Mayavada philosophy (Lectures, Other)

Expressions researched:
"mayavada philosophies" |"mayavada philosophy" |"mayavadi philosophies" |"mayavadi philosophy" |"philosophy of mayavada" |"philosophy of the mayavadis"

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 28, 1972:

So Buddha philosophy is that you dismantle this mixture. Let earth go to the earth portion and water portion to the water portion. Then there is no existence of the body, and there is no pains and pleasure. Make it zero. This is called śūnyavādī. And the Māyāvādī, their philosophy is stop this variegatedness. We are suffering pains and pleasure within this material world on account of these varieties. So these varieties, they are on, built on the foundation of the Supreme Spirit. So merge into the Supreme Spirit and get out of these varieties. This is their philosophy. So the Buddha philosophy or the Māyāvāda philosophy, they're almost one, because their ultimate goal is to make things zero.

But our philosophy is different. Our philosophy is that as there are varieties in this material world, there are varieties in the spiritual world. That varieties. Just like the sky. In the sky, there are varieties. There are different kinds of planets, floating in the sky. Ordinarily seeing, in daytime, we see the sky is vacant. How it is vacant? It is not vacant. It is the defect of my eyes that I cannot see the varieties. The vari... At night we can see the varieties. There are so many planets, so many stars. And each of them full of varieties.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 8, 1973:

The kṛṣṇa-kathāḥ, or the discussion about the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes very pleasing, satām, when they're discussed among the devotees. nondevotee, he may go on speaking, but it is dry. It does not give any relish. Therefore it is advised, satāṁ prasaṅgān, one should discuss Kṛṣṇa consciousness amongst the devotees. So just contrary to this, Sanātana Gosvāmī says that,

avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇaṁ

pūtaṁ hari-kathāmṛtam

śravaṇaṁ naiva kartavyam...

Avaiṣṇava, who is not a Vaiṣṇava, Māyāvādī... Māyāvādī philosophy is very dangerous. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has personally said, māyāvādī haya kṛṣṇe aparādhī. They're offenders to Kṛṣṇa. Just like the literatures, what is that literature, Kṛṣṇa is black something?

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 9, 1973:

Similarly, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). The Absolute Truth is realized in three different features. Brahman, impersonal Brahman, brahmeti. Localized Paramātmā, the Lord is situated in everyone's heart, localized Paramātmā. And Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Māyāvādī philosophy is that because God is everything, therefore there is no separate existence of God. This is Māyāvādī philosophy. God is everything, that's all right, but that's not, that does not mean God loses His existence. This is material conception. The material conception is that you take anything, suppose you take a piece of paper and you make it into small pieces and throw it, then the original paper has no existence. So the Māyāvādī philosophers, they are thinking like that. If God is everything—that's a fact, God is everything—but that does not mean that God is lost of His own existence. That is material.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972:

The impersonalists, they do not know that Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's body, not different. They take it for acceptance that when God, Brahman comes, He accepts a material body. That is Māyāvādī philosophy. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ (BG 9.11). He comes... Sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). He comes as He is. Otherwise how He can act so wonderfully? When He was on the lap of His mother, three months old, how He could kill the gigantic demon, Pūtanā? He's not different from His body. He simply appears according to the necessity. Kṛṣṇa has no such difference, body and soul. He's full, complete, spiritual. We have got, in this conditional state, soul and body difference. Dehi and deha. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā (BG 2.13). So dehāntaraṁ prāptiḥ. Kṛṣṇa hasn't got to accept another body. So this, these things we should know. Kṛṣṇa is complete, pūrṇa-brahman. There is nothing like material and spiritual in Kṛṣṇa's body.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 3, 1972:

So pure devotional service rare... In this way, the point is that pure devotee does not give very much value to so-called liberation. Because so-called liberation, so-called... It is in this sense that we have seen many so-called liberated persons, muk..., vimukta-māninaḥ. They considered that... Vimukta-māninaḥ. Now, you'll be pleased to hear that one of the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs in India, very well known, his disciples came to me to invite me because they are now seeing that their Māyāvāda philosophy has not been so much effective as devotional service. Practically. So they are now taking gradually to devotional service. They are trying to read Bhāgavata, although they are habituated to malinterpret. But they have no other. They have finished their job. Now they are gradually coming to bhakti-mārga. That is natural. If one is actually sincere, after suffering the distress of impersonalism, gradually they'll come to surrender to the person. Bahūnāṁ janmanāṁ ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). So when one becomes devotee, jñānīs, they give too much value to liberation, mokṣa, nirbheda-brahmānusandhana. But yogis, they give too much value for controlling the senses. Karmīs, they give too much value to, to the acts of promotion to the heavenly planets. But for a devotee these things are very teeny. They don't care for these things. Neither for the karmīs, or for the jñānīs, or for the yogis. They are... Yaṁ labdhvā cāparaṁ manyate nādhikaṁ tataḥ. A bhakta who has come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, pure devotional service, he has no more any desire for the resultant action of karmīs, jñānīs, and yogis. He's so fixed up.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 9, 1972:

There are many examples, both in the East and the West, that... In our Eastern countries, the Māyāvādī philosophy is very prominent, and their basic principle is: brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. "The world is false, and Brahman, that is truth." But we have practically seen many sannyāsīs, they renounce this world as mithyā and take to Brahman realization path, but after some days, they come down to politics, sociology, philanthropy. Why? If Brahman is satya, jagat is mithyā, false, then why they, from the platform of satya, they fall down again in the mithyā? This is our question. To open hospital or to open a school or similar philanthropic activities are generally being done by persons who are embarrassed with this mithyā world. Why the sannyāsīs, who left this world as mithyā and went to the platform of Brahman realization, and why they come to this platform again for opening school, hospitals? What is the answer? Is there any answer?

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973:

The qualification of devotion is to become a niṣkiñcana. Means one should not try to possess anything material. He should simply try to possess Kṛṣṇa. There must be some possession. The Māyāvādī philosophy, to dispossess material things, will not help him. He must possess something positive. Otherwise he'll fall down. That is our... Because we want something. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate (BG 9.59). So we simply, we try, that "Let me become sannyāsī, niṣkiñcana." That is not possible. You must take to the service of Kṛṣṇa. Then when you are fully satisfied that "I possess Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is within my heart," then you can give up all this nonsense, kick out: "I don't want." Otherwise not possible. So the two things: Niṣkiñcanasya bhagavad-bhajano..., param paro jīveṣa (?). Those who have become ni..., what is this liberation for them? Nothing. The four things, dharma-artha-kāma-mokṣa. So when one takes to this shelter of Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet, that is the highest dharma, topmost. That is the topmost yoga. So why he should hanker after dharma-artha-kāma-mokṣa (SB 4.8.41, Cc. Ādi 1.90)? It is so nice thing. That is the statement of Uddhava. One who has become pure devotee... One who has possessed... Svāntaḥ-sthita gadābhṛtā. He has become purified. But don't imitate. Actually see whether you are always thinking of Kṛṣṇa. Then it is all right.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.1 -- Mayapur, March 1, 1974:

Everything is described there, but they are manda. They will take interpretation of a rascal of Bhagavad-gītā. Sumanda-matayo. Even they read Bhagavad-gītā, they will read some rascaldom. Sumanda-matayo. The Māyāvādī philosophy, they will take it, not Kṛṣṇa's philosophy. They are reading Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa's book, but interpreting in the Māyāvādīc way. Therefore sumanda-matayo. Their intelligence is very bad. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayo manda-bhāgyā. And the unfortunate. In India there are so many Vedic literatures, full of treasure house of transcendental knowledge. But manda-bhāgyās they will read Lenin's literature. Just see how much unfortunate they have become. As if Lenin can speak more than Kṛṣṇa. This is going on.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, March 7, 1974:

So we may read herewith one commentary by my Guru Mahārāja Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. "In his Anubhāṣya commentary Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura describes the Pañca-tattva as follows: The supreme energetic, the Personality of Godhead, manifesting in five kinds of pastimes, appears as the Pañca-tattva. Actually there is no difference between them because they are situated on the absolute platform, but they manifest different spiritual varieties as a challenge to impersonalists to taste different kinds of spiritual humors, rāsas..." Because they do not accept the different tastes. The Māyāvāda philosophy and Vaiṣṇava philosophy, the only difference is... Although the aim is one, Absolute Truth, but the difference is that they do not accept varieties, varieties of taste. Therefore they fall down. It is not our version, but it is stated in the Vedic literature, āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adho 'nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ: (SB 10.2.32) "By severe penance and austerities, these Māyāvādīs, they go up to the Brahman effulgence, but from there they fall down, fall down." Because for want of varieties. You cannot live without varieties. Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt: "The Absolute Truth is ānandamayo by nature," abhyāsāt. There are the interpretation of the Māyāvādīs of this Vedānta-sūtra, ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). But we see that the Supreme Absolute Person is ānandamāyā. Kṛṣṇa, you'll never see without ānanda. He is, I mean to say, taking care of the cows, He's dancing with the gopīs, He's playing with His cowherd boys. Ānandamāyā. These are ānanda māyā. These are the varieties.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.7 -- Mayapur, March 9, 1974:

So this is the ultimate knowledge, that, this Māyāvāda philosophy, that to become one, merge into the existence, merge into the existence means we merge into the order of Kṛṣṇa. Our individuality at the present moment is māyā, because we are planning so many things. Therefore your individuality and my individuality clashes. But when there will be no more clashing—we shall agree, "Central point is Kṛṣṇa"—that is oneness, not that we lose our individuality. So as it is stated in all Vedic literature and spoken by Kṛṣṇa, we are all individual, all individual. Svayaṁ bhagavān ekale īśvara. But the difference is that He is the supreme ruler, īśvara. Īśvara. Īśvara means ruler. Actually He is ruler, and we are also ruler, but we are subordinate ruler . Therefore He is ekale īśvara, one ruler. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇa, in the Brahma-saṁhitā. Ekale īśvara. Īśvara cannot be many. That is not īśvara. The Māyāvāda philosophy that everyone is God, that is not very right conclusion. That is rascaldom. Kṛṣṇa says, mūḍha. Na māṁ prapadyante mūḍhāḥ (BG 7.15). One who does not submit to the supreme īśvara, the Supreme Lord, you should know it perfectly well that "Here is a mūḍha, rascal," because it is not that everyone, we can become īśvara. That is not possible. There is then no meaning of īśvara. Īśvara means the ruler. Suppose we are in a group, this, our International Society. If everyone becomes ruler or ācārya, then how it can be managed? No. There must be some head. That is the principle in our practical life. We follow our political leaders. We cannot say that "I belong to this party" unless I follow a leader. That is natural.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.8 -- Vrndavana, March 15, 1974:

Asamaurdhva. These words are there. Asama. Asama means there is no equal. And aurdhva, and nobody is greater. Asamaurdhva. Nobody is greater than Kṛṣṇa, and nobody is equal to Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādī philosophy that everyone is God, everyone is Kṛṣṇa, that is not substantiated by the Vedic literature. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Therefore Kṛṣṇa's name is used there. The Parameśvara, Paraṁ Brahman, Paramātmā, that is Kṛṣṇa. Not we are. We are very fragmental portion of Kṛṣṇa. Very, very small, spiritual spark. So as the sparks from the fire falls down, it loses its original sparking capacity or fire elements. We have seen it. When the spark falls down from the big fire, then it is extinguished. No more fire. It is carbon. Similarly, when we are detached from Kṛṣṇa, we are jīva-bhūta. Then, gradually, if by good association, by the mercy of Kṛṣṇa and spiritual master, we gradually come to the spiritual position, then we become brahma-bhūta (SB 4.30.20).

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.8 -- Vrndavana, March 15, 1974:

Just like sometimes a man commits suicide. He thinks that "This life is simply disgusting. So finish this life." So Māyāvādī philosophy is like that. They want to finish this. But finishing, then what you are accepting? That they do not know. Therefore they are Śūnyavādī, Nirviśeṣavādī. If there is life... Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). Simply by committing suicide, how you'll be happy? Because tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). You'll have to accept another body. Either you commit suicide or die naturally, you have to accept. But if you accept natural death and natural body, then your karma kṣaya, you annihilate your karma, but if you commit suicide, then you become ghost. Because nature's punishment. You got a body and you neglected it, so you now you become, remain without body. That is ghost. Ghost means who does not possess this material body, but he has got the subtle body. That is ghost.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So Śaṅkarācārya was a covered devotee. He was devotee. Somebody accuses Śaṅkarācārya that he was covered Buddhist. But so far I am concerned, I say that Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He was devotee at heart, but because he was ordered to preach in that way... Otherwise, there was no alternative. That is stated in the Padma Purāṇa. When there is conversation between Lord Śiva and his wife Pārvatī, he disclosed that "In the age of Kali, as a Brāhmaṇa, I preach this Māyāvāda philosophy, which is covered Buddha philosophy." Buddha philosophy says that "This material life is all. After this material life, there is nothing, all void." And Śaṅkarācārya said that "It is impersonal. There is no variety." So in both the philosophies there is no acceptance of Lord, the Supreme Lord, Personality of Godhead. Therefore they are called nāstika-vāda. Nāstika-vāda means atheism, atheism. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described Buddha religion as atheism. "And Māyāvāda philosophy," He has said, "dangerous atheism." He has given little preference to Buddhism, but to Māyāvāda philosophy He has stated, "It is dangerous atheism." His exact version is like that, bheda namiya bauddha haila nāstika. Vedāśraye nāstika-vāda bauddha ke adika. He says that "We call the Buddhists as atheists because the simple reason is that they do not accept Vedas." Lord Buddha, he denied, that "I don't care for the Vedas. I have got my this own proposition, that ahiṁsā. Nonviolence is the religion. That's all." So he did not accept Vedas. Therefore, those who are Vedantists, those who are followers of Vedas, they called Buddhist religion atheism. Atheism means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is called atheism.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

There is, Padma Purāṇa, there is statement. In the Padma Purāṇa there is: māyāvādam asac-chāstraṁ pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate. In the Padma Purāṇa it is stated that "This Māyāvāda philosophy is covered Buddhism." Mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇa-mūrtinā. Lord Śiva says to his wife, "My dear Pārvatī, in the age of Kali, in the garb of a brāhmaṇa, I'll have to preach this philosophy." Brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ nirguṇam vakṣyate mayā. Brāhmaṇaś ca aparaṁ rūpam: "Brahman, the Supreme Lord, He has got transcendental form, but I'll have to preach that He has no form, nirguṇam." Sarvasvaṁ jagato 'py asya mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge: "In the age of Kali, just to bewilder the persons, I'll have to preach this philosophy." Vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam: "And, when I shall explain Vedānta, I shall explain everything against Vedas."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's interpretation... Not interpretation—He says Brahman means that "One who is in full opulences, He's Brahman." Tāṅhāra vibhūti, deha—saba cid-ākāra: "Therefore, because He's the greatest, therefore He cannot be under the control of this māyā." The Māyāvāda philosophy says that "We are now under the control of māyā. Therefore we have forgotten that we are all Gods." In the Nikhilananda's book, this is explained. He is discussing Vivekananda's speech, that "We are all Gods. Every one of us, we are God." "Then why you have become dog?" "That we do not know." That is the explanation. But actually, the explanation is that we are also Brahman, but not Bhagavān, the Supreme Brahman. That is the explanation. Therefore we are prone to be under the subjugation of māyā. This is real explanation. I am, I am not the Supreme Brahman. The greatest Brahman, I am not. Brahman means 'greatest,' but I am also Brahman, but I am... The infinite and the infinitesimal. We are infinitesimal.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

As part and parcel, minute particle, of gold is also gold, minute particle of poison is also poison, so similarly, we are minute, atomic part and parcel of the Supreme. Therefore we are not the unlimited or the biggest. We are Brahman, undoubtedly, but we are not the biggest. Therefore we are prone to be under the control of māyā. But Supreme Brahman, He's never under the... Therefore Māyāvāda philosophy, that "At the present moment, I am under the control of māyā, but as soon as I become free from the control of māyā, then I become the Supreme," therefore they cannot answer that "Why, if you are Supreme, why you are under the clutches of māyā? Then māyā becomes greater. You are not the greatest." They cannot answer this philo..., this question. At that time, they become fool: "We do not know."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

Now, the Lord's body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge, and Śaṅkarācārya says that prākṛta-sattvera vikāra. "This body of Kṛṣṇa or Lord Rāma, when They come," according to Māyāvāda philosophy, that "actually, the Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, has no form, but when They assume form, They take help of this material nature." That is not a fact. They come in Their own spiritual form. That is confirmed by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967:

Lord Caitanya, from different quotations of Vedas, He establishes that the Supreme Absolute Truth is person. He's not imperson. And so far Śaṅkarācārya is concerned, he was ordered to preach Māyāvāda philosophy by the Supreme Personality of Godhead for the time being. It is not that this is the only process for realizing the Absolute Truth. There is a very nice story in this connection.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967:

Now, the next question will be, "Whose ignorance?" As soon as we say "ignorance," there must be somebody who is ignorant. So whose ignorance? Now, we find the supreme living entity is Kṛṣṇa, and we, the subordinate living entities. So who is ignorant? Ignorant is the living entities, not all living entities, but there is, I mean to say, tendency of becoming ignorant. Ignorant or forgetfulness. Ignorant, we are not, but sometimes we forget, just like under some diseased condition we forget. Or forgetfulness is the diseased condition. Just like a madman. He forgets his identity. He forgets the identity of his family. Either you take this forgetfulness is madness or due to madness, he's forgetful, whatever you say. Similarly, the, this forgetfulness is also energy, another energy. Then whose energy? Avidya. This is living entity's energy. The Māyāvāda philosophers, they cannot answer. They claim that "We are God," but when they are asked, "Why you have become dog?" they say, "We do not know." But here is the answer. They hide the reason. They know, and because they have to establish the Māyāvāda philosophy that "There is no God. We are all God," therefore they pretend that "We do not know."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967:

Here it is stated, avidya-karma-samjñānya. This ignorance cannot cover God. That is nonsense. Ignorance covers the God's energy, living entity. Therefore we say that "We are God, but now we have become dog." That is another ignorance. He's never God. He's the energy of God. This is the difference between Māyāvāda philosophy and Vaiṣṇava philosophy. We should always know that we are energies of God, and because we are energies, we are, there are so many things qualitatively equal. Just the same example: The warmth and the illumination of the sunshine and the sun planet is practically the same, but the sun is never covered by cloud, but the sunshine is covered—sometimes, not always. Just like you see that the sunshine is..., the immense sunshine all over the universe, a part of the sunshine is covered, not all; similarly, a part of the energy, living energy, is covered by this māyā, and not all.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967:

Just see. Suppose a rich man comes into this store, so he becomes poor just like us. Because he has kindly come here in this store, so because we are all poor men, he'll also becomes poor man? This is the reason. But these are all nonsense. Nārāyaṇa never becomes poor. The poor, poverty-stricken man, all these things are for the jīvas, the living entities. Nārāyaṇa is never poor. Nārāyaṇa is never under ignorance. Nārāyaṇa never becomes dog. We become dog. We become cat. You should always... Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore rejects, that "This sort of philosophy propounded by Śaṅkara is a great mistake because he has minimized the value of the Supreme Lord. By making a dog a god, he has insulted God. Therefore this Māyāvāda philosophy is the most offensive activities of the living being." So you should be very, very careful, very careful. Hena jīva-tattva lañā likhi' para-tattva. "And I have just studied the ordinary living entities, and I am speaking of the Absolute Truth? Oh, this is the greatest nonsensical activity." Ācchanna karila śreṣṭha īśvara-mahattva: "By this the glorification of the Lord has been diminished, and therefore it is a great offense."

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

In the Bhāgavata there is statement by Nārada. Idaṁ hi viśvam, the whole universe is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But itara, but still, different from Him. This philosophy is very sound philosophy, simultaneously one and different. That is the statement in the Bhagavad-gītā. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: "I am expanded; I am all-pervading." Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni: (BG 9.4) "Everything is resting on Me." Nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ: "But I am not there." The Māyāvāda philosophy is "If God, or Brahman, is all-pervading, then why there should be another, separate Brahman?" No. That is also confirmed in the Vedic literature: pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). Pūrṇasya. Kṛṣṇa, or the Supreme Absolute Truth, is complete. And if complete is taken from Him, still He is complete. This is material idea, that if the complete has spread all over, then where is the separate existence of the complete? That is material idea. But the spiritual statement is, "If complete is taken from the complete, still the complete is complete." That you have to understand. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

This bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ buddhir mano... These eight separated energies, that is the material energy. And apareyam, they are inferior because they are material energies; therefore, inferior energy. Apareyam itas tu viddhi me prakṛtiṁ parām: "Beyond this, there is another, superior energy." Apareyam itas tu viddhi me prakṛtiṁ parām. "There is another, superior energy." What is that superior energy? Jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāho yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat (BG 7.5). These jīvas. So jīvas are energies. How jīvas can claim that they are God? They are energy of God. There is the mistake of Māyāvāda philosophy. Energy and the energetic, although nondifferent, still, energy is not the energetic. Just like this light is emanating from the bulb. So the illumination is there both in the bulb and the light distributed. But you cannot say that this illumination is the bulb. So Kṛṣṇa says that "These are My bhinnā-prakṛti, material energy." The earth, water, air, fire, mind, intelligence, ego—the whole material material creation is out of these eight energies. And the living entity, jīva-bhūta, that is parā prakṛti, spiritual energy.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154 -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu is therefore quoting from different Vedic literatures to prove that the Absolute Truth is person, ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa, full with six opulences. As in the Parāśara-sūtra there is aiśvaryasya samāgrasya. When Kṛṣṇa was present He exhibited full strength of six kinds of opulences. So the... Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is the fact. That is the Vedic version. It is not that some of the Kṛṣṇa's devotees have taken Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme, or He is originally imperson and He takes a form, accepting a material body. These are not right conclusions. In the Kūrma Purāṇa it is said that there is no distinction between the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and soul. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they distinguish that "Kṛṣṇa's soul is different from His body." That is Māyāvāda philosophy. But that is not the fact. There is no such difference.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.104 -- New York, July 10, 1976:

So we have to go to a person who is as good as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. As good... How one can become Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu? He is God. How another man can become as good as Caitanya Mahāprabhu? Then he is also God? No. He doesn't require to be God, and neither he can ever become God. That is false. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's equal person means one who speaks the exactly what Caitanya Mahāprabhu speaks. That makes him equal. He doesn't manufacture. If you simply repeat what Kṛṣṇa says or Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, then you become equal to me. Equal to me? That is guru. Guru means who is equal. Sākṣād dharitvena samasta-śāstrair uktas tathā bhāvyata eva sadbhiḥ **. Why guru is accepted as God Himself? Does it mean Māyāvāda philosophy? No. This is not Māyāvāda. Because he is most confidential servant of God—kintu prabhor yaḥ priya eva tasya—therefore he's as good as God. He is very, very dear to God. Why? Because he does not speak anything nonsense what his master does not speak, that's all. That is the qualification. Still, "No, I see that his son addresses him 'father.' He is the father, considering him as ordinary man. And still he's as good as God?" Yes. Still he's as good as God. Why? Because he does not speak anything nonsense except what he has heard from God. That is the qualification.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.108-109 -- New York, July 15, 1976:

So nobody can be master. That is not possible. You'll find in this instruction, ekale īśvara kṛṣṇa āra saba bhṛtya (CC Adi 5.142). Only Kṛṣṇa is the master, and everyone is servant. This is our position, actual. But artificially we are trying to become master. That is struggle for existence. We are trying for something which we are not. We know this word, "struggle for existence," "survival of the fittest." So this is struggle. We are not master; still, we are trying to become master. The Māyāvāda philosophy, they also undergo severe type of austerities, penances, but what is the idea? The idea is that "I shall become one with God." Same mistake. Same mistake. He's not God, but he is trying to become God. Even though he has performed so much severe austerities, vairāgya, renunciation, everything... Sometimes they give up everything of material enjoyment, go to the forest, undergo severe type of penances. What is the idea? "Now I shall become one with God." The same mistake.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.108-109 -- New York, July 15, 1976:

So when we accept Kṛṣṇa as our master, then we are in the Vaikuṇṭha planet. And when we do not accept... That propensity we have got, sometimes by forgetfulness or sometimes by willingly. By forgetfulness if we think that "I am master," that is also mistake. And willingly, if we reply, "Why shall I serve Kṛṣṇa? Let me become Kṛṣṇa," this Māyāvāda philosophy, "Let me become God..." So all these things are māyā. Real position to become... Not become. We are. But to become sane. Now, in madness, we are talking all this nonsense that "I am one with God. I am God." We have to be treated. This treatment is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. By hearing, by chanting—ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanam (CC Antya 20.12)—all the mistakes within our the core of our heart is dispel... Then we come to the understanding.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.395 -- Hyderabad, August 17, 1976:

Just like either you worship Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet or you offer a garland to Kṛṣṇa on His head, it is the same thing. It is no such thing as "This is head, this is tail." No. This is absolute conception of... So Bhagavān, His līlā, His form, His pastimes, His place, they're all Bhagavān. Even higher, those who are highly elevated devotees, they do not see even this material world different from Bhagavān. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetara. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Nārada Muni says. The whole universe is Bhagavān, although it appears different from Him. Bhagavān ivetara. So actually everything is Bhagavān, but it is not this Māyāvāda philosophy, that because everything is Bhagavān, there is no Bhagavān. No. Everything is Bhagavān, and still Bhagavān is there. Kṛṣṇa says, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4). Māyā, a person is there. Otherwise, there is no use of the word māyā. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam. Vaiṣṇava philosophy is that this material world is expansion of the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And the Māyāvāda philosophy is that because God has become everything, there is no more God. Nirviśeṣa. That is called nirviśeṣa—without understanding the beauty.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

The Māyāvādīs, they do not know. So therefore their labor of love for discriminating what is māyā and what is not māyā is simply troublesome. Teṣām kleśala eva avaśiṣyate nānyad yathā sthūla-tuṣāvaghātinām. Just like the skins of rice, when it is taken, there is no more grain. So the grain is separated from the skin by beating. There is a beating machine in India. That is a crude, original way of separating the grain from the skin. So when the skin is out from the grain, if you simply beat the skin, no more there is grain. So similarly, if you make minus Kṛṣṇa, then the study of Bhagavad-gītā is simply waste of time and labor of love. That's all. "Not Kṛṣṇa." This means, this Māyāvāda philosophy means simply taking trouble. Bhagavad-gītā is all full..., simply Kṛṣṇa. To understand this, it is a science of Kṛṣṇa. And if somebody says, "It is not Kṛṣṇa," then what is that? Simply waste of time and labor. The same thing: the grain is taken out. Simply the skin, enjoy the skin. What is there in the skin?

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967:

So that disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī admitted that godlessness in Vedānta-sūtra is not the purpose. Actually, by misinterpreting the Vedānta-sūtra they want to establish that "There is no God; we are God." So after explanation of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, at least there was one convert amongst all the sannyāsīs, and he was glorifying Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Eta sei kare kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana. And while he was glorifying Lord Caitanya, automatically he began to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Śuni' prakāśānanda kichu kahena vacana. When his disciple was glorifying Lord Caitanya and His process of teaching, his spiritual master, Prakāśānanda, said like this: ācāryera āgraha-advaita-vāda sthāpite. He admitted... Ācārya means Śaṅkarācārya. He means here Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya wanted that there is only one Brahman and we are also Brahman, but he wanted his philosophy of monism. Dualism, God and living entity separate, they do not admit. They admit that God and living entity the same. It is simply for the time being covered, which is called māyā. Māyāvāda philosophy. So the Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī also admitted that because Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish his philosophy of monism, therefore he had to cover the real meaning of Vedānta-sūtra.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.40-50 -- San Francisco, January 24, 1967:

So that Vedānta means bhakti, devotional service. That is the Vaiṣṇava philosophy. And Vedānta means, for the Śaṅkara sampradāya, that "There is no God. I am God." Mīmāṁsaka kahe īśvara haya karmera aṅga. You know there are six kinds of philosophies in India: the mīmāṁsaka philosophy; and Sāṅkhya philosophy; and nyāya—nyāya means logic—nyāya philosophy; then Māyāvāda philosophy; then Patañjali, yoga system, Patanjali philosophy; and at last, this Vedānta philosophy. So there are six kinds of philosophers. Out of them, only the Vedānta philosophy is compiled by Vyāsadeva. So it is considered that Vedānta philosophy only establishes the existence of God. All other philosophies, they do not admit the existence of God. They are atheistic philosophies. Mīmāṁsaka. Mīmāṁsaka means they have decided that "There is no necessity of worshiping God. If there is any God, all right, you do your duty nicely, and He will be obliged to award you the required result. Then there is no question of flattering Him." That is mīmāṁsaka philosophy.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 1 -- Los Angeles, April 29, 1970:

Or anywhere within this universe who is not controlled? Can anyone say that "I am not controlled"? Nobody can say. So if you are controlled, then why you are going to declare yourself that "I am uncontrolled. I am independent. I am God"? Why this nonsense? If you are controlled... Is God, does it mean that He is controlled? They are claiming that "I am God." Is there any meaning? If I am controlled, then how I can become God? This is commonsense affair. Therefore this Māyāvādī philosophy that "Everyone is God. I am God; you are God...," Just like the other, who was speaking, that Meher Baba's... Yes. That he was speaking, "I am God, you are God." So God is never controlled. If somebody is controlled, immediately he is not God. This is simple definition, that God is not controlled. If somebody claims that he is God, then first of all question "Whether you are controlled or not controlled?" Common sense. Nobody can say that he's not controlled. I have seen a rascal, he has got a society and he is preaching this, that "I am God." But one day I saw him, he had some toothache, and he was doing, "ohhh." (laughter) So I questioned him that "You claim that you are God, and now you are simply under the control of toothache. So what kind of God you are?" (laughter) You see.

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 7 -- Los Angeles, May 10, 1970:

So their ekatvam, Māyāvāda philosophy's ekatvam, oneness, and our ekatvam of oneness—a little different. They say that the energy's false; the Brahman is real. Brahmā satyaṁ jagan mithyā. We say that because Brahman is truth, therefore His energy's also truth. That is the difference between Vaiṣṇava philosophy and Māyāvāda philosophy. We cannot say that energy is false. Energy is temporary; this external energy is temporary, not false. Although... Suppose we have got some trouble. There are so many kinds of troubles pertaining to the body, mind, external affairs. But that trouble comes and goes. But when the trouble is there, it is true. We feel the consequence. We cannot say it is false. The Māyāvādī philosophers say that it is false. But when he's troubled, why he's so much disturbed? So that is not false. Therefore this very word is used: vijānataḥ, "one who knows." Perfect knowledge must be there, vijānataḥ. When one is actual knower of the things, tatra ko mohaḥ, then there is no illusion. Illusion is for him who does not know things. But one who knows, there is no illusion. Tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka. No lamentation. When you are perfectly in conviction that there is nothing except Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa's energy, the same, then there is no moha—moha means illusion—and śoka.

Festival Lectures

Lecture-Day after Sri Gaura-Purnima -- Hawaii, March 5, 1969:

So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is to clear that covered sense or this colored consciousness or adulterated consciousness. Then everything will be there. You cannot kill consciousness. That is not possible. The Buddha philosophy is to stop consciousness, nirvāṇa. According to Buddha's philosophy, this consciousness is production by combination of this matter. This body is combination of matter: earth, water, fire, air, either, and, according to Bhagavad-gītā, further, mind, intelligence, ego. This is combination. They are very finely analyzed by the sāṅkhya philosophy system, by Vedic system, into twenty-four elements. And according to some, twenty-five, and according to some, twenty-six. According to our Vaiṣṇava philosophy, twenty-six. According to Māyāvāda philosophy, this is twenty-five. And according to impersonal philosophy or void philosophy, it is twenty-four. So originally, it is eight. So in this way... Buddha philosophy means that this whole existence of our body or our self is the combination of matter. That is the way of thinking of modern scientists also, that this body is a combination of matter. Under Darwin's theory also, like that, "organic matter, inorganic matter." They are studying evolution of this matter, organic matter. But actually that is not the fact. The fact is that use, individual soul, that is the real fact. And that individual soul is the seed, and upon that seed, this body has developed. According to our Vedic understanding, the body develops on the seed. This is very practical.

Ratha-yatra -- Los Angeles, July 1, 1971:

Veṇum means flute. Kvāṇantam, playing on flute. So this Kṛṣṇa's flute is not our imagination. It is in the Vedic literature. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is, He likes to play on flute. Just like here in this material world also, there are many boys who like to play on flute. Wherefrom this flute-playing idea came? That answer is given in the Vedānta-sūtra, janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). All ideas, everything is coming from Him, from Kṛṣṇa. Unless there is in Kṛṣṇa, there cannot be anything in this material world. Janmādy asya yataḥ. Just like janma, your, somebody's birth from father or mother. So the symptoms of the father and mother, the facial expressions, even a spot in the face, everything becomes manifested in the child. So you can study what is God by studying yourself. That is Māyāvāda philosophy. They take it in a different way that "I am God, reflection." God, they say, God reflection. No. We are reflection. God is not our reflection; we are God's reflection.

Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Bhagavad-gita 18.5 -- London, September 5, 1973:

Just like you have got experience that the sun, if you have got millions of pots, the sun is reflected; you will find millions of suns, but although the sun is one, but we see that millions of suns are there in millions of pots. This is the understanding. God is one, but He can expand Himself in millions and millions. There is no question of counting. Unlimited, but still, one. Advaita. Acyuta. The Māyāvādī philosophy is that because God has expanded Himself in so many, all-pervading, therefore he is finished. He is finished. Just like material conception. You take any big paper and make it into pieces and then throw it—the original paper is lost. There is no more existence. That is Māyāvādī philosophy. Māyāvādī philosophy means because God is all-pervading, therefore He has no form. He has finished His form. There cannot be any form. And this is material conception. This is not spiritual conception. Spiritual conception is pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam eva avaśiṣyate (Iso Invocation). If Kṛṣṇa is the complete, supreme, so even He expands Himself in millions and trillions of complete forms, still, He is complete. Still, He's complete. This is conception of Kṛṣṇa. So therefore avyaya. Avyaya means acyuta, avyaya. Acyuta means He does not fall. It is not like that, that in my bank I have got one hundred pounds; if I take one, two, three, four, five in this way, one hundred finished, my bank balance is finished. It is not like that. Kṛṣṇa is so complete that immediate forms may be expanded from Him; still, He is complete. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya. These verses you have already read in the Īśopaniṣad.

His Divine Grace Srila Sac-cid-ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Appearance Day, Lecture -- London, September 3, 1971:

Premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena (Bs. 5.38). If God is everything, why wood, through wood and stone, God cannot manifest? If God is everything? According to Māyāvāda philosophy... That's a fact. God, omnipotent. He can express Himself even through wood and stone. That is God's omnipotency. That is called omnipotency. Not that God is unable to express Himself through wood and stone. Then how He's omnipotent? Omnipotent means His potency can be expressed through anything. Because anything, everything is the expansion of God's energy. Parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktis tathedam akhilaṁ jagat. The whole world is manifestation of different energies of God. Therefore... Just like through the energy of electricity the electric powerhouse, although far, far away from this place, was expressing. There is electricity. Through this glass, through these wires, the power can be expressed. There is a process.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, SB 6.3.24 -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

So this bodily development given by the nature is also adduced to the body of Kṛṣṇa. That is Māyāvādī philosophy. Māyāvādī philosophy means they accept Kṛṣṇa as God, but He has assumed a body which is given by this material nature, as it is given to us. That is their policy. They count Kṛṣṇa an ordinary man, on the same level. But that is not a fact. Therefore Kṛṣṇa condemns this philosophy, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). "Because I appear as a human being, therefore these rascals consider that I am ordinary man." The rascals, mūḍhāḥ. Mūḍhāḥ means rascals, gādhāḥ, asses. Their designation is given by Kṛṣṇa as asses, rascals. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore said, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa (CC Madhya 6.169). Because these commentaries, comments by the Māyāvādī school, is simply rascaldom. And if one hears such commentary by the Māyāvādīs, the result will be he'll be doomed. Doomed means forever... Forever, no. For very, very long time he'll not be able to understand actual his relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore he's doomed. And because he is not able to understand his relationship with Kṛṣṇa, he is called rākṣasa or asura. Āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ.

Six Gosvamis Lecture, Sri Sri Sad-govamy-astaka -- Los Angeles, November 18, 1968:

In the Ninth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā also it is said, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: (BG 9.4) "Everything, whatever you see, I am there. It is My expansion." mayā tatam idam. Tatam means expanded. "I have been expanded everywhere." Just like this watch, this is also Kṛṣṇa. This is also Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvāda philosophy, they misunderstand that if Kṛṣṇa has expanded to become this watch, to become this pot, to become this light, to become this room, to become this cloth, then Kṛṣṇa is finished. No more Kṛṣṇa. That is impersonalism. But that is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa exists. That is also confirmed by the Vedas. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Iso Invocation). The Absolute Truth is so perfect that if perfectly taken from the perfect, everything is taken, still He's there. Just like this is a watch. If you take its hands, if you take its glass, if you take its machine, then what remains there? Nothing. It becomes zero. But Kṛṣṇa is so full and complete, if you take millions of Kṛṣṇa from Kṛṣṇa, then Kṛṣṇa is still there. That is Kṛṣṇa's omnipotency. God is omnipotent. They do not understand what is this omnipotency.

Arrival Addresses and Talks

Arrival Lecture -- Dallas, March 3, 1975:

This morning we were discussing this point, mirage. In the mirage there is a show of false water, and the animal runs after it. But there is no water, and finally he becomes more thirsty, and it is desert; he falls down and dies. So the material world means we are running after false family. But don't think that there is no real family life. There is real family. That is Kṛṣṇa's real family, eternal family, blissful family. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means to train up people to be detached from this false family and to enter into the real family. That is the point. Not that if I give up this false family I will become zero. No. There is no such disappointment. The other philosophers, they simply... Just like Buddha philosophy. Their philosophy is "Finish this," nirvāṇa. But if people are not interested to finish all this, they want it, then what is the positive gain? So generally people are attached to these Buddhist and Māyāvādī philosophies; therefore they feel hopelessness. On account of future hopelessness, they become more attached to this false family. But our philosophy is not like that. Our philosophy is that you become detached to this false family and enter into the real family.

Initiation Lectures

Initiation Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 19, 1968:

Just like you have got the blood of your father. That does not mean you are father. That is different thing. Everything is one: Kṛṣṇa. That is the difference between the philosophy of Māyāvāda and Vaiṣṇava. They simply take the One, but we take One, but there is diversity. That they do not understand. Actually, unity... Diversity in unity. Monism means they do not accept the diversity. They simply take that oneness. Oneness is certainly—there is nothing but Kṛṣṇa. Just like Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "I am everywhere spread." Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam. "Everything, whatever you see, that is I am, but I am not there." Nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ (BG 9.4). They are existing. Everything existing in Kṛṣṇa. But that does not mean... Just like this table. The table is also Kṛṣṇa in one sense, because it is the manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's energy. Therefore this is not different from Kṛṣṇa. But if you think that "Instead of worshiping Kṛṣṇa, let me worship this table," that is wrong, nonsense. This is the difference between Māyāvāda philosophy and Vaiṣṇava philosophy. The Māyāvāda philosophy says that even if I worship the table, it is all right. But Kṛṣṇa does not say. It is Māyāvāda philosophers said. Kṛṣṇa says, "Yes, table is existing in Me. I am also table. But I am not there." You see in the Bhagavad-gītā. So never think like that, that "I am Bhīṣma" or "I am Prahlāda" or "I am..." No. You are always servant of such devotee. That's all.

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

Just like a drop of sea water and the vast water, ocean. The quality analytical, chemical composition, is the same, but the quantity of component parts are different. This is called acintya-bhedābheda-tattva: "inconceivably, simultaneously one and different." The Māyāvāda philosophy, they say that "We are God. Everyone is God." But we say that "Yes, everyone is God, but not that God, the Supreme God." Everyone is American, but not that American like President Nixon. This common sense knowledge the Māyāvādī hasn't got. But they are puffed up: "Oh, I am the same. I am..." So 'ham: "I am the same." How you are the same? If you are the same, why you are fallen in this condition? They will say, "It is māyā. It is illusion." No. Why you are in illusion? If you are great—"God is great"—if you are that great, then why you are captured by illusion? Then illusion is great, not God is great. This commonsense philosophy they do not understand. Therefore my Guru Mahārāja used to say, "Poor fund of knowledge." Whenever he used to designate these Māyāvādī philosophers, he would say, "Poor fund of knowledge."

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, jñāne prayāsam. Jñānīs, the empiric philosophers, they simply speculate and try to prove that "I am God." That means āsuriṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ. The atheist says that "There is no God," and here the Māyāvādī philosophy says, "Yes, there is God, but God I am." That's all. It is the same philosophy, atheism. He is also denying that "There is no separate God. I am God." That atheistic philosophy, like Buddha philosophy, "There is no God..." But Buddha himself is God. That is... Another Bhāgavata interpretation is that he is cheating the atheist person. The atheists, they say, "There is no God," and Lord Buddha said, "Yes, there is no God, but you follow me." But He is God. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. So Bhāgavata therefore says, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). It is something like that. A naughty boy does not want to go to school. So somebody, some friend, says, "Yes, you don't go to school. All right, you sit down. Now, what is this?" "Oh, this is cow." "What is this?" "This is leg." "Can you count how many legs are there?" "Yes. One, two, three, four." So... (aside:) What is that?

Hayagrīva: Somebody's coming, some vehicle.

Initiation of Lokanatha dasa -- New Vrindaban, May 21, 1969:

So Lord Buddha's philosophy is like that. The atheistic people, they are against God. "Yes, there is no God. But you take this philosophy, ahiṁsā. Don't kill animals." That means if they stop animal-killing, then one day they will be able to understand what is God. Some day. Because so long one is accustomed to kill animals, he will never be able to understand what is God. That is Buddha philosophy. He situated the atheistic people on the line of understanding God. So this is, in one way, cheating. But this cheating is not cheating. Just like father or guardian sometimes cheats the young boy. That is not cheating; that is for his good. But actually, if you take the, I mean to say, behavior, it is something like cheating. So the Māyāvāda philosophy... This Buddha philosophy is also another Māyāvāda philosophy. Both of them are, on the face value, atheistic, denying the existence of God. One is saying, "There is no God"; another is saying, "It is impersonal," in this way. But our philosophy is neither atheistic nor impersonal. It is directly person. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Directly we say, "There is no..." Kṛṣṇa, in the Bhagavad-gītā, says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nāsti: "There is nobody greater than Me." If God is great, how anybody can be greater than Him? It is right. Eh? Nānyat parataraṁ nāsti: "There is nothing more greater than Me." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: (BG 10.8) "I am the origin of everything." Vedānta-sūtra says, "Brahman, or the Supreme Absolute Truth, is the source of everything." And here is the direct answer by Kṛṣṇa, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the source of everything." So we follow this philosophy. Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means we directly take Bhagavad-gītā as the evidence of existence of God.

General Lectures

Lecture Excerpt -- Montreal, July 18, 1968:

Cloud cannot cover the sun. There may be a cloud overcast in the sky for hundred miles, but even hundred miles, is it possible to cover the sun, hundred miles cloud? The sun is itself so many hundreds of thousand times more than this earth. So māyā cannot cover the Supreme Brahman. Māyā can cover the small particles Brahman. So we may become covered by māyā or cloud, but the Supreme Brahman is never covered by māyā. That is the difference of opinion between Māyāvāda philosophy and Vaiṣṇava philosophy. The Māyāvāda philosophy says that the Supreme is covered. The Supreme cannot be covered. Then how He becomes supreme? The covering becomes supreme. Oh, there are so many arguments and so many... But we follow that the cloud covers the small particles of sunshine. But sun remains as it is. And we practically see also when we go by jet plane, we are over the cloud. There is no cloud outside. Sun is clear. In the lower status there is some cloud. If you go thousands of miles up, we don't see any cloud. Everything sunshine.

Lecture Excerpt -- San Francisco, September 14, 1968:

So we have to continue this chanting, either imperfectional stage or in the perfectional stage. Satatām kīrtayanto mām (BG 9.14). In the Bhagavad-gītā, you will see that this kīrtana is recommended continuously. Satatam. Satatam means always. Either in the imperfect stage or in the perfect stage, the process is one. It is not like the Māyāvādīs, that first of all you chant, and by chanting, when you become yourself God, then there is no chanting—stop. This is Māyāvāda philosophy. This is not real, the position. Chanting will continue even in your highest perfectional stage. But that chanting and at the present moment chanting, there is little difference.

Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968:

Liberation means there is no more anxiety. In the conditioned state we are always full of anxiety, and the liberated state... Just like when a man is attacked with fever, he's always suffering. As soon as the fever is gone, he is liberated. Similarly, the material concept of life, when we are freed from the material concept of life, that is the beginning of our liberation. Actually, liberation will be maintained by liberated activities. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Just like a man is suffering from some disease, so he cannot act freely. But when he is out of the disease, then he can act freely. To get out of the disease does not mean that there will be no activity. The Buddha philosophy and the Māyāvāda philosophy say that after liberation, activity stops. But this Vaiṣṇava philosophy says no. After liberation real activity begins.

Class in Los Angeles -- Los Angeles, November 15, 1968:

So Kṛṣṇa consciousness is so nice that it is activities of liberated stage. Everyone is trying to get liberation from these material pangs, every philosophy. Buddha philosophy, they are also trying-nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa means extinguish this. So they want to make void. All these material varieties, they want to make it zero. That is Buddha philosophy. Māyāvāda philosophy is more or less like that. It is a second edition of Buddha philosophy. Zero, but that zero is without life. Māyāvāda philosophy says, "Yes, that zero, but with life." That is the mistake. If there is life, then there must be varieties. Life without variety is not possible. Dead body without variety, not life without variety. So these are the defects of all other philosophies. They're not defects, but the class of people amongst whom the philosophy was taught, they could not understand more than that. That's all. Just like a patient too much disturbed, he wants some medicine from the physician: "Please stop my disturbance. Kill me. Kill me." Sometimes they say like that: "Give me some poison, kill me. I cannot tolerate." A physician says, "Yes, there is no need of killing. I shall give you good, healthy life." He's so much impatient, "No. I cannot tolerate. Please kill me." So this Buddha philosophy, Māyāvāda philosophy is like that. Kill him "Kill me, please. Make me zero, void." So much frustration. So much disturbance that they want to make it zero. But our philosophy is life, real life.

Lecture to International Student Society -- Boston, December 28, 1969:

So dharma means occupation. People are engaged in various types of occupational duties for sense gratification. Sometimes in religion they say you'll go to heaven. What is that heaven? That is also sense gratification. You'll live so long years, you'll have so many beautiful wives and so many things, so many things. All flowery language. What is the basic? Sense gratification. That's all. This is one way. Another way is nivṛtti-mārga. When one has seen perfectly that "This process of sense gratification cannot give me actual happiness," then they began to give it up. Just like the Māyāvādī philosophy. They say brahma-satyaṁ jagan mithyā: "This world is false." Just like in your country, a section of youngsters, they're disgusted with this materialistic way of life. They have taken to the hippies' path. Why? It does not give satisfaction, but they do not know the right way. They have taken a wrong way, hippies. So this is called accepting and rejecting. So Kṛṣṇa says, "You have to give up all this nonsense accepting and rejecting. You have to take to Me, then you'll be happy." Sarva-dharmān. Sarva-dharmān means some religious occupation is for sense gratification and some religious occupation is rejection of this material world. So we have to give up both these, the acceptance and rejection. We have to accept the Kṛṣṇa's path, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. "Surrender unto Me." Then we'll be happy.

Pandal Lecture at Cross Maidan -- Bombay, March 26, 1971:

There is—we get this information from the Bhagavad-gītā—the kingdom of God, where everything is permanent. Within this material world, everything is nonpermanent, temporary. Anything you take, it has got its creation, it stays for some time, it produces some by-products, then it grows, and then it dwindles, and then it vanishes. Anything you take. Just like our body. It is produced at a certain time by combination of the semina of father and mother, and then it grows, it stays for some time and it produces some by-products, then becomes older and older, and then vanishes. This is called ṣaḍ-vikāra, six kinds of changes of material world. So although it is temporary, we cannot say it is false. It is not false. That is the difference between Māyāvāda philosophy and Vaiṣṇava philosophy. The Vaiṣṇava philosopher takes the temporary thing, although temporary. They know how to make the best use of a bad bargain. That is Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe yukta-vairāgyam ucyate.

Lecture -- Tokyo, May 1, 1972:

This material existence, which we are now passing through, is not our actual existence. There is a Bengali Vaiṣṇava poet. He said... Generally, the question is raised: "How the living entities became fallen in this material world?" The Māyāvādī philosophy, they say that we are the same with God, but we are now covered by māyā, and as soon as we are free from this māyā's covering, we become again one with the Supreme. This is Māyāvāda philosophy. Practically, the Vaiṣṇava philosophy, also the same, but only difference is that the jīvātmā, he is eternal servant of the Supreme Lord. Actually, if we scrutinizingly study, our constitutional position is to render service. Any one of us who are sitting here, everyone is servant. Nobody can say that "I am master." We are thinking like master, but actually we are all servants—anyone—either you are servant of your family or you are servant of your country or you are servant of your senses. Everyone, at the present moment, we are servant of the senses, servant of this body. And gradually our illusion expands. Ataḥ gṛha-kṣetra-sutāpta-vittair janasya moho 'yam ahaṁ mameti (SB 5.5.8).

Lecture on Science of Krsna -- Hyderabad, April 14, 1975:

One with specific difference. And the Māyāvādī philosophers, they say, "No, there is no specific difference. This is māyā." But we Vaiṣṇava, we don't say that. That sunshine is sunshine, sun globe is sun globe, and Sun-god is Sun-god. But taken together, they are all one. Diversity in unity. That is viśiṣṭa-advaitavāda. So actually, all the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, Madhvācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Nimbārka, and Viṣṇu Svāmī, there is no difference of opinion, but they have explained the Absolute Truth more vividly in their own angle of vision. Otherwise there is no difference. They never say that God and the living being are one. They will never say that. That is not Vaiṣṇava philosophy. That is Māyāvāda philosophy. So the propounder of Māyāvāda philosophy is Śaṅkarācārya and other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, Madhvācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Nimbārka, Viṣṇu Svāmī, practically they are all one opinion. There is no, they differ from Śaṅkarācārya.

Lecture on Science of Krsna -- Hyderabad, April 14, 1975:

Sanātana means eternally. He is fragmental parts of the Supreme. Not that by māyā he is thinking fragmental parts, but actually he is one. That is Māyāvāda philosophy. But Kṛṣṇa does not say that. Kṛṣṇa says, sanātana. He is fragmental parts, sanātana, eternally. Besides that, it is clearly explained in the Bhagavad-gītā that the spirit cannot be cut into pieces, acchedyo 'yam adāhyo 'yam, so how it becomes a small fragment? Acchedyo 'yam, you cannot cut into pieces, spirit. And it is further explained that these fragmental parts eternally, from the very beginning. Kṛṣṇa also says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "My dear Arjuna, you, Me and all these soldiers and kings who have assembled there, they existed like this in the past, they're existing in the same way, and they'll continue to exist like that." There is no question of becoming one. Past, present, future, always we are distinct. So how they can be one sanātana? We are part and parcel sanātana, eternally. But in quality we are one. In quality we are one. Kṛṣṇa is eternal. We are eternal. Kṛṣṇa is spirit. We are spirit. Kṛṣṇa is also person. We are also person. In this way, we are one but He is the great, and we are servants. This is actual position. And if we claim that after being freed from māyā, we shall become one with the Supreme, that is called Māyāvāda. We eternally, we are separate. Dvaitavāda. That is Madhvācārya's philosophy, dvaitavāda. So if you consider very cool-headed, then Vaiṣṇava philosophy is the best, not this Māyāvāda philosophy.

Morning Lecture -- Allahabad, January 15, 1977:

So māyāvādī-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva... (CC Madhya 6.169). For kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, to avoid this Māyāvādī philosophy that "Everyone is God. I am God. You are God..." This is atheism. It is cheating atheism. One class of atheism is Śūnyavādī: "There is no God." That we can understand, that he is atheist. "There is no God." He publicly declares, "We don't believe in God." But the Māyāvādīs are dangerous because they say that there is God, but without any form—no head, no leg. If you make "no, no, no," then where is...? It becomes zero ultimately. Go on making "no, no"—"No head, no tail, no hand, no..." So what remains? So this is another trick for saying there is no God. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that this class, who gives the negative definition of God—"Not this, not this, not this, not this"—the Māyāvādī, Māyā... They say, "Not this. This is māyā." So this Māyāvādī, they are greater atheist.

Departure Talks

Departure Lecture -- London, March 12, 1975:

This is material world. And when these materialistic persons are disgusted, then they want liberation. Their liberation means to become one, merge into the existence of the Supreme. That is not very difficult. They give the example that the water mixes with the vast mass of water, and they become one. But that is not the fact. You can make an experiment that you take a little red water and put it in the ocean. The ocean does not become red. So chemically also, the water, they are composition of molecules of water. But it is mixed with water. That is a fact, but there is another process which evaporates the water. Suppose you are mixed with the water. The Māyāvādī philosophy, that "We... Let us mix with the big water. Then I become big..." Because here in the material world he tried to become big in so many ways but he could not become big, therefore he wants to merge into the biggest, Brahman, so that he thinks that he will become... He is already Brahman. So the Brahman effulgence is combination of so many sparks of living entities.

Departure Lecture -- London, March 12, 1975:

So that is secure philosophy, because as soon as actually you become a big fish within the water, there is no question of evaporation. But if you live, remain superficially on the water, then you will be evaporated again and again thrown outside, then again come as river. So your coming and going, repetition of birth and death, will not stop. But one should become a big fish, there is no evaporation. These things are explained in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu by Rūpa Gosvāmī. So don't be misled by this Māyāvāda philosophy, that you fall into the water. Tohe janame punaḥ tohe visarata (?). They say that "Enter into the Supreme." You can enter, but what is the benefit? You will be again evaporated. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32).

Departure Lecture -- London, March 12, 1975:

Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). Because he wants. That is his nature, sat-cit-ānanda: eternal life, full of knowledge and full of bliss. This is real life. So if we simply accept eternity like the Māyāvādīs, then what about the other two items? Or if we simply live in knowledge... Suppose theoretically I know so many things to prepare-rasagullā, sandeśa, halavā, kachorī—but if I do not practically taste what is halavā, what is kachorī, then what is the use of simply having knowledge? So the Māyāvādī philosophy like that, jñāna, simply knowledge. That knowledge is there in the Bhagavad-gītā in the beginning, the first lesson: dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanam (BG 2.13). "Within the body there is the soul. That soul is eternal." Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). Na jāyate na mriya... This is the first lesson, that "I am Brahman. I am spirit soul. I am eternal. I do not die even after the annihilation..." This is the first lesson. It doesn't require much time, that we have to devote our whole life to understand that "I am Brahman." It can be understood even by a child. It is not very difficult. But how to engage myself as Brahman, that requires education.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Hayagrīva: He looked on the Indian philosophy and religion as basically a philosophy of the denial of the will, and he gives several examples of religious..., of suicide as a religious act. He says especially when it...

Prabhupāda: That is, that is Māyāvāda. That is not... He did not study Indian philosophy and religion perfectly well. He simply has taken some portion of the Māyāvāda philosophy or Buddha philosophy, but he did not know about Vaiṣṇava philosophy.

Hayagrīva: But he gives the example of...

Prabhupāda: Although he has touched Bhagavad-gītā...

Hayagrīva: Yes.

Prabhupāda: ...he did not study Bhagavad-gītā thoroughly, that in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna that if you, by your living, what is called, knowledge, if you simply try to have full knowledge about Kṛṣṇa, then his willing, this material willing is purified, and after giving up this body he goes back to home, back to Godhead. That he has not studied. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti kaunteya (BG 4.9). Either he did not study Bhagavad-gītā thoroughly or he could not understand for want of real spiritual master.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: He says that in this unity of myself, the subject, that I desire objectivity, and he says this union of subject and object is called the "being in itself," or God; that man is desiring to be God or "being in himself."

Prabhupāda: This is the position more or less of Māyāvādī philosophy, that when I am completely in knowledge, I become God. It is like that.

Śyāmasundara: He says this is man's fundamental orientation, that he wants to become God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we confirm in this way, that because he is part and parcel of God, so he wants to be united with God. Because he is now detached from God, so therefore, just like a man who is for long, long years out of home, so he wants to go home again.

Philosophy Discussion on Jean-Paul Sartre:

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that we all want to become God. That is hopeless.

Prabhupāda: No. That is hopeless. That you cannot. That is wrong. We cannot become God. The only answer is that how we can become God? If you are God, then how did you become non-God? God cannot become non-God at any stage.

Śyāmasundara: I think he looks at it that we are not God. We know we are not God, but we are trying to become God.

Prabhupāda: That is Māyāvādī philosophy.

Śyāmasundara: But he says it's impossible to become God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's nice. That is our philosophy.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that all lower forms of life strive to emulate the higher forms of life.

Prabhupāda: That is natural. Everyone wants to become higher than what he is. Because he is trying to become master. He is trying to... His whole problems is that he is trying to be master. So he comes to master to some extent. Suppose he is working in an office, he is a head clerk, master of several clerks. So he is not satisfied. He wants to become a superintendent. When he becomes a superintendent, he wants to be under-secretary. When he is under-secretary, he wants to become secretary. When he becomes a secretary, he wants to become minister. When he is made minister, then he wants to be the president. And when he becomes a president, he wants to control all over the world, just like your Nixon. So this progressive ambition is there in the material world because any materialistic man is implanted with the idea that "I shall become like Kṛṣṇa." So when he fails everything, then he wants to merge into the Kṛṣṇa. Māyāvāda philosophy. Ahaṁ brahmāsmi. He does not know that... He is already Brahman, but he thinks that "I am the Supreme Brahman. I am moving the sun. I am moving the..." Meditating. He is moving the sun. He is moving... Just another imitate. That is the last snare of māyā. Māyā is giving him allurement that "You become a minister, you become secretary, you become a big merchant, you become a Birla. You..." "Become become become." (S)he is always dictating, and he is working under the dictation of māyā. The last dictation is, "Then you have failed all these things. Better you become God." (laughter) So he thinks, "I am God." And māyā is still kicking. As soon as God gets some toothache, he'll have to, another... So he goes... "After all, what kind of God you are? You come here for toothache cure." This is another man.

Philosophy Discussion on Plato:

Prabhupāda: As soon as there is instruction there is form. As Kṛṣṇa is giving instruction, He is always saying "I," "you," like that, it is personal. He says Arjuna, "You," and He says Himself, "I." So Arjuna is also form and Kṛṣṇa is also form, and Kṛṣṇa also says that "Both you, Me, and all these living entities, kings and soldiers who are assembled here, they existed in the past, they are existing now, and they will continue to exist." So you can understand that "In the present I am in form, so I existed in the past in form and I shall continue to exist in the future as form. So where is formless?" From my present position I can understand my past and future. So Kṛṣṇa says that we existed in the past. So we existing now, now I mean to say, continuing. He never said that "In the past we were formless; now we have got form." This is not stated there. Rather, He condemns, that avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannam manyante mām abuddhayaḥ (BG 7.24): "In the past I was formless, impersonal, and now I am a person," that is Māyāvādī thought, that when God takes the form, He takes the form of māyā. So they have been condemned as abuddhayaḥ, no intelligence. Avyaktaṁ vyaktiṁ āpannaṁ manyante mām abuddhayaḥ (BG 7.24). Those who have less intelligence, they think like that, that "God was formerly formless, now He is talking in form, that means He has accepted the body of māyā." This is called Māyāvāda philosophy.