Mayavadis (BG and SB)

Expressions researched:
"Mayavadi" |"Mayavadi's" |"Mayavadin" |"Mayavadins" |"Mayavadis"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: "Mayavadi" or "Mayavadis" or "Mayavadi's" or "Mayavadin" or "Mayavadins" not "Mayavad* philosopher*"@5 not "mayavadi sannyasi" not "mayavadi sannyasis" not "mayavadi sannyasa"

BG Preface and Introduction

BG Preface:

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.

Our only purpose is to present this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is in order to guide the conditioned student to the same purpose for which Kṛṣṇa descends to this planet once in a day of Brahmā, or every 8,600,000,000 years. This purpose is stated in Bhagavad-gītā, and we have to accept it as it is; otherwise there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad-gītā and its speaker, Lord Kṛṣṇa.

BG Preface:

Kṛṣṇa, is great, and everyone should know the factual position of the living entities. 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.

People in general, especially in this Age of Kali, are enamored by the external energy of Kṛṣṇa, and they wrongly think that by advancement of material comforts every man will be happy. They have no knowledge that the material or external nature is very strong, for everyone is strongly bound by the stringent laws of material nature. A living entity is happily the part and parcel of the Lord, and thus his natural function is to render immediate service to the Lord.

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 2.12, Purport:

It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone.

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.

BG 2.12, Purport:

If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much-even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body.

BG 2.12, Purport:

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. 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. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.

BG 2.23, Purport:

Firearms were counteracted by water weapons, which are now unknown to modern science. Nor do modern scientists have knowledge of tornado weapons. Nonetheless, the soul can never be cut into pieces, nor annihilated by any number of weapons, regardless of scientific devices.

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. Because they are atomic individual souls eternally (sanātana), they are prone to be covered by the illusory energy, and thus they become separated from the association of the Supreme Lord, just as the sparks of a fire, although one in quality with the fire, are prone to be extinguished when out of the fire. In the Varāha Purāṇa, the living entities are described as separated parts and parcels of the Supreme.

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.

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.

BG 9.11, Purport:

After revealing this form, Kṛṣṇa, when petitioned by Arjuna, again assumed His original humanlike form (mānuṣaṁ rūpam). These different features of the Supreme Lord are certainly not those of an ordinary human being.

Some of those who deride Kṛṣṇa and who are infected with the Māyāvādī philosophy quote the following verse from the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.29.21) to prove that Kṛṣṇa is just an ordinary man. Ahaṁ sarveṣu bhūteṣu bhūtātmāvasthitaḥ sadā: "The Supreme is present in every living entity." We should better take note of this particular verse from the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas like Jīva Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura instead of following the interpretation of unauthorized persons who deride Kṛṣṇa. Jīva Gosvāmī, commenting on this verse, says that Kṛṣṇa, in His plenary expansion as Paramātmā, is situated in the moving and the nonmoving entities as the Supersoul, so any neophyte devotee who simply gives his attention to the arcā-mūrti, the form of the Supreme Lord in the temple, and does not respect other living entities is uselessly worshiping the form of the Lord in the temple.

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).

After consulting with Keśava Bhāratī, the Lord left Navadvīpa for Katwa to formally accept the sannyāsa order of life. He was accompanied by Śrīla Nityānanda Prabhu, Candraśekhara Ācārya, and Mukunda Datta. Those three assisted Him in the details of the ceremony. The incident of the Lord's accepting the sannyāsa order is very elaborately described in the Caitanya-bhāgavata by Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura.

SB Introduction:

The brāhmaṇa was astonished to see that the sannyāsī Prakāśānanda could not vibrate the sound Kṛṣṇa even once, although he uttered the name Caitanya several times.

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.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.1.1, Purport:

That is, no one is either fully cognizant or fully independent. 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. But ultimately they become dependent on some rich disciple who supplies them with money to build monasteries and temples. Atheists like Rāvaṇa or Hiraṇyakaśipu had to undergo severe penances before they could flout the authority of the Lord. But ultimately, they were rendered helpless and could not save themselves when the Lord appeared before them as cruel death.

SB 1.1.1, Purport:

Only the mahātmās can understand that the Supreme Lord is the primeval cause of all creations. He is parama or ultimate truth because all other truths are relative to Him. He is omniscient. For Him, there is no illusion.

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. There is reference to this in the Matsya Purāṇa, which is the oldest Purāṇa. In that Purāṇa, it is said with reference to the Gāyatrī mantra in the Bhāgavatam that there are many narrations of spiritual instructions beginning with the Gāyatrī mantra. And there is the history of Vṛtrāsura.

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

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. Here is the proper answer to such unauthorized speculators. The verses of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam are purely theistic science understandable by the postgraduate students of Bhagavad-gītā, The unauthorized dry speculators are offenders at the lotus feet of the Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because they distort the purports of Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to mislead the public and prepare a direct path to the hell known as Andha-tāmisra. As confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (16.20) such envious speculators are without knowledge and are surely condemned life after life.

SB 3.4.29, Purport:

In this verse the word tyakṣyan is very significant in relation to Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa's leaving His body. Since He is the eternal form of existence, knowledge and bliss, His body and His Self are identical. Therefore how is it possible that He would leave His body and then disappear from the vision of the world? 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.

According to Brahma-saṁhitā, the Lord has many forms. It is stated therein that the Lord has innumerable forms, and when He appears within the vision of the living entities, as Lord Kṛṣṇa actually appeared, all such forms amalgamate with Him. Besides all these infallible forms, He has His universal form, as manifested before Arjuna on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra.

SB 3.9.21, Purport:

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 3.19.33, 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.

Sūta Gosvāmī was speaking to the sages headed by Śaunaka, and therefore he addressed them in this verse as dvija, twice-born. The sages assembled in Naimiṣāraṇya hearing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from Sūta Gosvāmī were all brāhmaṇas, but to acquire the qualifications of a brāhmaṇa is not everything.

SB 3.19.37, Purport:

One should be very eager to hear about the activities of the Lord from the bona fide source, the pure devotee. 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. 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 3.25.34, 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.

There are many so-called devotees who think that in the conditioned state we may worship the Personality of Godhead but that ultimately there is no personality; they say that since the Absolute Truth is impersonal, one can imagine a personal form of the impersonal Absolute Truth for the time being, but as soon as one becomes liberated the worship stops. That is the theory put forward by the Māyāvāda philosophy.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

The greatest pleasure is to serve the Lord. Devotees are always thinking about how to serve Him; they are always designing ways and means to serve the Supreme Lord, even in the midst of the greatest obstacles of material existence.

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. 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.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

The have no idea of the Personality of Godhead. They unnecessarily poke their noses into the scripture and interpret it in a deceptive way in order to mislead the innocent public. 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.

It is clearly stated by Kapila Muni that bhakti activities, or activities in devotional service, are transcendental to mukti. This is called pañcama-puruṣārtha. Generally, people engage in the activities of religion, economic development and sense gratification, and ultimately they work with an idea that they are going to become one with the Supreme Lord (mukti).

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. Actually, in our present state it is not possible to see God in His spiritual form because our material eyes and senses cannot conceive of a spiritual form. We cannot even see the spiritual form of the individual soul. When a man dies we cannot see how the spiritual form leaves the body. That is the defect of our material senses. In order to be seen by our material senses, the Supreme Personality of Godhead accepts a favorable form which is called arcā-vigraha. This arcā-vigraha, sometimes called the arcā incarnation, is not different from Him. Just as the Supreme Personality of Godhead accepts various incarnations, He takes on forms made out of matter—clay, wood, metal and jewels.

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.

A concrete description of the eternal form of the Lord is given here. The Lord's sole is depicted with distinctive lines resembling a thunderbolt, a flag, a lotus flower and a goad. The luster of His toenails, which are brilliantly prominent, resembles the light of the moon. If a yogī looks upon the marks of the Lord's sole and on the blazing brilliance of His nails, then he can be freed from the darkness of ignorance in material existence. This liberation is not achieved by mental speculation, but by seeing the light emanating from the lustrous toenails of the Lord. In other words, one has to fix his mind first on the lotus feet of the Lord if he wants to be freed from the darkness of ignorance in material existence.

SB 3.28.22, Purport:

Those who practice the yoga system must meditate on the lotus feet of the Lord for a long time after following the regulative principles and thereby controlling the senses.

It is specifically mentioned here, bhagavataś caraṇāravindam: one has to think of the lotus feet of the Lord. 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. Bhagavataḥ is specifically mentioned. Bhagavataḥ means "of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu," and no one else. Another significant phrase in this verse is śivaḥ śivo 'bhūt. By his constitutional position, Lord Śiva is always great and auspicious, but since he has accepted on his head the Ganges water, which emanated from the lotus feet of the Lord, he has become even more auspicious and important. The stress is on the lotus feet of the Lord. A relationship with the lotus feet of the Lord can even enhance the importance of Lord Śiva, what to speak of other, ordinary living entities.

SB 3.29.9, Purport:

When the so-called devotee desires material enjoyment, without reference to the interest of the Supreme Lord, or he wants to become famous or opulent by utilizing the mercy or grace of the Supreme Lord, he is in the mode of passion.

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:

Sometimes it is necessary to preach a philosophical doctrine which is against the Vedic conclusion. In the Śiva Purāṇa it is stated that Lord Śiva said to Pārvatī that in the Kali-yuga, in the body of a brāhmaṇa, he would preach the Māyāvāda philosophy. Thus it is generally found that the worshipers of Lord Śiva are Māyāvādī followers. Lord Śiva himself says, māyāvādam asac-chāstram. Asat-śāstra, as explained here, means the doctrine of Māyāvāda impersonalism, or becoming one with the Supreme. 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.

SB 4.20.10, Purport:

The Māyāvāda conception of kaivalya and that of the Vaiṣṇava community is different. 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. He understands both his position and the position of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the uncontaminated condition, the living entity understands that he is the eternal servitor of the Supreme, and that is called Brahman realization, the spiritual perfection of the living entity. This rapport is very easily achieved. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, when one is engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord, he is immediately situated on the transcendental platform of kaivalya, or Brahman.

SB 4.22.16, Purport:

The karmīs, who have a bodily concept of life, try to enjoy sense gratification to the utmost. 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. 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. The Vaiṣṇava conclusion is different, as stated by Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura:

SB 4.22.62, Purport:

Bṛhaspati is the chief priest of the heavenly kingdom, and he is a follower of the philosophy known as brahma-vada, or Māyāvāda. 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. 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.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ideal self-controller or brahmacārī. When Kṛṣṇa was elected to be president of the Rājasūya yajña performed by Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, Grandfather Bhīṣmadeva praised Lord Kṛṣṇa as the greatest brahmacārī.

SB 4.24.17, Purport:

Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Māyāvāda philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Māyāvāda philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of them. This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of Māyāvādī. 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:

The cult of bhakti (bhakti-latā) is the first daughter of Malayadhvaja, and as previously described, her eyes are always upon Kṛṣṇa (asitekṣaṇām). One cannot render bhakti to any demigod. Bhakti can be rendered only to Viṣṇu (śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ (SB 7.5.23)). 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 4.31.12, Purport:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore told Sanātana Gosvāmī that without a touch of devotional service, jñāna, yoga and Sāṅkhya philosophy cannot give one the desired results. 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. That is the purport of this verse.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.12.11, Purport:

Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa, the complete whole. There is no distinction between His body and soul as there is between ours. Sometimes so-called scholars, not knowing the constitutional position of Kṛṣṇa, mislead people by saying that the Kṛṣṇa within is different from the Kṛṣṇa without. When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), so-called scholars advise the reader that it is not the person Kṛṣṇa to whom we must surrender but the Kṛṣṇa within. 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:

In this way one increases life's illusions and thinks in terms of 'I and mine.' " The attraction for material things is certainly due to illusion. There is no value in attraction to material things, for the conditioned soul is diverted by them. One's life is successful if he is absorbed in the attraction of Kṛṣṇa's strength, beauty and pastimes as described in the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. 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. Devotees consider such goals to be worthless phantasmagoria. There are also yogīs, who try to control their senses, but they can never succeed without coming to the stage of devotional service. The senses are compared to poisonous snakes, but the senses of a bhakta engaged in the service of the Lord are like snakes with their poisonous fangs removed. The yogī tries to suppress his senses, but even great mystics like Viśvāmitra fail in the attempt. Viśvāmitra was conquered by his senses when he was captivated by Menakā during his meditation. She later gave birth to Śakuntalā. The wisest persons in the world, therefore, are the bhakti-yogīs, as Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms in Bhagavad-gītā (6.47):

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. A guru must be a direct representative of Kṛṣṇa who distributes the instructions of Kṛṣṇa without any change. Thus only the most fortunate persons come in contact with the guru. As confirmed in the Vedic literatures, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet: (MU 1.2.12) one has to search out a guru to understand the affairs of the spiritual world. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also confirms this point. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam: (SB 11.3.21) one who is very interested in understanding the activities in the spiritual world must search out a guru—a bona fide representative of Kṛṣṇa.

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." Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī writes in this regard that māyāmayam can also mean kṛpā-pracuram, deeply merciful. Similarly, Śrīla Vīrarāghava says, māyā-pracuranātmīya-saṅkalpena parigṛhītam ity arthaḥ jñāna-paryāyo'tra māyā-śabdaḥ: when one is very affectionate due to an intimate relationship, one is described as māyāmaya. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura explains māyāmayam by dividing it into the words māyā and āmayam. He explains these words to indicate that because the living entity is covered by the disease of illusion, the Lord is always eager to deliver His devotee from the clutches of māyā and cure him of the disease caused by the illusory energy.

SB 5.19.24, Purport:

Even the performance of one hundred aśvamedha sacrifices cannot compare to the sacrifice of saṅkīrtana. 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. 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. These are the actual followers of the bhakti path. Regardless of whether or not one is educated or aristocratic, one must follow in their footsteps. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) one must follow the path of the mahājanas. The mahājanas are those who have taken to the path of devotional service (suśīlāḥ sādhavo yatra nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇāḥ), for these great personalities are the perfect persons. As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (5.18.12):

SB 6.1.17, Purport:

"One who has unflinching devotion to the Personality of Godhead has all the good qualities of the demigods." The less intelligent, however, misunderstand the bhakti path and therefore allege that it is for one who cannot execute ritualistic ceremonies or speculate. As confirmed here by the word sadhrīcīnaḥ, bhakti is the path that is appropriate, not the paths of karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa. 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.

In his commentary on this verse, for example, Śrīdhara Svāmī gives the following quotation:

sāyaṁ prātar gṛṇan bhaktyā

duḥkha-grāmād vimucyate

"If one always chants the holy name of the Lord with great devotion in the evening and in the morning, one can become free from all material miseries." Another quotation confirms that one can achieve liberation if one hears the holy name of the Lord constantly, every day with great respect (anudinam idam ādareṇa śṛṇvan). Another quotation says:

SB 6.4.31, Purport:

"I am the source of everything." Devotees have no problem understanding the ultimate cause of everything, but nondevotees must face many opposing elements because everyone who wants to be a prominent philosopher invents his own way. 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.

Now, one might ask why there are so many philosophers if the ultimate goal of philosophy is one. Undoubtedly the ultimate cause is one—the Supreme Brahman. As Arjuna told Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad-gītā (10.12):

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.

In this regard, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura describes the difference between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and an ordinary living being. As pointed out in a previous verse, sarvaṁ pumān veda guṇāṁś ca taj-jño na veda sarva jñam anantam īḍe: the omnipotent Supreme Lord knows everything, but the living being does not actually know the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā, "I know everything, but no one knows Me."

SB 6.8.32-33, Purport:

The prayer to the ornaments and carriers of the Lord is not false, for they are as good as the Lord. 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. Therefore this prayer says, pātu sarvaiḥ svarūpair naḥ sadā sarvatra sama-gaḥ: "May the Lord, who is all-pervasive in His various forms, protect us everywhere." The Lord is always present everywhere by His name, form, qualities, attributes and paraphernalia, and they all have equal power to protect the devotees. Śrīla Madhvācārya explains this as follows:

SB 6.9.34, Purport:

This is very difficult for a conditioned soul to understand, but devotees can understand how Kṛṣṇa, without undergoing any changes, can simultaneously be in His abode and be all-pervasive. The demigods are understood to be various limbs of the Supreme Lord's body, although the Supreme Lord has no material body and does not need anyone's help. He is spread everywhere (mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā (BG 9.4)). Nevertheless, He is not present everywhere in His spiritual form. According to the Māyāvāda philosophy, the Supreme Truth, being all-pervasive, does not need a transcendental form. 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:

Only rarely is someone liberated. Indeed, although many men take sannyāsa to become liberated, because of their imperfections they again become attached to women, material activities, social welfare work and so on.

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. 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 other class of jñānīs, whose jñāna is mixed with bhakti, are also of two kinds—those who are devoted to the so-called false form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and those who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead as sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1), the actual spiritual form. 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. Such a devotee is actually situated in knowledge. He never merges in the Brahman effulgence. As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.2.32):

SB 6.16.52, Purport:

However, neither of them is independent; they are both energies of the Lord. 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. The material expansion is temporary, but the Lord is not temporary. The living entities are parts of the Lord, but they are not the Lord Himself. The living entities in this material world are not inconceivable, but the Lord is. The theory that the Lord's energies, being expansions of the Lord, are as good as the Lord is mistaken.

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:

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.

Hiraṇyakaśipu asked Prahlāda Mahārāja how he had become antagonistic to his family. When a family member is killed by an enemy, all the members of the family would naturally be inimical to the murderer, but Hiraṇyakaśipu saw that Prahlāda had become friendly with the murderer. Therefore he asked, "Who has created this kind of intelligence in you? Have you developed this consciousness by yourself? Since you are a small boy, someone must have induced you to think this way." Prahlāda Mahārāja wanted to reply that an attitude favorable toward Viṣṇu can develop only when the Lord is favorable (sa yadānuvrataḥ).

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:

Thus there is undoubtedly a difference between the Lord and the cosmic manifestation, but actually they are not different. Accepting them to be different is called avidyā, ignorance.

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. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has therefore sung, keśava tuyā jagata vicitra: "My dear Lord, Your creation is full of varieties." The varieties are one and at the same time different. This is the philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. The conclusion given in Brahma-saṁhitā (Bs. 5.1) is this:

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." Whenever the Lord appears, whether as a fish, a tortoise, a hog or any other form, one should understand that He maintains His transcendental position and that His only business, as stated here, is hatvā—to kill the demons. The Lord appears in order to protect the devotees and kill the demons (paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām (BG 4.8)). Since the demons are always ready to oppose Vedic civilization, they are sure to be killed by the transcendental form of the Lord.

SB 7.10.7, Purport:

"O my Lord, I do not want from You any amount of wealth, nor many followers, nor a beautiful wife, for these are all materialistic desires. But if I have to ask You for any benediction, I pray that in whatever forms of life I may take my birth, under any circumstances, I will not be bereft of Your transcendental devotional service." 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. Indeed, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam itself is meant for the paramahaṁsas (paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satām (SB 1.1.2)). Unless one is in the paramahaṁsa stage, he is not eligible to understand the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. For paramahaṁsas, or sannyāsīs in the Vaiṣṇava order, preaching is the first duty. To preach, such sannyāsīs may accept the symbols of sannyāsa, such as the daṇḍa and kamaṇḍalu, or sometimes they may not. Generally the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs, being paramahaṁsas, are automatically called bābājīs, and they do not carry a kamaṇḍalu or daṇḍa.

SB Canto 8

SB 8.3.16, Purport:

Similarly, all living entities are covered by the modes of material nature, and the fire of knowledge can be ignited only by the Supreme Personality of Godhead when one takes Him within one's heart. Sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayoḥ (SB 9.4.18). 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:

He does not need to take care of the impersonalists who enter the brahmajyoti. 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. The mantras referred to in text 29 are called mukhāni pañcopaniṣadas taveśa. Māyāvādīs take all these mantras seriously in worshiping Lord Śiva. These mantras are as follows: (1) tat puruṣāya vidmahe śāntyai, (2) mahā-devāya dhīmahi vidyāyai, (3) tan no rudraḥ pratiṣṭhāyai, (4) pracodayāt dhṛtyai, (5) aghorebhyas tamā. .., (6) atha ghorebhyo mohā. .., (7) aghorebhyo rakṣā. .., (8) aghoratarebhyo nidrā. .., (9) sarvebhyaḥ sarva-vyādhyai, (10) sarva-sarvebhyo mṛtyave, (11) namas te 'stu kṣudhā. .., (12) rudra-rūpebhyas tṛṣṇā. .., (13) vāmadevāya rajā. .., (14) jyeṣṭhāya svāhā. .., (15) śreṣṭhāya ratyai, (16) rudrāya kalyāṇyai, (17) kālāya kāmā. .., (18) kala-vikaraṇāya sandhinyai, (19) bala-vikaraṇāya kriyā. .., (20) balāya vṛddhyai, (21) balacchāyā. .., (22) pramathanāya dhātryai, (23) sarva-bhūta-damanāya bhrāmaṇyai, (24) manaḥ-śoṣiṇyai, (25) unmanāya jvarā. .., (26) sadyojātaṁ prapadyāmi siddhyai, (27) sadyojātāya vai namaḥ ṛddhyai, (28) bhave dityai, (29) abhave lakṣmyai, (30) nātibhave medhā. .., (31) bhajasva māṁ kāntyai, (32) bhava svadhā. .., (33) udbhavāya prabhā. .., (34) īśānaḥ sarva-vidyānāṁ śaśinyai, (35) īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānām abhaya-dā. .., (36) brahmādhipatir brahmaṇodhipatir brahman brahmeṣṭa-dā. .., (37) śivo me astu marīcyai, (38) sadāśivaḥ jvālinyai.

SB 8.12.8, Purport:

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.

Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Ācārya, in his Bhāgavata-candra-candrikā, describes the Vaiṣṇava philosophy as follows. The cosmic manifestation is described as sat and asat, as cit and acit. Matter is acit, and the living force is cit, but their origin is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in whom there is no difference between matter and spirit. According to this conception, the cosmic manifestation, consisting of both matter and spirit, is not different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaraḥ: "This cosmic manifestation is also the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although it appears different from Him."

SB 8.16.61, Purport:

Moghāśā mogha-karmāṇo mogha-jñānā vicetasaḥ: (BG 9.12) because he is bewildered, he is baffled in his hopes, baffled in his activities, and baffled in his knowledge. In this regard, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī remarks, napuṁsakam anapuṁsakenety-ādinaikatvam. One cannot equate the potent and the impotent. 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. Here it is forcefully affirmed that this is the only method for success in life. Īśvara-tarpaṇaṁ vinā sarvam eva viphalam. Unless Lord Viṣṇu is satisfied, all of one's pious activities, ritualistic ceremonies and yajñas are simply for show and have no value. Unfortunately, foolish people do not know the secret of success. Na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum (SB 7.5.31). They do not know that real self-interest ends in pleasing Lord Viṣṇu.

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." The Vaiṣṇava philosophers, however, do not agree with the Māyāvāda philosophy. Even if for the sake of argument the material world is accepted as untruth, the living entity entangled in the illusory energy cannot come out of it without the help of the body. Without the help of the body, one cannot follow a system of religion, nor can one speculate on philosophical perfection. Therefore, the flower and fruit (puṣpa-phalam) have to be obtained as a result of the body. Without the help of the body, that fruit cannot be gained. The Vaiṣṇava philosophy therefore recommends yukta-vairāgya. It is not that all attention should be diverted for the maintenance of the body, but at the same time one's bodily maintenance should not be neglected. As long as the body exists one can thoroughly study the Vedic instructions, and thus at the end of life one can achieve perfection. This is explained in Bhagavad-gītā (BG 8.6): yaṁ yaṁ vāpi smaran bhāvaṁ tyajaty ante kalevaram. Everything is examined at the time of death.

SB Canto 9

SB 9.11.1, Purport:

This does not, of course, justify the Māyāvāda philosophy, by which one thinks himself the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 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. Caitanya Mahāprabhu advises that a guru is one who strictly follows the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā: yare dekha, tare kaha, 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa (CC Madhya 7.128). A juggler, a magician or one who speaks nonsense as an academic career is not a guru. Rather, a guru is one who presents Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa's instructions, as it is. Śravaṇa is very important; one must hear from the Vaiṣṇava sādhu, guru and śāstra.

SB 10.13.39, Purport:

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. Spirit (cit) is different from matter (acit), as explained by Kṛṣṇa Himself in Bhagavad-gītā (7.4-5):

SB 10.13.39, Purport:

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. Although spirit and matter ultimately come from the same one source, they cannot be made one. For example, there are many things that come from our bodies, but although they come from the same source, they cannot be made one. 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. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy, therefore, is called acintya-bhedābheda—simultaneous oneness and difference. For example, fire and heat cannot be separated, for where there is fire there is heat and where there is heat there is fire. Nonetheless, although we cannot touch fire, heat we can tolerate. Therefore, although they are one, they are different.

SB 10.13.54, Purport:

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.

Transcendental forms of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His person are so great that the impersonal followers of the Upaniṣads cannot reach the platform of knowledge to understand them. Particularly, the transcendental forms of the Lord are beyond the reach of the impersonalists, who can only understand, through the studies of the Upaniṣads, that the Absolute Truth is not matter and that the Absolute Truth is not materially restricted by limited potency.

SB 10.13.57, Purport:

Therefore, in this verse the word ajā refers to yogamāyā.

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. For example, in one tree, there are varieties of leaves, fruits and flowers. Varieties of energy are required for performing the varieties of activity within the creation. To give another example, in a machine all the parts may be iron, but the machine includes varied activities. Although the whole machine is iron, one part works in one way, and other parts work in other ways. One who does not know how the machine is working may say that it is all iron; nonetheless, in spite of its being iron, the machine has different elements, all working differently to accomplish the purpose for which the machine was made.

SB 10.13.57, Purport:

"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.

The phrase atan-nirasana refers to the discarding of that which is irrelevant. (Atat means "that which is not a fact.") Brahman is sometimes described as asthūlam anaṇv ahrasvam adīrgham, "that which is not large and not small, not short and not long." (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.8.8) Neti neti: "It is not this, it is not that." But what is it? In describing a pencil, one may say, "It is not this; it is not that," but this does not tell us what it is. This is called definition by negation. In Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa also explains the soul by giving negative definitions. Na jāyate mriyate vā: "It is not born, nor does it die. You can hardly understand more than this." But what is it?