Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Mayavadi philosophers (Lectures, other)

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: use VedaBase query: "mayavad* philosopher*"@5

Lectures

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

They say that, Māyāvādī philosophers, they say to become desireless. You cannot be desireless because you are living entity. How you can stop your desires? But you have to rectify, you have to purify your desires.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 27, 1972:

Mukti does not mean stopping activities. That is not mukti. That is suicidal. You are living entity. How you can stop? That is not possible. They say that, Māyāvādī philosophers, they say to become desireless. That..., you cannot be desireless because you are living entity. How you can stop your desires? But you have to rectify, you have to purify your desires. Now we are desiring simply for sense gratification, to lord it over the material nature. That is your desires. And, and when this desire is purified, then you'll desire that how everything should be engaged in the service of God. Now I am trying to become God, lord it over the material nature, but when my desires are purified, then I shall understand that everything belongs to God; therefore everything should be dovetailed in the service of God. That is liberation.

Generally the Māyāvādī philosophers, jñāni-sampradāya, they consider mukti means to merge into the spiritual existence, Brahman.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 28, 1972:

Bhakti-rasa is better than liberation, mukti. Because generally the Māyāvādī philosophers, jñāni-sampradāya, they consider mukti means to merge into the spiritual existence, Brahman. Brahma-sayujya-mukti, to, to merge into the impersonal Brahman effulgence of the Absolute. They consider it, that is the highest. And the Buddha philosophers, they think to make all these activities zero, śūnyavādī. Dismantle. Because on account of this combination of matter, earth, water, fire, air, ether, this body's made, and the body is subjected to pains and pleasure on account of this mixture. 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.

One cannot be servant of God without becoming God. That they do not know, the Māyāvādī philosophers.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 1, 1973:

When we are actually brahma-bhūtaḥ, as explained by Caitanya Mahāprabhu, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ (BG 15.7). That is self-realization. When we understand perfectly well that "I am eternal servant of God," servant... I'm not God; I'm servant of God. But one cannot be servant of God without becoming God. That they do not know, the Māyāvādī philosophers. Servant... Just like if one becomes secretary or servant of a very big man, he's in the same position. He's sitting on the same place. He's eating the same way. He's in the same atmosphere. So everything is same. Simply the relationship is different. That's all.

"Ocean of nectar." The Māyāvādī philosophers, generally they give this example that the, all the rivers, they flow down to the ocean.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 27, 1972:

"Ocean of nectar." The Māyāvādī philosophers, generally they give this example that the, all the rivers, they flow down to the ocean. This example is generally given that when the river mixes with the ocean, it doesn't matter which course it is following. After all, it is coming to the ocean, merging into the ocean. So that is ultimate liberation. But this analogy... Analogy, if you give some analogy, you must consider all the similar points. That is the way of analogy. The more you have got similar points, then the analogy is perfect.

Kṛṣṇa is unknown, a black thing. A Māyāvādī, great philosopher of this city, he has explained like that. The Māyāvādī philosopher, Dr. Radhakrishnan, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." So the Māyāvādīs' only business is—because they're avaiṣṇava not Vaiṣṇava—only business is to kill Kṛṣṇa.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 8, 1973:

Kṛṣṇa is unknown, a black thing. A Māyāvādī, great philosopher of this city, he has explained like that. The Māyāvādī philosopher, Dr. Radhakrishnan, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." So the Māyāvādīs' only business is—because they're avaiṣṇava not Vaiṣṇava—only business is to kill Kṛṣṇa. Sanātana Gosvāmī has, in his Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, has very strongly recommended that, "Don't hear anything from, about Kṛṣṇa, from the Māyāvādīs or the avaiṣṇavas." Those who are follower, those who are advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they can protest.

Sometimes the Māyāvādī philosophers, they give this example that "As all the rivers come down to the ocean, and then business is finished." But our philosophy is not so scanty.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 8, 1973:

Sometimes the Māyāvādī philosophers, they give this example that "As all the rivers come down to the ocean, and then business is finished." But our philosophy is not so scanty. We do not wish to mix with the ocean, we want to go deep into the ocean. They give this example, nirākāra. Because ocean is, it is not nirākāra but it is, still they say nirākāra. Ocean is ākāra, we see around place (indistinct). But anyway, their philosophy is that you come to the ocean by different paths, then it becomes mixed. But they do not know, even though you come to the ocean, immediately you'll be evaporated.

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

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.

Māyāvādī philosophy is when Kṛṣṇa comes, when God comes, He takes a material form. No, that's not right. Kṛṣṇa says, the ātma-māyayā means cit potency. These Māyāvādī philosophers they have no information that cit potency.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 10, 1973:

Those who have no knowledge about Kṛṣṇa, they are thinking Kṛṣṇa is māyā. These bhaktas, they are worshiping the māyā form. Their philosophy is when Kṛṣṇa comes, when God comes, He takes a material form. No, that's not right. Kṛṣṇa says, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). Sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā, the ātma-māyayā means cit potency. These Māyāvādī philosophers they have no information that cit potency. That is ahlādinī śakti, that is Rādhārāṇī. They have got experience of this material potency. External energy. Durgā. But they have no information of the cit potency. Therefore, they think that Kṛṣṇa appears in the form of māyā. Just like we have got this body, material body, this is gift by the māyā.

Always miserable and always in ignorance. Just the opposite. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. If we think of Kṛṣṇa like that, then it is a mistake. That Māyāvādī philosopher, they are thinking of Kṛṣṇa like that, that Kṛṣṇa is like me.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 10, 1973:

Our life is ānanda. Sac-cid-ānanda. Eternal life, blissful life, life of knowledge. But we are put into this material condition which is ignorance, miserable and temporary. Just opposite. Instead of having eternal, blissful, knowledgeable life, we have got this body which is non-eternal, non-permanent, and always miserable in condition, and not blissful. Always miserable and always in ignorance. Just the opposite. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. If we think of Kṛṣṇa like that, then it is a mistake. That Māyāvādī philosopher, they are thinking of Kṛṣṇa like that, that Kṛṣṇa is like me. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā. They are rascals, mūḍha. They are thinking there is something above Kṛṣṇa. Therefore they are mūḍhas. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). Because they have no knowledge, paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ. They do not know the paraṁ bhāva, the bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, they have no idea, they have no knowledge. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is, therefore, giving them the real knowledge.

The Māyāvādī philosophers mistakes to elevate the living entities to the standard of puruṣa, the Supreme.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972:

Kṛṣṇa is there as Paramātmā. So he sees Paramātmā. He does not see the external body. So Kṛṣṇa's two energies... Inferior means where Kṛṣṇa consciousness is almost absent. That is inferior. When there is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that is no more inferior; that is superior. So Kṛṣṇa says, apareyam itas tu vidhi me prakṛtiṁ parā. After all, any energy, prakṛti... So the Māyāvādī philosophers mistakes to elevate the living entities to the standard of puruṣa, the Supreme. But actually it is not so. It is prakṛti. Prakṛti means predominated and puruṣa means predominator. And actually, that is our position. We are not predominator. Artificially I am thinking that I am predominator. That is my illusion. I am not predominator. Nobody's predominator. Predominator is Kṛṣṇa.

Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is transferring that hard working to the business of Kṛṣṇa. That tendency for hard working may be utilized. Just like the Māyāvādī philosophers, they think that lust and anger, these are our enemies.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 4, 1972:

Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is transferring that hard working to the business of Kṛṣṇa. That tendency for hard working may be utilized. Just like the Māyāvādī philosophers, they think that lust and anger, these are our enemies. Kāma-krodha-lobha-moha-mātsarya. But Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says that the kāma also can be utilized for Kṛṣṇa's service. Kāmaṁ kṛṣṇa-karmārpane. If one is very much attached to work for Kṛṣṇa, that tendency for the karmīs to work very hard for sense gratification, it can be utilized.

There are philosophers, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they do not accept Purāṇas as Vedic literature, but Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has proved in his Tattva-sandarbha, in the beginning, that Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, itihāsa-purāṇa, they are part and parcel of the Vedic literature.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 7, 1972:

Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī is giving evidences from different Vedic literatures to support his statement. Here is a statement from Padma Purāṇa. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, in his Tattva-sandarbha, has proved it, without any doubt, that the Purāṇas are supplementary to Vedas. They are... Just like Upaniṣads is part and parcel of the Vedas, similarly, Purāṇas are also part and parcel of the Vedic literature. There are philosophers, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they do not accept Purāṇas as Vedic literature, but Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has proved in his Tattva-sandarbha, in the beginning, that Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, itihāsa-purāṇa, they are part and parcel of the Vedic literature. Supplementary. Purāṇa means that which supplements. So evidences from Purāṇa is as good as the evidence from the Vedic quotation. That is the verdict of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī is not prepared to accept any statement which does not refer to the Vedic literatures: Vedas, Purāṇas, Upaniṣads, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, like that. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī also says in another place, śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-pāñcarātriki-vidhiṁ vinā (Brs. 1.2.101).

As it is recommended by the śāstras, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare, we should chant this. Why other demigods' names? The Māyāvādī philosophers, they misguide us.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 25, 1973:

Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ, it is specially mentioned. Not that as the Māyāvādīs say, that you can chant any name. No. Śāstra says, śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ.

śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ
smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam
arcanaṁ vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ
sakhyam ātma-nivedanam
(SB 7.5.23)

So, as it is recommended by the śāstras, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare, we should chant this. Why other demigods' names? The Māyāvādī philosophers, they misguide us. Śāstra says, harer nāma, harer nāma, harer nāma. Three times. Only the name of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Hari.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

The Buddhist philosopher, they say, "Ultimately, everything is zero." And the Māyāvādī philosopher says not zero, but impersonal. But actually that is not fact. There is everything, variety and personal.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.5 -- Mayapur, March 29, 1975:

Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura explains, janmādy asya means the ādi-rasa, loving affairs between man and woman, that is from the Supreme Person. That's a fact. Unless the loving propensity is there in the Supreme, how it can be reflected? Because this is perverted reflection only, so there must be the origin. So the Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand this. Because they have got bitter experience of this material world, they try to make zero or without any varieties the ultimate goal. Śūnyavādi. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. The nirviśeṣavāda, impersonalism and voidism, they are of the same nature. The Buddhist philosopher, they say, "Ultimately, everything is zero." And the Māyāvādī philosopher says not zero, but impersonal. But actually that is not fact. There is everything, variety and personal. But because the philosophers with poor fund of knowledge, they cannot understand, they make it zero or varietyless, nirviśeṣavāda.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they are after brahma-sukha. The source of brahma-sukha is Kṛṣṇa, but they cannot reach up to that point.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.5 -- Mayapur, March 29, 1975:

The Supreme Lord has got three potencies, or energies, primarily. So this rādhā-kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtiḥ is transformation of the pleasure potency. Kṛṣṇa is described in the Bhagavad-gītā, paraṁ brahma. Paraṁ brahma. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). That is the explanation given by Arjuna. This is called paramparā system. If we follow Arjuna, Arjuna's decision should be taken. Arjuna decision is: "Kṛṣṇa is paraṁ brahma." So the Māyāvādī philosophers, they are after brahma-sukha. Brahma-sukhānubhūtyā. Brahma-sukhānubhūtyā. The source of brahma-sukha is Kṛṣṇa, but they cannot reach up to that point.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they imperfectly think that they have become one with the Supreme, they have become Nārāyaṇa. That is a misleading philosophy. We should not accept that.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.5 -- Mayapur, March 29, 1975:

Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī says, "Here is the Paraṁ Brahman." When he is describing Kṛṣṇa's pastimes with the cowherd boys, so Śukadeva Gosvāmī says, "These cowherd boys are playing with the Supreme Person who is the source of brahma-sukha." Itthaṁ brahma-sukhānubhūtyā. And for the devotees... There are two kinds of transcendentalist: one Brahmavādi and other, Vaiṣṇava. A Vaiṣṇava takes this philosophy, that we are servant. Jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). And the Māyāvādī philosophers, they imperfectly think that they have become one with the Supreme, they have become Nārāyaṇa. That is a misleading philosophy. We should not accept that.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot conceive that Paraṁbrahman also enjoys; therefore they think of Paraṁbrahman as imperson. So that is not the fact. Brahman, Paramātmā, then Bhagavān.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.6 -- Mayapur, March 30, 1975:

We should not misunderstand that Kṛṣṇa is ordinary human being and He is enjoying like us. Completely different. Rādhārāṇī is the manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's pleasure potency. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). So when Kṛṣṇa, Paraṁbrahman... Kṛṣṇa is described by Arjuna, Paraṁbrahman. So when the Paraṁbrahman wants to enjoy... The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot conceive that Paraṁbrahman also enjoys; therefore they think of Paraṁbrahman as imperson. So that is not the fact. Brahman, Paramātmā, then Bhagavān. Therefore Bhagavān is Paraṁbrahman. That is accepted by Arjuna, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12).

This is called material world, and because it is never eternally sustained, therefore it is called māyā. It is not false, as the Māyāvādī philosophers says, "It is false." It is not false.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.11 -- Mayapur, April 4, 1975:

Anything you take—this body, your body, my body—it is created a certain date, and it is maintained for a certain number of years, and again it is annihilated. This is material world. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate: (BG 8.19) "It manifests sometimes and again disappears." This is called material world, and because it is never eternally sustained, therefore it is called māyā. It is not false, as the Māyāvādī philosophers says, "It is false." It is not false. Lord Viṣṇu is taking so much care to create this material world. How you can say it is false? It is not false? It is fact, but it is temporary. This is the difference between the material world and the spiritual world. In the spiritual world there is no creation and no destruction. In the material world, there is creation and destruction.

The senses will act. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they try to stop the activities of the senses.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.3 -- Mayapur, March 3, 1974:

Therefore, in order to stop this stupidity of serving our senses, which will never come to an end, simply increase our bondage, we have to come to the spiritual master. Ādau gurvāśrayam. He'll teach how to convert or to divert the activities of the senses to please Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇendriya-prīti-icchā dhare nāma prema. Dhare prema nāma. The senses will act. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they try to stop the activities of the senses. Yogis also. Yoga indriya saṁyamaḥ. The yogis artificially try to stop the sense activities. They are simply... Because common men, they know activities means sense activities, sense satisfaction... So yogis, they artificially try to stop the sense activities. That is called praṇāyāma.

Māyāvādī philosophers, they take one side only, that it is one. They do not understand what is the difference, what is the different taste, varieties.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, March 7, 1974:

So Māyāvādī philosophers, they take one side only, that it is one. They do not understand what is the difference, what is the different taste, varieties. They cannot understand the varieties, unity in diversity. They cannot understand. Just like sugar and milk—you prepare so many sweetmeats: "This is rasagullā, this is sandeṣa, this is burfi, this is this, this is that." Hundreds of preparation you can... But what is that? That sugar and milk. So similarly, variety is the mother of enjoyment. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand. Therefore they have been described in the Bhāgavata, vimukta-māninaḥ, aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32). They are thinking that now they have become one with the Supreme, Nārāyaṇa. They address between themselves, "Namo nārāyaṇa," that "Everyone has become Nārāyaṇa." This is their... "Everyone is Nārāyaṇa," that's all right, but still, different. That distinction is made by the Vaiṣṇavas.

These are different tastes. So this taste is required, transcendental mellow. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand this taste. They think everything is one.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, March 7, 1974:

There are different types of pleasure. Just like pleasure like master and the servant. The master is also pleased by the service of the servant, and the servant is pleased by rendering service to the master. This is taste. Husband and wife: Husband is pleased having a wife, wife is pleased having... These are the different tastes: between master and servant, between friend and friend, between father and son, mother and son, between the lover and the beloved. These are different tastes. So this taste is required, transcendental mellow. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand this taste. They think everything is one. And in the material world also, we accept, "Variety is the mother of enjoyment." Without varieties, although everything is spiritual... In Vṛndāvana everything is spiritual. Gauḍa-maṇḍala-bhūmi, yebā jāne cintāmaṇi. Just like this place, Gauḍa-maṇḍala-bhūmi, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's place of pastimes, and the Vṛndāvana-dhāma, the place of pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa, they are one and the same.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand; therefore they think that "This Kṛṣṇa-līlā is māyā." Therefore we call them Māyāvādī.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, March 7, 1974:

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand; therefore they think that "This Kṛṣṇa-līlā is māyā." Therefore we call them Māyāvādī. Everything... Māyā māyā, neti neti. They take Kṛṣṇa also as māyā; therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Because a living entity comes in this material world accepting this material body, similarly, when Kṛṣṇa comes, they think that He has also a material body. This is Māyāvādī. Kṛṣṇa has no such thing. Therefore you'll find in Dr. Radhakrishnan's book, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), he says, "Not to the Kṛṣṇa person, but the Absolute which is within the Kṛṣṇa." He does not know that Kṛṣṇa is not different from His body. That he does not know. Kṛṣṇa is absolute. Sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6).

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they also accept Vyāsadeva as their original spiritual master, but they have interpreted Vyāsadeva's views; therefore they are not considered to be bona fide disciples.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

The Vedānta philosophy actually belongs to the Vaiṣṇava sampradāya because it was compiled by Vyāsadeva, who is the original spiritual master of this Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. Of course, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they also accept Vyāsadeva as their original spiritual master, but they have interpreted Vyāsadeva's views; therefore they are not considered to be bona fide disciples. Just like you'll see in the Bhagavad-gītā that Arjuna, in the beginning he was arguing with Kṛṣṇa, between friend and friend, but when he surrendered himself as student, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam... (BG 2.7). He said, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, now I am surrendering unto You. I accept You as my spiritual master."

We Vaiṣṇava, we see that Kṛṣṇa has within His mouth millions of skies. So who is greatest? Kṛṣṇa is greatest or the sky is greatest? This is the difference between the Māyāvādī philosophers.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.108 -- San Francisco, February 18, 1967:

Brahman means "the greatest." So what is the idea of the greatest? The greatest means... That is described by Parāśara-sūtra, that He is the greatest in wealth, greatest in fame, greatest in knowledge, greatest in renunciation, greatest in beauty, everything, whatever attractive. How, how you can understand "greatest"? "Greatest" does not mean that sky is the greatest. That is impersonal theory. But our "greatest" idea is that one who can swallow millions of skies within Himself, He is greatest. The material conception, they cannot go further. They can simply think of the greatest: the sky. That's all. "As great as the sky." But we Vaiṣṇava, we see that Kṛṣṇa has within His mouth millions of skies. So who is greatest? Kṛṣṇa is greatest or the sky is greatest? This is the difference between the Māyāvādī philosophers. Just like Kṛṣṇa, when He was boy, He was eating clay. His mother asked, "Oh, just open Your mouth. I want to see what You are eating." And Kṛṣṇa showed him (her) that millions of planets and millions of skies are within the mouth. So He is greatest, who can show that "Millions of skies are within Me." He is greatest. That means greatest in opulence of strength, greatest in strength, greatest in wealth, great..., everything greatest. He is greatest. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's... He says Brahman means the greatest, and greatest means one who is greatest in six opulences.

These Māyāvādī philosophers, they are very much uttering this word, "Brahman. All Brahman." They don't utter "Kṛṣṇa" or "Govinda.", that is very difficult for them.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So there are so many policies and so many programs of the supreme authorities, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that that is time service. For the time being they are necessary. Actually, such interpretation is not necessary at all. We should take direct meaning. Now He's explaining Vedānta. The first thing He's explaining, 'brahma' śabde mukhya arthe kahe-'bhagavān'. Whenever we speak of Brahman... Because these Māyāvādī philosophers, they are very much uttering this word, "Brahman." Ahaṁ brahmāsmi: "All Brahman." They don't utter "Kṛṣṇa" or "Govinda." Oh, that is very difficult for them. They simply utter, "Brahman." Now... Let them. Brahman is also Vedic word. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says the direct meaning of Brahman is Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Cid-aiśvarya-paripūrṇa, anūrdhva-samāna.

This forgetfulness is also energy, another energy. Then whose energy? Avidya. This is living entity's energy. The Māyāvāda philosophers, they cannot answer.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.118-121 -- San Francisco, February 24, 1967:

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."

If their idea is only within the boundary of this material energy, they are called Māyāvādī. They have no information of the spiritual energy. They are called Māyāvādī. So chiefly the impersonalists and the void philosophers, they are called Māyāvādī, because they have no other information.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.149-171 -- San Francisco, March 18, 1967:

Māyāvādī means materialist. Māyā, this matter, the external energy, the inferior energy, and those who want to stick to this inferior energy, never mind what class of philosopher, what section of philosophers they belong, if their idea is only within the boundary of this material energy, they are called Māyāvādī. They have no information of the spiritual energy. They are called Māyāvādī. So chiefly the impersonalists and the void philosophers, they are called Māyāvādī, because they have no other information. They want to simply negate, nullify, but they have no positive information, so they are called Māyāvādī. So the Śaṅkarites... Śaṅkarites, of course, they give positive information. Brahma satya jagan mithyā. They say that this world is false and Brahman is reality. But because we want reality in variety, therefore impersonal philosophy, although we take it as a matter of sectarian philosophy, it does not appeal to the heart because by nature we want enjoyment. And whenever there is question of enjoyment, there must be variety. Variety is the mother of enjoyment. So philosophically or theoretically, we may accept voidness, negation, out of frustration.

Actual spiritual variegatedness, unless one is informed about it and one is situated in spiritual varieties, there is no satisfaction. So the Māyāvādī philosophers of Benares, after hearing the explanation of Vedānta-sūtra from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they were very much satisfied.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.149-171 -- San Francisco, March 18, 1967:

When we are frustrated in these material varieties we adopt the suicidal policy, "Let me commit suicide, finish." This is called Māyāvāda. Actual spiritual variegatedness, unless one is informed about it and one is situated in spiritual varieties, there is no satisfaction. So the Māyāvādī philosophers of Benares, after hearing the explanation of Vedānta-sūtra from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they were very much satisfied. Sei haite sannyāsīra phiri gela mana. Their mind turned. "Oh, this is the real explanation." Kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa nāma sadā karaye grahaṇa. Now they also began to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare.

Māyāvādī philosophers, they take it, they concoct like that, that "Ultimately the Absolute Truth is impersonal, but when He descends..." I do not know how the impersonal can be "He."
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.149-50 -- Gorakhpur, February 13, 1971:

Nanda Mahārāja was the zamindar rāja. He was vaiśya. He had 900,000's of cows, and he was the head of Vṛndāvana. All other cowherds men were his tenants or friends or family members. So Kṛṣṇa automatically became their very, very dear friend. That is the significance of the residents of Vṛndāvana. They... Their love for Kṛṣṇa was so ecstatic that they did not know anything except Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Brahmā says, aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyam: "How fortunate these residents of Vṛndāvana are that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has become their friend." And Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam, not that He has assumed a body like a human being and He is imperson. No. Just like Māyāvādī philosophers, they take it, they concoct like that, that "Ultimately the Absolute Truth is impersonal, but when He descends..." I do not know how the impersonal can be "He." So that theory is refuted hereby because it is the statement of Brahmā, and he says that Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam.

The Māyāvāda philosophers, their point of view is the Absolute Truth is imperson and there is no different energy. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's challenge is that Absolute Truth has got multi-energies.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

Now, the Māyāvāda philosophers, their point of view is the Absolute Truth is imperson and there is no different energy. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's challenge is that Absolute Truth has got multi-energies. That is also stated in the Upaniṣads: parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). The Absolute Truth has multi-energies, innumerable energies. And such energies have been divided into three divisions. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva..., na tasya kāryaṁ kāraṇaṁ ca vidyate. He has nothing to do. Why He has to do? Because His energies are working. Therefore, He has energy. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: (BG 9.4) "The whole universe in its avyakta-mūrti, nonmanifested form, I am." Ahaṁ tatam idaṁ sarvam. Aham. "But at the same time, aham is there." Aham means "I." And the word avyakta is there, "nonmanifest." So Kṛṣṇa is manifest.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, as soon as they realize that ahaṁ brahmāsmi, they think that they are liberated. But no. That liberation is theoretical.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

We have to always keep ourself in transcendental position by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, always being engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service. Then we are brahma-bhūyāya kalpate (BG 14.26). That is our Brahman situation. Simply realization of Brahman is not all. You have to be always engaged in Brahman activities. Then there is possibility of remaining in the Brahman platform. The Māyāvādī philosophers, as soon as they realize that ahaṁ brahmāsmi, they think that they are liberated. But no. That liberation is theoretical. That is not practical. Practical liberation is when you are situated in devotional service. Then there is no chance of falling down. If you simply think that "I have become Nārāyaṇa," or Nārāyaṇa position, that is falldown. There are innumerable examples. So we are taṭasthā-śakti. The idea is... Taṭasthā means marginal. We can fall down in the material world, and we can raise ourself in the spiritual world. This is our position. But we are energy, not the energetic.

The Brahman is not niḥśakti, as some philosophers, Māyāvādī philosophers, they say, "The Brahman is inactive." He's not inactive. His energies are acting.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154 -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

The Brahman is not niḥśakti, as some philosophers, Māyāvādī philosophers, they say, "The Brahman is inactive." He's not inactive. He is parāsya brāhmaṇa śaktir sarvedam akhilaṁ jagat. Sarvedam akhilaṁ jagat. His energies are acting. The example is: just like fire... Just like the sun. Sun is situated in one place, and the sun's energies are working, heat and light. Heat and light is working. The whole material creation is resting on the heat and light of the sun. That's a fact. Similarly, this sun is only reflection. Just like moon is reflection of the sunlight, similarly, this sun is also reflection of the brahmajyoti. And what is that brahmajyoti? Brahmajyoti is the bodily rays, effulgence, effulgent rays of Kṛṣṇa. You have seen, Kṛṣṇa's head is always auraed. That rays is, I mean to say, distributing different energies. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport).

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 6.154 -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

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.

The Māyāvādī philosopher says that the energy generates when impersonal Brahman enters into this material energy, or māyā. He has got a body of māyā.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.154-155 -- Gorakhpur, February 19, 1971 (Krsna Niketan):

So here Caitanya Mahāprabhu quotes one verse from Viṣṇu Purāṇa: viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā (CC Madhya 6.154). You cannot say that the Absolute Person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has no energy. Niḥśakti. The Māyāvādī philosopher says that the energy generates when impersonal Brahman enters into this material energy, or māyā. He has got a body of māyā. No. That's not the fact. Kṛṣṇa hasn't got the body created by this material world as we have got. Kṛṣṇa says, therefore, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Those who are foolish persons, poor fund of knowledge, such person thinks that I assume a body with the help of material energy." Kṛṣṇa says Himself that sambhavamy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6)—His own energy. That own energy is this viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā, spiritual energy.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they think materially, that "If God is all-pervading, why He should be localized?" Why He should not be? That is answer.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.110-111 -- Bombay, November 17, 1975:

In the Bhagavad-gītā also it is said—Kṛṣṇa says—mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagat avyakta-mūrtinā: (BG 9.4) "I am situated all over the universe in My avyakta form, nonmanifested form." The manifested form is Kṛṣṇa. That is in Goloka Vṛndāvana. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). He is distributed all over the universe, everywhere. Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham (Bs. 5.35). He is within the universe, aṇḍāntara-stham, and paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham, within the atom also. That is all-pervading. Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. So this is to be understood. The God is simultaneously localized and all-pervading. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they think materially, that "If God is all-pervading, why He should be localized?" Why He should not be? That is answer. God is not under your dictation. He is all-powerful. He can do so. Remaining in His own place, He can be distributed. He can distribute Himself everywhere.

The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks because Kṛṣṇa is all-pervading, therefore He has no form. No. That is not fact. He has form, but His form is not like your form and my form.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.137-146 -- Bombay, February 24, 1971:

Nārada came to see Kṛṣṇa, and every palace he entered he saw Kṛṣṇa was there. And with some wife, in some wife's palace He is playing with children, or some wife's He's just taking bath. In another palace He was playing chess. In this way he differently saw Kṛṣṇa in different palaces. So in 16,000 palaces he saw Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa. Not that He married 16,000 wives, but He remained one. He also expanded Himself sixteen hundred times. That is Kṛṣṇa. He can expand Himself. Rāsa-līlā... Rāsa-līlā, every gopī was feeling that "Kṛṣṇa is dancing with me." So many gopīs. That is Kṛṣṇa. He can expand. But He has got form. He is not formless. The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks because Kṛṣṇa is all-pervading, therefore He has no form. No. That is not fact. He has form, but His form is not like your form and my form. This form is explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā: advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Acyuta. And He does not fall down. Acyuta means thing which does not fall down. So just like we are, we are living entities, we fall down in the clutches of māyā. But Kṛṣṇa does not fall down. The Māyāvādī philosophers mistake that. They think that as we come to this material world with a material body, similarly, Kṛṣṇa also comes with a material body. No. That is not the fact. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā manuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ (BG 9.11). Mūḍha. Mūḍha means those who are not intelligent.

The Māyāvādī philosophers they say that God, the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal, and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, they say in the ultimate end, the Absolute Truth is Person and He is, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:

Whole of India, practically, became Buddhist during his time. But later on, after Śaṅkarācārya's drive against Buddhism, Buddha-ism... Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish the difference of Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhism, Lord Buddha did not accept Vedic authority. He did not accept Vedic authority. But according to Hindu culture, if somebody does not accept the Vedic authority, then he's not a authority. Vedānta philosophy, there are different parties in India. The Māyā... Generally, two parties: the Māyāvāda philosophers and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, or the impersonalists and the personalists. Otherwise, there is no difference. Ultimately, the Māyāvādī philosophers they say that God, the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal, and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, they say in the ultimate end, the Absolute Truth is Person and He is, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). This is little difference, and they stick to their position and they fight. Fight means by philosophical arguments. That is going on since a very long time.

Because Caitanya Mahāprabhu defeated the Māyāvādī philosophers, many other scholars also began to meet Him personally and talk with Him, argue with Him.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

By Caitanya Mahāprabhu to the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. They were convinced with the arguments and presentation of Lord Caitanya. And from that day, not only the sannyāsīs, but also the people in general, they also became very much admirer of Lord Caitanya. So,

lokera saṅghaṭṭa āise prabhure dekhite
nānā śāstre paṇḍita āise śāstra vicārite

And because He defeated the Māyāvādī philosophers, many other scholars also began to meet Him personally and talk with Him, argue with Him.

So this was going on naturally. Whenever a man becomes prominent, so many others, they come to challenge him. That is natural sequence.

There is the important point of Māyāvādī philosophers. Every one of them, they say that "I am God," but actually he thinks within himself that "What kind of God I am?" That is the position.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

There is the important point of Māyāvādī philosophers. Every one of them, they say that "I am God," but actually he thinks within himself that "What kind of God I am?" That is the position. But for argument's sake they will play so many things in support of their views, but actually, any sane man will think that "What kind of God I am? I cannot defend myself from the slightest attack of this material nature, and still I claim..." But they cannot admit frankly. They think like that. That is being admitted here by the chief disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, that "Although we say, 'Yes, this is...,' but it does not appeal to our mind." He is frankly saying.

śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-vākya dṛḍha satya māni
kali-kāle sannyāse 'saṁsāra' nāhi jini

Now he says that "What Lord Caitanya, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, has said, that is very nice. And we simply accept this sannyāsa order. Oh, that will not help us. Simply by accepting, changing the garment, colored garment, and without understanding anything properly or dealing properly, that is not the way for salvation."

That is the way of Māyāvādī philosophers. They scrutinize that "This is māyā and this is Brahman"; therefore they are called Māyāvādīs.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

It is said there that śreyaḥ-sṛtim, the real path of salvation, śreyaḥ-sṛtim, bhaktim, that is devotional service, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Śreyah-sṛtiṁ bhaktim. Bhaktim udasya te vibho. If somebody gives up the path of devotional service, kliśyanti ye kevala-bodha-labdhaye, and wastes time simply for understanding that "This is not Brahman, this is not Brahman..." That is the way of Māyāvādī philosophers. They scrutinize that "This is māyā and this is Brahman"; therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. Simply, what is not Brahman... They say it is one, but simply they distinguish, "This is māyā, this is Brahman." Why this is māyā? They say, wherefrom the māyā comes? Then it becomes dualism actually. Although they say that "We are monists, one," but they explain that this māyā is illusion. Māyā is temporary, and actually, everything is one.

For a devotee there are so many engagements, but the Māyāvādī philosopher takes it for granted that these devotees' activities... "They are cooking for Kṛṣṇa or they are offering prasādam to Kṛṣṇa, they are decorating Kṛṣṇa, or they are singing for Kṛṣṇa, glorifying Kṛṣṇa—these are all mayic activities," they say.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

So the Bhāgavata says, simply to understand "This is not Brahman, this is māyā, this is not Brahman," if you go on speculating and without any interest for devotional service or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then teṣām eṣa kleśala eva śiṣyate. So their advancement in self-realization is simply troublesome. Troublesome. They simply take the trouble of discriminating that "This is māyā, this is Brahman. This is false, this is reality." Because they have no other engagement. For a devotee there are so many engagements, but the Māyāvādī philosopher takes it for granted that these devotees' activities... "They are cooking for Kṛṣṇa or they are offering prasādam to Kṛṣṇa, they are decorating Kṛṣṇa, or they are singing for Kṛṣṇa, glorifying Kṛṣṇa—these are all mayic activities," they say. Because this bhakti-mārga is not appealing to them. They simply want to... Similarly, the bhaktas also say that "You are simply wasting time. Real thing is Kṛṣṇa. Just engage yourself in the service of Kṛṣṇa." They also say, "Kṛṣṇa is also māyā." According to them, Kṛṣṇa is also māyā. And Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad-gītā says that they are fools.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

The Māyāvādī philosophers, the atheists, they are claiming that "Who is God? I am God." That is incomplete knowledge.
Sri Isopanisad Invocation Lecture Excerpt -- Los Angeles, April 27, 1970:

So here it is stated, "There is complete facility for the small complete units, namely the living being, to realize the complete." To realize the complete, what is my relationship with the complete. "And all forms of incompleteness are experienced only on account of incomplete knowledge of the complete." We are thinking that "I am equal to God. I am God." This is incomplete knowledge. But if you know that "I am part and parcel of God," that is complete knowledge. The Māyāvādī philosophers, the atheists, they are claiming that "Who is God? I am God." That is incomplete knowledge. "The human form of life is a complete manifestation of the consciousness." Now, this complete consciousness you can revive in this human form of life. The cats and dogs, they cannot understand. So if you don't take the facility, then you are ātma-hanaḥ janāḥ. You are killing yourself, committing suicide. As it is said, ātmā andhena tamasāvṛtāḥ tāṁs te pretyābhigacchanti ye ke cātma-hano janāḥ. After death, pretyābhi... Pretya means after death. So don't be ātma-hano janāḥ. Utilize your life in complete facility. That is our business.

The Māyāvādī philosopher says that because the energies are not outside Brahman, therefore they're all the same. This is monism.
Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 7 -- Los Angeles, May 10, 1970:

Fire is the original cause of heat and light. Similarly, whatever we see within this universe, within material world and spiritual world, the spiritual world is expansion of Kṛṣṇa's internal energy, and this material world is Kṛṣṇa's expansion of external energy, and we living entities, we are expansion of marginal energy. So three energies. He has got multi-energies. All the multi-energies grouped in three headings: antaraṅga-zakti, bahiraṅga-śakti, taṭastha-śakti. Antaraṅga-śakti means internal energy, bahiraṅga śakti means external energy, and taṭastha-śakti means these living entities. We are śakti; we are energy. We are not the energetic. The Māyāvādī philosopher says that because the energies are not outside Brahman, therefore they're all the same. This is monism. Our Vaiṣṇava philosophy is that energy (is) simultaneously one and different. When you perceive heat, we understand, "Oh, there is fire." But that does not mean that because I am getting some heat, I am on the fire. Try to understand this philosophy. Therefore here it is said vijānataḥ.

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

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.

So brahmajyoti, the Māyāvāda philosophers, they do not know that beyond brahmajyoti there is anything. Here is the Vedic evidence, that the brahmajyoti is just like golden effulgence.
Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 13-15 -- Los Angeles, May 18, 1970:

From the Kṛṣṇa planet the effulgence is coming out. So one has to penetrate this effulgence. That is being prayed here. Hiraṇmayena pātreṇa satyasya. The real Absolute Truth, Kṛṣṇa, His planet is covered by the Brahman effulgence. So the devotee is praying, "Kindly move it. Wind it so that I can see You really." So brahmajyoti, the Māyāvāda philosophers, they do not know that beyond brahmajyoti there is anything. Here is the Vedic evidence, that the brahmajyoti is just like golden effulgence. Hiraṇmayena pātreṇa. This is covering the real face of the Supreme Lord. Tat tvaṁ pūṣann apāvṛṇu. So, "You are sustainer, You are maintainer. Kindly uncover this so that we can see You actually, Your face."

Festival Lectures

Kṛṣṇa is not born, but He appeared as the son. God is never born. Unborn. Therefore the Māyāvādī philosophers, they mistake to know Kṛṣṇa.
Gundica Marjanam Cleansing of the Gundica Temple, Lecture (the day before Ratha-yatra) -- San Francisco, July 4, 1970:

So Kṛṣṇa, He is born of a kṣatriya father. He is not born, but He appeared as the son. God is never born. Unborn. Therefore the Māyāvādī philosophers, they mistake to know Kṛṣṇa. They think that Kṛṣṇa is born, then how He can be God? But actually, Kṛṣṇa was not born from the womb of His mother. He appeared in four hands before His mother, and the mother was afraid that "My brother Kaṁsa, was awaiting to kill God, and now God is here in four hands. Immediately he'll kill." The mother forgets that "My son, if He's God, how He can be killed?" But the mother's affection is always like that. Just like Kṛṣṇa, when He was going to attack a demon as a boy, Yaśodā-mā, mother Yaśodā, would ask her husband Nanda Mahārāja, "Why do you allow this boy to go out? Why don't you lock Him?" So that is mother's affection.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they think themselves as puruṣa.
Janmastami Lord Sri Krsna's Appearance Day -- Bhagavad-gita 7.5 Lecture -- Vrndavana, August 11, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa has explained this material world, bhūmir āpaḥ analo vāyuḥ. Now, this is also nature, prakṛti. There is another nature, prakṛti. Prakṛti means strī-liṅga, woman. Jīva-bhūta, the living entities, are not mentioned in this connection as puruṣa. Not puruṣa. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they think themselves as puruṣa. The karmīs also, they think they are puruṣa. Puruṣa means enjoyer, and prakṛti means enjoyed. But Kṛṣṇa does not say that the living entity is puruṣa. He says prakṛti. Prakṛti is always subordinate to the puruṣa. That is the natural way.

It's not that Rāma and Kṛṣṇa, as the Māyāvādī philosophers say, that the impersonal Brahman appears in form. This is rascaldom.
Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 30, 1968:

So this material world is full of anxiety. I have several times explained, asad-grahāt. Because we have accepted something which is not eternal. Anything which is not eternal will always create disturbance. But because the Lord is eternal, therefore He is śāntam. Whenever we'll find the face of Lord Kṛṣṇa or Rāma, Viṣṇu, you'll find smiling with peace. As soon as you'll see you become also peaceful. His very face is so nice. Śāntam. And śāśvatam. Śāṣvatam means original. It's not that Rāma and Kṛṣṇa, as the Māyāvādī philosophers say, that the impersonal Brahman appears in form. This is rascaldom. Actually, He appears in His own form, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). We are accepting this form not by our own potency. I have accepted this body, you have accepted this body, not by your own will. You have been forced to accept a particular type of body according to your work. You cannot make choice.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they can think of greatness, but Kṛṣṇa can become small also.
Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 30, 1968:

Just like Parīkṣit Mahārāja, when he was within the womb of his mother, attacked by the atomic energy, so Kṛṣṇa entered the womb of his mother and saved him. Just imagine how small He became. Therefore aprameyam means you cannot measure how He is small, how He is great. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they can think of greatness, but Kṛṣṇa can become small also. Just like Jagannātha, He is the master, He is the proprietor of the whole world, but He has assumed such a nice form that He is within our reach. We can serve Him very convenient. This is God. Therefore aprameyam, immeasurable. Immeasurable does not mean simply great. Immeasurable means you cannot measure even how small He is. Aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān. He is greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest.

The Māyāvādī philosophers they are sometimes surprised that "How Swamijī is Vedanti, at the same time bhakti?" But actually they do not know Vedānta means bhakti.
Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 30, 1968:

Kṛṣṇa says that all the Vedas, including Vedānta... If somebody says the Vedānta is describing impersonal Brahman, but Kṛṣṇa says that "How it can do?" Vedānta-vid, "I am the actual knower of Vedānta, I am actual composer of Vedānta. So I am the Supreme." So these Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot understand. They think that Vedānta... In India the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are known as Vedāntī. Therefore my society, Vaiṣṇava society, has particularly given me this title, Bhaktivedanta. Vedānta means bhakti. It is a challenge to the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. This particular title was given after due consideration that my humble self should be awarded this title. It is new title amongst the Vaiṣṇava society. So the Māyāvādī philosophers they are sometimes surprised that "How Swamijī is Vedanti, at the same time bhakti?" But actually they do not know Vedānta means bhakti. Real Vedānta commentary is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Brahma-sūtra means this Vedānta-sūtra. Vedānta-vedyam. Śiva-viriñci, that Lord Śiva or Lord Brahmā, they are trying to understand the Supreme.

Kṛṣṇa is sitting within the heart of everyone. So Māyāvādī philosopher wants to kill God, or Kṛṣṇa. They want to make Kṛṣṇa as zero.
His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, SB 6.3.24 -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

That is also condemned in Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ (BG 7.15). You'll find amongst them very, very learned men, very, very good scholar. They can quote... Intelligent men. Because their Māyāvādī commentary, they can utilize, and Kṛṣṇa gives them intelligence also, that "You misuse this verse in this way because you want..." Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān (BG 16.19). Kṛṣṇa is sitting within the heart of everyone. So Māyāvādī philosopher wants to kill God, or Kṛṣṇa. Or nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi, they want to make Kṛṣṇa as zero or Kṛṣṇa as nirākāra. So Kṛṣṇa also gives them intelligence, "Yes, you just put forward this logic, that logic, that logic, and you prove." That is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ: "I am sitting in everyone's heart." Mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca (BG 15.15). Mattaḥ, "Through Me, from Me, all remembrance or memorization takes place."

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they mistake that "Param Brahman or myself—all the same." No. That is not the fact.
His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, Evening -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

So the Māyāvādī philosophers, they mistake that "Param Brahman or myself—all the same." No. That is not the fact. Therefore, without having shelter of the Param Brahman, he falls down again in this material world. Ārūhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adho 'nādṛta yuṣmad aṅghrayaḥ (SB 10.2.32). Because he has no information of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, he falls down again to the material platform. So just like pendulum, the clock pendulum, tock, tock, tock—sometimes he's renouncer and sometimes he's enjoyer. Sometimes he's accepting... For example... Don't take it otherwise. Just like our national father, he renounced everything. But renounced for what? Greater enjoyment, that his countrymen will be happy. "The Britishers will go away, and we shall get independence, and we shall be enjoyer." You see? So this renouncement or that... Again, renouncement for enjoyment. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say "Renounce this whole..." Brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. Jagan mithyā. "But I want to be one with that Supreme." That is for greater enjoyment. "I have failed to enjoy this world even after becoming prime minister or big man. Now I'll become God."

Initiation Lectures

Father is father, son is son. This, I mean to say, variety, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they do not understand.
Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

One should not put the Supreme Personality of Godhead... Just like the Māyāvādī says, "The demigods and God, they are all the same." Because according to them, God has no form, so any form you accept, imagine, as the form of God, it is as good. But that is not the fact. There are demigods and the Supreme God also. So we should not place... Just like demigod, Lord Brahmā or Lord Śiva, Indra, Candra, they are demigods. So we should not place... In one sense, there is nothing except God, because everything expansion of God. But that does not mean I am equal to God. I am also expansion of God, that's a fact. Just like father and the son. Son is the expansion of father; still, the son is not the father. Don't mistake that. There is no difference between father and son because the same body is expanded as son, but still, the son is not the father. Father is father, son is son. This, I mean to say, variety, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they do not understand.

No interpretation in the holy... Just like Kṛṣṇa, the Māyāvādī philosophers may... Just like Gandhi has written, "Pāṇḍava means the senses; Kurukṣetra means this body; Kṛṣṇa means the mind." No such nonsense interpretation.
Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

Revatīnandana: "The fifth offense is interpreting the holy names of God."

Prabhupāda: Yes. No interpretation in the holy... Just like Kṛṣṇa, the Māyāvādī philosophers may... Just like Gandhi has written, "Pāṇḍava means the senses; Kurukṣetra means this body; Kṛṣṇa means the mind." No such nonsense interpretation. Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Yes. Go on.

Revatīnandana: "The sixth offense is committing sin on the strength of chanting."

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

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.

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:

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."

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that so long we are contaminated in the māyā, we can adopt any means of self-realization, and after self-realization, when we become liberated, we become one with the Supreme and there is no more any work.
Lecture at Initiation Fire Sacrifice -- Los Angeles, July 16, 1969:

So this mantra suggests that either you are contaminated or not contaminated... It is not that... The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that so long we are contaminated in the māyā, we can adopt any means of self-realization, and after self-realization, when we become liberated, we become one with the Supreme and there is no more any work. This is partially true. Partially true means when actually you realize yourself, then you have no material activities. That is the sign of self-realization.

Kīrtana means Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana. Not any other kīrtana. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they introduce so many other kīrtanas.
Initiation Lecture -- Boston, December 26, 1969:

Just like doctors, they go, treat patients suffering from infectious disease, but they keep themselves always unaffected. They know the remedial measures, antiseptic, prophylactic processes. So this prophylactic antiseptic process is Kṛṣṇa-kīrtanam. Paraṁ vijayate śrī-kṛṣṇa-kīrtanam. That is Lord Caitanya's blessing. Paraṁ vijayate. All glories to the saṅkīrtana, śrī-kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana. Kīrtana means Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana. Not any other kīrtana. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they introduce so many other kīrtanas. No. Kīrtana means Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma... Or any name glorifying the name of the Lord. That is kīrtana. But this Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra is especially recommended in this age, and Lord Caitanya personally chanted, so we should follow.

There are many Māyāvādī philosophers, they say "You can chant any name, either Kṛṣṇa or Kali or Durgā or..." And another mission says, "Any nonsense name you can chant. That doesn't matter." But our Vedic śāstra, scripture, does not say that.
Initiation Sri Ranga, Romaharsana, Sridhara Dasas -- Los Angeles, July 3, 1970:

Those who are impersonalists, they think that "After all, the Absolute Truth is void or impersonal. So we can imagine any form." The Māyāvādī philosopher says, sādhakānām hitarthaya brahmaṇo rūpaḥ kalpanaḥ. "Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, He is formless, but because we cannot concentrate our mind in the formless, therefore let us imagine any form we like, and that will make me advance." This is not the philosophy. The Absolute Truth, Supreme Personality of Godhead, He has His form and He is not equal, nobody is equal to Him. So according to Vedic literature, you cannot put Viṣṇu-tattva even on the equal footing with Brahmā and Śiva. His position, Viṣṇu-tattva, is mahato mahīyān. He's the greatest of the greatest. So this is offense. There are many Māyāvādī philosophers, they say "You can chant any name, either Kṛṣṇa or Kali or Durgā or..." And another mission says, "Any nonsense name you can chant. That doesn't matter." But our Vedic śāstra, scripture, does not say that. It is said, harer nāma. Not any other name. Harer nāma. only the name of Hari. Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ (SB 7.5.23). To hear and chant about whom? Viṣṇu. It is clearly stated there. So we have to chant Viṣṇu name, we have to chant Harer name, Hari and Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa. They're the same.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, there is a great missionary activities in India. They have got their branch here also. They propagate that "You may worship any demigod, goddess Kali or this or that. Everything is all right."
Initiation Lecture -- Los Angeles, July 13, 1971:

This is a misconception that especially in your country, in the Western countries, it is advertised that the Hindus have many Gods. We are not concerned with the Hindu-Muslim; we are concerned with Kṛṣṇa. So actually in the Vedas accepted one God. Eka brahma dvitīya nāsti. There is no second. God cannot be two. God is one. It is a misconception, there are many Gods. There are Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that "You worship any demigod. It is the same thing." They misinterpret the Bhagavad-gītā śloka, ye yathā māṁ prapadyante: (BG 4.11). "You can worship Me in any way." The Māyāvādī philosophers, there is a great missionary activities in India. They have got their branch here also. They propagate that "You may worship any demigod, goddess Kali or this or that. Everything is all right." No. God is one, and that is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān (SB 1.3.28). Even incarnation of God, they are part and parcel. They are bigger part.

Wedding Ceremonies

The Vaiṣṇava, they accept that the Absolute Truth is person, and the Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that Absolute Truth is impersonal. That is the difference.
Paramananda & Satyabhama's Wedding -- Montreal, July 22, 1968:

Because everyone, according to Vedic system, everyone has to follow the Vedānta-sūtra. There are two section of philosophers in India, approved; not, I mean to say, manufactured philosopher, mental speculators, but actually those who are counted valuable. There are two classes of philosophers, namely the impersonalist and personalist. The Vaiṣṇava, they accept that the Absolute Truth is person, and the Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that Absolute Truth is impersonal. That is the difference. Otherwise their process of other paraphernalia, execution of understanding, is almost the same. Now our Vaiṣṇava philosopher's argument is that how the Absolute Truth can be impersonal? Because here, in this world, in our experience, we see everything personal. So unless the personality, the individuality, or the individual attraction is there in the Absolute Truth, how they can be represented here in the relative truth?

General Lectures

The Māyāvādī philosopher, they think that liberation is the ultimate goal. Just like in Buddha philosophy, the nirvāṇa.
Lecture on Teachings of Lord Caitanya -- Seattle, September 25, 1968:

Here is one point. He says that "You have liberated me. Now let me know what is my duty." This is very important point. The Māyāvādī philosopher, they think that liberation is the ultimate goal. Just like in Buddha philosophy, the nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa means annihilation of material existence. Nirvāṇa. They think that as soon as there is annihilation of this material existence, that is the final goal. The Māyāvādī philosopher or the impersonalist, they think that not only to get freedom from this material existence, but to remain in spiritual status, jñānam, simply in the knowledge that "I am spirit soul. I am merged into the spirit soul," that is their goal. But here, the Sanātana Gosvāmī, he belongs to the Vaiṣṇava philosophy. He says, "Now what is my duty?" That means after liberation it is not that everything is void or activity is stopped. No.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they want to be one with Kṛṣṇa or one with Lord, but our philosophy is to become more than Kṛṣṇa.
Lecture -- Los Angeles, November 13, 1968:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is, I mean to say, afraid, who is fearful by everyone, Yaśodā..., and Kṛṣṇa has become fearful to Yaśodā: "My dear mother, kindly do not bind Me. I shall obey your orders." So Yaśodā has become more than God, more than Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they want to be one with Kṛṣṇa or one with Lord, but our philosophy is to become more than Kṛṣṇa. (laughter) Why one with Kṛṣṇa? More than Kṛṣṇa. And actually He accepts. He makes His devotee more than Kṛṣṇa. Just like Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa took the part of a driver, and he was the hero of the fight. Actually, Kṛṣṇa was the hero, but He gave position to His devotee: "You become the hero, I shall become your charioteer." That's all.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that united means the individual soul has no more any separate existence, monism.
Lecture -- Los Angeles, January 15, 1969:

So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness means we have to increase our attachment for Kṛṣṇa to the perfectional stage, when there is no more order, but automatically. Automatic. That is required. Mayy asakta-manaḥ pārtha yogaṁ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ. That yoga system... At that time there is no yoga. It is already... Yoga system means a process which helps uniting with the Supreme. That is called yoga system. But when there is spontaneous love, that is not a yoga system. It is yoga already. United. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that united means the individual soul has no more any separate existence, monism. They become one. But Vaiṣṇava philosophy, they say they become one, but at the same time they remain separate. So these things are to be realized. As we make advance in spontaneous love for God, then these things become automatically revealed.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, impersonalists, they want not only extinction of these material pangs but they want to be situated in spiritual consciousness only.
Lecture -- London, September 14, 1969:

That material desire we, every one of us in conditioned state, we want. Sometimes we compete. We become very much obstinate, that "I must have this," and we work very hard. Just like in Europe, that Hitler, he wanted supremacy over Europe, and he fought very valiantly. But at the end he became vanquished. Similarly, in the material world we have got so many desires and we want to fulfill it—and for which we work very hard. But at the end it becomes frustrated. That is the nature of the material world. You cannot have anything here permanent, however hard you work... You may achieve that. Not only in this material world. Even you achieve the liberation, perfectional stage, as the impersonal philosophers want. They want nirvāṇa. Just like Buddhists, they want nirvāṇa, extinction of this material conditional life. That is called nirvāṇa. And the Māyāvādī philosophers, impersonalists, they want not only extinction of these material pangs but they want to be situated in spiritual consciousness only. But our Vaiṣṇava philosophy is that you cannot keep yourself in spiritual consciousness unless you are fully engaged in spiritual activities. That is the perfect philosophy.

The Māyāvādī philosopher says that "I am God, but I am, by māyā, I am thinking I am not God. So by meditation I shall become God." But that means he is under the punishment of māyā.
Lecture -- Boston, December 23, 1969 :

God is giving facility to become one of His associates. (indistinct). So, nobody is seeking after God. When you will seek after God, God is situated within your heart, He will give you all facility. And so long you want to become God, you will be cheated, because you are trying to cheat yourself. How you can become God? First thing is that, you are trying to become God, then how you became a dog? God cannot become a dog. God is always God. The Māyāvādī philosopher says that "I am God, but I am, by māyā, I am thinking I am not God. So by meditation I shall become God." But that means he is under the punishment of māyā. So, God has become under the influence of māyā. How is it that? God is great, and if he is under the influence of māyā, then māyā becomes great. How God becomes great? So the real idea is, so long we shall continue this hallucination, that "I am God," "There is no God," "Everybody is God," so many things like that, there is no question of getting favor of God.

Māyā does not know how the hairs are growing, and he is God. Just see. "I am God." This has become a fashion, dangerous fashion. And these Māyāvādī philosophers, daridra-nārāyaṇa, this Nārāyaṇa, that Nārāyaṇa.
Speech to Maharaja and Maharani and Conversations Before and After -- Indore, December 11, 1970:

Abodha means no knowledge, and jāta means born. By birth he is fool, and he is claiming, "I am God." By birth he's a fool, and he's claiming, "I am God." Just see. This is illusion. This is the māyā. He cannot... He does not know how the hairs are growing, and he is God. Just see. "I am God." This has become a fashion, dangerous fashion. And these Māyāvādī philosophers, daridra-nārāyaṇa, this Nārāyaṇa, that Nārāyaṇa... Because Nārāyaṇa is there, therefore he's Nārāyaṇa. Because you are within your coat, therefore you are coat. This is their argument. Because I am in the room, I am room. Is that very sound argument? Because Nārāyaṇa is there, therefore he is Nārāyaṇa. Aiye.

The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks that as soon as he has given up, liberated from the matter, now he has become God.
Lecture at Krsna Niketan -- Gorakhpur, February 16, 1971:

My Godbrother, there was one Bharati Mahārāja. He was... (laughter) So Prabhupāda used to criticize, "Oh, this man is getting fatty." And actually, he was not very... Mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ (BG 9.13). You have to take shelter; therefore you are marginal. You have to take shelter of the material energy or the spiritual energy. When you take shelter of the material energy, you materially develop. When you take spiritual energy, you spiritually develop. That's all. Therefore your position is marginal. Daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ. Mahātmā, those who are mahātmās, they have given up. The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks that as soon as he has given up, liberated from the matter, now he has become God. No. You give up this material energy, you have to take up spiritual energy. Mahāmāyā, yogamāyā.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they are giving up this world as false, māyā.
Pandal Lecture at Cross Maidan -- Bombay, March 26, 1971:

Phalgu-vairāgya means inferior renunciation, or false renunciation. And yukta-vairāgya means actual renunciation. What is that difference? Prāpañcikatayā buddhyā. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they are giving up this world as false, māyā. Prāpañcikatayā buddhyā hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ. Just like sometimes we are criticized because we are using the advantages offered by the material science. Just like I am using this microphone. So the people may criticize, "If this world is false, the material world is false, then why should I take advantage of this material product?" They expect that those who are spiritualists, they should go to Himalayas, giving up, giving up everything material and meditate in a solitary place, in snow-covered area. But Vaiṣṇava philosophy does not think like that.

According to the leader of Māyāvāda philosophers, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, his perfection of life begins when one takes to sannyāsa.
Pandal Lecture at Cross Maidan -- Bombay, March 26, 1971:

Just like Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). That does not mean that it was told to Arjuna... So Arjuna did not give up his profession as a fighter, but he submitted to Kṛṣṇa. He Krsnized the fighting principle. He fought for Kṛṣṇa, not that he gave up fighting. In the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā he was a fighter, soldier. And at the end of his understanding Bhagavad-gītā he remained a fighter and a soldier, but his consciousness was changed. That is the difference. Similarly, the activities of this material world which is going on, we do not say like the Māyāvāda philosophers, that brahma satya jagan mithyā. According to the leader of Māyāvāda philosophers, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, his perfection of life begins when one takes to sannyāsa. The Śaṅkarācārya philosophers, they do not admit anyone as realized soul unless he has accepted sannyāsa. But Vaiṣṇava philosophy is not like that. Vaiṣṇava philosophy is that you may remain in any condition of life—it doesn't matter—but you become Kṛṣṇa conscious. That's all.

When Kṛṣṇa appears within this material world, even though He assumes a so-called material body, according to the Māyāvādī philosophers, that is not material. He can change into spiritual. That is His omnipotency.
Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 10, 1971:

So Kṛṣṇa can change superior energy into inferior energy and inferior energy into superior energy. That is His omnipotency. As such, when Kṛṣṇa appears within this material world, even though He assumes a so-called material body, according to the Māyāvādī philosophers, that is not material. He can change into spiritual. That is His omnipotency. Sambhavāmy ātmā-māyayā (BG 4.6). Just like the electrical engineer, the same electrical energy, he can use it for refrigerator and he can use it for heater. It is his manipulation. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa, by His Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, He can turn this material world into spiritual world simply by changing the consciousness. That is in His power. Therefore anything in Kṛṣṇa consciousness should not be considered as material.

Just like Māyāvādī philosopher, they say brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. But jagat, not mithyā, but temporary. And still, even if it is mithyā, false, it can be turned into truth by this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.
Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 10, 1971:

That anything... Take for example, just like Māyāvādī philosopher, they say brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. But jagat, not mithyā, but temporary. And still, even if it is mithyā, false, it can be turned into truth by this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. That is possible. Nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe yukta-vairāgyam ucyate. So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is so nice that it can transform the matter into spirit. How? Not transform, but the faith or feature is changed. Consciousness is changed. The same example as we have several times recited, that you take an iron rod, put into the fire. It becomes warm, warmer. But when it is red hot, it is no longer iron; it is fire. If you touch that rod, hot iron, in any place, it will burn.

The Māyāvādī philosophers cannot accommodate this idea, how a person can be the cause of creation, maintenance, and annihilation.
Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, April 10, 1971:

Aham: "I am." The Māyāvādī philosophers cannot accommodate this idea, how a person can be the cause of creation, maintenance, and annihilation. But Kṛṣṇa here says that ahaṁ kṛtsnasya. Ahaṁ kṛtsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7), because He is the origin of all energies. We have already understood that the whole manifestation is nothing but, I mean to say, demonstration of the different types of energies of the Supreme Lord. That is confirmed in the Vedas: parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). The Absolute Truth has varieties of energies, and they are so perfect and so perfectly working that it appears...Svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca.

We may be little God, but our position qualitatively is as good as God. The Māyāvādī philosopher, they take it that we are as good as God in full strength. No. That is not.
Lecture -- Detroit, July 16, 1971:

Every one of us suffering more or less, because this is a place where suffering is the condition of life. But we forget. That is called ajñāna. Ajñāna-timirāndhasya. Ajñāna means that we living entities, being part and parcel of God, our position is as good as God. We may be little God, but our position qualitatively is as good as God. The Māyāvādī philosopher, they take it that we are as good as God in full strength. No. That is not. Just like part and parcel, anyone can understand, a little part of any good thing... Suppose gold. A little particle of gold, it is gold. That's a fact. But it is not as valuable as the lump of gold. The lump of gold is more valuable. The mine of gold and a particle of gold: particle of gold is also gold, but not equal to the gold mine. So the Absolute Truth, God, is just like gold mine, and we, every one of us, everything—a part and parcel of that gold mine.

The Māyāvādī philosophers say that for the benefit or for the facility of the neophyte progressing in the spiritual knowledge, we have to imagine some form of the Brahman.
Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 20, 1971:

So it is a great science. Bhāgavata-tattva vijñānam. It is not that you can create your Bhagavān by concoction, imagination. Just like the Māyāvādī philosophers say that sādhakānāṁ hitvārthāya brahmaṇo rūpa-kalpanaḥ(?): for the benefit or for the facility of the neophyte progressing in the spiritual knowledge, we have to imagine some form of the Brahman. That is not the fact. We do not find these things in the Vedic literature. We find in the Vedic literature that the Absolute Truth is realized in three features—Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān. The substance is one, but according to our capacity, we understand differently.

Jīva-tattva, as the Māyāvādī philosophers, they think that jīva-tattva can be God or jīva can become God. That is a false theory. It has no value according to Vedic scripture.
Speech at Gaudiya Math Center -- Visakhapatnam, February 19, 1972:

Kṛṣṇa expands Himself, eko bahu syāma. According to Vedic description, the first is viṣṇu-tattva. Viṣṇu-tattva and jīva-tattva. The viṣṇu-tattva is called svāṁśa. There is no difference between one viṣṇu-tattva to another. Just like (indistinct) Rāmacandra, He is viṣṇu-tattva. Nārāyaṇa, viṣṇu-tattva. Balarāma, viṣṇu-tattva. So there is no difference in power. They are called svāṁśa, svāṁśa-vistṛra. And there are other vistṛra. That is called vibhinnāṁśa vistṛra, separated part and parcel. We are, we the jīvas, we are also expansion of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. But we are a small, separated part and parcel, whereas viṣṇu-tattva expansion, They are full in power. The viṣṇu-tattvas are known as puruṣa-tattva, whereas the jīva-tattva is known as śakti-tattva. Jīva-tattva, as the Māyāvādī philosophers, they think that jīva-tattva can be God or jīva can become God. That is a false theory. It has no value according to Vedic scripture.

Just like the example is sometimes given to mistake a rope as snake. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they give. They say it is māyā. But it is not māyā.
Lecture -- Jakarta, February 26, 1973:

The Vedānta-sūtra says janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) it also comes from Parabrahman. So if Parabrahman has no such tendency how to enjoy, wherefrom this so-called love in this material world between young boy and young girl comes? There cannot be any existing. It is only perverted reflection of that pleasure potency of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. It is only perverted reflection. It is not false. It is temporary, perverted. Just like the example is sometimes given to mistake a rope as snake. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they give. They say it is māyā. But it is not māyā. When you mistake a snake as..., mistake a rope as a snake, that is not māyā. That is illusion. You can call it māyā. But the snake is there. You cannot say, because it is rope, therefore there is no snake. No. Snake is there. Otherwise, how it comes to the idea of snake? The snake is a fact, but you are mistaking the rope as snake. That is your mistake

The difficulty is that this Māyāvādī philosopher, they cannot understand that in the spiritual world there is also pleasure. Their foolish brain cannot accommodate.
Lecture -- Jakarta, February 26, 1973:

A person, ordinary person, to realize brahmānanda, he gives up everything material, do you think Kṛṣṇa, the Parabrahman, is enjoying something material? Just try to understand. Kṛṣṇa does not enjoy anything. He's Parabrahman. For understanding Brahman pleasure, a person is recommended to give up everything material. And when the Parabrahman wants to enjoy, does it means that He's enjoying something material? This is our nescience(?). This is our misunderstanding. When Parabrahman enjoys, He... But the difficulty is that this Māyāvādī philosopher, they cannot understand that in the spiritual world there is also pleasure. Their foolish brain cannot accommodate. Because here in this material world they have got very bad experience of this material... They want to make the spiritual world as zero or imperson due to less intelligence. But actually, real life, real pleasure, eternal pleasure is there in the spiritual world, not in this material world.

Kṛṣṇa is not an imagination. As the Māyāvādī philosophers, they think of imagining the form of God—Kṛṣṇa's not that type of God.
Lecture -- Jakarta, February 27, 1973:

Kṛṣṇa is brahmaṇya-deva and is surabhīr abhipālayantam (Bs. 5.29). The surabhī cows.... Why they're called surabhī cows? Surabhī cows means you can take that milk from surabhī cows as much as you require and as many times as you like. Here in the material world the cows are there, you can take milk from the cows utmost twice, and not as much as you like; as much as she likes to deliver, you can take. But surabhī cows, because they are in the spiritual world, you can draw as much milk as you can, and as many times as you can. But such cows are taken..., tendered by Lord Kṛṣṇa, surabhīr abhipālayantam. These are the descriptions in the Vedic literature about Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is not an imagination. As the Māyāvādī philosophers, they think of imagining the form of God—Kṛṣṇa's not that type of God. He's described in the Vedas, Kṛṣṇa: kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28).

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say, "No, there is no specific difference. This is māyā." But we Vaiṣṇava, we don't say that.
Lecture on Science of Krsna -- Hyderabad, April 14, 1975:

But still there is specific differences. That is called viśiṣṭa. 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.

Māyāvādī philosopher, they take the shelter of Vedic literature and indirectly, directly, they try to wipe out the existence of God.
Lecture -- Bhuvanesvara, January 29, 1977, (with Oriyan translator):

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has therefore clearly said that this Māyāvādī, nirākāravādī, is more dangerous than the Śūnyavādī. Śūnyavādī, they publicly declare, "There is no God," just like modern population, that "There is no need of God." Asatyam aprathiṣṭhaṁ te jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). That is also described in the Bhagavad-gītā. The atheist class, they say that "This world is asatya. There is no meaning." Asatyam jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). "And there is no God." We can understand that they are atheist. (break)... Māyāvādī philosopher, they take the shelter of Vedic literature and indirectly, directly, they try to wipe out the existence of God. (break) The Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore has said, māyāvādī-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: (CC Madhya 6.169) "If you hear from a Māyāvādī, nirākāravādī, then you are doomed." You cannot understand about God at any time. (break) So our request is that if you at all want to understand what is God, don't go to the Māyāvādī or Śūnyavādi, but try to understand about God from God Himself.

Because the Māyāvādī philosophers, they interpret Vedic mantras by grammatical jugglery, therefore Śaṅkarācārya has warned that "Your grammatical jugglery, this dukṛn-pratyaya, karaṇe, will not save you."
General Lecture -- (location & date unknown):

Because the Māyāvādī philosophers, they interpret Vedic mantras by grammatical jugglery, therefore Śaṅkarācārya has warned that "Your grammatical jugglery, this dukṛn-pratyaya, karaṇe, will not save you." Mūḍha-mate: "You foolish person, you kindly take shelter of Govinda." Bhaja govinda. So this is the verdict of all ācāryas. So our point is that this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is nothing like manufactured religious principle. No. It is authorized. There is great background, all these, supported by all the ācāryas and summarized by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And we have got immense literature to support this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. But anyone who is reasonable, they will accept this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness as very simple. And it is actually very simple, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), to surrender unto Kṛṣṇa.

Departure Talks

We have seen that many Māyāvādī philosophers or sannyāsīs, they give up this world as false, but after some time, they again come to this false material world for some philanthropic work, humanitarian work, because they could not get Kṛṣṇa.
Departure Lecture -- London, March 12, 1975:

So this philosophy, to merge into the big Brahman, Supreme Brahman, or effulgence, brahmajyoti, that is not very secure position. It is said in the śāstra that āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ: (SB 10.2.32) they fall down. We have seen that many Māyāvādī philosophers or sannyāsīs, they give up this world as mithyā, false, but after some time, they again come to this false material world for some philanthropic work, humanitarian work, because they could not get Kṛṣṇa. If you have left this world as false, then why you are coming again to give service to the world? No. They could not get. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padam (SB 10.2.32). Paraṁ padam means Brahman. Patanty adhaḥ: "They fall down." Why? Anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ: "Because they neglected the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa." They did not get any shelter.

Philosophy Discussions

The Māyāvādī philosophers support them, that when they eat animals, Vivekananda's philosophy, "So what is there? I am Brahman, he is Brahman, so we become united."
Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: So these rascals, foolish, they are thinking material nature is for our enjoyment. That is the materialistic view. There is a flower. "Nature has produced this flower for me. Everything is for me." Just like in the Bible, Jesus Christ says the animals are given under the protection of man. So they are thinking, "They are given to us for eating. God has given." Suppose I entrust Brahmānanda Swami that you give him protection, but if you think, "He's in my protection. I can eat him..." How intelligent! How magnanimous! They are giving protection by eating. And the Māyāvādī philosophers support them, that when they eat animals, Vivekananda's philosophy, "So what is there? I am Brahman, he is Brahman, so we become united." What is that? And I ask him, "Why don't you go to the tiger Brahman?" Because they are thinking that he is Brahman, the goat is Brahman, so when the man Brahman eats the goat Brahman, they unite. So why don't you unite with the tiger Brahman? This is rascaldom. They are all rascals. Anyone who has no trace of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is a rascal.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they, although they say everything is Brahman, they say this is non-Brahman.
Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: But he wanted to reverse this trend, from abstraction to concretion. He believed that every phenomenal object had its relationship with the whole and that the whole is reality. So in order to understand reality one had to examine every object and relate it to the whole, and to each other, then he would understand what is the truth.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that we are doing. The whole is Kṛṣṇa. And just like, take this material example. The whole is sun. The sunshine expanding, that is also in relation with this whole, and similarly Kṛṣṇa is the whole and everything is relative to Kṛṣṇa. That is our philosophy. We see everything related with Kṛṣṇa and because everything is in relationship with Kṛṣṇa that I do not give up anything. We try to utilize everything for service of Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they, although they say everything is Brahman, they say this is non-Brahman. They say neti, neti, not this, not this. Just like Māyāvādīs, they also say Kṛṣṇa and māyā. This Kṛṣṇa worship is māyā. So we say there is nothing māyā, it is simply illusion; but they say also like that, one, but as soon as Kṛṣṇa actually comes they say Kṛṣṇa is māyā. So our philosophy is that everything is manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's energy.

Now the presentation of water in the desert, that may be false. The Māyāvādī philosophers they do not know.
Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: He says that they are not eternal but that the interaction of forms is an eternal process, that one form interacts with another...

Prabhupāda: They cannot explain it. The real is that this form is not eternal, but there is an eternal form. Just like the water. The form of the water on the desert, that is not fact, neither it is eternal. But there is eternal water. Otherwise wherefrom I get this idea here it is water. There is water. Now the presentation of water in the desert, that may be false. The Māyāvādī philosophers they do not know.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say nothing. We say temporary, just like cloud, you cannot say it is nothing.
Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Śyāmasundara: Last night you said that what is the meaning of the word "nothing." That māyā means "nothing"?

Prabhupāda: You can say like that. Nothing is appearing like something. But we don't say nothing. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say nothing. We say temporary, just like cloud, you cannot say it is nothing.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they, possessing poor fund of knowledge, they want to kill this individuality. But that is not possible. Kṛṣṇa says that you shall remain individual perpetually.
Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Prabhupāda: Now, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they, possessing poor fund of knowledge, they want to kill this individuality. But that is not possible. Kṛṣṇa says that you shall remain individual perpetually. There is no question of stopping. Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūta jīva-loka sanātanaḥ (BG 15.7). They, perpetually you are individual, God is also individual. So to..., killing the individuality is not possible, but this is a false notion that "I kill my individuality and become one with God, then I will be perfect." That is not possible. You cannot become one with God. You keep your individuality. So even though if for the time being you think that "I am now merged in the existence of God," but on account of our individuality you shall again fall down.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, the impersonalists, because they are not willing to serve Kṛṣṇa, they stop willing. They again fall down.
Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: Therefore the Māyāvādī philosophers, the impersonalists, because they are not willing to serve Kṛṣṇa, they stop willing. They again fall down. Vivekananda comes and opens hospitals. Just like your Christian missionaries. Yes. This is there. Willing, you cannot stop. You have to will badly or goodly, or godly. So better try to will godly, then badly will automatically... This is our process. You don't stop willing. Yes, we will—or Kṛṣṇa's service.

The Māyāvādī philosophers, they say brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. The dreamer is fact, but the dream is false. That is one sense it is right.
Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). He has to change. He has got the material body of a dog, he is barking, "I am dog. This is my business, to bark." So this is all desires. So these desires are temporary. By one desire I get one body, then I desire another body, another body, it is going. So therefore in one sense it is dream, that factually he cannot fulfill the desires, like dream. Yes. There are so many different circumstances. They are all temporary. So this, at night you dream, it is say for one hour or two hour. We..., nobody sees one kind of dream for two hours. Say even two hours, then finished, then another dream. So this change of body is also like a big dream. At night we dream, we forget everything about daily activities, and again when the dream is finished, again we come to this body and we do some things. So in that sense all material activities, subtle or gross, they are manifestation of different desires. Therefore the Māyāvādī philosophers, they say brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. The dreamer is fact, but the dream is false. That is one sense it is right. So our Vaiṣṇava philosophy is the same, that the dreamer is the living entity and the dream is temporary. Therefore the dreamer has to be brought to the real, spiritual platform so that these material dreams, either in day or night, they can be extinguished. That is nirvāṇa.

Where is the good and bad? They are all temporary, or false. We don't say false; we say temporary. The Māyāvādī philosopher, they say false.
Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: The other day, yesterday, I was explaining that this side good, this side bad, the same thing. Stool is stool. So this side or that side. But here in this material world, they are accepting this temporary or false, whatever you call, platform, and we are manufacturing in that false platform, temporary platform, "This is good, this is bad." Why? Where is the good and bad? They are all temporary, or false. We don't say false; we say temporary. The Māyāvādī philosopher, they say false. So that is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, that the pains and pleasure of this material world, it is experienced by the (indistinct). The spirit soul does not touch this. It is different. He is not concerned with this material, but he is illusioned that "This pains and pleasure is mine." Therefore Kṛṣṇa advises in the Bhagavad-gītā that this pains and pleasures, simply touching the skin, body. But I am not this body. That is the first instruction. The soul is not this body; therefore this pains and pleasure is on account of this body, material body.

Material mind is not fixed up; rejecting and accepting. This is going on. That Māyāvāda philosophers say as well.
Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Hayagrīva: Well as, as to the nature of the world, Schopenhauer is vague, but he sees material life as basically irrational and whimsical.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that's a fact. Therefore you are changing body. Material mind is not fixed up; rejecting and accepting. This is going on. That Māyāvāda philosophers say as well. The Buddhists also say this material pains and pleasure is account to the material combination. It does not say material combination of this body. Soul is different, but he did not say because during his time they could not understand it. So he did not say that the..., there is soul, but he simply said that this body is combination of material thing; that is the cause of pains and pleasure. So dismantle it. Let earthly part of the body go to earth, watery part of the body, let it... Nirvāṇa, that is. Then I become zero, śūnyavādī. Because he does not get any information of the soul, he takes account of the body. Analyze the body and it is composition of earth, water, air, fire, like that. So when it is dismantled, then where is pains and pleasure? That is his philosophy, śūnyavāda, make it zero.

So the Māyāvādī philosopher, their spiritual life means to merge into the Brahman effulgence, and the Vaiṣṇava philosopher to go back to Goloka Vṛndāvana, Vaikuṇṭha, where God is situated, and become His associate person.
Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: There are two kinds of sects: this Māyāvādī and the Vaiṣṇava. So both of them know that this material world is flickering, and sometimes they say it is false, unreal. So there is another life; that is spiritual world. So the Māyāvādī philosopher, their spiritual life means to merge into the Brahman effulgence, and the Vaiṣṇava philosopher to go back to Goloka Vṛndāvana, Vaikuṇṭha, where God is situated, and become His associate person. So both the ideas, spiritual ideas, that is attained after death. What does he say that is good about Hindus? He says that denial...

For the Māyāvādī philosopher there is no question of love. They merge. They want sāyujya-mukti, to become one.
Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Śyāmasundara: He says that this is..., because of this spiritual personality that he can know and love God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Without person how there can be love? There is no question of love. You cannot love air or sky; you must find out a man or woman in the, under the sky. So therefore if you want to love God then you must accept God is a person; otherwise there is no question of love. Therefore for the Māyāvādī philosopher there is no question of love. They merge. They want sāyujya-mukti, to become one. They have no other conception, because they cannot conceive personal God. So there is no love. Therefore they manufacture an idea that in the material condition of life, you just imagine any form of God and love Him, and ultimately you become one. That is their philosophy. Ultimately you throw away this... The example is given that you want to rise on some top floor you take a ladder and go to the top and throw away the ladder: there is no need of this ladder, now you have come to the position.

Māyāvādī philosophers, they will say that "Let me serve Kṛṣṇa now. As soon as I become liberated, I become God. I become God." This is another bluff.
Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:

Śyāmasundara: Does this mean that man's nature, there is no fundamental nature that a man's reality is...

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is spiritual nature. That is spiritual nature. We are teaching people to come to that standard, spiritual nature which will never change. Just like we are trying to serve Kṛṣṇa. This is not (indistinct). We are serving Kṛṣṇa and when we go to Vaikuntha, we serve Kṛṣṇa. That which is called nitya. Nitya means eternal. Nitya-yukta upāsate. Bhagavad-gītā, eternally engaged in the service of the Lord. Not like Māyāvādī. Māyāvādī philosophers, they will say that "Let me serve Kṛṣṇa now. As soon as I become liberated, I become God. I become God." This is another bluff. Just like I am serving you to take your favor and as soon as I get opportunity I ride upon you.

Material world means temporary, and some philosophers, like the Māyāvādīs, they say it is false. But we Vaiṣṇavas, we don't say it is false, but it is temporary illusion.
Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Prabhupāda: Material world means temporary, and some philosophers, like the Māyāvādīs, they say it is false. But we Vaiṣṇavas, we don't say it is false, but it is temporary illusion. It is reflection of the spiritual world, but there is no reality. Sometimes it is compared with the mirage in the desert. There is no water in the desert, but sometimes, by reflection of the sun, it appears that there is water. Similarly, in the material world there is no happiness, but the transcendental bliss and happiness existing in the spiritual world is reflected here, and those who are less intelligent, they are after this illusory happiness, forgetting real happiness in the spiritual life.

Page Title:Mayavadi philosophers (Lectures, other)
Compiler:Labangalatika, Serene
Created:30 of Mar, 2010
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=96, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:96