Actually, by misinterpreting the Vedānta-sūtra they want to establish that "There is no God; we are God." So after explanation of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, at least there was one convert amongst all the sannyāsīns, and he was glorifying Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Eta sei kare kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana (CC Madhya 25.46). And while he was glorifying Lord Caitanya, automatically he began to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare / Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Śuni' prakāśānanda kichu kahena vacana (CC Madhya 25.46).
When his disciple was glorifying Lord Caitanya and His process of teaching, his spiritual master, Prakāśānanda—said like this, ācāryera āgraha-advaita-vāda sthāpite (CC Madhya 25.47). He admitted . . . Ācārya means Śaṅkarācārya. He means here Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya wanted that there is only one Brahman, and we are also Brahman, but he wanted his philosophy of monism. Dualism, God and living entity separate, they do not admit. They admit that God and living entity the same. It is simply for the time being covered, which is called māyā. Māyāvāda philosophy. So the Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī also admitted that because Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish his philosophy of monism, therefore he had to cover the real meaning of Vedānta-sūtra.
Tāte sūtrārtha vyākhyā kare anya rīte jani (CC Madhya 25.47). Anya rīte: in a different interpretation. He was a very learned scholar. If a scholar likes to present something in a different way . . . just like an expert lawyer, he can get out of the entanglement of law by jugglery of words and interpretation, he is called a big lawyer; similarly, there are philosophers who can put different theories and not admit the existence of God.
So Śaṅkarācārya's real purpose was "No existence of God," because he had a very thankless task. He was dealing with the persons who are Buddhists. They did not believe anything except matter. So for them, to establish that there is God, it is very difficult. Therefore he adopted this means that "There is no separate God. We are all God. You are God, I am God."
And a demonic person, if he is addressed, "Oh, you are God," oh, he becomes very happy, because he does not become responsible to any higher authority. He becomes God. He can do anything. He can perform any nonsense. Nobody is going to punish him. It is very nice theory, that "I have become God. Because I have no more . . ."
Suppose you yourself become the government of United States. Then you can do anything. It is very nice. "I am everything—I am president, I am secretary, I am everything. Therefore who is going to check me? I can do any nonsense." This is the basic principle of godlessness—to avoid the higher authority. Just like already in your country, that class of youngsters who are defying any authority. Not only in your country; in other countries also—that has become a fashion, to defy authorities. So this godlessness is also like that, to defy the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
There is no practically difference between Buddha philosophy and Śaṅkara's philosophy. Buddha philosophy says that the matter is everything. Beyond matter there is nothing—everything void—and the combination of matter is the source of our miseries. So you make a dismantlement of the matter—nirvāṇa—there will be no more miseries. And Śaṅkara's philosophy says that brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. It is little, little farther advanced, admitting the spirit, but he says that spirit is impersonal. "There is no God. It is impersonal." So practically the same thing: ultimately, it is void or there is no God.
But Vedānta philosophy does not say that. Vedānta philosophy, from the very beginning it asserts that athāto brahma jijñāsā, "Now it is the time for discussing on the Absolute Truth." And what is that Absolute Truth? Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1): "Absolute Truth is the summum bonum substance from which everything emanates."
- yei grantha-kartā cāhe sva-mata sthāpite
- śāstrera sahaja artha nahe tāṅhā haite
- (CC Madhya 25.49)
This is the secret of modern fashionable interpretation. If you want to establish . . . suppose you have got some conviction, and if you want to establish it by evidence of an approved literature . . . an approved literature. Just like Gandhi. Gandhi wanted to establish nonviolence from Bhagavad-gītā. He was a . . . he is known to be a great student of Bhagavad-gītā, but he was not at all. His political theory was that he wanted to conquer over the enemies by nonviolence method. Nonviolent noncooperation, that was his, I mean to say, theory. He wanted to get away all kinds of nonviolence from the world . . . all kinds of violence from the world.