View source for This world has emanated from the Absolute Truth. Then how it can be untruth? Does it mean that truth produces untruth? This is the defect of Mayavada philosophy. They are not actually monists. They are dualists

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"this world has emanated from the Absolute Truth. Then how it can be untruth? Does it mean that truth produces untruth? This is the defect of Mayavada philosophy. They are not actually monists. They are dualists"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|17Oct12}}
{{last|17Oct12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:This World]]
[[Category:Emanate]]
[[Category:absolute Truth]]
[[Category:can Be]]
[[Category:Untruth]]
[[Category:Does It Mean]]
[[Category:truth]]
[[Category:produce]]
[[Category:That is the Defect]]
[[Category:Mayavada Philosophy]]
[[Category:They Are Not]]
[[Category:Not Actually]]
[[Category:Monist]]
[[Category:they Are]]
[[Category:Dualism]]
[[Category:Questions Posed by Srila Prabhupada]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB1513NewVrindabanJune161969_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="139" link="Lecture on SB 1.5.13 -- New Vrindaban, June 16, 1969" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.5.13 -- New Vrindaban, June 16, 1969">
<div class="heading">If Brahman is satya, if the Absolute Truth is truth, then janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), this world has emanated from the Absolute Truth. Then how it can be untruth? Does it mean that truth produces untruth? This is the defect of Māyāvāda philosophy. They are not actually monists. They are dualists. They are distinguishing Brahman and māyā. But we say that only Kṛṣṇa.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.5.13 -- New Vrindaban, June 16, 1969|Lecture on SB 1.5.13 -- New Vrindaban, June 16, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So in one way you stop your impious activities; in other way you improve your spiritual understanding in this way. Yeṣām anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ janānāṁ puṇya. Anta-gataṁ pāpam means you stop. Anta-gatam. So if you engage yourself in pious activities, in Kṛṣṇa consciousness activities, where is the scope of dong nonsense work? Therefore it is stopped. Automatically it is stopped. So yeṣām anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām, in this way, te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā ([[Vanisource:BG 7.28 (1972)|BG 7.28]]). They have no other engagement. They do not know anything else except Kṛṣṇa. Dvandva-moha. Dvandva means duality, and illusion. Moha means illusion. Nirmuktā: "He becomes liberated from these two things." Duality means "Whether I shall become Kṛṣṇa conscious or this conscious, material conscious or this...?" This is duality, "Whether this or that?" But one who is firmly convinced... Vyavasāyātmikā buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana ([[Vanisource:BG 2.41 (1972)|BG 2.41]]). One who is firmly convinced that kṛṣṇe bhakti kaile sarva-karma kṛta haya: "If I become Kṛṣṇa conscious, then every perfection is there," this conviction, then there is no duality, "Whether I shall do it or not do it?" "I must do it." Dvandva. And moha, and illusion. And except Kṛṣṇa consciousness, everything is moha, illusion, except Kṛṣṇa consciousness, all illusion.</p>
<p>So these things are stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Yeṣām anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām, te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā ([[Vanisource:BG 7.28 (1972)|BG 7.28]]). Duality. Actually, we are monists. We do not know anything except Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādīs, they say they are monists, but they're dualists. They say, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. Why? Wherefrom the jagat come? If Brahman is satya, if the Absolute Truth is truth, then janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]), this world has emanated from the Absolute Truth. Then how it can be untruth? Does it mean that truth produces untruth? This is the defect of Māyāvāda philosophy. They are not actually monists. They are dualists. They are distinguishing Brahman and māyā. But we say that only Kṛṣṇa. Ekale īśvara kṛṣṇa āra saba bhṛtya ([[Vanisource:CC Adi 5.142|CC Adi 5.142]]). Māyā is the servant of Kṛṣṇa. That is a, that is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā, in Brahma-saṁhitā. In all the Vedic literature this is confirmed. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram: ([[Vanisource:BG 9.10 (1972)|BG 9.10]]) "This prakṛti, this māyā, this material energy, is acting under My superintendence, under My guidance."</p>
<p>So we don't accept this material nature as final. We have Kṛṣṇa on the background, that He is, only, the master. So therefore we are monists. Simply we know Kṛṣṇa and everything emanating from Kṛṣṇa. That is described everywhere. In the Brahma-saṁhitā the same truth is... Sṛṣṭi-sthiti, sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktir ekā chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni bibharti durgā (Bs. 5.44). This material energy is called Durgā, but she is so powerful... Sṛṣṭi-sthiti.... She can create wonderful things. She can maintain wonderful things. She can dissolve wonderful things, so powerful, but she is acting under the direction... Chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni bibharti durgā. Chāyeva. Just like shadow moves by the movement of the reality, similarly, this material nature is working under the direction of the Supreme.</p>
<p>Therefore, any way you, either way you go, if you become Kṛṣṇa conscious, simply come to this understanding that Kṛṣṇa is everything, and "By serving Kṛṣṇa, all my objective, all my perfection is there"—this conviction makes you perfect. And this is real, this is reality. There is no imposition. It is reality. Simply one has to understand. The same thing is expressed here by Nārada, urukramasya. Who is urukrama? Wonderful actor. The wonderful actor is Kṛṣṇa, Urukrama. So Nārada Muni says, "Although you have mentioned in other purāṇas or in itihāsa, Mahābhārata, about Kṛṣṇa, some of the activities of Kṛṣṇa..." Just like this same thing, as I told you. So many people are reading Bhagavad-gītā, but all nonsense. They do not understand what is Kṛṣṇa, because they are disturbed. They are not situated in Kṛṣṇa. Nārada Muni says that "Be situated in Kṛṣṇa. You write something, simply Kṛṣṇa's activities." Akhila "Then you'll be liberated, and those who will stick to this principle, they'll be liberated."</p>
<p>Akhila-bandha-muktaye... Vipakṣe doṣam anta, that "If you do not do this..." Śrīdhara Svāmī comments, vipakṣe. Vipakṣe means if you do not understand this philosophy, that simply Kṛṣṇa consciousness can save the human race, then you are faulty. If you do not understand... If you understand it nicely, it is very good. But if you do not understand it, if you direct your activities in a, in a different way, then it is faulty. You'll never be happy. Because the whole thing has begun-Vyāsadeva was unhappy. Even after producing a literature like Vedānta-sūtra, he was not happy, and Nārada is giving him instruction how to become happy. Here is the answer, that "If you do not accept this proposition, that you have simply to be in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then vipakṣe, it is just against your welfare." Vipakṣe doṣāntaram ahaḥ tataḥ urukramasya viceṣṭitam pṛthag dṛśaḥ, athaiva anyathā prakarantrena yat kiñcit athāntaram vipakṣyatha taya vibaksaya itaiḥ sphuritaiḥ nāmabhis ca bhaktabhya:(?) "So whatever little activities of Kṛṣṇa you have described..."</p>
<p>Just like people are understanding... By reading Bhagavad-gītā, somebody is taking Kṛṣṇa as a great politician. Everyone accept Kṛṣṇa as a great personality, but somebody's accepting Him as a great politician, a great diplomat, or in this way, according to one's angle of vision. Just like in Bombay... There are in India and all over the world, I calculated, there are more than six hundred commentary on Bhagavad-gītā, more than. And each one is presentation of the author's own view. One Doctor Rele(?) in Bombay, he has also explained Bhagavad-gītā in his own way. He says that it is a talk between a diseased person, a patient, and the physician. Because he is physician, he has made Kṛṣṇa as physician. Of course, Kṛṣṇa is physician in other way. But he has tried to explain the medical science through the Bhagavad-gītā-anatomy, physiology, medicine, like that. Just like Gandhi, he wanted to prove Bhagavad-gītā as nonviolence. In this way, everyone is trying. But actually who is understanding Kṛṣṇa? That is being explained by Nārada, that "In this way, people will misunderstand. You simply apply, simply write and explain the science of Kṛṣṇa."</p>
<p>Therefore in the, from the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, from the beginning, Vyāsadeva offers his obeisances to the Supreme, satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi, janmādy asya yataḥ: ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]) "I am just offering my obeisances unto the Supreme Absolute Truth, who is the source of everything." And in the beginning he also writes, oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya. Then he aims Kṛṣṇa. Vāsudeva means Kṛṣṇa. But he explains philosophically what Kṛṣṇa is: janmādy asya yataḥ anvayāt itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). "Kṛṣṇa, the Vāsudeva, is the original source of everything." Janmādy asya yataḥ. That is the Vedānta philosophy.</p>
<p>So under instruction of Nārada he... So Nārada says that "If you do not, I mean to say, cent percent simply be in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then it will be faulty. I admit that you have mentioned something about Kṛṣṇa's activities in other literatures like Mahābhārata and other Purāṇas, but that will not do." Yate kadācit kvāpi viṣaya kono sthānam:(?) "That will not be very steady understanding of Kṛṣṇa." Vātāhata-agunvitaḥ naur iva:(?) "Just like you cannot be steady on the ocean when there is tossing wind," I mean to say, "there is hurricane, you must be always tilting, similarly, unless we are firmly convinced about Supreme Lord, we must be tilting. So that, you must prepare some literature by which one shall be firmly steady, steadily convinced about Kṛṣṇa consciousness, God consciousness." Vātāhata-agunvita, yad uktam gitasuḥ.(?) And here also, Śrīdhara Svāmī... Gītā is so authoritative that he, he is giving quotation from Bhagavad-gītā,</p>
:vyavasāyātmikā buddhir
:ekeha kuru-nandana
:bahu-śākhā hy anantāś ca
:buddhayo 'vyavasāyinām
:([[Vanisource:BG 2.41 (1972)|BG 2.41]])
<p>Bhagavad-gītā also, Kṛṣṇa says, vyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ... Those who are convinced for making a sure progress of life, he's called niścayātmikā buddhiḥ. That is determination. Dṛḍha-vrata, dṛḍha-vrata. These are Sanskrit words: "firmly convinced, steady." They have got only one business, one business. Vyavasāyātmikā buddhir ekeha...bahu-śākhā hy anantāś ca buddha... Those who are not steady, they have got many business, many business. Why many? If that one is the source of everything, take that one.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>