The Caitanya-caritāmṛta teaches that the spirit soul is immortal and that our activities in the spiritual world are also immortal. The Māyāvādīs, who hold the view that the Absolute is impersonal and formless, contend that a realized soul has no need to talk. But the Vaiṣṇavas, devotees of Kṛṣṇa, contend that when one reaches the stage of realization, he really begins to talk. "Previously we only talked of nonsense," the Vaiṣṇava says. "Now let us begin our real talks, talks of Kṛṣṇa." In support of their view that the self-realized remain silent, the Māyāvādīs are fond of using the example of the water pot, maintaining that when a pot is not filled with water it makes a sound, but that when it is filled it makes no sound. But are we waterpots? How can we be compared to them? A good analogy utilizes as many similarities between two objects as possible. A waterpot is not an active living force, but we are.
Mayavadis (CC)
Expressions researched:
"Mayavadi"
|"Mayavadi's"
|"Mayavadin"
|"Mayavadins"
|"Mayavadis"
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Preface and Introduction
In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa begins His teachings by distinguishing the soul from matter, and in the Eighteenth Chapter He concludes at the point where the soul surrenders to Him in devotion. The Māyāvādīs would have all talk cease there, but at that point the real discussion only begins. As the Vedānta-sūtra says at the very beginning, athāto brahma jijñāsā: "Now let us begin to inquire about the Supreme Absolute Truth." Rūpa Gosvāmī thus praises Lord Caitanya as the most munificent incarnation of all, for He gives the greatest gift by teaching the highest form of devotional service. In other words, He answers the most important inquiries that anyone can make.
CC Adi-lila
In the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord says that only fools deride Him, thinking that anyone can speak like Kṛṣṇa.
Even according to historical references, Kṛṣṇa's activities are most uncommon. Kṛṣṇa has affirmed, "I am God," and He has acted accordingly. Māyāvādīs think that everyone can claim to be God, but that is their illusion, for no one else can perform such extraordinary activities as Kṛṣṇa. When He was a child on the lap of His mother, He killed the demon Pūtanā. Then He killed the demons Tṛṇāvarta, Vatsāsura and Baka. When He was a little more grown up, He killed the demons Aghāsura and Ṛṣabhāsura. Therefore God is God from the very beginning. The idea that someone can become God by meditation is ridiculous. By hard endeavor one may realize his godly nature, but he will never become God. The asuras, or demons, who think that anyone can become God, are condemned.
For example, the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.29) describes that in the abode of Lord Kṛṣṇa, which is made of cintāmaṇi (touchstone), the Lord, acting as a cowherd boy, is served by hundreds and thousands of goddesses of fortune. Māyāvādīs think that the devotees have imagined the form of Kṛṣṇa, but the authentic Vedic scriptures have actually described Kṛṣṇa and His various transcendental forms.
The word śruta in śrutekṣita-pathaḥ refers to the Vedas, and īkṣita indicates that the way to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead is by proper study of the Vedic scriptures. One cannot imagine something about God or His form. Such imagination is not accepted by those who are serious about enlightenment. Here Brahmā says that one can know Kṛṣṇa through the path of properly understanding the Vedic texts. If by studying the form, name, qualities, pastimes and paraphernalia of the Supreme Godhead one is attracted to the Lord, he can execute devotional service, and the form of the Lord will be impressed in his heart and remain transcendentally situated there.
Great souls assert that Nārāyaṇa, who is known as the Paramātmā, or Supersoul, is beyond material nature, and this is in accordance with the statements of the Vedic literature. Māyāvādīs also agree that Nārāyaṇa can expand Himself in various forms. Śaṅkara says that he does not attempt to argue that portion of the devotees' understanding, but he must protest the idea that Saṅkarṣaṇa is produced from Vāsudeva, Pradyumna is produced from Saṅkarṣaṇa, and Aniruddha is produced from Pradyumna, for if Saṅkarṣaṇa is understood to represent the living entities created from the body of Vāsudeva, the living entities would have to be noneternal. The living entities are supposed to be freed from material contamination by engaging in prolonged temple worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, reading Vedic literature and performing yoga and pious activities to attain the Supreme Lord. But if the living entities had been created from material nature at a certain point, they would be noneternal and would have no chance to be liberated and associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
"Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a spotless Purāṇa." Malicious editors and scholars who attempt to misrepresent the Pañcarātra-śāstras to refute their regulations are most abominable. In the modern age, such malicious scholars have even commented misleadingly upon the Bhagavad-gītā, which was spoken by Kṛṣṇa, to prove that there is no Kṛṣṇa. How the Māyāvādīs have misrepresented the pāñcarātrika-vidhi will be shown below.
(1) In commenting on Vedānta-sūtra 2.2.42, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has claimed that Saṅkarṣaṇa is a jīva, an ordinary living entity, but there is no evidence in any Vedic scripture that devotees of the Lord have ever said that Saṅkarṣaṇa is an ordinary living entity. He is an infallible plenary expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Viṣṇu category, and He is beyond the creation of material nature. He is the original source of the living entities. The Upaniṣads declare, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām: (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13)
Therefore his commentary on the forty-second aphorism and his commentary on the forty-fourth aphorism are contradictory. It is a defect of Māyāvāda commentaries that they make one statement in one place and a contradictory statement in another place as a tactic to refute the Bhāgavata school. Thus Māyāvādī commentators do not even follow regulative principles. It should be noted that the Bhāgavata school accepts the quadruple forms of Nārāyaṇa, but that does not mean that it accepts many Gods. Devotees know perfectly well that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is one without a second. They are never pantheists, worshipers of many Gods, for this is against the injunction of the Vedas. Devotees completely believe, with strong faith, that Nārāyaṇa is transcendental and has inconceivable proprietorship of various transcendental potencies. We therefore recommend that scholars consult the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, where these ideas are explicitly stated. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has tried to prove that Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha expand through cause and effect. He has compared Them with earth and earthen pots.
The cosmic manifestation of the illusory energy is material nature, and everything within material nature is made of matter. Therefore, one should not try to compare the expansions of material nature to the catur-vyūha, the quadruple expansions of the Personality of Godhead, but unfortunately the Māyāvādī school unreasonably attempts to do this.
(4) To answer Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 2.2.45, the substance of the transcendental qualities and their spiritual nature is described in the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta (Pūrva 5.208–214) as follows: “Some say that transcendence must be void of all qualities because qualities are manifested only in matter. According to them, all qualities are like temporary, flickering mirages. But this is not acceptable. Since the Supreme Personality of Godhead is absolute, His qualities are nondifferent from Him. His form, name, qualities and everything else pertaining to Him are as spiritual as He is. Every qualitative expansion of the absolute Personality of Godhead is identical with Him.
Vaiṣṇavas, however, worship the forms of Lord Viṣṇu in His varied manifestations, such as Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, Sītā-Rāma and Rukmiṇī-Kṛṣṇa. Māyāvādīs admit that worship of the Lord's form is required in the beginning, but they think that in the end everything is impersonal. Therefore, since they are ultimately against worship of the Lord's form, Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described them as offenders.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has condemned those who think the body to be the self as bhauma ijya-dhīḥ. Bhauma means earth, and ijya-dhīḥ means worshiper. There are two kinds of bhauma ijya-dhīḥ: those who worship the land of their birth, such as nationalists, who make many sacrifices for the motherland, and those who condemn the worship of the form of the Lord. One should not worship the planet earth or land of his birth, nor should one condemn the form of the Lord, which is manifested in metal or wood for our facility. Material things are also the energy of the Supreme Lord.
Sometimes a conditioned soul is bewildered when he tries to understand the incarnation of Godhead with full opulence. Lord Kṛṣṇa appeared and performed many uncommon activities, and some materialists misunderstood Him, but in His appearance as Lord Caitanya He did not show much of His opulences, and therefore fewer conditioned souls were bewildered. Misunderstanding the Lord, many fools consider themselves incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but the result is that after leaving the material body they enter the species of jackals. Persons who cannot understand the real significance of an incarnation must attain such lower species of life as punishment. Conditioned souls who are puffed up by false egoism and who try to become one with the Supreme Lord become Māyāvādīs.
The word rāsādi-vilāsī ("the enjoyer of the rāsa dance") is very important. The rāsa dance can be enjoyed only by Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the supreme leader and chief of the damsels of Vṛndāvana. All others are His devotees and associates. Although no one can compare with Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there are many unscrupulous rascals who imitate the rāsa dance of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. They are Māyāvādīs, and people should be wary of them. The rāsa dance can be performed only by Śrī Kṛṣṇa and no one else.
Seeing that the Māyāvādīs and others were fleeing, Lord Caitanya thought, "I wanted everyone to be immersed in this inundation of love of Godhead, but some of them have escaped. Therefore I shall devise a trick to drown them also."
Here is an important point. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted to invent a way to capture the Māyāvādīs and others who did not take interest in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. This is the symptom of an ācārya. An ācārya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and means by which Kṛṣṇa consciousness may be spread. Sometimes jealous persons criticize the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement because it engages equally both boys and girls in distributing love of Godhead.
Although there was actually no need for Him to accept sannyāsa, He did so for the benefit of those who might think Him an ordinary human being. The main purpose of His accepting sannyāsa was to deliver the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. This will be evident later in this chapter.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained the term "Māyāvādī" as follows: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is transcendental to the material conception of life. A Māyāvādī is one who considers the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa to be made of māyā and who also considers the abode of the Lord and the process of approaching Him, devotional service, to be māyā. The Māyāvādī considers all the paraphernalia of devotional service to be māyā." Māyā refers to material existence, which is characterized by the reactions of fruitive activities. Māyāvādīs consider devotional service to be among such fruitive activities.
In describing the Kāśīra Māyāvādīs, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained that persons who are bewildered by empiric knowledge or direct sensual perception, and who thus consider that even this limited material world can be gauged by their material estimations, conclude that anything that one can discern by direct sense perception is but māyā, or illusion. They maintain that although the Absolute Truth is beyond the range of sense perception, it includes no spiritual variety or enjoyment. According to the Kāśīra Māyāvādīs, the spiritual world is simply void. They do not believe in the Personality of the Absolute Truth or in His varieties of activities in the spiritual world. Although they have their own arguments, which are not very strong, they have no conception of the variegated activities of the Absolute Truth. These impersonalists, who are followers of Śaṅkarācārya, are generally known as Kāśīra Māyāvādīs (impersonalists residing in Vārāṇasī).
Near Vārāṇasī there is another group of impersonalists, who are known as Saranātha Māyāvādīs. Outside the city of Vārāṇasī is a place known as Saranātha, where there is a big Buddhist stūpa. Many followers of Buddhist philosophy live there, and they are known as Saranātha Māyāvādīs. The impersonalists of Saranātha differ from those of Vārāṇasī, for the Vārāṇasī impersonalists propagate the idea that the impersonal Brahman is truth whereas material varieties are false, but the Saranātha impersonalists do not even believe that the Absolute Truth, or Brahman, can be understood as the opposite of māyā, or illusion. According to their vision, materialism is the only manifestation of the Absolute Truth.
Theorizing as if devotional service were subject to their mental speculation, both kinds of Māyāvādī impersonalists conclude that the subject matter of bhakti-yoga is a creation of māyā and that Kṛṣṇa, devotional service and the devotee are also māyā. Therefore, as stated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, māyāvādī kṛṣṇe aparādhī: "All the Māyāvādīs are offenders to Lord Kṛṣṇa." (CC Madhya 17.129) It is not possible for them to understand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement; therefore we do not value their philosophical conclusions. However expert such quarrelsome impersonalists are in putting forward their so-called logic, we defeat them in every respect and go forward with our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Their imaginative mental speculation cannot deter the progress of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, which is completely spiritual and is never under the control of such Māyāvādīs.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we also meet such Māyāvādīs who criticize our method of chanting and accuse us of not being interested in study. They do not know that we have translated volumes and volumes of books into English and that the students in our temples regularly study them in the morning, afternoon and evening. We are writing and printing books, and our students study them and distribute them all over the world. No Māyāvādī school can present as many books as we have; nevertheless, they accuse us of not being fond of study. Such accusations are completely false. But although we study, we do not study the nonsense of the Māyāvādīs.
Foolish Māyāvādīs, not knowing that the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is based on a solid philosophy of transcendental science, superficially conclude that those who dance and chant do not have philosophical knowledge. Those who are Kṛṣṇa conscious actually have full knowledge of the essence of Vedānta philosophy, for they study the real commentary on the Vedānta philosophy, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and follow the actual words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as found in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. After understanding the Bhāgavata philosophy, or bhāgavata-dharma, they become fully spiritually conscious or Kṛṣṇa conscious, and therefore their chanting and dancing is not material but is on the spiritual platform. Although everyone admires the ecstatic chanting and dancing of the devotees, who are therefore popularly known as "the Hare Kṛṣṇa people," Māyāvādīs cannot appreciate these activities because of their poor fund of knowledge.
Hearing all this blasphemy, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu merely smiled to Himself, rejected all these accusations and did not talk with the Māyāvādīs.
Thus neglecting the blasphemy of the Vārāṇasī Māyāvādīs, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu proceeded to Mathurā, and after visiting Mathurā He returned to meet the situation.
Taking advantage of these verses, there are some sahajiyās who, taking everything very cheaply, consider themselves elevated Vaiṣṇavas but do not care even to touch the Vedānta-sūtra or Vedānta philosophy. A real Vaiṣṇava should, however, study Vedānta philosophy, but if after studying Vedānta one does not adopt the chanting of the holy name of the Lord, he is no better than a Māyāvādī. Therefore, one should not be a Māyāvādī, yet one should not be unaware of the subject matter of Vedānta philosophy. Indeed, Caitanya Mahāprabhu exhibited His knowledge of Vedānta in His discourses with Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī. Thus it is to be understood that a Vaiṣṇava should be completely conversant with Vedānta philosophy, yet he should not think that studying Vedānta is all in all and therefore be unattached to the chanting of the holy name. A devotee must know the importance of simultaneously understanding Vedānta philosophy and chanting the holy names.
A name that represents an object of this material world may be subjected to arguments and experimental knowledge, but in the absolute world a name and its owner, the fame and the famous, are identical, and similarly the qualities, pastimes and everything else pertaining to the Absolute are also absolute. Although Māyāvādīs profess monism, they differentiate between the holy name of the Supreme Lord and the Lord Himself. For this offense of nāmāparādha they gradually glide down from their exalted position of brahma-jñāna, as confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.2.32):
- āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ
- patanty adho ’nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ
Although by severe austerities they rise to the exalted position of brahma-jñāna, they nevertheless fall down due to imperfect knowledge of the Absolute Truth. Although they profess to understand the Vedic mantra sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma (Chāndogya Up. 3.14.1), which means "Everything is Brahman," they are unable to understand that the holy name is also Brahman. If they regularly chant the mahā-mantra, however, they can be relieved from this misconception. Unless one properly takes shelter of the holy name, he cannot be relieved from the offensive stage in chanting the holy name.
Thus instead of being tattva-vāda, or in search of the Absolute Truth, they become Māyāvāda, or illusioned by the material energy. When Śrī Viṣṇu Svāmī, one of the four ācāryas of the Vaiṣṇava cult, presented his thesis on the subject matter of śuddhādvaita-vāda, immediately the Māyāvādīs took advantage of this philosophy and tried to establish their advaita-vāda or kevalādvaita-vāda. To defeat this kevalādvaita-vāda, Śrī Rāmānujācārya presented his philosophy as viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda, and Śrī Madhvācārya presented his philosophy of tattva-vāda, both of which are stumbling blocks to the Māyāvādīs because they defeat their philosophy in scrupulous detail. Students of Vedic philosophy know very well how strongly Śrī Rāmānujācārya's viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda and Śrī Madhvācārya's tattva-vāda contest the impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, however, accepted the direct meaning of the Vedānta philosophy and thus defeated the Māyāvāda philosophy immediately. He opined in this connection that anyone who follows the principles of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya is doomed.
“Śaṅkarācārya, who is an incarnation of Lord Śiva, is faultless because he is a servant carrying out the orders of the Lord. But those who follow his Māyāvādī philosophy are doomed. They will lose all their advancement in spiritual knowledge.
Thus both the Buddhists and the Śaṅkarites are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32), or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence.
The most prominent Māyāvādī scholar, Sadānanda Yogīndra, has written a book called Vedānta-sāra, in which he expounds the philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya, and all the followers of Śaṅkara's philosophy attribute great importance to his statements. In this Vedānta-sāra Sadānanda Yogīndra defines Brahman as sac-cid-ānanda combined with knowledge and without duality, and he defines ignorance (jaḍa) as knowledge distinct from that of sat and asat. This is almost inconceivable, but it is a product of the three material qualities. Thus he considers anything other than pure knowledge to be material. The center of ignorance is considered to be sometimes all-pervading and sometimes individual. Thus according to his opinion both the all-pervading Viṣṇu and the individual living entities are products of ignorance.
They lead one to assume that since Lord Kṛṣṇa could not personally sense the meaning of what He was speaking and Vyāsadeva did not know the meaning of what he was writing, Lord Kṛṣṇa left His book to be explained later by the Māyāvādīs. Such interpretations merely prove, however, that their proponents have very little philosophical sense.
Instead of wasting one's time falsely deriving such indirect meanings from the Vedānta-sūtra and other Vedic literatures, one should accept the words of these books as they are. In presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, therefore, we have not changed the meaning of the original words. Similarly, if one studies the Vedānta-sūtra as it is, without whimsical and capricious adulteration, one can understand the Vedanta-sūtra very easily. Śrīla Vyāsadeva therefore explains the Vedānta-sūtra, beginning from the first sūtra, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), in his Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.1):
At present, however, the Vedānta-sūtra is misrepresented not only by the so-called Vedāntīs but also by other unscrupulous persons who are so degraded that they even recommend that sannyāsīs eat meat, fish and eggs. In this way, the so-called followers of Śaṅkara, the impersonalist Māyāvādīs, are sinking lower and lower. How can these degraded men explain the Vedānta-sūtra, which is the essence of all Vedic literature?
Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has declared, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: (CC Madhya 6.169) "Anyone who hears commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra from the Māyāvāda school is completely doomed." As explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15), vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: all Vedic literature aims at understanding Kṛṣṇa. Māyāvāda philosophy, however, has deviated everyone from Kṛṣṇa. Therefore there is a great need for the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world to save the world from degradation. Every intelligent and sane man must abandon the philosophical explanation of the Māyāvādīs and accept the explanation of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas. One should read Bhagavad-gītā As It Is to try to understand the real purport of the Vedas.
In the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord is also addressed as Parabrahman. Māyāvādīs and others sometimes misunderstand Brahman because every living entity is also Brahman. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is referred to as Parabrahman (the Supreme Brahman). In the Vedic literature, whenever the words "Brahman" or "Parabrahman" are used, they are to be understood to refer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. This is their real meaning. Since the entire Vedic literature deals with the subject of Brahman, Kṛṣṇa is therefore the ultimate goal of Vedic understanding. The impersonal brahmajyoti rests on the personal form of the Lord. Therefore although the impersonal effulgence, the brahmajyoti, is the first realization, one must enter into it, as mentioned in the Īśopaniṣad, to find the Supreme Person, and then one's knowledge is perfect. The Bhagavad-gītā (7.19) also confirms this: bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate. One's search for the Absolute Truth by dint of speculative knowledge is complete when one comes to the point of understanding Kṛṣṇa and surrenders unto Him. That is the real point of perfectional knowledge.
When Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu started the saṅkīrtana movement, even He was unnecessarily criticized by Māyāvādīs, atheists and fools. Naturally we are also criticized by such men. They will always remain and will always criticize anything that is actually good for human society. But the preachers of the saṅkīrtana movement should not be deterred by such criticism. Our method should be to convert such fools gradually by asking them to come and take prasādam and chant and dance with us. This should be our policy. Anyone who comes to join us, of course, must be sincere and serious regarding spiritual advancement in life; then such a person, simply by joining us, chanting with us, dancing with us and taking prasādam with us, will gradually also come to say that this movement is very good. But one who joins with an ulterior purpose, to get material benefit or personal gratification, will never be able to grasp the philosophy of this movement.
Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura has said, anya-devāśraya nāi, tomāre kahinu bhāi, ei bhakti parama-kāraṇa: if one wants to become a pure, staunch devotee, one should not take shelter of any of the demigods or -goddesses. Foolish Māyāvādīs say that worshiping demigods is as good as worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but that is not a fact. This philosophy misleads people to atheism. One who has no idea what God actually is thinks that any form he imagines or any rascal he accepts can be God. This acceptance of cheap gods or incarnations of God is actually atheism. It is to be concluded, therefore, that those who worship demigods or self-proclaimed incarnations of God are all atheists. They have lost their knowledge, as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.20): kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante ’nya-devatāḥ. "Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods." Unfortunately, those who do not cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness and do not properly understand the Vedic knowledge accept any rascal to be an incarnation of God, and they are of the opinion that one can become an incarnation simply by worshiping a demigod.
Devānanda Paṇḍita and Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya's father, Viśārada, lived in the same village. Devānanda Paṇḍita was a professional reciter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not like his interpretation of it. In the present town of Navadvīpa, which was formerly known as Kuliyā, Lord Caitanya showed such mercy to him that he gave up the Māyāvādī interpretation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and learned how to explain Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in terms of bhakti. Formerly, when Devānanda was expounding the Māyāvādī interpretation, Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura was once present in his meeting, and when he began to cry, Devānanda's students drove him away. Some days later, Caitanya Mahāprabhu passed that way, and when He met Devānanda He chastised him severely because of his Māyāvāda interpretation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. At that time Devānanda had little faith in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as an incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa, but one night some time later Vakreśvara Paṇḍita was a guest in his house, and when he explained the science of Kṛṣṇa, Devānanda was convinced about the identity of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
The Sanskrit book Advaita-carita states that Balarāma, Svarūpa and Jagadīśa were the fourth, fifth and sixth sons of Advaita Ācārya. Therefore Śrī Advaita Ācārya had six sons. Balarāma, Svarūpa and Jagadīśa, being smārtas, or Māyāvādīs, were rejected by Vaiṣṇava society. Sometimes Māyāvādīs pose themselves as Vaiṣṇavas, or worshipers of Lord Viṣṇu, but actually they do not believe in Lord Viṣṇu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for they consider demigods like Lord Śiva, Durgā, the sun-god and Gaṇeśa equal to Him. They are generally known as pañcopāsaka-smārtas, and one should not count them among the Vaiṣṇavas.
There is a book of the name Yoga-vāśiṣṭha that Māyāvādīs greatly favor because it is full of impersonal misunderstandings regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with no touch of Vaiṣṇavism. Factually, all Vaiṣṇavas should avoid such a book, but Advaita Ācārya Prabhu, wanting punishment from the Lord, began to support the impersonal statements of the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha. Thus Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu became extremely angry at Him and seemingly treated Him disrespectfully.
This analysis by Śrī Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, supporting the statements of Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, depicts the position of the present so-called Hindu religion, which, being predominantly conducted by the Māyāvāda philosophy, has become a hodgepodge institution of various concocted ideas. Māyāvādīs greatly fear the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement and accuse it of spoiling the Hindu religion because it accepts people from all parts of the world and all religious sects and scientifically engages them in the daiva-varṇāśrama-dharma. As we have explained several times, however, we find no such word as "Hindu" in the Vedic literature. The word most probably came from Afghanistan, a predominantly Muslim country, and originally referred to a pass in Afghanistan known as Hindukush, which is still a part of a trade route between India and various Muslim countries.
Mukunda Datta was once forbidden to enter the association of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu because of his mixing with the Māyāvādī impersonalists. When Lord Caitanya manifested His mahā-prakāśa, He called all the devotees one after another and blessed them, while Mukunda Datta stood outside the door. The devotees informed the Lord that Mukunda Datta was waiting outside, but the Lord replied, "I shall not soon be pleased with Mukunda Datta, for though he explains devotional service among devotees, he then goes to Māyāvādīs to hear from them the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha-rāmāyaṇa, which is full of Māyāvāda philosophy. For this I am greatly displeased with him." Hearing the Lord speak in that way, Mukunda Datta, standing outside, was exceedingly glad that the Lord would at some time be pleased with him, although He was not pleased at that moment. But when the Lord understood that Mukunda Datta was going to give up the association of the Māyāvādīs for good, He was pleased, and He at once called to see Mukunda. Thus He delivered him from the association of the Māyāvādīs and gave him the association of pure devotees.
Therefore Īśvara Purī, the spiritual master of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, was Advaita Ācārya's Godbrother. In view of this, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu treated Advaita Ācārya as His spiritual master, but Śrī Advaita Ācārya did not like this behavior of Lord Caitanya, for He wanted to be treated as His eternal servant. Advaita Prabhu's aspiration was to be a servant of the Lord, not His spiritual master. He therefore devised a plan to antagonize the Lord. He began to explain the path of philosophical speculation in the midst of some unfortunate Māyāvādīs, and when Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu heard about this, He immediately went there and in a very angry mood began to beat Advaita Ācārya. At that time, Advaita Ācārya, greatly pleased, began to dance, saying, "Just see how My desire has now been fulfilled! Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu used to treat Me honorably for so long, but now He is treating Me neglectfully. This is My reward. His affection for Me is so great that He wanted to save Me from the hands of the Māyāvādīs." Hearing this statement, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was somewhat ashamed, but He was very pleased with Advaita Ācārya.
CC Madhya-lila
To date, all the devotees of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, following in His footsteps, accept the sannyāsa order and keep the sacred thread and tuft of unshaved hair. The ekadaṇḍi-sannyāsīs of the Māyāvādī school give up the sacred thread and do not keep any tuft of hair. Therefore they are unable to understand the purport of tridaṇḍa-sannyāsa, and as such they are not inclined to dedicate their lives to the service of Mukunda. They simply think of merging into the existence of Brahman because of their disgust with material existence. The ācāryas who advocate the daiva-varṇāśrama (the social order of cātur-varṇyam mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā) do not accept the proposition of āsura-varṇāśrama, which maintains that the social order of varṇa is indicated by birth.
This is typical of all Māyāvādīs or atheists who interpret the meaning of Vedic literature in their own imaginative way. The real purpose of such foolish people is to impose the impersonalist conclusion on all Vedic literature. The Māyāvādī atheists also interpret the Bhagavad-gītā. In every verse of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly stated that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In every verse Vyāsadeva says, śrī-bhagavān uvāca, "the Supreme Personality of Godhead said," or "the Blessed Lord said." It is clearly stated that the Blessed Lord is the Supreme Person, but Māyāvādī atheists still try to prove that the Absolute Truth is impersonal. In order to present their false, imaginary meanings, they must adopt so much word jugglery and grammatical interpretation that they finally become ludicrous. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu remarked that no one should hear the Māyāvādī commentaries or purports to any Vedic literature.
“All these mantras confirm that the Absolute Truth is personal, but the Māyāvādīs, throwing away the direct meaning, interpret the Absolute Truth as impersonal.
The intelligence of the Māyāvādīs is not purified; therefore even though they practice austerities for self-realization, they cannot remain within the impersonal brahmajyoti. Consequently, they fall down again into this material world.
The Māyāvādīs' conception of spiritual existence is almost identical to the negation of material existence. The Māyāvādīs believe that there is nothing positive in spiritual life. As a result, they cannot understand devotional service or the worship of the Supreme Person, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). The Māyāvādī philosophers consider Deity worship in devotional service to be pratibimba-vāda, or the worship of a form that is the reflection of a false material form. Thus the Lord's transcendental form, which is eternally blissful and full of knowledge, is unknown to Māyāvādī philosophers.
The word brāhmaṇa-mūrtinā in this verse refers to the founder of Māyāvāda philosophy, Śaṅkarācārya, who was born in the Mālabara district of southern India. Māyāvāda philosophy states that the Supreme Lord, the living entities and the cosmic manifestation are all transformations of illusory energy. To support this atheistic theory, the Māyāvādīs cite false scriptures, which make people bereft of transcendental knowledge and addicted to fruitive activities and mental speculation.
According to the opinion of the Māyāvādī Vedāntists, the living entity's ultimate success is to merge into the impersonal Brahman. The impersonal Brahman, or bodily effulgence of the Supreme Lord, is known as Brahmaloka or Siddhaloka. According to the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.40), yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi: the material universes are generated from the bodily rays of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Yogīs who follow the principles of Patañjali accept the personality of the Absolute Truth, but they want to merge into the transcendental body of the Supreme Lord. That is their desire. Being the greatest authority, the Supreme Lord can easily allow many millions of living entities to merge into His body. The origin of everything is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavān, and His bodily effulgence is known as the brahmajyoti, Brahmaloka or Siddhaloka.
Actually the caste brāhmaṇas of the smārta community are opposed to the principles of the Sātvata-pañcarātra. Furthermore, there are many Māyāvādīs and those overly addicted to material sense enjoyment. None of these can be compared to a person who is purely engaged in preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Every Kṛṣṇa conscious person is constantly endeavoring to utilize different transcendental devices in the service of the Lord. Such a devotee renounces all material enjoyment and completely dedicates himself to the service of his spiritual master and Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He may be a perfect celibate, a restrained householder, a regulated vānaprastha or a tridaṇḍi-sannyāsī in the renounced order. It doesn’t matter. The pseudo transcendentalists and the pure devotees cannot be compared, nor can one argue that a person can invent his own way of worship.
These mellows cannot be compared to the feelings one derives from demigod worship. Kṛṣṇa is one, but the demigods are different. They are material. Love for Kṛṣṇa cannot be compared to material love for different demigods. Because Māyāvādīs are on the material platform, they recommend the worship of Śiva or Durgā and say that worship of Kālī and Kṛṣṇa are the same. However, on the spiritual platform there is no demigod worship. The only worshipable object is Kṛṣṇa. Therefore although there is no difference between a devotee in śānta-rasa or dāsya-rasa, vātsalya-rasa or mādhurya-rasa, one can still make a comparative study of the intensity of love in these different transcendental positions. For example, it may be said that dāsya-rasa is better than śānta-rasa, yet transcendental love of God is there in both of them. Similarly, we can judge that love of Godhead in fraternity is better than love of Godhead in neutrality and servitorship.
Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “I am a Māyāvādī in the renounced order of life, and I do not even know what transcendental loving service to the Lord is. I simply float in the ocean of Māyāvāda philosophy.
These verses indicate that one first has to be purified of all material desires and all attraction for fruitive activity and speculative knowledge if one wishes to understand Vṛndāvana.
In reference to the words aprākṛta navīna madana, aprākṛta refers to that which is the very opposite of the material conception. The Māyāvādīs consider this to be zero or impersonal, but that is not the case. Everything in the material world is dull, but in the spiritual world everything is alive. The desire for enjoyment is present both in Kṛṣṇa and in His parts and parcels, the living entities. In the spiritual world, such desires are also spiritual. No one should mistakenly consider such desires to be material. In the material world, if one is sexually inclined and enjoys sex life, he enjoys something temporary. His enjoyment vanishes after a few minutes. However, in the spiritual world the same enjoyment may be there, but it never vanishes.
One should not be misled by mental concoctions, supposing his material body to be perfect and deeming oneself a sakhī. This is something like ahaṅgrahopāsanā, that is, a Māyāvādī’s worship of his own body as the Supreme. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has cautioned mundaners to abstain from such conceptions. He also warns that thinking oneself one of the associates of the Supreme without following in the footsteps of the gopīs is as offensive as thinking oneself the Supreme. Such thinking is an aparādha. One has to practice living in Vṛndāvana by hearing about the talks of the gopīs with Kṛṣṇa. However, one should not consider himself a gopī, for this is offensive.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura points out that the word "Tattvavādī" refers to the followers of Śrīla Madhvācārya. To distinguish his disciplic succession from the Māyāvādī followers of Śaṅkarācārya, Śrīla Madhvācārya named his party the Tattvavādīs. Impersonal monists are always attacked by these Tattvavādīs, who attempt to defeat their philosophy of impersonalism. Generally, they establish the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Actually the disciplic succession of Madhvācārya is known as the Brahmā Vaiṣṇava sect; that is the sect coming down from Lord Brahmā. Consequently the Tattvavādīs, or followers of Madhvācārya, do not accept the incident of Lord Brahmā’s illusion, which is recorded in the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīla Madhvācārya has purposefully avoided commenting on that portion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in which brahma-mohana, the illusion of Lord Brahmā, is mentioned. Śrīla Mādhavendra Purī was one of the ācāryas in the Tattvavāda disciplic succession, and he established the ultimate goal of transcendentalism to be attainment of pure devotional service, love of Godhead.
The followers of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu are therefore known as the Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.
The word pāṣaṇḍī refers to those who are opposed to pure devotional service. In particular, these are the Māyāvādīs, the impersonalists. A definition of pāṣaṇḍī is given in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (1.73), wherein it is stated:
- yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma-rudrādi-daivataiḥ
- samatvenaiva vīkṣeta sa pāṣaṇḍī bhaved dhruvam
- (CC Madhya 18.116)
A pāṣaṇḍī is one who thinks that the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead, is on the same level with the demigods, headed by Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva. A devotee never considers Lord Nārāyaṇa to be on the same platform with Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva. The Madhvācārya-sampradāya and Rāmānuja-sampradāya are mainly worshipers of Lord Rāmacandra, although the Śrī Vaiṣṇavas are supposed to be worshipers of Lord Nārāyaṇa and Lakṣmī and the Tattvavādīs are supposed to be worshipers of Lord Kṛṣṇa. At present, in most of the monasteries belonging to the Madhva-sampradāya, Lord Rāmacandra is worshiped.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura remarks, "The impersonalists imagine some forms of the Absolute Truth through the direct perception of their senses. The impersonalists worship such imaginary forms, but neither Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam nor Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepts this sense gratificatory worship to be of any spiritual significance." The Māyāvādīs imagine themselves to be the Supreme. They imagine that the Supreme has no personal form and that all His forms are imaginary like the will-o’-the-wisp or a flower in the sky. Both Māyāvādīs and those who imagine forms of God are misguided. According to them, worship of the Deity or any other form of the Lord is a result of the conditioned soul's illusion. However, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms the conclusion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam on the strength of His philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. That philosophy holds that the Supreme Lord is simultaneously one with and different from His creation.
To set the example, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu personally visited temples in various holy places. Wherever He visited, He immediately exhibited His ecstatic love for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When a Vaiṣṇava visits the temple of a demigod, his vision of that demigod is different from the vision of the impersonalists and Māyāvādīs. The Brahma-saṁhitā supports this. A Vaiṣṇava's visit to the temple of Lord Śiva, for example, is different from a nondevotee's visit. The nondevotee considers the deity of Lord Śiva an imaginary form because he ultimately thinks that the Supreme Absolute Truth is void. However, a Vaiṣṇava sees Lord Śiva as being simultaneously one with and different from the Supreme Lord. In this regard, the example of milk and yogurt is given. Yogurt is actually nothing but milk, but at the same time it is not milk. It is simultaneously one with milk yet different from it. This is the philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and it is confirmed by Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.4):
Preaching work is described as paropakāra, welfare activity for others. Those who are ignorant of the benefits of devotional service must be educated by preaching. If one stops preaching and simply sits down in a solitary place, he is engaging in material activity. If one desires to make a compromise with the Māyāvādīs, he is also engaged in material activity. A devotee should never make compromises with nondevotees. By acting as a professional guru, mystic yogī or miracle man, one may cheat and bluff the general public and gain fame as a wonderful mystic, but all this is considered to be dust, straw and grains of sand within the heart. In addition, one should follow the regulative principles and not desire illicit sex, gambling, intoxicants or meat.
The words bhuṅkte bhojayate indicate that one should eat with devotees. One should carefully avoid eating food offered by nondevotees. Indeed, a devotee should be very strict in not accepting food from a nondevotee, especially food prepared in restaurants or hotels or on airplanes. Śrīla Nityānanda Prabhu's reference in this connection is meant to emphasize that one should avoid eating with Māyāvādīs and covert Māyāvādīs like the sahajiyā Vaiṣṇavas, who are materially affected.
Because of this they are entangled in fruitive activity, and they try to escape this fruitive activity by mental speculation. Consequently neither karmīs nor jñānīs are purified. In the words of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Ṭhākura, they are kukarmīs and kujñānīs—bad fruitive actors and bad speculators. The Māyāvādīs and karmīs should therefore turn their attention to the magnanimous Vāsudeva Datta, who wanted to suffer for others in a hellish condition. No one should consider Vāsudeva Datta a mundane philanthropist or welfare worker. Nor was he interested in merging into the Brahman effulgence or in gaining material honor or reputation. He was far, far above philanthropists, philosophers and fruitive actors. He was the most exalted personality to ever show mercy to the conditioned souls. This is not an exaggeration of his transcendental qualities. It is perfectly true. Actually, there cannot be any comparison to Vāsudeva Datta.
“In the verse beginning nāmaikaṁ yasya, we find the word pāṣaṇḍa ("godlessness"). The word literally indicates misuse of one's body or property, but in that verse it implies the ten offenses against the Lord's holy name, since each of these leads to such godless behavior.”
The Māyāvādīs look on Viṣṇu and Vaiṣṇavas imperfectly due to their poor fund of knowledge, and this is condemned. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.46), the intermediate Vaiṣṇava is described as follows:
- īśvare tad-adhīneṣu bāliśeṣu dviṣatsu ca
- prema-maitrī-kṛpopekṣā yaḥ karoti sa madhyamaḥ
"The intermediate Vaiṣṇava has to love God, make friends with the devotees, instruct the innocent and reject jealous people. These are the four functions of the Vaiṣṇava in the intermediate stage."
Actually Vedānta philosophy is meant for the devotees because in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15) Lord Kṛṣṇa says, vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham: "I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas." Vyāsadeva is an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, and consequently Kṛṣṇa is the compiler of Vedānta philosophy. Therefore Kṛṣṇa clearly knows the purport of Vedānta philosophy. As stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, whoever hears Vedānta philosophy from Kṛṣṇa is actually aware of the real meaning of Vedānta. The Māyāvādīs call themselves Vedāntists but do not at all understand the purport of Vedānta philosophy. Not being properly educated, people in general think that Vedānta means the Śaṅkarite interpretation.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu's ecstatic love cannot be compared to the imitative emotional exhibitions of pretenders. Such exhibitions do not continue for very long. They are temporary. We actually see that some emotional imitators exhibit certain symptoms, but immediately after their exhibition, they are attracted to smoking and other things. In the beginning, when Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī heard of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's activities, he considered them to be those of a pretender. Consequently he called Him a loka-pratāraka, a pretender. Māyāvādīs cannot understand the transcendental symptoms exhibited by a devotee; therefore when such symptoms are manifest, the Māyāvādīs equate them with temporary emotional feelings. However, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī’s statement is offensive, and consequently he should be considered an atheist (pāṣaṇḍī). According to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, since Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī was not engaged in the Lord's devotional service, his sannyāsa is to be considered phalgu-vairāgya. This means that since he did not know how to use things for the Lord's service, his renunciation of the world was artificial.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “The Māyāvādī impersonalists are great offenders unto Lord Kṛṣṇa; therefore they simply utter the words "Brahman," "ātmā" and "caitanya."
“Because the Māyāvādīs are great offenders and atheistic philosophers, the holy name of Kṛṣṇa does not come from their mouths.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was selling the transcendental holy name of the Lord. But Kāśī was a city of Māyāvādīs (impersonalists), and such people will never chant the holy names of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. Consequently Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was feeling disappointed. How could He teach the Māyāvādīs the importance of chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra? The attraction for chanting the holy name of the Lord belongs absolutely to pure devotees, and there was no possibility of finding pure devotees at Kāśī. Consequently Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's commodity was certainly very heavy. The Lord therefore suggested that even though there were no pure devotees in Kāśī, if someone was a little inclined to chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, He would deliver this big load, although the proper price was not paid.
Although this mission was started with insignificant capital, it is now going nicely. The spreading of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra in the West has become successful because the young people were not offenders. The youths who joined this movement were not very advanced as far as purity is concerned, nor were they very well educated in Vedic knowledge, but because they were not offenders, they could accept the importance of the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement. We are now very happy to see that this movement is advancing more and more in the Western countries. We therefore conclude that the so-called mlecchas and yavanas of the Western countries are more purified than offensive Māyāvādīs or atheistic impersonalists.
The unwanted creepers have been described by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. He states that if one hears and chants without trying to give up offenses, one becomes materially attached to sense gratification. One may also desire freedom from material bondage like the Māyāvādīs, or one may become attached to the yoga-siddhis and desire wonderful yogic powers. If one is attached to wonderful material activities, one is called siddhi-lobhī, greedy for material perfection. One may also be victimized by diplomatic or crooked behavior, or one may associate with women for illicit sex. One may make a show of devotional service like the prākṛta-sahajiyās, or one may try to support his philosophy by joining some caste or identifying himself with a certain dynasty, claiming a monopoly on spiritual advancement. Thus with the support of family tradition, one may become a pseudo guru, or so-called spiritual master. One may become attached to the four sinful activities—illicit sex, intoxication, gambling and meat-eating—or one may consider a Vaiṣṇava to belong to a mundane caste or creed. One may think, “This is a Hindu Vaiṣṇava, and this is a European Vaiṣṇava.
This is called sakhya-rati. The sakhya-rati devotee is so advanced that he treats the Lord on an equal level and even exchanges joking words with Him. Although one is never equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the sakhya-rati devotee feels equal to the Lord, and he does not feel guilty because of this. Usually it is offensive to consider oneself equal to the Lord. The Māyāvādīs, for example, consider themselves equal to the Lord, but such feelings entail bereavement because they are material. Sakhya-rati, however, is a feeling experienced in the mind by a pure devotee, and he is eternally related with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in that feeling.
Bhāgavatam reciter is one who is not in the disciplic succession or one who has no taste for bhakti-yoga. Simply on the strength of grammatical knowledge and word jugglery, professional reciters maintain their bodies and their desires for sense gratification by reading Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One should also avoid those who are averse to Lord Viṣṇu and His devotees, those who are Māyāvādīs, those who offend the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, those who simply dress as Vaiṣṇavas or so-called gosvāmīs, and those who make a business by selling Vedic mantras and reciting Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to maintain their families. One should not try to understand Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from such materialistic people. According to the Vedic injunctions, yasya deve parā bhaktiḥ. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam can be recited only by one who has unflinching faith in the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa and His devotee, the spiritual master. One should try to understand Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from the spiritual master. The Vedic injunction states, bhaktyā bhāgavataṁ grāhyaṁ na buddhyā na ca ṭīkayā. One has to understand Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam through the process of devotional service and by hearing the recitation of a pure devotee. These are the injunctions of the Vedic literature—śruti and smṛti.
The qualities of Kṛṣṇa are present in the living entity in minute, atomic quantities. A small portion of gold is certainly gold, but it cannot be equal to a gold mine. Similarly, the living entities have all the characteristics of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in minute quantity, but the living entity is never equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. God is therefore described as the Supreme Being, and the living entity is described as a jīva. God is described as the Supreme Being, the chief of all living beings, because He is supplying the necessities of all others—eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān. The Māyāvādīs maintain that everyone is God, but even if this philosophy is accepted, no one can maintain that everyone is equal to the Supreme Godhead in every respect. Only unintelligent men maintain that everyone is equal to God or that everyone is God.
“The Māyāvādīs do not recognize the personal form of the Lord as spiritual and full of bliss. This is a great sin. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's statements are actually factual.
CC Antya-lila
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu derives no happiness from meeting one who is not a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Thus because Gopāla Bhaṭṭācārya was a Māyāvādī scholar, the Lord felt no jubilation in meeting him. Nevertheless, because Gopāla Bhaṭṭācārya was related to Bhagavān Ācārya, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu feigned pleasure in seeing him.
Śrīla Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī wanted to impress upon Bhagavān Ācārya that even though someone firmly fixed in devotion to Kṛṣṇa's service might not be deviated by hearing the Māyāvāda bhāṣya, that bhāṣya is nevertheless full of impersonal words and ideas—such as Brahman—which represent knowledge but which are impersonal. The Māyāvādīs say that the world created by māyā is false and that actually there is no living entity but only one spiritual effulgence. They further say that God is imaginary, that people think of God only because of ignorance, and that when the Supreme Absolute Truth is befooled by the external energy, māyā, He becomes a jīva, or living entity. Upon hearing all these nonsensical ideas from the nondevotee, a devotee is greatly afflicted, as if his heart and soul were broken.
Vaiṣṇavas strictly follow the directions of the śāstras regarding how one can be liberated simply by a slight awakening of pure chanting of the holy name. Māyāvādīs cannot tolerate the statements of the śāstras about how easily liberation can be achieved, for, as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā (12.5), kleśo ‘dhikaratas teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: impersonalists must work hard for many, many births, and only then will they perhaps be liberated. Vaiṣṇavas know that simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord offenselessly, one achieves liberation as a by-product. Thus there is no need to endeavor separately for liberation. Śrīla Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura has said, muktiḥ svayaṁ mukulitāñjali sevate "smān: liberation stands at one"s door, ready to render any kind of service, if one is a pure devotee with unflinching faith and reverence. This the Māyāvādīs cannot tolerate. Therefore the ārindā pradhāna, chief tax collector, although very learned, handsome and youthful, could not tolerate the statements of Haridāsa Ṭhākura.
The philosophy enunciated by the Māyāvādīs is called ghaṭa-paṭiyā ("pot-and-earth") philosophy. According to this philosophy, everything is one. Such philosophers see no distinction between a pot made of earth and the earth itself, reasoning that anything made of earth, such as different pots, is also the same earth. Since Gopāla Cakravartī was a ghaṭa-paṭiyā logician, a gross materialist, what could he understand about the transcendental devotional service of the Lord?
Thus although Śrīla Rāmānanda Rāya acted as a gṛhastha and was accepted as an ordinary pounds-and-shillings man, he was always absorbed in the transcendental pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Therefore his mind was spiritually situated, and he was interested only in the subject of Kṛṣṇa. Rāmānanda Rāya was not among the Māyāvādī impersonalists or materialistic logicians who are opposed to the principles of Lord Kṛṣṇa's transcendental pastimes. He was already spiritually situated in the order of renounced life; therefore he was able to turn sand into gold by spiritual potency, or, in other words, to elevate a person from a material to a spiritual position.
The brāhmaṇa poet from Bengal was an offender in the estimation of Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī, for although the poet had no knowledge of the Absolute Truth, he had nevertheless tried to describe it. The Bengali poet was an offender to both Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Lord Jagannātha. Because he had made a distinction between Lord Jagannātha's body and His soul and because he had indicated that Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was different from Lord Jagannātha, he had committed offenses to Them both. A-tattva-jña refers to one who has no knowledge of the Absolute Truth or who worships his own body as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If an ahaṅgrahopāsaka-māyāvādī, a person engaged in fruitive activities or a person interested only in sense gratification describes the Absolute Truth, he immediately becomes an offender.
According to the considerations of Māyāvādī fools, the Supreme Personality of Godhead accepts a material body when He appears in the material world. A Vaiṣṇava, however, knows perfectly well that for Kṛṣṇa, Lord Jagannātha or Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu—unlike for ordinary human beings—there is no distinction between the body and the soul. Even in the material world His Lordship retains His spiritual identity; therefore Lord Kṛṣṇa exhibited all opulences even in His childhood body. There is no distinction between the body and the soul of Kṛṣṇa; whether He is in His childhood body or His youthful body, He is always identical with His body. Even though Kṛṣṇa appears like an ordinary human being, He is never subjected to the rules and regulations of the material world. He is svarāṭ, or fully independent. He can appear in the material world, but contrary to the offensive conclusion of the Māyāvāda school, He has no material body. In this connection one may again refer to the above-mentioned verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.11.38):
Condemning this process of hearing the Bhāgavatam from professionals, Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī says, yāha, bhāgavata paḍa vaiṣṇavera sthāne: "To understand the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, you must approach a self-realized Vaiṣṇava." One should rigidly avoid hearing the Bhāgavatam from a Māyāvādī or other nondevotee who simply performs a grammatical jugglery of words to twist some meaning from the text, collect money from the innocent public, and thus keep people in darkness.
Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī strictly prohibits the behavior of the materialistic so-called hearers of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Instead of awakening real love for Kṛṣṇa, such hearers of the Bhāgavatam become more and more attached to household affairs and sex life (yan maithunādi-gṛhamedhi-sukhaṁ hi tuccham (SB 7.9.45)). One should hear Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from a person who has no connection with material activities, or, in other words, from a paramahaṁsa Vaiṣṇava, one who has achieved the highest stage of sannyāsa. This, of course, is not possible unless one takes shelter of the lotus feet of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is understandable only for one who can follow in the footsteps of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
The following summary of the Eighth Chapter is given by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in his Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya. This chapter describes the history of the Lord's dealings with Rāmacandra Purī. Although Rāmacandra Purī was one of the disciples of Mādhavendra Purī, he was influenced by dry Māyāvādīs, and therefore he criticized Mādhavendra Purī. Therefore Mādhavendra Purī accused him of being an offender and rejected him. Because Rāmacandra Purī had been rejected by his spiritual master, he became concerned only with finding faults in others and advising them according to dry Māyāvāda philosophy. For this reason he was not very respectful to the Vaiṣṇavas, and later he became so fallen that he began criticizing Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for His eating. Hearing his criticisms, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu reduced His eating, but after Rāmacandra Purī left Jagannātha Purī, the Lord resumed His usual behavior.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has explained in his Anubhāṣya that the word nirbandha indicates that Rāmacandra Purī had a steady desire to criticize others. Impersonalist Māyāvādīs, who have no relationship with Kṛṣṇa, who cannot take to devotional service, and who simply engage in material arguments to understand Brahman, regard devotional service to Kṛṣṇa as karma-kāṇḍa, or fruitive activities. According to them, devotional service to Kṛṣṇa is but another means for attaining dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa. Therefore they criticize the devotees for engaging in material activities. They think that devotional service is māyā and that Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu is also māyā. Therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Such a mentality awakens in a person who is an offender to Kṛṣṇa and His devotees.
Even if he speaks about Kṛṣṇa, such a lesson should not be accepted, for it is like milk touched by the lips of a serpent.” Nowadays it is fashionable to observe Bhāgavata-saptāha and hear Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from persons who are anything but advanced devotees or self-realized souls. There are even many Māyāvādīs who read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to throngs of people. Many Māyāvādīs have recently begun reciting Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in Vṛndāvana, and because they can present the Bhāgavatam with word jugglery, twisting the meaning by grammatical tricks, materialistic persons who go to Vṛndāvana as a matter of spiritual fashion like to hear them. All this is clearly forbidden by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. We should note carefully that since these Māyāvādīs cannot personally know the meaning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, they can never deliver others by reciting it. On the other hand, an advanced devotee of the Lord is free from material bondage.
| Page Title: | Mayavadis (CC) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, RupaManjari |
| Created: | 07 of Nov, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=77, OB=0, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 77 |