Mayavada school

Expressions researched:
"Mayavada (impersonalist) school" |"Mayavada and Bhagavata schools" |"Mayavada, or impersonalist, school" |"mayavada school" |"mayavadi school"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 5.2, Purport:

"When persons eager to achieve liberation renounce things related to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, thinking them to be material, their renunciation is called incomplete." Renunciation is complete when it is in the knowledge that everything in existence belongs to the Lord and that no one should claim proprietorship over anything. One should understand that, factually, nothing belongs to anyone. Then where is the question of renunciation? One who knows that everything is Kṛṣṇa's property is always situated in renunciation. Since everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa, everything should be employed in the service of Kṛṣṇa. This perfect form of action in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is far better than any amount of artificial renunciation by a sannyāsī of the Māyāvādī school.

SB Preface and Introduction

SB Introduction:

While He was contemplating accepting the sannyāsa order, it so happened that Keśava Bhāratī, a sannyāsī of the Māyāvādī school and resident of Katwa (in Bengal), visited Navadvīpa and was invited to dine with the Lord. When Keśava Bhāratī came to His house, the Lord asked him to award Him the sannyāsa order of life. This was a matter of formality. The sannyāsa order is to be accepted from another sannyāsī. Although the Lord was independent in all respects, still, to keep up the formalities of the śāstras, He accepted the sannyāsa order from Keśava Bhāratī, although Keśava Bhāratī was not in the Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya (school).

SB Introduction:

"The Buddhists are called atheists because they have no respect for the Vedas, but those who defy the Vedic conclusions, as above mentioned, under the pretense of being followers of the Vedas, are verily more dangerous than the Buddhists.

"Śrī Vyāsadeva very kindly compiled the Vedic knowledge in his Vedānta-sūtra, but if one hears the commentation of the Māyāvāda school (as represented by the Śaṅkara-sampradāya) certainly he will be misled on the path of spiritual realization.

"The theory of emanations is the beginning subject of the Vedānta-sūtra. All the cosmic manifestations are emanations from the Absolute Personality of Godhead by His inconceivable different energies. The example of the touchstone is applicable to the theory of emanation.

SB Introduction:

Similarly, the Supreme Lord can produce all manifested worlds by His inconceivable energies, and yet He is full and unchanged. He is pūrṇa (complete), and although an unlimited number of pūrṇas emanate from Him, He is still pūrṇa.

"The theory of illusion of the Māyāvāda school is advocated on the ground that the theory of emanation will cause a transformation of the Absolute Truth. If that is the case, Vyāsadeva is wrong. To avoid this, they have skillfully brought in the theory of illusion. But the world or the cosmic creation is not false, as maintained by the Māyāvāda school. It simply has no permanent existence. A nonpermanent thing cannot be called false altogether. But the conception that the material body is the self is certainly wrong.

SB Introduction:

The Lord thus spoke on the Vedānta-sūtra and defied all the propaganda of the Māyāvāda school.* The Bhaṭṭācārya tried to defend himself and his Māyāvāda school by jugglery of logic and grammar, but the Lord defeated him by His forceful arguments. He affirmed that we are all related with the Personality of Godhead eternally and that devotional service is our eternal function in exchanging the dealings of our relations. The result of such exchanges is to attain premā, or love of Godhead. When love of Godhead is attained, love for all other beings automatically follows because the Lord is the sum total of all living beings.

SB Introduction:

On His way back from Vṛndāvana He first came to Prayāga, where He met Rūpa Gosvāmī along with his younger brother, Anupama. Then He came down to Vārāṇasī (Benares), where he became the guest of Śrī Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara, assisted by a Mahārāṣṭra brāhmaṇa. At that time Vārāṇasī was headed by a great sannyāsī of the Māyāvāda school named Śrīpāda Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī. When the Lord was at Vārāṇasī, the people in general became more attracted to Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu on account of His mass saṅkīrtana movement. Wherever He visited, especially the Viśvanātha temple, thousands of pilgrims would follow Him. Some were attracted by His bodily features, and others were attracted by His melodious songs glorifying the Lord.

SB Introduction:

The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs designate themselves as Nārāyaṇa. Vārāṇasī is still overflooded with many Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. Some people who saw the Lord in His saṅkīrtana party considered Him to be actually Nārāyaṇa, and this report reached the camp of the great sannyāsī Prakāśānanda.

In India there is always a kind of spiritual rivalry between the Māyāvāda and Bhāgavata schools, and thus when the news of the Lord reached Prakāśānanda he knew that the Lord was a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī, and therefore he minimized the value of the Lord before those who brought him the news. He deprecated the activities of the Lord because of His preaching the saṅkīrtana movement, which was in his opinion nothing but religious sentiment. Prakāśānanda was a profound student of the Vedānta, and he advised his followers to give attention to the Vedānta and not to indulge in saṅkīrtana.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.2.3, Purport:

He wrote his Śārīraka-bhāṣya, and his so-called followers deprecated the Bhāgavatam as some "new" presentation. One should not be misled by such propaganda directed against the Bhāgavatam by the Māyāvāda school. From this introductory śloka, the beginning student should know that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the only transcendental literature meant for those who are paramahaṁsas and completely freed from the material disease called malice. The Māyāvādīs are envious of the Personality of Godhead despite Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's admission that Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead, is above the material creation. The envious Māyāvādī cannot have access to the Bhāgavatam, but those who are really anxious to get out of this material existence may take shelter of this Bhāgavatam because it is uttered by the liberated Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī.

SB Canto 3

SB 3.5.23, Purport:

The great sage here begins to explain the purpose of the four original verses of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Although they have no access to the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the followers of the Māyāvāda (impersonalist) school sometimes screw out an imaginary explanation of the original four verses, but we must accept the actual explanation given herein by Maitreya Muni because he, along with Uddhava, personally heard it directly from the Lord. The first line of the original four verses runs, aham evāsam evāgre. The word aham is misinterpreted by the Māyāvāda school into meanings which no one but the interpreter can understand. Here aham is explained as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not the individual living entities. Before the creation, there was only the Personality of Godhead; there were no puruṣa incarnations and certainly no living entities, nor was there the material energy, by which the manifested creation is effected. The puruṣa incarnations and all the different energies of the Supreme Lord were merged in Him only.

SB 3.9.21, Purport:

Before Brahmā took up the task of creation, he found the Lord sleeping on the serpent bed in the waves of the water of devastation. Therefore, sleeping exists in the internal potency of the Lord, and this is not denied by pure devotees of the Lord like Brahmā and his disciplic succession. It is clearly said here that the Lord slept very happily within the violent waves of the water, manifesting thereby that He is able to do anything and everything by His transcendental will and not be hampered by any circumstances. The Māyāvādī cannot think beyond this material experience, and thus he denies the Lord's ability to sleep within the water. His mistake is that he compares the Lord to himself—and that comparison is also a material thought. The whole philosophy of the Māyāvāda school, based on "not this, not that" (neti, neti), is basically material. Such thought cannot give one the chance to know the Supreme Personality of Godhead as He is.

SB 3.9.33, Purport:

That service attitude is the svarūpa, or real form, of the living entity. Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, also confirms this statement by declaring that the real, spiritual form of the living entity is eternal servitorship to the Supreme Lord. The Māyāvāda school shudders at the thought of a service attitude in the living entity, not knowing that in the transcendental world the service of the Lord is based on transcendental love. Transcendental loving service is never to be compared to the forced service of the material world. In the material world, even if one is under the conception that he is no one's servant, he is still the servant of his senses, under the dictation of the material modes. Factually no one is master here in the material world, and therefore the servants of the senses have a very bad experience of servitude.

SB 3.19.33, Purport:

Not only does it have no effect in transcendental pleasure, but it is dangerous also. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu has warned that no description of the pastimes of the Lord should be heard from the Māyāvāda, or impersonalist, school. He has clearly said, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva nāśa: if anyone hears the Māyāvādīs' interpretation of the pastimes of the Lord, or their interpretation of Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or any other Vedic literature, then he is doomed. Once one is associated with impersonalists, he can never understand the personal feature of the Lord and His transcendental pastimes.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.9.29, Purport:

There are many instances of such falldowns, even for great sannyāsīs in the Māyāvāda school.

Therefore Vaiṣṇava philosophers do not accept sāyujya-mukti to be within the category of mukti. According to them, mukti means transferal to the loving service of the Lord from one's position of serving māyā. Lord Caitanya also says in this connection that the constitutional position of a living entity is to render service to the Lord. That is real mukti. When one is situated in his original position, giving up artificial positions, he is called mukta, or liberated. In the Bhagavad-gītā this is confirmed: anyone who engages in rendering transcendental loving service to the Lord is considered to be mukta, or brahma-bhūta (SB 4.30.20). It is said in Bhagavad-gītā that a devotee is considered to be on the brahma-bhūta platform when he has no material contamination. In the Padma Purāṇa this is also confirmed: mukti means engagement in the service of the Lord.

SB Canto 6

SB 6.16.52, Purport:

The Māyāvāda philosophy sees everything as being equal in quality with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or the Supreme Brahman, and therefore sees everything as worshipable. This dangerous theory of the Māyāvāda school has turned people in general toward atheism. On the strength of this theory, one thinks that he is God, but this is not a fact. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā (BG 9.4)), the fact is that the entire cosmic manifestation is an expansion of the Supreme Lord's energies, which are manifested in the physical elements and the living entities. The living entities wrongly consider the physical elements to be resources meant for their enjoyment, and they think themselves to be the enjoyers. However, neither of them is independent; they are both energies of the Lord.

SB Canto 7

SB 7.15.72, Purport:

This is clearly stated. Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ: one should chant about and glorify Lord Viṣṇu, not any demigod. Unfortunately, there are foolish persons who invent some process of kīrtana on the basis of a demigod's name. This is an offense. Kīrtana means glorifying the Supreme Lord, not any demigod. Sometimes people invent kālī-kīrtana or śiva-kīrtana, and even big sannyāsīs in the Māyāvāda school say that one may chant any name and still get the same result. But here we find that millions and millions of years ago, when Nārada Muni was a Gandharva, he neglected the order to glorify the Lord, and being mad in the association of women, he began to chant otherwise. Thus he was cursed to become a śūdra. His first offense was that he went to join the saṅkīrtana party in the company of lusty women, and another offense was that he considered ordinary songs, like cinema songs and other such songs, to be equal to saṅkīrtana. For this offense he was punished with becoming a śūdra.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 1.19, Purport:

As there are five provinces in Āryāvarta, so Dākṣiṇātya, southern India, is also divided into five provinces, which are called Pañca-draviḍa. The four Vaiṣṇava ācāryas who are the great authorities of the four Vaiṣṇava disciplic successions, as well as Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya of the Māyāvāda school, appeared in the Pañca-draviḍa provinces. Among the four Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, who are all accepted by the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, Śrī Rāmānuja Ācārya appeared in the southern part of Andhra Pradesh at Mahābhūtapurī, Śrī Madhva Ācārya appeared at Pājakam (near Vimānagiri) in the district of Mangalore, Śrī Viṣṇu Svāmī appeared at Pāṇḍya, and Śrī Nimbārka appeared at Muṅgera-patana, in the extreme south.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

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.

CC Adi 7.41, Purport:

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.

Māyāvādī sannyāsīs neither chant nor dance. Their technical objection is that this method of chanting and dancing is called tauryatrika, which indicates that a sannyāsī should completely avoid such activities and engage his time in the study of Vedānta. Actually, such men do not understand what is meant by Vedānta. In the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15)

CC Adi 7.128, Purport:

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.

CC Adi 7.133, Translation:

"To prove their philosophy, the members of the Māyāvāda school have given up the real, easily understood meaning of the Vedic literature and introduced indirect meanings based on their imaginative powers."

CC Adi 15.14, Purport:

No, actually He did not. It is recommended that one accept sannyāsa to dedicate his life for the service of the Lord, and everyone must take that kind of sannyāsa, for by accepting such sannyāsa one renders the best service to both his paternal and maternal families. But one should not accept the sannyāsa order of the Māyāvāda school, which has practically no meaning. We find many Māyāvādī sannyāsīs simply loitering in the street thinking themselves Brahman or Nārāyaṇa and spending all day and night begging so they can fill their hungry bellies. Māyāvādī sannyāsīs have become so degraded that there is a section of them who eat everything, just like hogs and dogs. It is such degraded sannyāsa that is prohibited in this age. Actually, Śrīla Śaṅkarācārya's principles for the acceptance of sannyāsa were very strict, but later the so-called Māyāvādī sannyāsīs became degraded because of their false philosophy, which propounds that by accepting sannyāsa one becomes Nārāyaṇa. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu rejected that kind of sannyāsa.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 3.6, Purport:

In addition, according to the exact regulative principles, one should add the jīva-daṇḍa to the tri-daṇḍa. These four daṇḍas, bound together as one, are symbolic of unalloyed devotional service to the Lord. Because the ekadaṇḍi-sannyāsīs of the Māyāvāda school are not devoted to the service of Kṛṣṇa, they try to merge into the Brahman effulgence, which is a marginal position between material and spiritual existence. They accept this impersonal position as liberation. Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, not knowing that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a tridaṇḍī, think of Caitanya Mahāprabhu as an ekadaṇḍi-sannyāsī. This is due to their vivarta, bewilderment. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is no such thing as an ekadaṇḍi-sannyāsī; indeed, the tridaṇḍi-sannyāsī is accepted as the symbolic representation of the sannyāsa order.

CC Madhya 3.6, Purport:

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.

CC Madhya 18.111, Purport:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu immediately stated that a living being, however exalted he may be, should never be compared to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's preaching protests the monistic philosophy of the Māyāvāda school. The central point of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is that the jīva, the living entity, can never be accepted as Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. This viewpoint is elaborated in the following verses.

CC Madhya 18.113, Purport:

Māyāvādī sannyāsīs consider themselves Brahman, and they superficially speak of themselves as Nārāyaṇa. The monistic disciples of the Māyāvāda school (known as smārta-brāhmaṇas) are generally householder brāhmaṇas who accept the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs as Nārāyaṇa incarnate; therefore they offer their obeisances to them. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu immediately protested this unauthorized system, specifically mentioning that a sannyāsī is nothing but a fragmental portion of the Supreme (cit-kaṇa jīva). In other words, he is nothing more than an ordinary living being. He is never Nārāyaṇa, just as a molecular portion of sunshine is never the sun itself. The living entity is nothing but a fragmental part of the Absolute Truth; therefore at no stage of perfection can a living entity become the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

CC Madhya 22.29, Translation:

“There are many philosophical speculators (jñānīs) belonging to the Māyāvāda school who consider themselves liberated and call themselves Nārāyaṇa. But their intelligence is not purified unless they engage in Kṛṣṇa's devotional service.

CC Madhya 25.35, Purport:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's movement especially aims at defeating the Māyāvāda conclusion about the Absolute Truth. Since the members of the Māyāvāda school cannot understand the spiritual form of the Lord, they incorrectly think the Lord's form is also made of material energy. They think that He is covered by a material body just like other living beings. Due to this offensive understanding, they cannot recognize that Śrī Kṛṣṇa's personal form is transcendental, not material. Their conclusion is a great offense at the lotus feet of the Lord. As explained by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Śrī Kṛṣṇa has His eternal, blissful form that is full of knowledge, and all Vaiṣṇava ācāryas accept this. That is the proper understanding of the Absolute Truth.

CC Antya-lila

CC Antya 5.121, Purport:

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):

etad īśanam īśasya prakṛti-stho ‘pi tad-guṇaiḥ

na yujyate sadātma-sthair yathā buddhis tad-āśrayā

The Supreme Person has an eternal spiritual body. If one tries to distinguish between the body and the soul of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he commits a great offense.

CC Antya 7.16, Translation:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “My dear Vallabha Bhaṭṭa, you are a learned scholar. Kindly listen to Me. I am a sannyāsī of the Māyāvāda school. Therefore I have no chance of knowing what kṛṣṇa-bhakti is.

CC Antya 13.61, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments on this incident as follows: Vaiṣṇavas are all liberated persons, unattached to anything material. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava need not accept the dress of a sannyāsī to prove his exalted position. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted the renounced order from a sannyāsī of the Māyāvāda school. Present-day Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs, however, never think that by accepting the dress of the sannyāsa order they have become equal to Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In fact, a Vaiṣṇava accepts the sannyāsa order to remain an eternal servant of his spiritual master. He accepts the sannyāsa order knowing that he is unequal to his spiritual master, who is a paramahaṁsa, and he thinks that he is unfit to dress like a paramahaṁsa. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava accepts sannyāsa out of humility, not out of pride.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 11:

The brāhmaṇas are born from the mouth of the universal form, the kṣatriyas are born from the arms, the vaiśyas from the waist, and the śūdras from the legs. As such, the members of all these social orders are qualified in the different modes of material nature within the form of the virāṭ-puruṣa. But if a person is not engaged in the devotional service of the Lord, he falls from his position, regardless of whether he executes his prescribed occupational duty or not.

Lord Caitanya further pointed out that although those who belong to the Māyāvāda, or impersonalist, school consider themselves to be one with God, or liberated, they are not actually liberated, as confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.2.32):

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 17:

They were surprised to see Lord Caitanya chanting and dancing after He accepted His sannyāsa order from Keśava Bhāratī, for Keśava Bhāratī belonged to the Māyāvādī school. Since Lord Caitanya therefore also belonged to the Māyāvādī sect of sannyāsīs, the Māyāvādīs were surprised to see Him engaged in chanting and dancing instead of hearing or reading the Vedānta-sūtras, as is the custom. The Māyāvādī philosophers are very fond of the Vedānta, and they misinterpret it in their own way. Misunderstanding their own position, they criticized Lord Caitanya as an unauthorized sannyāsī, arguing that because He was a sentimentalist He was not actually a bona fide sannyāsī.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.7:

The God of the monists, or Māyāvādīs, cannot eat, see, or hear. Such a concocted, formless God can never bring peace to the world. How can a God who has no sensory organs see the miseries of the people or hear their heartfelt prayers? To worship such a formless God in the name of searching for spiritual truth can only produce misfortune in the world, never good fortune. In the Māyāvāda school of philosophy, discussions on pure knowledge can throw some light on the real nature of the Absolute Truth, but they are unable to fully reveal the esoteric and personal aspects of the Supreme Absolute Being. These dry, empirical discussions fall far short of their objective: a complete understanding of the Absolute Truth. Therefore only if leaders like Mahatma Gandhi strive to realize the Supreme Absolute Person-not a formless energy—can they truly benefit human society.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

We have great respect for Dr. Radhakrishnan, not only because he is the vice-president of our country but also because of his scholarship and his position as an erudite master of Hindu philosophy. Furthermore, he is faithful to the brahminical tradition he hails from and is a follower of the Māyāvāda school. Going by the oft-quoted dictum that it is better to have a learned enemy than a foolish friend, I feel encouraged in this matter. An intelligent opponent will present reasonable rebuttals, but an ignorant friend may bring about disaster with his floundering. Therefore we feel no compunction about strongly arguing against the points Dr. Radhakrishnan makes in his Bhagavad-gītā commentary.

Sri Isopanisad

Sri Isopanisad 5, Purport:

With our limited fund of knowledge we cannot accommodate such contradictions, and therefore we conceive of the Lord in terms of our limited powers of understanding. For example, the impersonalist philosophers of the Māyāvāda school accept only the Lord's impersonal activities and reject His personal feature. But the members of the Bhāgavata school, adopting the perfect conception of the Lord, accept His inconceivable potencies and thus understand that He is both personal and impersonal. The bhāgavatas know that without inconceivable potencies there can be no meaning to the words "Supreme Lord."

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.8.36 -- Los Angeles, April 28, 1973:

So he asked that: "You are a boy, twenty-four years old only. You have taken sannyāsa. It is very difficult to keep sannyāsa because there are so many attractions for the young man. So you hear Vedānta-sūtra." This, the hearing. So hearing. So hearing's so important. Even amongst the Māyāvādī school, they hear Vedānta-sūtra. We also hear, but we hear, hear real Vedānta-sūtra. Because they falsely interpret, their hearing is spoiled, but we don't interpret. We hear actually. Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the Supreme." We accept it. That is hearing. And if you interpret, "Oh, Kṛṣṇa means this, Kurukṣetra means this," that mean you're spoiling your time. Why this, that? As it is, hear as it is. Then the...

Lecture on SB 1.16.11 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1974:

Some of the Indian cities were famous for learned scholars, like Navadvīpa, Nadia, Vārāṇasī, and there were several places, in Garabanga,(?) in the southern India also, there is a place. So there were several places where different schools, Māyāvādīs... Chiefly there are two schools of transcendental subject matter, namely the Māyāvādī school and the Vaiṣṇavas. So Māyāvādīs, were there in Vārāṇasī, mostly. And Vaiṣṇavas also they have their place, especially in Navadvīpa, Vṛndāvana, like that. So one digvijaya-paṇḍita, Keśava Kāśmīrī, he also came to Navadvīpa. He got victory in all other cities, but when he came to Navadvīpa, he became defeated, because Caitanya Mahāprabhu was there.

At that time Caitanya Mahāprabhu was only sixteen years old. So the learned scholars there first of all decided that "Let now Nimāi Paṇḍita..." Caitanya Mahāprabhu's student life was known as Nimāi Paṇḍita. His mother gave a very beloved name, Nimāi, because He took His birth underneath a tree, nim tree.

Festival Lectures

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, SB 6.3.24 -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

Last night, somebody was discussing with me saguṇa and nirguṇa. Saguṇa means, according to their version, or a standard version, saguṇa means the material quality. They worship saguṇa-rūpa. Saguṇa means forms of this material world. Sādhakānāṁ hitārthāya brāhmaṇa-rūpa-kalpanaḥ.(?) Kalpanaḥ. According to Māyāvādī school, the Absolute Truth is imperson. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is also said, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām, adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Say, for meditation, it is very difficult to meditate on impersonal feature. Therefore, they artificially think like that: "I am the whole. I am moving the stars, I am moving the moon." Or some color display is taking place. Artificially. This meditation is artificial. Therefore, they do not get any result. Simply waste time, and they remain the number one debauch, as they are. So this kind of meditation... Because they will not put any form... "The Brahman is impersonal." So how they can think of any form?

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, SB 6.3.24 -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

The rascals, mūḍhāḥ. Mūḍhāḥ means rascals, gādhāḥ, asses. Their designation is given by Kṛṣṇa as asses, rascals. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore said, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa (CC Madhya 6.169). Because these commentaries, comments by the Māyāvādī school, is simply rascaldom. And if one hears such commentary by the Māyāvādīs, the result will be he'll be doomed. Doomed means forever... Forever, no. For very, very long time he'll not be able to understand actual his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore he's doomed. And because he is not able to understand his relationship with Kṛṣṇa, he is called rākṣasa or asura. Āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ.

That is also condemned in Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ (BG 7.15). You'll find amongst them very, very learned men, very, very good scholar.

Initiation Lectures

Excerpt from Sannyasa Initiation of Viraha Prakasa Swami -- Mayapur, February 5, 1976:

These four daṇḍas bound together as one are symbolic of unalloyed devotional service to the Lord. Because the ekadaṇḍī-sannyāsīs of the Māyāvāda school are not devoted to the service of Kṛṣṇa, they try to merge into the Brahman effulgence, which is a marginal position between material and spiritual existence. They accept this impersonal position as liberation. Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, not knowing that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a tridaṇḍī, think of Caitanya Mahāprabhu as an ekadaṇḍī sannyāsī. This is due to their vivarta, bewilderment. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is no such thing as ekadaṇḍī sannyāsī. Indeed, the tridaṇḍī-sannyāsī is accepted as the symbolic representation of the sannyāsa order. By citing this verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted the sannyāsa order recommended in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Excerpt from Sannyasa Initiation of Viraha Prakasa Swami -- Mayapur, February 5, 1976:

The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, who are enamored of the external energy of the Lord, cannot understand the mind of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. 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 ekadaṇḍī-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 Bhagavad-gītā, do not accept the proposition of asura-varṇāśrama, which maintains the social code of varṇa is indicated by birth.

1968 Conversations and Morning Walks

Questions and Answers -- Montreal, August 26, 1968:

Prabhupāda: Gaurakiśora dasa... Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was his father, and Gaurakiśora dasa Bābājī was treating Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura... Although he was householder and Gaurakiśora dāsa Bābājī was renounced order, still he used to offer great respect to Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura saw him a pure devotee; therefore he recommended his son, Bimala Prasāda. His former name was Bimala Prasāda, and he got this title Siddhānta Sarasvatī by writing one thesis on astronomy, astrology, astrological calculation according to solar system. So he got this title Siddhānta Sarasvatī. So this Siddhānta Sarasvatī, Sarasvatī title also accepted by sannyāsa. Sarasvatī, Bhāratī, Puri, Araṇya, Bon, Parvat—there are ten names of sannyāsa according to Māyāvādī school, and according to Vaiṣṇava school there are 108 names. So this "svāmī" and "gosvāmī," they're also included within that 108 names. So he accepted Gaurakiśora dasa Bābājī Maharaja his spiritual master.

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

Morning Walk -- March 24, 1974, Bombay:

Dr. Patel: All the Vaiṣṇavas, what he has said. Every time he has said the same thing.

Prabhupāda: This is the difference between Vaiṣṇava school and Māyāvādī school. Advaita-vāda and dvaita-vāda. They become very strong, at the same time, remain servant.

Dr. Patel: These śuddhādvaita-vādīs, their upper garment and lower garment the same as... (break) ...you call Māyāvādīs, they say that this is all humbug and nothing and nonexistence. They... (break) ...both are one and both are right and both are existent and both are... There is no illusion, as you say. The same thing.

Prabhupāda: Simultaneously one and different.

Dr. Patel: That is a little (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: So unless you accept this difference, then it is Māyāvāda. Simply oneness is Māyāvāda.

1947 to 1965 Correspondence

Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 2 October, 1951:

The Western philosophers mostly of the Sankhya school have less acquaintance with the Vedanta Darsana and philosophers like Kant, Mill, Aristotle or Schopenhauer etc all belong to either of the above five Darsanas except Vedanta because limited human thinking power cannot go beyond that stage. But Vedanta Darsana is far beyond the limited mental speculation of the human brain conditioned by material nature. Unfortunately Sankara who belonged to the Mayavada school made a misinterpretation of the Vedanta for his own purpose to convert the Buddhists in India.

Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 2 October, 1951:

The Ramakrishna mission although it does not come out of the above six schools of philosophers—generally they prefer to call themselves as Sankarites or belonging to the Mayavada school. Interpretations of Vedanta made by them are neither Mayavada nor Satvatta. They have their own interpretation different from the Vyasa school of philosophers.

Other Acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhva etc and lately Sri Caitanya—all belong to the original Vedantist school by direct disciplic succession.

1969 Correspondence

Letter to Vilasavigraha -- Los Angeles 22 January, 1969:

In regard to your next question, self realization means God realization, and God realization means self realization. Just like to see the sun means to see oneself, and to see oneself means to see the sun. Self realization depends completely upon God realization, or else it is not complete. One must know his relationship to the Absolute Truth to fully know his position. The mayavadi school simply discerns spirit from matter, but that is not Ultimate Knowledge. One should know the different manifestations of the spirit also. The highest manifestation of the spirit soul is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krishna.