Guest (1): Brahma-sūtra, as propounded by Vyāsa is one. It is only one. But after reading Brahma-sūtra, the bhāṣyas, Śaṅkara-bhāṣya, Madhva-bhāṣya, and Śrī-bhāṣya as written by Rāmānujācārya, all these things differ in many ways, and they leave us confused to know what is actually existing. Am I to follow this or that or this? Because "Jagat is mithyā," it is said by Śaṅkarācārya. Madhvācārya says, "It's not mithyā. It is realistic." It's contradiction. And Rāmānuja used another way of explanation, that he says, "It is that, and it is this." And in that way, tava dāsaḥ aham, Madhvācārya says, "I am your slave." Tava dāsaḥ aham, tava dāso 'ham. But Śaṅkarācārya says, "No. Ātmā itself is Paramātmā. There is no question of his saying, tava dāso 'ham." Like that, jagan mithyā, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. And then we see, as propounded by Śaṅkarācārya, as explained by Śaṅkarācārya, the same it is said by Madhvācārya as jagat satyam and brahma satyam: "Both are satya." And when Śaṅkarācārya says that jagan mithyā brahma satyam, the same Brahma-sūtra it is taken up by Madhvācārya in a different way. He says jagan mithyā, er, I'm sorry, jagat satyam and brahma satyam. And Rāmānuja says in a different way again, most confusing, he says at some stage, "It is realistic, and at a different stage it becomes unrealistic." So, in so many factors, I find that there are so many contradictions there. If you kindly clarify the matter in a very clear and straightforward manner, I will be and people will be much obliged to you. So Swamiji will have to say something about this, whether the world is temporary, or whether the world is unrealistic or not, or is it realistic. And if it is realistic, why Śaṅkarācārya has said that it is mithyā, and Rāmānujācārya says, "At one stage it is realistic, and after some stage it becomes unrealistic"? And therefore I want clarification so that I can understand.
Prabhupāda: The Śaṅkarācārya is accepted as Māyāvādī because these Māyāvādī philosophers, they think everything is māyā; even Kṛṣṇa is māyā. So, our Caitanya Mahāprabhu... We belong to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and Caitanya Mahāprabhu belongs to Madhvācārya-sampradāya. As I have already explained, there are mahājanas. So all mahājanas, they have got different sampradāyas. Just like Lord Brahmā, he has got his sampradāya; it is called Brahma-sampradāya. Similarly, Lord Śiva has his sampradāya; it is called Rudra-sampradāya. Lakṣmījī has got his (her) sampradāya; it is called Śrī-sampradāya. So śāstra says that śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. You hear different types of philosophy from different sources. Na cāsāv munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. One cannot be accepted as a great saintly person unless he puts forward his own theory. Therefore mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). We have to accept the mahājana. Now, apart from accepting mahājana, we have to use our senses also. Of course, unless we are advanced in our sensual speculation, that is also not possible. But one common sense is: if brahma-satyam, how jagat can be mithyā? It is a common sense. The brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā... This jagat is created by Brahman. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Athāto brahma jijñāsā. Brahman means... What is that Brahman? The original source of everything. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Why jagat should be mithyā? Huh? Suppose somebody has created this microphone with hard labor, and if I say, "This is all mithyā," is it very good thing? If Kṛṣṇa has created...
- ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
- mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
- iti matvā bhajante māṁ
- budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ
- (BG 10.8)
Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ. Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the origin of everything," the same answer. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Who is that person from whom everything has come into existence? So if Kṛṣṇa is fact, Brahman, then He says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ, "I am the origin of everything," how other things can be false? No. We do not accept this philosophy. If Kṛṣṇa is truth, then this world is also truth. It may be temporary—bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate (BG 8.19)—but it is not untruth. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore has criticized Śaṅkarācārya, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: (CC Madhya 6.169) "If you accept Māyāvāda philosophy, then your progress is doomed, finished." This is the...
So we are follower of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. We do not accept this Śaṅkara's philosophy, that the world is mithyā. No. It is fact. It is fact. Because unless it... But the vision is different. Vision is different. That is called māyā. What is the fact? The fact: this world is created by Kṛṣṇa, or God; therefore it is God's property. But we are thinking our property. That is false. That is the meaning of Śaṅkarācārya's..., that you are thinking that it is your country. No. It is Kṛṣṇa's country. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). Everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa. Why you are falsely claiming your and fighting yourself? This is false. Not the world is false, but the acceptance of the world falsely, that is false. Not the world is false. That is fact.
So we must have common sense to understand and understand through other sources also. As Madhvācārya says, "No, jagat satyam, that is fact." How you can say this jagat is false? It is not false. Besides that, that Vyāsadeva, he's the compiler of Vedānta-sūtra, and he has commented himself about Vedānta-sūtra. That is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. And at the end of each chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, you'll find, brahma-sūtrasya bhāṣya. So, when the author is giving a commentary personally, we should accept that. Why others? So Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary given by Vyāsadeva. We should accept. And it begins... Because it is commentary on Brahma-sūtra, therefore it begins with the sūtra, Brahma-sūtra: janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ (SB 1.1.1). This is the explanation. So the conclusion is that we Vaiṣṇavas, we do not say that this jagat is mithyā. No. The jagat is satyam. Unless the jagat is satyam, how we are approaching God, the Absolute Truth through this material, I mean to say, world. How it is possible? You cannot approach the truth through false thing. That is not possible.