

Devotee: If they accept the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, they will understand the form and personality of the Lord.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: If they go deep into the purports of the Bible, then they will see the Lord’s form and personality everywhere. Everything is there.

God’s son, Jesus, was sent to this world. Jesus told everyone, “You should go to God.”

But how will they go to God, if He has no mercy, form, or other qualities? There are so many arguments that can be made.

Devotee: “Śānti mantra,” how is it related to the Vaiṣṇavas?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: It is related to Kṛṣṇa. In the Gītā (5.29), Kṛṣṇa has said, “śāntim ṛcchati.”

What is the meaning of śānti? We don’t want śānti.

Devotee: We don’t want śānti?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Never, never. This is only salvation. Śānti means sāyujya-mukti. There is no action, words, or anything. Rather, we want to bathe in the rasa-samudra (the ocean of nectarean mellows). In this ocean, there are five kinds of waves. These five kinds of waves give rise to lakhs and lakhs of very sweet waves. These waves rise and come down according to the transcendental moods. Where there is nothing, there is śānti. A stone always has śānti. The stone has nothing to think; it never moves. Even if you cut it into lakhs and lakhs of pieces, it will not know. It will remain in śānti.

Devotee: It is not mentioned anywhere that one should have śānti.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: No, it has been written in the Upaniṣads.

oṁ hariḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

In our Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, it has been written. It has been stated in the Gītā (5.29) also that “śāntim ṛcchati.” Śānti here refers to liberation. This śānti is the ground for dāsya-bhāva, sakhya-bhāva, vātsalya-bhāva, and mādhurya-bhāva. Śānti ultimately means niṣṭhā (firm faith towards Kṛṣṇa).

A devotee thinks, “I have a firm belief that Kṛṣṇa can give bliss and śānti to all.” This is the platform for bhakti. There are no worldly desires. This is the platform; this is śānti. There are no worldly desires at all. This is śānti.

kṛṣṇa-bhakta — niṣkāma, ataeva ‘śānta’
bhukti-mukti-siddhi-kāmī — sakali ‘aśānta’

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya-līlā 19.149)

[“Because a devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa is desireless, he is peaceful. Fruitive workers desire material enjoyment, jñānīs desire liberation, and yogīs desire material opulence; therefore, they are all lusty and cannot be peaceful.”]

A devotee of Kṛṣṇa has no worldly desires. He has no problems at all. So, this is śānti. And after this comes dāsya-bhāva. Sakhya-bhāva, vātsalya-bhāva, and mādhurya-bhāva respectively follow dāsya-bhāva. So, śānti is only a platform with no worldly desires or problems. Then, kāmanā (a desire) will come to serve Kṛṣṇa. How to serve? In dāsya-bhāva (the mood of a servant), then in the moods of sakhya, vātsalya, and mādhurya (which are services rendered to Kṛṣṇa in the mood of a friend, parent, and beloved). Then many waves of prema will come.

Devotee: Most Māyāvādīs chant Oṁ.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Why do they chant? Oṁ has a form. Oṁ has some qualifications. He is merciful. Oṁ means A-U-M. There are three personalities. So, why do they chant Oṁ? A-U-M makes Oṁ. “A” denotes Kṛṣṇa; “U” denotes Śrīmatī Rādhikā; “M” denotes the jīvas.

a-kāreṇocyate kṛṣṇaḥ sarva-lokaika-nāyakaḥ
u-kāreṇocyate rādhā ma-kāro jīva-vācakaḥ

[“Oṁkāra is a combination of the letters a, u and m. The letter a (a-kāra) refers to Kṛṣṇa (the master of all living entities and planets). The letter u (u-kāra) indicates Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, and m (ma-kāra) indicates the living entities (jīvas).”]

This is mentioned in the Upaniṣads. But they don’t want to use their brain.

I am thankful to you. You have served Kṛṣṇa by giving my arguments in that book.

Devotee: When you get on the radio, Mahārāja, you are really reaching out to the crowd there.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: If you will say Kṛṣṇa…

(Break of audio)

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: In Satya-yuga, one will perform austerities for lakhs and lakhs of years. But in Kali-yuga, if anyone chants Kṛṣṇa’s name or Rāma’s names or if the person chants, “Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare,” then he chants the Holy Names sixteen times. So, the person chants the Holy Names sixteen times in the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. It has been said that even chanting one Name will do. But by chanting the mahā-mantra, you are chanting sixteen Holy names. So, why can’t we chant? So, this mahā-mantra is so sublime.

Devotee: Do you live in Mathurā, Mahārāja?

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: I live in Mathurā and Vṛndāvana.

Devotee: I am planning to come to India, hopefully next year.

Śrīla Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja: Yes. You should meet me there. I should go.

Source(s): Purebhakti.com, Serve Love – Bhakta Bandhav (Bhakta Bandhav Anthology transcribed and edited by the Bhakta Bandhav Team)

Image(s) made possible by Pixabay.com, Krishnapath.org.in and/or Bhaktiart.net
Unless indicated differently, all verse translations and quotes are from the books by Śrīla Prabhupāda (Vedabase.com)