Mayavada (BG and SB)

Expressions researched:
"mayavad" |"mayavada" |"mayavadam" |"mayavadi" |"mayavadi's" |"mayavadic" |"mayavadin" |"mayavadins" |"mayavadis" |"mayavadism"

Notes from the compiler: Not included "Mayavada philosophy" and "Mayavada philosophers"

BG Preface and Introduction

BG Preface:

Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svāmīs, without perfect knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, try to banish or kill Kṛṣṇa when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gītā is known as Māyāvāda-bhāṣya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gītā from the Māyāvādī point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gītā will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead.

BG Preface:

Everyone should know that a living entity is eternally a servant and that unless one serves Kṛṣṇa one has to serve illusion in different varieties of the three modes of material nature and thus wander perpetually within the cycle of birth and death; even the so-called liberated Māyāvādī speculator has to undergo this process. This knowledge constitutes a great science, and each and every living being has to hear it for his own interest.

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 2.12, Purport:

The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa's is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much-even for the future.

BG 2.12, Purport:

The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others.

BG 2.12, Purport:

The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth.

BG 2.12, Purport:

Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā.

BG 2.13, Purport:

The Māyāvādī theory of oneness of the spirit soul cannot be entertained, on the ground that the spirit soul cannot be cut into pieces as a fragmental portion. Such cutting into different individual souls would make the Supreme cleavable or changeable, against the principle of the Supreme Soul's being unchangeable.

BG 2.23, Purport:

The Māyāvādī cannot explain how the individual soul came into existence simply by ignorance and consequently became covered by the illusory energy. Nor was it ever possible to cut the individual souls from the original Supreme Soul; rather, the individual souls are eternally separated parts of the Supreme Soul.

BG 5.2, Purport:

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.

BG 5.6, Purport:

There are two classes of sannyāsīs, or persons in the renounced order of life. The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are engaged in the study of Sāṅkhya philosophy, whereas the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are engaged in the study of Bhāgavatam philosophy, which affords the proper commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras.

BG 5.6, Purport:

The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs also study the Vedānta-sūtras, but use their own commentary, called Śārīraka-bhāṣya, written by Śaṅkarācārya. The students of the Bhāgavata school are engaged in the devotional service of the Lord, according to pāñcarātrikī regulations, and therefore the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs have multiple engagements in the transcendental service of the Lord.

BG 5.6, Purport:

The Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs have nothing to do with material activities, and yet they perform various activities in their devotional service to the Lord. But the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, engaged in the studies of Sāṅkhya and Vedānta and speculation, cannot relish the transcendental service of the Lord. Because their studies become very tedious, they sometimes become tired of Brahman speculation, and thus they take shelter of the Bhāgavatam without proper understanding. Consequently their study of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam becomes troublesome.

BG 5.6, Purport:

Dry speculations and impersonal interpretations by artificial means are all useless for the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. The Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs, who are engaged in devotional service, are happy in the discharge of their transcendental duties, and they have the guarantee of ultimate entrance into the kingdom of God.

BG 5.6, Purport:

The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs sometimes fall down from the path of self-realization and again enter into material activities of a philanthropic and altruistic nature, which are nothing but material engagements. Therefore, the conclusion is that those who are engaged in Kṛṣṇa conscious activities are better situated than the sannyāsīs engaged in simple speculation about what is Brahman and what is not Brahman, although they too come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, after many births.

BG Chapters 7 - 12

BG 7.24, Purport:

One cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, or His form, quality or name simply by mental speculation or by discussing Vedic literature. One must understand Him by devotional service. When one is fully engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, beginning by chanting the mahā-mantra—Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare—then only can one understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nondevotee impersonalists think that Kṛṣṇa has a body made of this material nature and that all His activities, His form and everything are māyā. These impersonalists are known as Māyāvādīs. They do not know the ultimate truth.

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:

"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."

SB Introduction:

"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:

Sanātana Gosvāmī (formerly known as Sākara Mallika) was in the cabinet service of the Bengal government under the regime of Nawab Hussain Shah. He decided to join with the Lord and thus retired from the service. On His way back from Vṛndāvana, when He reached Vārāṇasī, the Lord 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.

SB Introduction:

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 Introduction:

The Lord smilingly explained to the devotee brāhmaṇa why the Māyāvādī cannot utter the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. "The Māyāvādīs are offenders at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, although they utter always brahma, ātmā, or caitanya, etc. And because they are offenders at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, they are actually unable to utter the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. The name Kṛṣṇa and the Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa are identical. There is no difference in the absolute realm between the name, form or person of the Absolute Truth because in the absolute realm everything is transcendental bliss. There is no difference between the body and the soul for the Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Thus He is different from the living entity who is always different from his outward body. Because of Kṛṣṇa's transcendental position, it is very difficult for a layman to actually know the Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, His holy name and fame, etc. His name, fame, form and pastimes all are one and the same transcendental identity, and they are not knowable by the exercise of the material senses."

SB Introduction:

The great Māyāvādī sannyāsī Prakāśānanda inquired from the Lord as to the reason for His preferring the saṅkīrtana movement to the study of the Vedānta-sūtra. Prakāśānanda said that it is the duty of a sannyāsī to read the Vedānta-sūtra. What caused the Lord to indulge in saṅkīrtana?

SB Introduction:

On hearing this statement from the Lord, the Māyāvādī sannyāsī asked the Lord what was the harm in studying the Vedānta along with chanting the holy name. Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī knew well that the Lord was formerly known as Nimāi Paṇḍita, a very learned scholar of Navadvīpa, and His posing as a great fool was certainly to some purpose. Hearing this inquiry by the sannyāsī, the Lord smiled and said, "My dear sir, if you do not mind, I will answer your inquiry."

SB Introduction:

The Lord thus spoke to the sannyāsī almost in the same way that He spoke to the Bhaṭṭācārya of Purī, and by forceful arguments He nullified the Māyāvāda interpretations of the Vedānta-sūtra. All the sannyāsīs there claimed that the Lord was the personified Vedas and the Personality of Godhead. All the sannyāsīs were converted to the cult of bhakti, all of them accepted the holy name of the Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and they dined together with the Lord in the midst of them. After this conversion of the sannyāsīs, the popularity of the Lord increased at Vārāṇasī, and thousands of people assembled to see the Lord in person. The Lord thus established the primary importance of Śrīmad-Bhāgavata-dharma, and He defeated all other systems of spiritual realization. After that everyone at Vārāṇasī was overwhelmed with the transcendental saṅkīrtana movement.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.1.1, Purport:

Even Brahmā has to meditate upon the Supreme Lord in order to create. Then what to speak of great scientists like Einstein! The brains of such a scientist are certainly not the products of any human being. Scientists cannot manufacture such a brain, and what to speak of foolish atheists who defy the authority of the Lord? Even Māyāvādī impersonalists who flatter themselves that they can become one with the Lord are neither abhijñaḥ or svarāṭ. Such impersonalists undergo severe austerities to acquire knowledge to become one with the Lord.

SB 1.1.1, Purport:

Some Māyāvādī scholars argue that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was not compiled by Śrī Vyāsadeva. And some of them suggest that this book is a modern creation written by someone named Vopadeva. In order to refute such meaningless arguments, Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmī points out that there is reference to the Bhāgavatam in many of the oldest Purāṇas. This first śloka of the Bhāgavatam begins with the Gāyatrī mantra.

SB 1.2.3, Purport:

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the one unrivaled commentary on Vedānta-sūtra. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya intentionally did not touch it because he knew that the natural commentary would be difficult for him to surpass. 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.

SB 1.2.3, Purport:

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.

SB 1.2.3, Purport:

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. It is the transcendental torchlight by which one can see perfectly the transcendental Absolute Truth realized as Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān.

SB 1.13.30, Purport:

The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are ekadaṇḍi-svāmīs, whereas the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are known as tridaṇḍi-svāmīs, or more distinctly, tridaṇḍi-gosvāmīs, in order to be distinguished from the Māyāvādī philosophers.

SB 1.13.30, Purport:

The ekadaṇḍi-svāmīs are mostly fond of the Himalayas, but the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are fond of Vṛndāvana and Purī. The Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are narottamas, whereas the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are dhīras. Mahārāja Dhṛtarāṣṭra was advised to follow the dhīras because at that stage it was difficult for him to become a narottama.

SB Canto 3

SB 3.4.20, Purport:

Śrī Uddhava's actual life is the direct symbol of the catuḥ-ślokī Bhāgavatam enunciated first to Brahmājī by the Personality of Godhead (SB 2.9.33/34/35/36). These four very great and important verses from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam are particularly taken out by the Māyāvādī speculators, who construe a different purport to suit their impersonal view of monism.

SB 3.4.29, Purport:

There is a great controversy amongst the nondevotees or Māyāvādīs about the mysterious disappearance of the Lord, and the doubts of those men with a poor fund of knowledge have been very elaborately cleared by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in his Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha.

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.

SB 3.5.23, Purport:

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:

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.

SB 3.9.21, Purport:

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:

In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu it is said that a person whose only desire is to render transcendental loving service to the Lord is a free person in any condition of material existence. 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.

SB 3.19.33, Purport:

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 3.19.37, Purport:

If one simply gives aural reception to the narration and accepts the glories of the Lord, then he is qualified. The impersonalist philosophers cannot understand the activities of the Lord. They think that all His activities are māyā; therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Since everything to them is māyā, these narrations are not for them.

SB 3.19.37, Purport:

Some impersonalists are reluctant to hear Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, although many of them are now taking an interest in it just for monetary gain. Actually, however, they have no faith. On the contrary, they describe it in their own way. We should not hear, therefore, from the Māyāvādīs. We have to hear from Sūta Gosvāmī or Maitreya, who actually present the narrations as they are, and only then can we relish the pastimes of the Lord; otherwise the effects on the neophyte audience will be poisonous.

SB 3.20.8, Purport:

In Bhagavad-gītā the same fact is confirmed; when the Lord descends to this earth, He assumes a form by His own internal potency. The form of the Lord, therefore, can never consist of material energy. The Māyāvāda version that when Brahman assumes a form the form is accepted from māyā is not acceptable, because although māyā is superior to the conditioned soul, she is not superior to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; she is under the control of the Supreme Godhead, as confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā. Māyā is under His superintendence; māyā cannot overcome the Lord.

SB 3.20.8, Purport:

The Māyāvāda idea that the living entity is the Supreme Absolute Truth but has become covered by māyā is invalid, because māyā cannot be so great that it can cover the Supreme. The covering capacity can be employed on the part and parcel of Brahman, not on the Supreme Brahman.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

A pure devotee, as will be explained by Kapila Muni, does not aspire for any of the five liberations. He especially despises as hellish the idea of becoming one with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śrī Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, a great devotee of Lord Caitanya, said, kaivalyaṁ narakāyate: "The happiness of becoming one with the Supreme Lord, which is aspired for by the Māyāvādīs, is considered hellish." That oneness is not for pure devotees.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs accept the description of the pastimes of the Lord as stories, but actually they are not stories; they are historical facts. Pure devotees accept the narrations of the pastimes of the Lord not as stories but as Absolute Truth. The words mama pauruṣāṇi are significant.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

Devotees are very much attached to glorifying the activities of the Lord, whereas the Māyāvādīs cannot even think of these activities. According to them the Absolute Truth is impersonal. Without personal existence, how can there be activity? The impersonalists take the activities mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Bhagavad-gītā and other Vedic literatures as fictitious stories, and therefore they interpret them most mischievously. The have no idea of the Personality of Godhead.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

The activities of Māyāvāda philosophy are very dangerous to the public, and therefore Lord Caitanya warned us never to hear from any Māyāvādī about any scripture. They will spoil the entire process, and the person hearing them will never be able to come to the path of devotional service to attain the highest perfection, or will be able to do so only after a very long time.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

Pure devotees worship the transcendental activities of the Lord in Vṛndāvana, Dvārakā and Mathurā as they are narrated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other purāṇas. The Māyāvādī philosophers completely reject them as stories, but actually they are great and worshipable subject matters and thus are relishable only for devotees. That is the difference between a Māyāvādī and a pure devotee.

SB 3.25.35, Purport:

Māyāvādīs and atheists accept the forms of the Deities in the temple of the Lord as idols, but devotees do not worship idols. They directly worship the Personality of Godhead in His arcā incarnation. Arcā refers to the form which we can worship in our present condition.

SB 3.26.7, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs misuse the word and say that even if the living entity has become a stool-eating hog, he is also enjoying his pastimes. This is a most dangerous interpretation.

SB 3.26.9, Purport:

The relationship of the living entities with matter and that of the Supreme Lord with matter are certainly not on the same level, although the Māyāvādīs may interpret it in that way.

SB 3.28.21, Purport:

The Māyāvādī says that because one is unable to fix his mind on the impersonal existence of the Absolute Truth, one can imagine any form he likes and fix his mind on that imaginary form; but such a process is not recommended here. Imagination is always imagination and results only in further imagination.

SB 3.28.22, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs imagine that one can think of the lotus feet of Lord Śiva or Lord Brahmā or the goddess Durgā to achieve liberation, but this is not so.

SB 3.29.9, Purport:

Māyāvādīs, however, interpret this word "separatist" in a different way. They say that while worshiping the Lord, one should think himself one with the Supreme Lord. This is another adulterated form of devotion within the modes of material nature. The conception that the living entity is one with the Supreme is in the mode of ignorance. Oneness is actually based on oneness of interest. A pure devotee has no interest but to act on behalf of the Supreme Lord. When one has even a tinge of personal interest, his devotion is mixed with the three modes of material nature.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.2.28, Purport:

Thus it is generally found that the worshipers of Lord Śiva are Māyāvādī followers. Lord Śiva himself says, māyāvādam asac-chāstram.

SB 4.2.28, Purport:

Asat-śāstra, as explained here, means the doctrine of Māyāvāda impersonalism, or becoming one with the Supreme.

SB 4.2.28, Purport:

Bhṛgu Muni cursed that persons who worshiped Lord Śiva would become followers of this Māyāvāda asat-śāstra, which attempts to establish that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is impersonal. Besides that, among the worshipers of Lord Śiva there is a section who live a devilish life. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Nārada-pañcarātra are authorized scriptures that are considered sat-śāstra, or scriptures which lead one to the path of God realization. Asat-śāstras are just the opposite.

SB 4.3.23, Purport:

The Absolute Truth reveals Himself to the devotee in His form. He is not formless. Vāsudeva is not formless, for it is stated in this verse that as soon as the Lord reveals Himself, the devotee offers his obeisances. Obeisances are offered to a person, not to anything impersonal. One should not accept the Māyāvāda interpretation that Vāsudeva is impersonal. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, prapadyate, one surrenders. One surrenders to a person, not to impersonal nonduality. Whenever there is a question of surrendering or offering obeisances, there must be an object of surrender or obeisances.

SB 4.8.57, Purport:

In the Brahma-saṁhitā it is said, ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitābhiḥ: (Bs. 5.37) one should not mistake the appearance of the Lord as a human being or a beast to be the same as the birth of an ordinary conditioned soul, who is forced to appear by the laws of nature, whether as an animal, as a human being or as a demigod. This kind of thinking is offensive. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu has condemned the Māyāvādīs as offensive to the Supreme Personality of Godhead because of their thinking that the Lord and the conditioned living entities are one and the same.

SB 4.9.29, Purport:

The monist philosopher, after executing severe austerity, merges into the impersonal effulgence of the Lord, but the living entity always wants reciprocation in loving affairs. Therefore, although the monist philosopher is elevated to the status of being one with the effulgence of the Lord, because there is no facility for associating with the Lord and rendering service unto Him, he again falls into this material world, and his service propensity is satisfied by materialistic welfare activities like humanitarianism, altruism and philanthropy. There are many instances of such falldowns, even for great sannyāsīs in the Māyāvāda school.

SB 4.11.5, Purport:

The word ūrdhva-retasaḥ especially indicates the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, who undergo strict principles of austerity. But in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.16) the Lord says that even if one goes up to Brahmaloka, he again comes back (ābrahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥ punar āvartino 'rjuna). Therefore, actual mukti, or liberation, can be attained only by devotional service, because by devotional service one can go above Brahmaloka, or to the spiritual world, wherefrom he never comes back.

SB 4.11.5, Purport:

Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are very proud of becoming liberated, but actual liberation is not possible unless one is in touch with the Supreme Lord in devotional service. It is said, hariṁ vinā na mṛtim taranti: without Kṛṣṇa's mercy, no one can have liberation.

SB 4.12.5, Purport:

The Māyāvāda conception that because the Absolute Truth is everything He must be formless is rejected here. Rather, it is confirmed that the Absolute Truth has form, and yet He is all-pervading. Nothing is independent of Him.

SB 4.16.2, Purport:

Mahāmāyā is an expansion of yogamāyā, and both these māyās are different expressions of the Lord's internal potencies. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, the Lord appears through His internal potencies (ātma-māyayā). We should therefore reject the Māyāvāda explanation that the Lord appears in a body given by the external potency, the material energy. The Lord and His incarnation are fully independent and can appear anywhere and everywhere by virtue of the internal potency.

SB 4.19.22, Purport:

Since time immemorial, the sannyāsa order has carried the tridaṇḍa. Later Śaṅkarācārya introduced the ekadaṇḍi-sannyāsa. A tridaṇḍi-sannyāsī is a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī, and an ekadaṇḍi-sannyāsī is a Māyāvādī sannyāsī.

SB 4.20.10, Purport:

The Māyāvāda conception of kaivalya and that of the Vaiṣṇava community is different.

SB 4.20.10, Purport:

The Māyāvādī thinks that as soon as one is free from all material contamination, he is merged into the existence of the Supreme. The Vaiṣṇava philosopher's conception of kaivalya is different.

SB 4.21.27, Purport:

At the present moment, although the so-called brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras have lost their original culture, they claim to be brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras by birthright. Yet they have rejected the proposition that such social and spiritual orders are especially meant for worship of Lord Viṣṇu. The dangerous Māyāvāda theory set forth by Śaṅkarācārya—that God is impersonal—does not tally with the injunctions of the Vedas.

SB 4.21.27, Purport:

The Śaṅkarite philosophers' theory that we have to imagine a shape of God is more dangerous than denial of the existence of God. Notwithstanding all the philosophical theorizing by atheists or Māyāvādīs, the followers of Kṛṣṇa consciousness rigidly live according to the injunctions given in Bhagavad-gītā, which is accepted as the essence of all Vedic scripture.

SB 4.22.11, Purport:

Generally the sannyāsīs, or those in the renounced order of life, take trouble to enlighten the householders. There are ekadaṇḍī sannyāsīs and tridaṇḍī sannyāsīs. The ekadaṇḍī sannyāsīs are generally followers of Śaṅkarācārya and are known as Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, whereas the tridaṇḍī sannyāsīs are followers of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas—Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya and so on—and they take trouble to enlighten the householders. Ekadaṇḍī sannyāsīs can be situated on the platform of pure Brahman because they are aware that the spirit soul is different from the body, but they are mainly impersonalists.

SB 4.22.16, Purport:

The jñānīs' idea of the highest position is merging into the effulgence of the Lord. But a devotee's highest position is in preaching all over the world the glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore the devotees are actually the representatives of the Supreme Lord, and as such they travel all over the world directly as Nārāyaṇa because they carry Nārāyaṇa within their hearts and preach His glories. The representative of Nārāyaṇa is as good as Nārāyaṇa, but he is not to conclude, like the Māyāvādīs, that he has become Nārāyaṇa.

SB 4.22.16, Purport:

Generally, a sannyāsī is addressed as Nārāyaṇa by the Māyāvādīs. Their idea is that simply by taking sannyāsa one becomes equal to Nārāyaṇa or becomes Nārāyaṇa Himself.

SB 4.22.38, Purport:

This verse is specifically stated to defy the Māyāvāda conclusion of oneness without differentiation between the individual soul and the Supersoul. The Māyāvāda conclusion is that the living entity and the Supersoul are one; there is no difference.

SB 4.22.38, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs proclaim that there is no separate existence outside the impersonal Brahman and that the feeling of separation is māyā, or an illusion, by which one considers a rope to be a snake.

SB 4.22.62, Purport:

When Lord Caitanya talked to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, the Lord honored him as the incarnation of Bṛhaspati. Bṛhaspati is the chief priest of the heavenly kingdom, and he is a follower of the philosophy known as brahma-vada, or Māyāvāda.

SB 4.22.62, Purport:

Bṛhaspati is also a great logician. It appears from this statement that Mahārāja Pṛthu, although a great devotee constantly engaged in the loving service of the Lord, could defeat all kinds of impersonalists and Māyāvādīs by his profound knowledge of Vedic scriptures.

SB 4.22.62, Purport:

We should learn from Mahārāja Pṛthu that a Vaiṣṇava, or devotee, must not only be fixed in the service of the Lord, but, if required, must be prepared to argue with the impersonalist Māyāvādīs with all logic and philosophy and defeat their contention that the Absolute Truth is impersonal.

SB 4.24.17, Purport:

It is stated in Padma Purāṇa:

māyāvādam asac-chāstraṁ

pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate

mayaiva vihitaṁ devi

kalau brāhmaṇa-mūrtinā

Lord Śiva, speaking to Pārvatī-devī, foretold that he would spread the Māyāvāda philosophy in the guise of a sannyāsī brāhmaṇa just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This sannyāsī was Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya.

SB 4.24.17, Purport:

This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of Māyāvādī.

SB 4.24.17, Purport:

Strictly speaking, both Buddhist philosophy and Śaṅkara's philosophy are but different types of Māyāvāda dealing on the platform of material existence. Neither of these philosophies has spiritual significance. There is spiritual significance only after one accepts the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā, which culminates in surrendering unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Generally people worship Lord Śiva for some material benefit, and although they cannot see him personally, they derive great material profit by worshiping him.

SB 4.28.32, Purport:

Thinking the Absolute Truth to be without form, the Māyāvādīs say that the word bhakti can apply to any form of worship. If this were the case, a devotee could imagine any demigod or any godly form and worship it. This, however, is not the real fact. The real fact is that bhakti can be applied only to Lord Viṣṇu and His expansions. Therefore bhakti-latā is dṛḍha-vrata, the great vow, for when the mind is completely engaged in devotional service, the mind does not fall down. If one tries to advance by other means—by karma-yoga or jñāna-yoga—one will fall down, but if one is fixed in bhakti, he never falls down.

SB 4.30.36, Purport:

The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are missing the real presence of Nārāyaṇa. This is because they falsely claim to be Nārāyaṇa Himself.

SB 4.30.36, Purport:

According to the customary etiquette of Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, they address one another as Nārāyaṇa. To say that everyone is a temple of Nārāyaṇa is correct, but to accept another human being as Nārāyaṇa is a great offense. The conception of daridra-nārāyaṇa (poor Nārāyaṇa), an attempt to identify the poor with Nārāyaṇa, is also a great offense.

SB 4.31.11, Purport:

Our relationship with the Supreme Lord is never advanced by simple study of the Vedas. There are many Māyāvādī sannyāsīs fully engaged in studying the Vedas, Vedānta-sūtra and Upaniṣads, but unfortunately they cannot grasp the real essence of knowledge. In other words, they do not know the Supreme Personality of Godhead. What, then, is the use in studying all the Vedas if one cannot grasp the essence of the Vedas, Kṛṣṇa? The Lord confirms in Bhagavad-gītā (15.15), vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: "By all the Vedas, I am to be known."

SB 4.31.12, Purport:

The impersonalists wish to merge into the Supreme Brahman; however, merging into the Supreme Brahman also requires a touch of devotional service. The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases—impersonal Brahman, Paramātmā and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All these require a touch of devotional service. Sometimes it is actually seen that these Māyāvādīs also chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, although their motive is to merge into the Brahman effulgence of the Absolute. The yogīs also at times take to chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, but their purpose is different from that of the bhaktas. In all processes—karma, jñāna or yoga—bhakti is required.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.12.11, Purport:

So-called scholars, Māyāvādīs, cannot understand Kṛṣṇa with their poor fund of knowledge. One should therefore approach an authorized person to understand Kṛṣṇa. The spiritual master has actually seen Kṛṣṇa; therefore he can explain Him properly.

SB 5.14.44, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs are attracted to merging into the existence of the Lord, but Kṛṣṇa is more attractive than the desire to merge. The word abhavaḥ means "not to take birth again in this material world." A devotee doesn't care whether he is going to be reborn or not. He is simply satisfied with the Lord's service in any condition. That is real mukti.

SB 5.17.3, Purport:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has perfectly enunciated and broadcast the process of bhakti-yoga. Consequently, for one who has taken shelter at the lotus feet of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the highest perfection of the Māyāvādīs, kaivalya, or becoming one with the Supreme, is considered hellish, to say nothing of the karmīs' aspiration to be promoted to the heavenly planets.

SB 5.17.11, Purport:

Among all the living entities wandering throughout the universe, one who is most fortunate comes in contact with a representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and thus gets the opportunity to execute devotional service. Those who are sincerely seeking the favor of Kṛṣṇa come in contact with a guru, a bona fide representative of Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādīs indulging in mental speculation and the karmīs desiring the results of their actions cannot become gurus.

SB 5.18.17, Purport:

The word māyāmayam used in this verse should not be understood according to the interpretations of the Māyāvādīs. Māyā means affection as well as illusion. When a mother deals with her child affectionately, she is called māyāmaya. In whatever form the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu appears, He is always affectionate toward His devotees. Thus the word māyāmayam is used here to mean "very affectionate toward the devotees."

SB 5.19.24, Purport:

According to the author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, if one compares saṅkīrtana-yajña to other yajñas, he is a pāṣaṇḍī, an infidel, and is liable to be punished by Yamarāja. There are many Māyāvādīs who think that the performance of saṅkīrtana-yajña is a pious activity similar to the performance of the aśvamedha-yajña and other such pious functions, but this is a nāma-aparādha.

SB 5.19.24, Purport:

Chanting of the holy name of Nārāyaṇa and chanting of other names are never equal, despite what Māyāvādīs think.

SB Canto 6

SB 6.1.17, Purport:

One should not think that the person who takes to bhakti is one who cannot perform the ritualistic ceremonies recommended in the karma-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas or is not sufficiently educated to speculate on spiritual subjects. Māyāvādīs generally allege that the bhakti path is for women and illiterates. This is a groundless accusation. The bhakti path is followed by the most learned scholars, such as the Gosvāmīs, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Rāmānujācārya.

SB 6.1.17, Purport:

Māyāvādīs may be suśīlāḥ sādhavaḥ (well-behaved saintly persons), but there is nevertheless some doubt about whether they are actually making progress, for they have not accepted the path of bhakti. On the other hand, those who follow the path of the ācāryas are suśīlāḥ and sādhavaḥ, but furthermore their path is akuto-bhaya, which means free from fear. One should fearlessly follow the twelve mahājanas and their line of disciplic succession and thus be liberated from the clutches of māyā.

SB 6.3.24, Purport:

In the assembly of Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī's father, Haridāsa Ṭhākura confirmed that simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord one is liberated, even if he does not chant completely inoffensively. Smārta-brāhmaṇas and Māyāvādīs do not believe that one can achieve liberation in this way, but the truth of Haridāsa Ṭhākura's statement is supported by many quotations from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

SB 6.4.31, Purport:

In India there are many parties of philosophers, such as the dvaita-vādīs, advaita-vādīs, vaiśeṣikas, mīmāṁsakas, Māyāvādīs and svabhāva-vādīs, and each of them opposes the others. Similarly, in the Western countries there are also many philosophers with different views of creation, life, maintenance and annihilation. Thus it is undoubtedly a fact that there are countless philosophers throughout the world, each of them contradicting the others.

SB 6.4.34, Purport:

The impersonalists imagine the various demigods to be forms of the Lord. For example, the Māyāvādīs worship five demigods (pañcopāsanā). They do not actually believe in the form of the Lord, but for the sake of worship they imagine some form to be God. Generally they imagine a form of Viṣṇu, a form of Śiva, and forms of Gaṇeśa, the sun-god and Durgā. This is called pañcopāsanā. Dakṣa, however, wanted to worship not an imaginary form, but the supreme form of Lord Kṛṣṇa.

SB 6.8.32-33, Purport:

Since the Lord is all-pervasive, He exists in everything, and everything exists in Him. Therefore even worship of the Lord's weapons or ornaments has the same potency as worship of the Lord. Māyāvādīs refuse to accept the form of the Lord, or they say that the form of the Lord is māyā, or false, but one should note very carefully that this is not acceptable. Although the Lord's original form and His impersonal expansion are one, the Lord maintains His form, qualities and abode eternally.

SB 6.9.34, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs suppose that since His form is distributed everywhere, He has no form. This is untrue. The Lord keeps His transcendental form, and at the same time He extends everywhere, in every nook and corner of the material creation.

SB 6.14.5, Purport:

Jñānīs, yogīs and karmīs devoid of devotional service are called offenders. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, māyāvādī kṛṣṇe aparādhī: one who thinks that everything is māyā instead of thinking that everything is Kṛṣṇa is called an aparādhī, or offender.

SB 6.14.5, Purport:

Although the Māyāvādīs, impersonalists, are offenders at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, they may nonetheless be counted among the siddhas, those who have realized the self. They may be considered nearer to spiritual perfection because at least they have realized what spiritual life is. If such a person becomes nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇa, a devotee of Lord Nārāyaṇa, he is better than a jīvan-mukta, one who is liberated or perfect. This requires higher intelligence.

SB 6.14.5, Purport:

The Māyāvādī devotees worship Nārāyaṇa or Viṣṇu with the idea that Viṣṇu has accepted a form of māyā and that the ultimate truth is actually impersonal. The pure devotee, however, never thinks that Viṣṇu has accepted a body of māyā; instead, he knows perfectly well that the original Absolute Truth is the Supreme Person.

SB 6.16.52, Purport:

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.

SB 6.16.52, Purport:

The original cause for the material energy and spiritual energy is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. However, although the expansion of the Lord's energies is the original cause, one should not think that the Lord Himself has expanded in different ways. To condemn the theories of the Māyāvādīs, the Lord clearly says in Bhagavad-gītā, mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ: (BG 9.4) "All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." Everything rests upon Him, and everything is but an expansion of His energies, but this does not mean that everything is as worshipable as the Lord Himself.

SB Canto 7

SB 7.1.32, Purport:

Impersonalists and atheists always try to circumvent the form of Kṛṣṇa. Great politicians and philosophers of the modern age even try to banish Kṛṣṇa from Bhagavad-gītā. Consequently, for them there is no salvation. But Kṛṣṇa's enemies think, "Here is Kṛṣṇa, my enemy. I have to kill Him." They think of Kṛṣṇa in His actual form, and thus they attain salvation. Devotees, therefore, who constantly think of Kṛṣṇa's form, are certainly liberated. The only business of the Māyāvādī atheists is to make Kṛṣṇa formless, and consequently, because of this severe offense at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, they cannot expect salvation. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says in this connection: tena śiśupālādi-bhinnaḥ pratikūla-bhāvaṁ didhīṣur yena iva narakaṁ yātīti bhāvaḥ. Except for Śiśupāla, those who go against the regulative principles cannot attain salvation and are surely destined for hellish life. The regulative principle is that one must always think of Kṛṣṇa, whether as a friend or enemy.

SB 7.2.27, Purport:

The words itihāsaṁ purātanam mean "an old history." The Purāṇas are not chronologically recorded, but the incidents mentioned in the Purāṇas are actual histories of bygone ages. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the Mahā-Purāṇa, the essence of all the Purāṇas. The Māyāvādī scholars do not accept the Purāṇas, but Śrīla Madhvācārya and all other authorities accept them as the authoritative histories of the world.

SB 7.5.12, Purport:

A devotee should see the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be situated in everyone's heart and should also see every living entity as an eternal servant of the Lord. This vision is called ekatvam, oneness. Although there is a relationship of master and servant, both master and servant are one because of their spiritual identity. This is also ekatvam. Thus the conception of ekatvam for the Vaiṣṇava is different from that of the Māyāvādī.

SB 7.5.35, Purport:

Hiraṇyakaśipu considered his son Prahlāda Mahārāja to be the killer of his brother because Prahlāda Mahārāja was engaged in the devotional service of Lord Viṣṇu. In other words, Prahlāda Mahārāja would be elevated to sārūpya liberation, and in that sense he resembled Lord Viṣṇu. Therefore Prahlāda was to be killed by Hiraṇyakaśipu. Devotees, Vaiṣṇavas, attain the liberations of sārūpya, sālokya, sārṣṭi and sāmīpya, whereas the Māyāvādīs are supposed to attain the liberation known as sāyujya. Sāyujya-mukti, however, is not very secure, whereas sārūpya-mukti, sālokya-mukti, sārṣṭi-mukti and sāmīpya-mukti are most certain. Although the servants of Lord Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, in the Vaikuṇṭha planets are equally situated with the Lord, the devotees there know very well that the Lord is the master whereas they are servants.

SB 7.9.31, Purport:

True oneness, however, is not equivalent to the conception of the Māyāvādīs. The true understanding is that the differences are manifested by the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The seed is manifested as a tree, which displays varieties in its trunk, branches, leaves, flowers and fruits.

SB 7.9.37, Purport:

It is simply foolish to think of the Lord as being originally impersonal but accepting a material body when He appears as a personal incarnation. Whenever the Lord appears, He appears in His original transcendental form, which is spiritual and blissful. But unintelligent men, such as the Māyāvādīs, cannot understand the transcendental form of the Lord, and therefore the Lord chastises them by saying, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form."

SB 7.10.7, Purport:

Devotees are always on the positive platform, in contrast to the Māyāvādīs, who want to make everything impersonal or void. One cannot remain void (śūnyavādī); rather, one must possess something. Therefore, the devotee, on the positive side, wants to possess something, and this possession is very nicely described by Prahlāda Mahārāja, who says, "If I must take some benediction from You, I pray that within the core of my heart there may be no material desires." The desire to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not at all material.

SB 7.13.9, Purport:

There are four stages of the renounced order of life—kuṭīcaka, bahūdaka, parivrājakācārya and paramahaṁsa. Herein, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam considers the paramahaṁsas among the sannyāsīs. The Māyāvādī impersonalist sannyāsīs cannot attain the paramahaṁsa stage. This is because of their impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). The Absolute Truth is perceived in three stages, of which bhagavān, or realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is meant for the paramahaṁsas.

SB 7.13.27, Purport:

Both the Māyāvādīs and Vaiṣṇavas know that in materialistic activities there is no happiness.

SB 7.15.72, Purport:

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.

SB Canto 8

SB 8.3.16, Purport:

If one takes seriously the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, who is seated within one's heart, the Lord eradicates all ignorance. By the torch of knowledge, one immediately understands everything properly by the special mercy of the Supreme Lord and becomes self-realized. In other words, although a devotee may externally not be very well educated, because of his devotional service the Supreme Personality of Godhead gives him enlightenment from within. If the Lord gives enlightenment from within, how can one be in ignorance? Therefore the allegation of the Māyāvādīs that the devotional path is for the unintelligent or uneducated is untrue.

SB 8.7.31, Purport:

Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā (9.4), mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: "In My impersonal feature I pervade this entire universe." Thus the avyakta-mūrti, the impersonal feature, is certainly an expansion of Kṛṣṇa's energy. Māyāvādīs, who prefer to merge into this Brahman effulgence, worship Lord Śiva.

SB 8.7.31, Purport:

The mantras referred to in text 29 are called mukhāni pañcopaniṣadas taveśa. Māyāvādīs take all these mantras seriously in worshiping Lord Śiva.

SB 8.12.8, Purport:

A gold earring and the gold in a mine are different only as cause and effect; otherwise they are the same. The Vedānta-sūtra describes that Brahman is the cause of everything. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Everything is born of the Supreme Brahman, from which everything emanates as different energies. None of these energies, therefore, should be considered false. The Māyāvādīs' differentiation between Brahman and māyā is only due to ignorance.

SB 8.12.8, Purport:

There is oneness because everything emanates from the Supreme Brahman. The example already given is that there is no difference between a golden earring and the gold mine as it is. The Vaiśeṣika philosophers, however, because of their Māyāvāda conception, create differences. They say, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: "The Absolute Truth is real, and the cosmic manifestation is false." But why should the jagat be considered mithyā? The jagat is an emanation from Brahman. Therefore the jagat is also truth.

SB 8.16.61, Purport:

Among modern Māyāvādīs it has become fashionable to say that whatever one does or whatever path one follows is all right. But these are all foolish statements.

SB 8.19.39, Purport:

This śloka explains that in relation to the material body even the factual truth cannot exist without a touch of untruth. The Māyāvādīs say, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: "The spirit soul is truth, and the external energy is untruth."

SB Canto 9

SB 9.11.1, Purport:

The jīva, the living entity, is always different from the Supreme Lord. The living entities (vibhinnāṁśa) never become one with the Lord, although Māyāvādīs sometimes imitate the Lord's worship of Himself. Lord Kṛṣṇa meditated upon Himself every morning as a gṛhastha, and similarly Lord Rāmacandra performed yajñas to satisfy Himself, but this does not mean that an ordinary living being should imitate the Lord by accepting the process of ahaṅgraha-upāsanā. Such unauthorized worship is not recommended herein.

SB 9.13.9, Translation:

Mahārāja Nimi continued: Māyāvādīs generally want freedom from accepting a material body because they fear having to give it up again. But devotees whose intelligence is always filled with the service of the Lord are unafraid. Indeed, they take advantage of the body to render transcendental loving service.

SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13

SB 10.2.37, Purport:

We should strictly follow this injunction and never try to hear from Māyāvādīs, impersonalists, voidists, politicians or so-called scholars. Strictly avoiding such inauspicious association, we should simply hear from pure devotees. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī therefore recommends, śrī-guru-padāśrayaḥ: one must seek shelter at the lotus feet of a pure devotee who can be one's guru.

SB 10.9.3, Purport:

Anyone who desires to be Kṛṣṇa conscious in motherly affection or parental affection should contemplate the bodily features of mother Yaśodā. It is not that one should desire to become like Yaśodā, for this is Māyāvāda. Either in parental affection or conjugal love, friendship or servitorship—in any way—we must follow in the footsteps of the inhabitants of Vṛndāvana, not try to become like them.

SB 10.13.39, Purport:

After inquiring from Kṛṣṇa, Lord Balarāma understood that Kṛṣṇa Himself had become many. That the Lord can do this is stated in the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.33). Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam: although He is one, He can expand Himself in so many forms. According to the Vedic version, ekaṁ bahu syām: He can expand Himself into many thousands and millions but still remain one. In that sense, everything is spiritual because everything is an expansion of Kṛṣṇa; that is, everything is an expansion either of Kṛṣṇa Himself or of His potency. Because the potency is nondifferent from the potent, the potency and the potent are one (śakti-śaktimatayor abhedaḥ). The Māyāvādīs, however, say, cid-acit-samanvayaḥ: spirit and matter are one. This is a wrong conception.

SB 10.13.39, Purport:

"Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight comprise My separated material energies. But besides this inferior nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is a superior energy of Mine, which consists of all living entities who are struggling with material nature and are sustaining the universe." Spirit and matter cannot be made one, for actually they are superior and inferior energies, yet the Māyāvādīs, or Advaita-vādīs, try to make them one. This is wrong.

SB 10.13.39, Purport:

We should be careful to note that although the supreme source is one, the emanations from this source should be separately regarded as inferior and superior. The difference between the Māyāvāda and Vaiṣṇava philosophies is that the Vaiṣṇava philosophy recognizes this fact.

SB 10.13.54, Purport:

The Supreme Person has a form, with hands and legs and other personal features, but His hands and legs are not material. Bhaktas know that the form of Kṛṣṇa, or Brahman, is not at all material. Rather, Brahman has a transcendental form, and when one is absorbed in it, being fully developed in bhakti, one can understand Him (premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena (Bs. 5.38)). The Māyāvādīs, however, cannot understand this transcendental form, for they think that it is material.

SB 10.13.57, Purport:

Kṛṣṇa's energy—His māyā-śakti, or svarūpa-śakti—is one, but it is manifested in varieties. parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8 (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport)). The difference between Vaiṣṇavas and Māyāvādīs is that Māyāvādīs say that this māyā is one, whereas Vaiṣṇavas recognize its varieties. There is unity in variety.

SB 10.13.57, Purport:

Brahmā, however, adopted the āroha-panthā. He wanted to understand Kṛṣṇa's mystic power by his own limited, conceivable power, and therefore he himself was mystified. Everyone wants to take pleasure in his own knowledge, thinking, "I know something." But in the presence of Kṛṣṇa this conception cannot stand, for one cannot bring Kṛṣṇa within the limitations of prakṛti. One must submit. There is no alternative. Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. This submission marks the difference between Kṛṣṇa-ites and Māyāvādīs.