Mayavadi philosophers (BG and SB)

Expressions researched:
"Mayavada philosopher" |"Mayavada philosophers" |"Mayavadi philosopher" |"Mayavadi philosophers" |"Mayavadi sannyasi philosophers" |"Mayavadis and other atheistic philosophers" |"Mayavadis sannyasis and philosophers" |"Philosophers like the Saranatha Mayavadis" |"philosopher, Mayavadi" |"philosophers (Mayavadis" |"philosophers of the Mayavada school" |"philosophers, even they are Mayavadis" |"philosophers, like the Mayavadis" |"philosophers, they are called Mayavadi" |"philosophers. The Mayavadis"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: "mayavad* philosopher*"@5

BG Chapters 1 - 6

The Māyāvādī philosophers fail to understand that absolute means that one plus one is equal to one, and that one minus one is also equal to one.

BG 4.35, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers wrongly think that Kṛṣṇa loses His own separate existence in His many expansions. This thought is material in nature. We have experience in the material world that a thing, when fragmentally distributed, loses its own original identity. But the Māyāvādī philosophers fail to understand that absolute means that one plus one is equal to one, and that one minus one is also equal to one. This is the case in the absolute world.

BG Chapters 7 - 12

This devotional service is eternally existing. It is not as the Māyāvādī philosophers claim.

BG 9.2, Purport:

It is said here that this devotional service is eternally existing. It is not as the Māyāvādī philosophers claim. Although they sometimes take to so-called devotional service, their idea is that as long as they are not liberated they will continue their devotional service, but at the end, when they become liberated, they will "become one with God." Such temporary time-serving devotional service is not accepted as pure devotional service.

Some philosophers, especially Māyāvādī philosophers, say that this world is false, but we can understand from Bhagavad-gītā that the world is not false; it is temporary.

BG 9.33, Purport:

This world is declared by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be temporary and full of miseries. Some philosophers, especially Māyāvādī philosophers, say that this world is false, but we can understand from Bhagavad-gītā that the world is not false; it is temporary. There is a difference between temporary and false. This world is temporary, but there is another world, which is eternal. This world is miserable, but the other world is eternal and blissful.

Sometimes Māyāvādī philosophers criticize the devotees because they think that most of the devotees are in the darkness of ignorance and are philosophically naive sentimentalists.

BG 10.11, Purport:

Sometimes Māyāvādī philosophers criticize the devotees because they think that most of the devotees are in the darkness of ignorance and are philosophically naive sentimentalists. Actually that is not the fact. There are very, very learned scholars who have put forward the philosophy of devotion. But even if a devotee does not take advantage of their literatures or of his spiritual master, if he is sincere in his devotional service he is helped by Kṛṣṇa Himself within his heart. So the sincere devotee engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness cannot be without knowledge.

The Māyāvādī philosophers think that without discriminating one cannot have pure knowledge.

BG 10.11, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers think that without discriminating one cannot have pure knowledge. For them this answer is given by the Supreme Lord: those who are engaged in pure devotional service, even though they be without sufficient education and even without sufficient knowledge of the Vedic principles, are still helped by the Supreme God, as stated in this verse.

In these two verses the Supreme Lord gives a chance to the Māyāvādī philosopher, for here it is clear that the Supreme is different from the individual soul.

BG 10.12-13, Purport:

In these two verses the Supreme Lord gives a chance to the Māyāvādī philosopher, for here it is clear that the Supreme is different from the individual soul. Arjuna, after hearing the essential four verses of Bhagavad-gītā (10.8-11) in this chapter, became completely free from all doubts and accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He at once boldly declares, "You are paraṁ brahma, the Supreme Personality of Godhead." And previously Kṛṣṇa stated that He is the originator of everything and everyone. Every demigod and every human being is dependent on Him. Men and demigods, out of ignorance, think that they are absolute and independent of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That ignorance is removed perfectly by the discharge of devotional service. This has already been explained in the previous verse by the Lord. Now, by His grace, Arjuna is accepting Him as the Supreme Truth, in concordance with the Vedic injunction.

SB Canto 1

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

SB 1.13.30, Purport:

The sannyāsīs accept a rod as the sign of the renounced order of life. There are two types of sannyāsīs. Those who follow the Māyāvādī philosophy, headed by Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, accept only one rod (eka-daṇḍa), but those who follow the Vaiṣṇavite philosophy accept three combined rods (tri-daṇḍa). The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are ekadaṇḍi-svāmīs, whereas the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are known as tridaṇḍi-svāmīs, or more distinctly, tridaṇḍi-gosvāmīs, in order to be distinguished from the Māyāvādī philosophers. The ekadaṇḍi-svāmīs are mostly fond of the Himalayas, but the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are fond of Vṛndāvana and Purī. The Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are narottamas, whereas the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are dhīras. Mahārāja Dhṛtarāṣṭra was advised to follow the dhīras because at that stage it was difficult for him to become a narottama.

SB Canto 3

The Māyāvādī philosophers, accepting the influence of māyā on the living entity, want to become one with the Paramātmā. But because they have no actual love for Paramātmā, they remain ever entrapped by the influence of māyā and are unable to approach the vicinity of Paramātmā.

SB 3.9.42, Purport:

In the present verse, stress is given to focusing love upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word kuryāt is significant here. This means "one must have it." It is just to stress that we must have more and more attachment to the principle of love. The influence of māyā is experienced by the part and parcel spiritual entity, but it cannot influence the Supersoul, the Paramātmā. The Māyāvādī philosophers, accepting the influence of māyā on the living entity, want to become one with the Paramātmā. But because they have no actual love for Paramātmā, they remain ever entrapped by the influence of māyā and are unable to approach the vicinity of Paramātmā. This inability is due to their lack of affection for the Paramātmā. A rich miser does not know how to utilize his wealth, and therefore, in spite of his being very rich, his miserly behavior keeps him everlastingly a poor man. On the other hand, a person who knows how to utilize wealth can quickly become a rich man, even with a small credit balance.

The manifestation is temporary and occasional, but it is not false as claimed by the Māyāvādī philosophers.

SB 3.10.13, Purport:

There is a systematic schedule for the perpetual manifestation, maintenance and annihilation of the material world, as stated in Bhagavad-gītā (9.8): bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt. As it is created now and as it will be destroyed later on, so also it existed in the past and again will be created, maintained and destroyed in due course of time. Therefore, the systematic activities of the time factor are perpetual and eternal and cannot be stated to be false. The manifestation is temporary and occasional, but it is not false as claimed by the Māyāvādī philosophers.

Material suicide causes loss of the physical body, and spiritual suicide causes loss of the individual identity. Māyāvādī philosophers desire to lose their individuality and merge into the impersonal spiritual brahmajyoti existence.

SB 3.14.24, Purport:

Lord Śiva, or Rudra, is the king of the ghosts. Ghostly characters worship Lord Śiva to be gradually guided toward a path of self-realization. Māyāvādī philosophers are mostly worshipers of Lord Śiva, and Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya is considered to be the incarnation of Lord Śiva for preaching godlessness to the Māyāvādī philosophers. Ghosts are bereft of a physical body because of their grievously sinful acts, such as suicide. The last resort of the ghostly characters in human society is to take shelter of suicide, either material or spiritual. Material suicide causes loss of the physical body, and spiritual suicide causes loss of the individual identity. Māyāvādī philosophers desire to lose their individuality and merge into the impersonal spiritual brahmajyoti existence.

According to the Māyāvādī philosophers, the living entity in illusion considers himself part and parcel although he is actually one and the same as the supreme whole. This theory is not valid.

SB 3.15.33, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers, the impersonalists, interpret this verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to mean that the small sky and the big sky are one, but this idea cannot stand. The example of the big sky and the small skies is also applicable within a person's body. The big sky is the body itself, and the intestines and other parts of the body occupy the small sky. Each and every part of the body has individuality, even though occupying a small part of the total body. Similarly, the whole creation is the body of the Supreme Lord, and we created beings, or anything that is created, are but a small part of that body. The parts of the body are never equal to the whole. This is never possible. In Bhagavad-gītā it is said that the living entities, who are parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord, are eternally parts and parcels. According to the Māyāvādī philosophers, the living entity in illusion considers himself part and parcel although he is actually one and the same as the supreme whole. This theory is not valid. The oneness of the whole and the part is in their quality. The qualitative oneness of the small and large portions of the sky does not imply that the small sky becomes the big sky.

The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand that the Lord has feelings. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is decried by the Māyāvādī philosophers, who are almost demons.

SB 3.18.6, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand that the Lord has feelings. The Lord is satisfied if someone offers Him a nice prayer, and similarly, if someone decries His existence or calls Him by ill names, God is dissatisfied. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is decried by the Māyāvādī philosophers, who are almost demons. They say that God has no head, no form, no existence and no legs, hands or other bodily limbs. In other words, they say that He is dead or lame. All these misconceptions of the Supreme Lord are a source of dissatisfaction to Him; He is never pleased with such atheistic descriptions. In this case, although the Lord felt sorrow from the piercing words of the demon, He delivered the earth for the satisfaction of the demigods, who are ever His devotees. The conclusion is that God is as sentient as we are. He is satisfied by our prayers and dissatisfied by our harsh words against Him. In order to give protection to His devotee, He is always ready to tolerate insulting words from the atheists.

The Māyāvādī philosophers think that although all these forms are assumed by the Lord just as the devotees desire to see Him, actually He is impersonal.

SB 3.20.25, Purport:

Here the words bhaktānām anurūpātma-darśanam mean that the Personality of Godhead manifests His multiforms according to the desires of the devotees. For example, Hanumānjī (Vajrāṅgajī) wanted to see the form of the Lord as the Personality of Godhead Rāmacandra, whereas other Vaiṣṇavas want to see the form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, and still other devotees want to see the Lord in the form of Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa. The Māyāvādī philosophers think that although all these forms are assumed by the Lord just as the devotees desire to see Him, actually He is impersonal. From Brahma-saṁhitā, however, we can understand that this is not so, for the Lord has multiforms.

Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand these transcendental forms of the Lord, and being disappointed, they say that the Supreme Lord is impersonal.

SB 3.24.31, Purport:

The Lord has form, otherwise how can it be stated here, tāny eva te 'bhirūpāṇi rūpāṇi bhagavaṁs tava: "You have Your forms, but they are not material. Materially You have no form, but spiritually, transcendentally, You have multiforms"? Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand these transcendental forms of the Lord, and being disappointed, they say that the Supreme Lord is impersonal. But that is not a fact; whenever there is form there is a person. Many times in many Vedic literatures the Lord is described as puruṣa, which means "the original form, the original enjoyer." The conclusion is that the Lord has no material form, and yet, according to the liking of different grades of devotees, He simultaneously exists in multiforms, such as Rāma, Nṛsiṁha, Varāha, Nārāyaṇa and Mukunda. There are many thousands and thousands of forms, but they are all viṣṇu-tattva, Kṛṣṇa.

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

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

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). But bhakti is transcendental to all these activities. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, therefore, begins by stating that all kinds of pretentious religiosity is completely eradicated from the Bhāgavatam. Ritualistic activities for economic development and sense gratification and, after frustration in sense gratification, the desire to become one with the Supreme Lord, are all completely rejected in the Bhāgavatam. The Bhāgavatam is especially meant for the pure devotees, who always engage in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, in the activities of the Lord, and always glorify these transcendental activities. Pure devotees worship the transcendental activities of the Lord in Vṛndāvana, Dvārakā and Mathurā as they are narrated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other purāṇas. The Māyāvādī philosophers completely reject them as stories, but actually they are great and worshipable subject matters and thus are relishable only for devotees. That is the difference between a Māyāvādī and a pure devotee.

Although the Lord is undoubtedly a person, He is not a puruṣa of this material world. Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand that beyond this material world there can be a person; therefore they are impersonalists.

SB 3.26.3, Purport:

It is confirmed here that the concept of the Lord's all-pervasiveness is due to His illumination everywhere. We have experience that the sun is situated in one place, but the sunlight is diffused all around for millions and millions of miles. That is our practical experience. Similarly, although the supreme light is situated in His personal abode, Vaikuṇṭha or Vṛndāvana, His light is diffused not only in the spiritual world but beyond that. In the material world also, that light is reflected by the sun globe, and the sunlight is reflected by the moon globe. Thus although He is situated in His own abode, His light is distributed all over the spiritual and material worlds. The Brahma-saṁhitā (5.37) confirms this. Goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūtaḥ: He is living in Goloka, but still He is present all over the creation. He is the Supersoul of everything, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He has innumerable transcendental qualities. It is also concluded that although He is undoubtedly a person, He is not a puruṣa of this material world. Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand that beyond this material world there can be a person; therefore they are impersonalists. But it is explained very nicely here that the Personality of Godhead is beyond material existence.

The Māyāvādī philosopher, who does not differentiate between the Supreme Spirit and the individual spirit, says that the conditional existence of the living entity is his līlā, or pastime. But the word "pastime" implies employment in the activities of the Lord.

SB 3.26.7, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosopher, who does not differentiate between the Supreme Spirit and the individual spirit, says that the conditional existence of the living entity is his līlā, or pastime. But the word "pastime" implies employment in the activities of the Lord. The Māyāvādīs misuse the word and say that even if the living entity has become a stool-eating hog, he is also enjoying his pastimes. This is a most dangerous interpretation. Actually the Supreme Lord is the leader and maintainer of all living entities. His pastimes are transcendental to any material activity. Such pastimes of the Lord cannot be dragged to the level of the conditional activities of the living entities.

He Māyāvādī philosopher's presentation is that the living entity enjoys his pastimes by accepting the body of a hog. This theory is not acceptable, however, because the word "pastime" implies voluntary acceptance for enjoyment.

SB 3.26.8, Purport:

The living entity is the cause of his own suffering, but he can also be the cause of his eternal happiness. When he wants to engage in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, a suitable body is offered to him by the internal potency, the spiritual energy of the Lord, and when he wants to satisfy his senses, a material body is offered. Thus it is his free choice to accept a spiritual body or a material body, but once the body is accepted he has to enjoy or suffer the consequences. The Māyāvādī philosopher's presentation is that the living entity enjoys his pastimes by accepting the body of a hog. This theory is not acceptable, however, because the word "pastime" implies voluntary acceptance for enjoyment. Therefore this interpretation is most misleading. When there is enforced acceptance for suffering, it is not a pastime. The Lord's pastimes and the conditioned living entity's acceptance of karmic reaction are not on the same level.

When it is said that the living entities are bewildered, the Māyāvādī philosophers ascribe this bewilderment to the Supreme Lord. But that is not applicable.

SB 3.26.9, Purport:

The relationship of the living entities with matter and that of the Supreme Lord with matter are certainly not on the same level, although the Māyāvādīs may interpret it in that way. When it is said that the living entities are bewildered, the Māyāvādī philosophers ascribe this bewilderment to the Supreme Lord. But that is not applicable. The Lord is never bewildered. That is the difference between personalists and impersonalists.

The Māyāvādī philosophers recommend merging in the impersonal effulgence of Brahman; that is their ultimate goal, or destination.

SB 3.27.14, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers recommend merging in the impersonal effulgence of Brahman; that is their ultimate goal, or destination. That merging is also mentioned here. But in spite of merging, one can keep his individuality. The example given by Jīva Gosvāmī is that a green bird that enters a green tree appears to merge in the color of greenness, but actually the bird does not lose its individuality. Similarly, a living entity merged either in the material nature or in the spiritual nature does not give up his individuality. Real individuality is to understand oneself to be the eternal servitor of the Supreme Lord.

The Māyāvādī philosophers' concept of becoming one with the Supreme Lord is another symptom of being lost in false ego.

SB 3.27.15, Purport:

A living entity can never be lost. When one forgets his identity in deep sleep, he becomes absorbed in dreams, and he may think himself a different person or may think himself lost. But actually his identity is intact. This concept of being lost is due to false ego, and it continues as long as one is not awakened to the sense of his existence as an eternal servitor of the Lord. The Māyāvādī philosophers' concept of becoming one with the Supreme Lord is another symptom of being lost in false ego. One may falsely claim that he is the Supreme Lord, but actually he is not. This is the last snare of māyā's influence upon the living entity. To think oneself equal with the Supreme Lord or to think oneself to be the Supreme Lord Himself is also due to false ego.

The Māyāvādī philosophers' position is that at the ultimate issue the individual is lost, everything becomes one, and there is no distinction between the knower, the knowable and knowledge.

SB 3.27.16, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers' position is that at the ultimate issue the individual is lost, everything becomes one, and there is no distinction between the knower, the knowable and knowledge. But by minute analysis we can see that this is not correct. Individuality is never lost, even when one thinks that the three different principles, namely the knower, the knowable and knowledge, are amalgamated or merged into one. The very concept that the three merge into one is another form of knowledge, and since the perceiver of the knowledge still exists, how can one say that the knower, knowledge and knowable have become one? The individual soul who is perceiving this knowledge still remains an individual. Both in material existence and in spiritual existence the individuality continues; the only difference is in the quality of the identity.

The Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand this. They think that oneness necessitates loss of individuality.

SB 3.28.35, Purport:

The best example of nirvāṇa is cited in Bhagavad-gītā. In the beginning the mind of Arjuna deviated from Kṛṣṇa's. Kṛṣṇa wanted Arjuna to fight, but Arjuna did not want to, so there was disagreement. But after hearing Bhagavad-gītā from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Arjuna dovetailed his mind with Kṛṣṇa's desire. This is called oneness. This oneness, however, did not cause Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa to lose their individualities. The Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand this. They think that oneness necessitates loss of individuality. Actually, however, we find in Bhagavad-gītā that individuality is not lost. When the mind is completely purified in love of Godhead, the mind becomes the mind of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The Māyāvādī philosophers' conception of cessation of the functions of the mind is explained here: cessation of the mental functions means cessation of activities conducted under the influence of the three modes of material nature.

SB 3.28.35, Purport:

Yathārciḥ. Arciḥ means "flame." When a lamp is broken or the oil is finished, we see that the flame of the lamp goes out. But according to scientific understanding, the flame is not extinguished; it is conserved. This is conservation of energy. Similarly, when the mind stops functioning on the material platform, it is conserved in the activities of the Supreme Lord. The Māyāvādī philosophers' conception of cessation of the functions of the mind is explained here: cessation of the mental functions means cessation of activities conducted under the influence of the three modes of material nature.

The Māyāvādī philosophers say that after Brahman realization, all activities stop, but that is not actually so.

SB 3.28.44, Purport:

After Brahman realization, one can engage in the activities of Brahman. As long as one is not self-realized, he engages in activities based on false identification with the body. When one is situated in his real self, then the activities of Brahman realization begin. The Māyāvādī philosophers say that after Brahman realization, all activities stop, but that is not actually so. If the soul is so active in its abnormal condition, existing under the covering of matter, how can one deny its activity when free? An example may be cited here. If a man in a diseased condition is very active, how can one imagine that when he is free from the disease he will be inactive? Naturally the conclusion is that when one is free from all disease his activities are pure. It may be said that the activities of Brahman realization are different from those of conditional life, but that does not stop activity.

Sometimes Māyāvādī philosophers, due to a poor fund of knowledge, define the word sama-darśanāt to mean that a devotee should see himself as one with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 3.29.33, Purport:

Sometimes Māyāvādī philosophers, due to a poor fund of knowledge, define the word sama-darśanāt to mean that a devotee should see himself as one with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is foolishness. When one thinks himself one with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is no question of serving Him. When there is service, there must be a master. Three things must be present for there to be service: the master, the servant and the service. Here it is clearly stated that he who has dedicated his life, all his activities, his mind and his soul—everything—for the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord, is considered to be the greatest person.

Māyāvādī philosophers wrongly think that because the Supreme Person has entered the body of a poor man, the Supreme Lord has become daridra-nārāyaṇa, or poor Nārāyaṇa. These are all blasphemous statements of atheists and nondevotees.

SB 3.29.34, Purport:

Suppose a person enters into a room; that does not mean that the room has become that person. Similarly, that the Supreme Lord has entered into each of the 8,400,000 particular types of material bodies does not mean that each of these bodies has become the Supreme Lord. Because the Supreme Lord is present, however, a pure devotee accepts each body as the temple of the Lord, and since the devotee offers respect to such temples in full knowledge, he gives respect to every living entity in relationship with the Lord. Māyāvādī philosophers wrongly think that because the Supreme Person has entered the body of a poor man, the Supreme Lord has become daridra-nārāyaṇa, or poor Nārāyaṇa. These are all blasphemous statements of atheists and nondevotees.

The statement of the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa about the child's situation within the womb is exactly corroborated by modern medical science, and thus the authority of the purāṇas cannot be disproved, as is sometimes attempted by the Māyāvādī philosophers.

SB 3.31.5, Purport:

In the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa it is said that in the intestine of the mother the umbilical cord, which is known as āpyāyanī, joins the mother to the abdomen of the child, and through this passage the child within the womb accepts the mother's assimilated foodstuff. In this way the child is fed by the mother's intestine within the womb and grows from day to day. The statement of the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa about the child's situation within the womb is exactly corroborated by modern medical science, and thus the authority of the purāṇas cannot be disproved, as is sometimes attempted by the Māyāvādī philosophers.

He is always the same Supreme, but unfortunately the Māyāvādī philosophers, because of their impure hearts, cannot understand that the Supreme Soul, the Supersoul, is different from the individual soul.

SB 3.31.13, Purport:

In this verse it is said, viśuddham avikāram akhaṇḍa-bodham: the Supersoul is always sitting apart from all contamination. The living entity is contaminated and suffering because he has a material body, but that does not mean that because the Lord is also with him, He also has a I material body. He is avikāram, changeless. He is always the same Supreme, but unfortunately the Māyāvādī philosophers, because of their impure hearts, cannot understand that the Supreme Soul, the Supersoul, is different from the individual soul. It is said here, ātapyamāna-hṛdaye 'vasitam: He is in the heart of every living entity, but He can be realized only by a soul who is repentant.

The Māyāvādī philosophers say that simply by cultivation of knowledge by mental speculation, one can be liberated from the condition of material bondage. But here it is said one is liberated not by knowledge but by the mercy of the Supreme Lord.

SB 3.31.15, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers say that simply by cultivation of knowledge by mental speculation, one can be liberated from the condition of material bondage. But here it is said one is liberated not by knowledge but by the mercy of the Supreme Lord. The knowledge the conditioned soul gains by mental speculation, however powerful it may be, is always too imperfect to approach the Absolute Truth. It is said that without the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead one cannot understand Him or His actual form, quality and name. Those who are not in devotional service go on speculating for many, many thousands of years, but they are still unable to understand the nature of the Absolute Truth.

The oneness of the Māyāvādī philosophers and the oneness of Vaiṣṇava philosophers are different.

SB 3.32.11, Purport:

One can attain direct contact with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness and revive one's eternal relationship with Him as lover, as Supreme Soul, as son, as friend or as master. One can reestablish the transcendental loving relationship with the Supreme Lord in so many ways, and that feeling is true oneness. The oneness of the Māyāvādī philosophers and the oneness of Vaiṣṇava philosophers are different. The Māyāvādī and Vaiṣṇava philosophers both want to merge into the Supreme, but the Vaiṣṇavas do not lose their identities. They want to keep the identity of lover, parent, friend or servant.

The energies of fire are heat and illumination, and by these two energies fire can display itself in many varieties, or in diversified sense perception. Māyāvādī philosophers declare this diversity to be false.

SB 3.32.28, Purport:

Sense perceptions, such as aural perception of the sound of a drum, visual perception of a beautiful woman, or perception of the delicious taste of a milk preparation by the tongue, all come through different senses and are therefore differently understood. Therefore sensory knowledge is divided in different categories, although actually everything is one as a manifestation of the energy of the Supreme Lord. Similarly, the energies of fire are heat and illumination, and by these two energies fire can display itself in many varieties, or in diversified sense perception. Māyāvādī philosophers declare this diversity to be false. But Vaiṣṇava philosophers do not accept the different manifestations as false; they accept them as nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead because they are a display of His diverse energies.

One must chant God's name, not, as the Māyāvādī philosophers say, any name, such as a demigod's name or the names of God's energies.

SB 3.33.7, Purport:

The holy names of the Lord are innumerable, and one does not have to chant all the names to prove that he has already undergone all the processes of Vedic ritualistic ceremonies. If one chants once only, it is to be understood that he has already passed all the examinations, not to speak of those who are chanting always, twenty-four hours a day. It is specifically said here, tubhyam: "unto You only." One must chant God's name, not, as the Māyāvādī philosophers say, any name, such as a demigod's name or the names of God's energies. Only the holy name of the Supreme Lord will be effective. Anyone who compares the holy name of the Supreme Lord to the names of the demigods is called pāṣaṇḍī, or an offender.

SB Canto 4

Māyāvādī philosophers say that we have to imagine the form of the Lord, but here Nārada Muni does not say that. Rather, he gives the description of the Lord from authoritative sources.

SB 4.8.46, Purport:

The description given by Nārada Muni is not imaginary. The form of the Lord is understood by the paramparā system. Māyāvādī philosophers say that we have to imagine the form of the Lord, but here Nārada Muni does not say that. Rather, he gives the description of the Lord from authoritative sources. He is himself an authority, and he is able to go to Vaikuṇṭhaloka and see the Lord personally; therefore his description of the bodily features of the Lord is not imagination. Sometimes we give instructions to our students about the bodily features of the Lord, and they paint Him. Their paintings are not imaginary. The description is given through disciplic succession, just like that given by Nārada Muni, who sees the Lord and describes His bodily features. Therefore, such descriptions should be accepted, and if they are painted, that is not imaginative painting.

Māyāvādī philosophers take the incarnation of the Lord to be in the same category as the ordinary living entity. This is a great mistake.

SB 4.8.57, Purport:

Devotional service comprises nine prescribed practices—hearing, chanting, remembering, worshiping, serving, offering everything to the Deity, etc. Here Dhruva Mahārāja is advised not only to meditate on the form of the Lord, but to think of His transcendental pastimes in His different incarnations. Māyāvādī philosophers take the incarnation of the Lord to be in the same category as the ordinary living entity. This is a great mistake. The incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not forced to act by the material laws of nature. The word svecchā is used here to indicate that He appears out of His supreme will. The conditioned soul is forced to accept a particular type of body according to his karma given by the laws of material nature under the direction of the Supreme Lord. But when the Lord appears, He is not forced by the dictation of material nature; He appears as He likes by His own internal potency. That is the difference.

Many persons, especially the Māyāvādī philosophers, consider Brahman the biggest, all-expanding substance, but according to this verse and other Vedic literatures, such as Bhagavad-gītā, the resting place of Brahman is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, just as the resting place of the sunshine is the sun globe.

SB 4.8.78, Purport:

Brahman refers to one who not only is the greatest, but has the potency to expand to an unlimited extent. How was it possible for Dhruva Mahārāja to capture Brahman within his heart? This question has been very nicely answered by Jīva Gosvāmī. He says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the origin of Brahman, for since He comprises everything material and spiritual, there cannot be anything greater than He. In the Bhagavad-gītā also the Supreme Godhead says, "I am the resting place of Brahman." Many persons, especially the Māyāvādī philosophers, consider Brahman the biggest, all-expanding substance, but according to this verse and other Vedic literatures, such as Bhagavad-gītā, the resting place of Brahman is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, just as the resting place of the sunshine is the sun globe. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, therefore, says that since the transcendental form of the Lord is the seed of all greatness, He is the Supreme Brahman.

The Māyāvādī philosophers' conclusion that the Supersoul and the individual soul become united is not supported by this statement.

SB 4.8.82, Purport:

Here one word, saṅgatātmā, is misinterpreted by the Māyāvādī philosophers, who say that the self of Dhruva Mahārāja became one with the Supreme Self, the Personality of Godhead. The Māyāvādī philosophers want to prove by this word that the Supersoul and the individual soul become united in this way and that after such unification the individual soul has no separate existence. But here it is clearly said by the Supreme Lord that Dhruva Mahārāja was so absorbed in meditation on the thought of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that He Himself, the universal consciousness, was attracted to Dhruva. In order to please the demigods, He wanted to go Himself to Dhruva Mahārāja to stop him from this severe austerity. The Māyāvādī philosophers' conclusion that the Supersoul and the individual soul become united is not supported by this statement. Rather, the Supersoul, the Personality of Godhead, wanted to stop Dhruva Mahārāja from this severe austerity.

The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks that the Absolute Truth, being spread throughout the cosmic manifestation, has no personal form.

SB 4.9.7, Purport:

Dhruva Mahārāja realized that the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, acts through His different energies, not that He becomes void or impersonal and thus becomes all-pervading. The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks that the Absolute Truth, being spread throughout the cosmic manifestation, has no personal form. But here Dhruva Mahārāja, upon realization of the Vedic conclusion, says, "You are spread all over the cosmic manifestation by Your energy." This energy is basically spiritual, but because it acts in the material world temporarily, it is called māyā, or illusory energy. In other words, for everyone but the devotees the Lord's energy acts as external energy. Dhruva Mahārāja could understand this fact very nicely, and he could understand also that the energy and the energetic are one and the same. The energy cannot be separated from the energetic.

The Māyāvādī philosopher, who does not surrender unto the Supreme Person, is understood to be lacking in real knowledge.

SB 4.9.8, Purport:

The Lord is addressed here as ārta-bandhu, which means "friend of the distressed." As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, after many, many births of executing severe austerities in search of knowledge, one comes to the point of real knowledge and becomes wise when one surrenders unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Māyāvādī philosopher, who does not surrender unto the Supreme Person, is understood to be lacking in real knowledge. The devotee in perfect knowledge cannot forget his obligation to the Lord at any moment.

A Māyāvādī philosopher may question us, "You may be very happy in the association of devotees, but what is your plan for crossing the ocean of material existence?" Dhruva Mahārāja's answer is that it is not very difficult.

SB 4.9.11, Purport:

A Māyāvādī philosopher may question us, "You may be very happy in the association of devotees, but what is your plan for crossing the ocean of material existence?" Dhruva Mahārāja's answer is that it is not very difficult. He clearly says that this ocean can be crossed very easily if one simply becomes mad to hear the glories of the Lord. Bhavad-guṇa-kathā: for anyone who persistently engages in hearing the topics of the Lord from Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Caitanya-caritāmṛta and who is actually addicted to this process, just as one becomes addicted to intoxicants, it is very easy to cross the nescience of material existence. The ocean of material nescience is compared to a blazing fire, but to a devotee this blazing fire is insignificant because he is completely absorbed in devotional service.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, being unable to adjust to all this, come to the conclusion of impersonalism or voidism.

SB 4.9.15, Purport:

As stated in the Vedas (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13), nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām. The Lord is the supreme maintainer. Living entities are meant to serve Him by offering sacrifices, for He is the rightful enjoyer of the results of all sacrifices. Everyone, therefore, should engage himself in the devotional service of the Lord with his life, his riches, his intelligence and his words. This is the original, constitutional position of the living entities. One should never compare the sleeping of an ordinary living entity to the sleeping of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Causal Ocean. There is no stage at which the living entity can compare to the Supreme Person. The Māyāvādī philosophers, being unable to adjust to all this, come to the conclusion of impersonalism or voidism.

Out of these five muktis, which can be achieved by any person engaged in devotional service to the Lord, the one which is known as sāyujya is generally demanded by Māyāvādī philosophers; they demand to become one with the impersonal Brahman effulgence of the Lord.

SB 4.9.29, Purport:

There are five kinds of mukti-sāyujya, sārūpya, sālokya, sāmīpya and sārṣṭi. Out of these five muktis, which can be achieved by any person engaged in devotional service to the Lord, the one which is known as sāyujya is generally demanded by Māyāvādī philosophers; they demand to become one with the impersonal Brahman effulgence of the Lord. In the opinion of many scholars, this sāyujya-mukti, although counted among the five kinds of mukti, is not actually mukti because from sāyujya-mukti one may again fall down to this material world. This information we have from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.2.32), wherein it is said, patanty adhaḥ, which means "they again fall down." The monist philosopher, after executing severe austerity, merges into the impersonal effulgence of the Lord, but the living entity always wants reciprocation in loving affairs.

According to the Māyāvādī philosophers, the Supreme Brahman has transformed Himself into many varieties of forms, but that is not the fact.

SB 4.11.17, Purport:

In Darwin's theory there is no acceptance of the living entity as spirit soul, and therefore his explanation of evolution is incomplete. Varieties of phenomena occur within this universe on account of the actions and reactions of the three material modes, but the original creator, or the cause, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is mentioned here as nimitta-mātram, the remote cause. He simply pushes the wheel with His energy. According to the Māyāvādī philosophers, the Supreme Brahman has transformed Himself into many varieties of forms, but that is not the fact. He is always transcendental to the actions and reactions of the material guṇas, although He is the cause of all causes.

There are many Māyāvādī philosophers who consider that Kṛṣṇa's body is the effect of a concentration of the material mode of goodness, and they distinguish Kṛṣṇa's soul from Kṛṣṇa's body.

SB 4.11.25, Purport:

The Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has no material body, and because He has no material body, He is not affected by any work He executes. There are many Māyāvādī philosophers who consider that Kṛṣṇa's body is the effect of a concentration of the material mode of goodness, and they distinguish Kṛṣṇa's soul from Kṛṣṇa's body. The real situation, however, is that the body of the conditioned soul, even if he has a large accumulation of material goodness, is material, whereas Kṛṣṇa's body is never material; it is transcendental.

This is not to be confused with the statement by the Māyāvādī philosopher that "everything is one."

SB 4.12.4, Purport:

Since the Lord is absolute, the services are also absolute; even though the hand is working one way and the leg is working in another way, since the purpose is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are all one. This is not to be confused with the statement by the Māyāvādī philosopher that "everything is one." Real knowledge is that hand is hand, leg is leg, body is body, and yet all together they are one. As soon as the living entity thinks that he is independent, his conditional, material existence begins. The conception of independent existence is therefore like a dream. One has to be in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, his original position. Then he can be freed from material bondage.

Māyāvādī philosophers cannot imagine how this oneness can be achieved even in different varieties. Their idea of oneness is that there is no variety.

SB 4.12.29, Purport:

Māyāvādī philosophers cannot imagine how this oneness can be achieved even in different varieties. Their idea of oneness is that there is no variety. Therefore they have become impersonalists. As Śiśumāra, Viṣṇuloka or Dhruvaloka are completely different from this material world, so a Viṣṇu temple within this world is also completely different from this material world. As soon as we are in a temple we should know very well that we are situated differently from the material world.

The Māyāvādī philosophers aspire to become one with the Supreme Lord, but a devotee surpasses that position.

SB 4.12.42, Purport:

Lord Caitanya accepted this principle—that if one in any position submissively hears the transcendental message spoken by Kṛṣṇa or about Kṛṣṇa, then gradually he develops the quality of unalloyed love, and by that love only he can conquer the unconquerable. The Māyāvādī philosophers aspire to become one with the Supreme Lord, but a devotee surpasses that position. Not only does a devotee become one in quality with the Supreme Lord, but he sometimes becomes the father, mother or master of the Lord.

The Māyāvādī philosophers explain the word māyā as meaning "illusion" or "falseness." However, there is another meaning of māyā—that is, "causeless mercy."

SB 4.16.2, Purport:

In this verse the word māyayā means "by your causeless mercy." The Māyāvādī philosophers explain the word māyā as meaning "illusion" or "falseness." However, there is another meaning of māyā—that is, "causeless mercy." There are two kinds of māyā-yogamāyā and mahāmāyā. Mahāmāyā is an expansion of yogamāyā, and both these māyās are different expressions of the Lord's internal potencies. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, the Lord appears through His internal potencies (ātma-māyayā). We should therefore reject the Māyāvāda explanation that the Lord appears in a body given by the external potency, the material energy. The Lord and His incarnation are fully independent and can appear anywhere and everywhere by virtue of the internal potency.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that if anyone hears from a Māyāvādī philosopher preaching about the activities of the Lord, even if it is a description from the Vedic literature, he is ultimately doomed.

SB 4.20.24, Purport:

The Lord has innumerable devotees all over the universe, and they have been glorifying the Lord since time immemorial and for an unlimited time. But still they cannot completely finish enumerating the glories of the Lord. Pṛthu Mahārāja therefore wanted innumerable ears, as Rūpa Gosvāmī also desired to have millions of ears and millions of tongues to chant and hear the glorification of the Lord. In other words, if our ears are always engaged in hearing the glorification of the Lord, there will be no scope for hearing the Māyāvāda philosophy, which is doom to spiritual progress. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that if anyone hears from a Māyāvādī philosopher preaching about the activities of the Lord, even if it is a description from the Vedic literature, he is ultimately doomed. By hearing such Māyāvāda philosophy one cannot come to the destination of spiritual perfection of life.

The Māyāvādī philosophers equalize the jīvas and the Supreme Lord and consider them to be one, but that is the greatest offense to the lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu.

SB 4.20.27, Purport:

Lord Viṣṇu is the master of this material world, and there is no question of His being controlled by material nature. Consequently, Lord Viṣṇu is addressed here as pūruṣottama, the best of all living entities—namely viṣṇu-tattvas and jīva-tattvas. It is a great offense, therefore, to compare Lord Viṣṇu and the jīva-tattva or consider them on an equal level. The Māyāvādī philosophers equalize the jīvas and the Supreme Lord and consider them to be one, but that is the greatest offense to the lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu.

The Māyāvādī philosophers take the Absolute Truth to be nirguṇa ("without qualities"), in accordance with the impersonalistic view, but actually the Lord is the reservoir of all good qualities.

SB 4.20.27, Purport:

Pṛthu Mahārāja is considered to be an incarnation of Lord Viṣṇu, but he is called a śaktyāveśa incarnation. Another significant word in this verse is guṇālayam, which refers to Viṣṇu as the reservoir of all transcendental qualities. The Māyāvādī philosophers take the Absolute Truth to be nirguṇa ("without qualities"), in accordance with the impersonalistic view, but actually the Lord is the reservoir of all good qualities. One of the most important qualities of the Lord is His inclination to His devotees, for which He is called bhakta-vatsala. The devotees are always very much inclined to render service unto the lotus feet of the Lord, and the Lord is also very much inclined to accept loving service from His devotees.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore described the Māyāvādī philosophers as the greatest offenders against the Personality of Godhead.

SB 4.21.27, Purport:

The dangerous Māyāvāda theory set forth by Śaṅkarācārya—that God is impersonal—does not tally with the injunctions of the Vedas. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore described the Māyāvādī philosophers as the greatest offenders against the Personality of Godhead. According to the Vedic system, one who does not abide by the orders of the Vedas is called a nāstika, or atheist. When Lord Buddha preached his theory of nonviolence, he was obliged to deny the authority of the Vedas, and for this reason he was considered by the followers of the Vedas to be a nāstika.

The rope-and-the-snake argument is generally offered by the Māyāvādī philosophers.

SB 4.22.38, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs proclaim that there is no separate existence outside the impersonal Brahman and that the feeling of separation is māyā, or an illusion, by which one considers a rope to be a snake. The rope-and-the-snake argument is generally offered by the Māyāvādī philosophers. Therefore these words, which represent vivarta-vāda, are specifically mentioned herein. Actually Paramātmā, the Supersoul, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He is eternally liberated. In other words, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is living within this body along with the individual soul, and this is confirmed in the Vedas.

Due to their false idea of becoming independently happy—the material energy is troublesome. Consequently the material energy creates differentiation. Because the Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand this, they want to be relieved from the material energy.

SB 4.24.61, Purport:

The Supreme Lord is always independent, but because the living entities are not independent—due to their false idea of becoming independently happy—the material energy is troublesome. Consequently the material energy creates differentiation. Because the Māyāvādī philosophers cannot understand this, they want to be relieved from the material energy. However, because a Vaiṣṇava philosopher is in full knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he finds no disturbance even in the material energy. This is because he knows how to utilize the material energy for the service of the Lord.

There are two types of Māyāvādī philosophers—the followers of the Buddhist philosophy and the followers of the Śaṅkara philosophy.

SB 4.28.40, Purport:

The conditioned soul is often frustrated in trying to understand the distinctions between the material body, the Supersoul and the individual soul. There are two types of Māyāvādī philosophers—the followers of the Buddhist philosophy and the followers of the Śaṅkara philosophy. The followers of Buddha do not recognize that there is anything beyond the body; the followers of Śaṅkara conclude that there is no separate existence of the Paramātmā, the Supersoul. The Śaṅkarites believe that the individual soul is identical with the Paramātmā in the ultimate analysis.

One should accept the spiritual master not in the sense that the Māyāvādī philosophers do, but in the way recommended here.

SB 4.28.43, Purport:

As stated by Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura in Gurv-aṣṭaka, sākṣād-dharitvena: "One directly accepts the guru, the spiritual master, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead." One should accept the spiritual master not in the sense that the Māyāvādī philosophers do, but in the way recommended here. Since the spiritual master is the most confidential servant of the Lord, he should be treated exactly like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The spiritual master should never be neglected or disobeyed, like an ordinary person.

The Māyāvādī philosophers are again and again defeated by the illusory energy because they think that there is no separation between the Supersoul and the individual soul or that there is no Supersoul.

SB 4.28.62, Purport:

Both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity are qualitatively one. There is no factual difference between the two. The Māyāvādī philosophers are again and again defeated by the illusory energy because they think that there is no separation between the Supersoul and the individual soul or that there is no Supersoul. They are also misled in thinking that everything is the Supersoul. However, those who are kavayaḥ, learned scholars, actually know the facts. They do not commit such mistakes. They know that God and the individual soul are one in quality, but that the individual soul falls under the clutches of māyā, whereas the Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the controller of māyā. Māyā is the creation of the Supreme Lord (mayā sṛṣṭā); therefore the Supreme Lord is the controller of māyā. Although one in quality with the Supreme Lord, the individual soul is under the control of māyā. Māyāvādī philosophers cannot distinguish between the controller and the controlled.

Being affected by the conditioning of matter, Māyāvādī philosophers cannot see the difference between the Supreme Lord and the living entity.

SB 4.28.63, Purport:

Being affected by the conditioning of matter, Māyāvādī philosophers cannot see the difference between the Supreme Lord and the living entity. When the sun is reflected in a pot of water, the sun knows that there is no difference between himself and the reflected sun in the water. Those in ignorance, however, perceive that there are many small suns reflected in each and every pot. As far as the brilliance is concerned, there is brilliance both in the original sun and in the reflections, but the reflections are small, whereas the original sun is very large. Vaiṣṇava philosophers conclude that the living entity is simply a small sample of the original Supreme Personality of Godhead.

"If one follows the instructions of Māyāvādī philosophers and believes that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual soul are one, his understanding of real philosophy is forever doomed."

SB 4.28.63, Purport:

The energy and the energetic are one in one sense, but they are differently situated as energy and the energetic. Similarly, the sac-cid-ānanda form confirmed in Brahma-saṁhitā (īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1)) is different from that of the living entity in both his conditioned and liberated states. Only atheists consider the living entity and the Personality of Godhead equal in all respects. Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore says, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: "If one follows the instructions of Māyāvādī philosophers and believes that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual soul are one, his understanding of real philosophy is forever doomed."

The Lord is imitated by Māyāvādī philosophers who try to become one with the Lord in an artificial way. When the Māyāvādī philosophers think of themselves as liberated, they are under the delusion of mental concoction.

SB 4.29.26-27, Purport:

There are many competitors out to attain the Lord's position, but to become like the Lord is not at all possible. Thus there is a great struggle for existence with the material world as different parties try to imitate the Lord. Material bondage is caused by deviation from the service of the Lord and attempts to imitate Him. The Lord is imitated by Māyāvādī philosophers who try to become one with the Lord in an artificial way. When the Māyāvādī philosophers think of themselves as liberated, they are under the delusion of mental concoction. No one can become one with or equal to God. To imagine this is to continue one's bondage in material existence.

SB Canto 5

Māyāvādī philosophers say, this material world is false, and only the Absolute Truth is real.

SB 5.1.12, Purport:

Becoming a family man or king in the material world is not harmful if one accepts everything for Kṛṣṇa's service. That necessitates clear intelligence. Māyāvādī philosophers say, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: this material world is false, and only the Absolute Truth is real. However, an intelligent devotee in the line of Lord Brahmā and the great sage Nārada—or, in other words, in the Brahma-sampradāya—does not consider this world false. That which is created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be false, but using it for enjoyment is. Everything is meant to be enjoyed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (5.29).

Māyāvādī philosophers, yogīs and jñānīs try to give up this material world simply by saying, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: "This world is false. There is no use of it. Let us take to Brahman."

SB 5.1.38, Purport:

One whose heart is not clean cannot think of the transcendental pastimes of the Supreme Lord, but if one can once again place the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his heart, he very easily becomes qualified to renounce material attachment. Māyāvādī philosophers, yogīs and jñānīs try to give up this material world simply by saying, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: "This world is false. There is no use of it. Let us take to Brahman." Such theoretical knowledge will not help us. If we believe that Brahman is the real truth, we have to place within our hearts the lotus feet of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, as Mahārāja Ambarīṣa did (sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayoḥ (SB 9.4.18)). One has to fix the lotus feet of the Lord within his heart. Then he gets the strength to be freed from material entanglement.

Māyāvādī philosophers say that the impersonal God appears in this material world by accepting a body in the sattva-guṇa.

SB 5.3.20, Purport:

When the Supreme Lord appears or descends as an incarnation within this material world, He does not accept a body made of the three modes of material nature (sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa). Māyāvādī philosophers say that the impersonal God appears in this material world by accepting a body in the sattva-guṇa. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī states that the word śukla means "consisting of śuddha-sattva." Lord Viṣṇu descends in His śuddha-sattva form. Śuddha-sattva refers to the sattva-guṇa which is never contaminated. In this material world, even the mode of goodness (sattva-guṇa) is contaminated by tinges of rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa. When sattva-guṇa is never contaminated by rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa, it is called śuddha-sattva.

The Māyāvādī philosophers are completely unable to conceive of a spiritual body.

SB 5.5.19, Purport:

The Supreme Lord has a body with form, but that body is not composed of material elements. It is made of spiritual bliss, eternity and living force. By the inconceivable energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Lord can appear before us in His original spiritual body, but because we have no experience of the spiritual body, we are sometimes bewildered and see the form of the Lord as material. The Māyāvādī philosophers are completely unable to conceive of a spiritual body. They say that the spirit is always impersonal, and whenever they see something personal, they take it for granted that it is material.

Māyāvādī philosophers regard even Lord Kṛṣṇa's body as material, but their opinions cannot impede the spiritual activity of the Lord.

SB 5.18.15, Purport:

This Kāmadeva, who appears as Kṛṣṇa's son named Pradyumna, is viṣṇu-tattva. How this is so is explained by Madhvācārya, who quotes from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa: kāmadeva-sthitaṁ viṣṇum upāste. Although this Kāmadeva is viṣṇu-tattva, His body is not spiritual but material. Lord Viṣṇu as Pradyumna or Kāmadeva accepts a material body, but He still acts spiritually. It does not make any difference whether He accepts a spiritual or a material body; He can act spiritually in any condition of existence. Māyāvādī philosophers regard even Lord Kṛṣṇa's body as material, but their opinions cannot impede the spiritual activity of the Lord.

Māyāvādī philosophers think the universal form of the Lord to be real and His personal form illusory.

SB 5.18.31, Purport:

Māyāvādī philosophers think the universal form of the Lord to be real and His personal form illusory. We can understand their mistake by a simple example. A fire consists of three elements: heat and light, which are the energy of the fire, and the fire itself. Anyone can understand that the original fire is the reality and that the heat and light are simply the fire's energy. Heat and light are the formless energies of fire, and in that sense they are unreal. Only the fire has form, and therefore it is the real form of the heat and light. As Kṛṣṇa states in Bhagavad-gītā (9.4), mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: "By Me, in My unmanifested form. this entire universe is pervaded."

There is a class of men akin to Māyāvādī philosophers who misinterpret the Vedic mantras to mean, "I am the Supreme Brahman" and "I am identical with the Lord."

SB 5.25.1, Purport:

There is a class of men akin to Māyāvādī philosophers who misinterpret the ahaṁ brahmāsmi and so'ham Vedic mantras to mean, "I am the Supreme Brahman" and "I am identical with the Lord." This kind of false conception, in which one thinks himself the supreme enjoyer, is a kind of illusion. It is described elsewhere in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (5.5.8): janasya moho 'yam ahaṁ mameti.

SB Canto 6

The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks that there is only one Supreme Truth and that he is also that Supreme Truth.

SB 6.4.34, Purport:

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that this verse is especially meant for the impersonalist, who thinks that he himself is the Supreme because there is no difference between the living being and God. The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks that there is only one Supreme Truth and that he is also that Supreme Truth. Actually this is not knowledge but foolishness, and this verse is especially meant for such fools, whose knowledge has been stolen by illusion (māyayāpahṛta jñānāḥ (BG 7.15)).

The example given in this connection is that when an earthen pot is broken, the small portion of the sky within the pot is united with the large sky outside the pot. Māyāvādī philosophers misunderstand this description of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

SB 6.10.11, Purport:

By identifying his material conception of life, he gradually separated his spirit soul from material connections and placed himself at the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The example given in this connection is that when an earthen pot is broken, the small portion of the sky within the pot is united with the large sky outside the pot. Māyāvādī philosophers misunderstand this description of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore Śrī Rāmānuja Svāmī, in his book Vedānta-tattva-sāra, has described that this merging of the soul means that after separating himself from the material body made of eight elements—earth, water, fire, air, ether, false ego, mind and intelligence—the individual soul engages himself in devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His eternal form (īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ/ anādir ādir govindaḥ sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1)).

The Māyāvādī philosophers say, Brahman, the living being, is factual, but his present bodily situation is false.

SB 6.15.5, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers say, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: Brahman, the living being, is factual, but his present bodily situation is false. According to the Vaiṣṇava philosophy, however, the present situation is not false but temporary. It is like a dream. A dream does not exist before one falls asleep, nor does it continue after one awakens. The period for dreaming exists only between these two, and therefore it is false in the sense that it is impermanent.

Generally the Māyāvādī philosophers or persons influenced by Māyāvādī philosophers think themselves as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 6.16.57, Purport:

Generally the Māyāvādī philosophers or persons influenced by Māyāvādī philosophers think themselves as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the cause of their conditional life. As stated by the Vaiṣṇava poet Jagadānanda Paṇḍita in his Prema-vivarta:

kṛṣṇa-bahirmukha hañā bhoga vāñchā kare

nikaṭa-stha māyā tāre jāpaṭiyā dhare

As soon as a living entity forgets his constitutional position and endeavors to become one with the Supreme, his conditional life begins.

The Māyāvādī philosopher teaches the philosophy of tat tvam asi, saying, "You are the same as God."

SB 6.16.57, Purport:

If one forgets the difference between the Supreme Lord and the living entity, his conditional life begins. Conditional life means giving up one body to accept another and undergoing death to accept death again. The Māyāvādī philosopher teaches the philosophy of tat tvam asi, saying, "You are the same as God." He forgets that tat tvam asi applies in terms of the marginal position of the living entity, who is like sunshine. There is heat and light in the sun, and there is heat and light in the sunshine, and thus they are qualitatively one. But one should not forget that the sunshine rests on the sun. As the Lord says in Bhagavad-gītā, brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham (BG 14.27): "I am the original source of Brahman."

The Māyāvādī philosophers may be very proud of their so-called knowledge, but because they do not understand Vāsudeva, they do not understand the world of duality, which is a manifestation of Vāsudeva's external energy.

SB 6.17.31, Purport:

The speculative philosopher tries to understand that this material world is false by cultivating knowledge, but this understanding is automatically manifested in the person of a devotee, without separate endeavor. The Māyāvādī philosophers may be very proud of their so-called knowledge, but because they do not understand Vāsudeva (vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19)), they do not understand the world of duality, which is a manifestation of Vāsudeva's external energy. Therefore, unless the so-called jñānīs take shelter of Vāsudeva, their speculative knowledge is imperfect.

SB Canto 7

The Māyāvādī philosophers say that this material world is false, and that one should therefore not bother about this creation.

SB 7.1.11, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers say that this material world is mithyā, false, and that one should therefore not bother about this mithyā creation (brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā). But this is not correct. Here it is said, satya-kṛt: whatever is created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, satyaṁ param, cannot be called mithyā. The cause of the creation is satya, true, so how can the effect of the cause be mithyā? The very word satya-kṛt is used to establish that everything created by the Lord is factual, never false. The creation may be temporary, but it is not false.

The Māyāvādī philosopher who thinks that all living entities are God and are therefore one is also mistaken.

SB 7.5.11, Purport:

As long as one adheres to the philosophy of duality, thinking one person a friend and another an enemy, he should be understood to be in the clutches of māyā. The Māyāvādī philosopher who thinks that all living entities are God and are therefore one is also mistaken. No one is equal to God. The servant cannot be equal to the master. According to the Vaiṣṇava philosophy, the master is one, and the servants are also one, but the distinction between the master and servant must continue even in the liberated stage.

The Māyāvādī philosophers explain this in their own way, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead asserts the truth that He is everything and yet is separate from everything.

SB 7.9.31, Purport:

All this Vedic information indicates that there is only one God and that there is nothing else but Him. The Māyāvādī philosophers explain this in their own way, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead asserts the truth that He is everything and yet is separate from everything. This is the philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, which is called acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Everything is one, the Supreme Lord, yet everything is separate from the Lord. This is the understanding of oneness and difference.

The Māyāvādī philosophers accept the Absolute Truth as nirguṇa or nirākāra.

SB 7.9.51, Purport:

The word nirguṇa is important. The Māyāvādī philosophers accept the Absolute Truth as nirguṇa or nirākāra. The word nirguṇa refers to one who possesses no material qualities. The Lord, being full of spiritual qualities, gave up all His anger and spoke to Prahlāda.

Māyāvādī philosophers want to become impersonal, senseless and mindless, but that is not possible.

SB 7.10.8, Purport:

As soon as one has material desires, one cannot properly use his senses, intelligence, mind and so on for the satisfaction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Māyāvādī philosophers want to become impersonal, senseless and mindless, but that is not possible. The living entity must be living, always existing with desires, ambitions and so on. These should be purified, however, so that one can desire spiritually and be spiritually ambitious, without material contamination. In every living entity these propensities exist because he is a living entity.

Although the Māyāvādī philosophers strive to refrain from materialistic activities and merge in Brahman, and although they may actually merge in the Brahman existence, for want of activity they fall down again into materialistic activity.

SB 7.13.27, Purport:

The difference between the philosophy of the Māyāvādīs and that of the Vaiṣṇavas is explained herein. Both the Māyāvādīs and Vaiṣṇavas know that in materialistic activities there is no happiness. The Māyāvādī philosophers, therefore, adhering to the slogan brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, want to refrain from false, materialistic activities. They want to stop all activities and merge in the Supreme Brahman. According to the Vaiṣṇava philosophy, however, if one simply ceases from materialistic activity one cannot remain inactive for very long, and therefore everyone should engage himself in spiritual activities, which will solve the problem of suffering in this material world. It is said, therefore, that although the Māyāvādī philosophers strive to refrain from materialistic activities and merge in Brahman, and although they may actually merge in the Brahman existence, for want of activity they fall down again into materialistic activity (āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32)).

Although Māyāvādī philosophers say that the material creation is false, actually it is not false; it is factual, but the idea that everything belongs to human society is false.

SB 7.14.7, Purport:

"One who rejects anything without knowledge of its relationship to Kṛṣṇa is incomplete in his renunciation." (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.256) Although Māyāvādī philosophers say that the material creation is false, actually it is not false; it is factual, but the idea that everything belongs to human society is false. Everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for everything is created by Him. All living entities, being the Lord's sons, His eternal parts and parcels, have the right to use their father's property by nature's arrangement.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has therefore strictly forbidden us to associate with Māyāvādī philosophers.

SB 7.15.6, Purport:

Everyone is related to the Supreme Lord, but one should not mistakenly think that because one is related to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he has become the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa. Such a Māyāvāda philosophy is extremely dangerous, especially for a devotee. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has therefore strictly forbidden us to associate with Māyāvādī philosophers. Māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: if one associates with the Māyāvāda philosophy, his devotional life is doomed.

The varieties of this world would be impossible unless there were a real prototype in the spiritual world. The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight.

SB 7.15.58, Purport:

The reflection of the sun from a mirror is nothing but light within darkness. Thus although it is not exactly sunlight, without the sunlight the reflection would be impossible. Similarly, the varieties of this world would be impossible unless there were a real prototype in the spiritual world. The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight. Thus the jugglery of words used by the Māyāvādī philosopher to prove that this material world is false may amaze inexperienced children, but a man with full knowledge knows perfectly well that there cannot be any existence without Kṛṣṇa.

SB Canto 8

Oṁkāra is not meant to be impersonal, as the Māyāvādī philosophers consider it to be. This is distinctly expressed here by the word puruṣāya.

SB 8.3.2, Purport:

We should be careful to understand that oṁkāra does not indicate anything nirākāra, or formless. Indeed, this verse immediately says, oṁ namo bhagavate. Bhagavān is a person. Thus oṁkāra is the representation of the Supreme Person. Oṁkāra is not meant to be impersonal, as the Māyāvādī philosophers consider it to be. This is distinctly expressed here by the word puruṣāya. The supreme truth addressed by oṁkāra is puruṣa, the Supreme Person; He is not impersonal.

Although He is the beginning, the middle and the end of the material creation, the idea of pantheism conceived by Māyāvādī philosophers has no validity.

SB 8.6 Summary:

Innumerable universes exist within His form, and therefore He is never separated from these universes by time, space or circumstances. He is the chief and the pradhāna. Although He is the beginning, the middle and the end of the material creation, the idea of pantheism conceived by Māyāvādī philosophers has no validity. The Supreme Personality of Godhead controls the entire material manifestation through His subordinate agent, the external energy. Because of His inconceivable transcendental position, He is always the master of the material energy.

This mokṣa does not refer to becoming one with the Supreme like the Māyāvādī philosophers.

SB 8.12.6, Purport:

Being freed from the dualities of material desire, they are called śreyas-kāmāḥ. In other words, they are not concerned with dharma (religiosity), artha (economic development), or kāma (sense gratification). The only concern of such devotees is mokṣa, liberation. This mokṣa does not refer to becoming one with the Supreme like the Māyāvādī philosophers. Caitanya Mahāprabhu explained that real mokṣa means taking shelter of the lotus feet of the Personality of Godhead. The Lord clearly explained this fact while instructing Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya.

Māyāvādī philosophers think that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, has become everything, He has no separate existence.

SB 8.20.22, Purport:

In Bhagavad-gītā, the Supreme Personality of Godhead says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate: (BG 10.8) Kṛṣṇa is the origin of everything. Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti: (BG 7.19) Kṛṣṇa is everything. Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ: (BG 9.4) everything rests in the body of the Lord, yet the Lord is not everywhere. Māyāvādī philosophers think that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, has become everything, He has no separate existence. Their philosophy is called advaita-vāda. Actually, however, their philosophy is not correct.