Sections 31–40

English witness · section(s) 31

TEXT 31.1

purvam iti pathe `purvam evaham ihasam' iti `tat purusasya purusatvam' iti srauta-nirvacana-visesa-puraskarena ca sa evocyate. tam apasyat Sri-veda-vyasa iti svarupa-sakti-mantam evety etat svayam eva labdham. purnam candram apasyad ity ukte kanti-mantam apasyad iti labhyate. Even if we consider the alternative reading of purvam instead of purnam in the verse quoted above [Bhagavatam 1.7.4], still the reference here will be to the Personality of Godhead. This is shown by the statements of Vedic sruti: “[The Lord said,] I existed here prior (purvam) to everything else” and “That [existence prior to everything else] is the essential characteristic of the Lord (purusa).” When it is said that Sri Vyasa saw the Lord, we should automatically understand that in addition Vyasa saw His svarupa-sakti, or internal potency, just as when it is said that a person sees a full moon, the implication is that he also sees its effulgence.

TEXT 31.2

ata eva tvam adyah purusah saksad isvarah prakrteh parah mayam vyudasya cic-chaktya kaivalye sthita atmani @VCONTINUE = ity uktam. ata eva `mayam ca tad-apasrayam' ity anena tasmin apa apakrsta asrayo yasya niliya sthitatvad iti mayaya na tat-svarupa-bhutatvam ity api labhyate. vaksyate ca `maya paraity abhimukhe ca vilajjamana' iti. Thus it is said: “You are the original Personality of Godhead, who expand Yourself all over the creations and are transcendental to the material energy. You have cast away the effects of the material energy by dint of Your spiritual potency. You are always situated in eternal bliss and transcendental knowledge” [Bhag. 1.7.23]. Therefore we understand the phrase mayam ca tad-apasrayam [in Bhagavatam 1.7.4] to mean that Maya takes shelter of Him in an inferior position, hiding from His sight; thus she does not constitute His svarupa, or essential nature. As it is said later on, “Maya, feeling ashamed, runs away from the Lord’s direct presence” [Bhag. 2.7.47].

TEXT 31.3

svarupa-saktir iyam atraiva vyakti-bhavisyati `anarthopasamam saksad bhakti-yogam adhoksaje' ity anena `atmaramas ca' ity anena ca. purvatra hi bhakti-yoga-prabhavah khalv asau mayabhibhavakataya svarupa-sakti-vrttitvenaiva gamyate paratra ca te guna brahmanandasyapy upari-carataya svarupa-sakteh parama-vrttitam evarhantiti. mayadhisthatr-purusas tu tad-amsatvena brahma ca tadiya-nirvisesavirbhavatvena tad-antar-bhavenaprthak-drstatvat prthan nokte iti jïeyam. tad etac ca dvitiya-trtiya-sandarbhayoh susthu pratipatsyate. ato ’tra purva-vad eva sambandhi-tattvam nirdharitam. We shall explain the Lord’s svarupa-sakti when we discuss the two verses beginning anarthopasamam saksad bhakti-yogam adhoksaje and atmaramas ca [Bhagavatam 1.7.6 and 10, respectively]. From the statement in the first of these two verses that devotional service can subdue the material energy, Maya, we can infer that the power of devotional service is a function of the Lord’s internal energy. The second verse implies that the qualities of Lord Hari constitute the svarupa-sakti’s highest function, superior even to the bliss of Brahman. These verses do not separately mention either Paramatma, the Supreme Lord’s plenary portion who controls Maya, or Brahman, the Supreme Lord’s nondifferentiated aspect. The reason for this omission is that the Paramatma and Brahman were seen to exist within the Personality of Godhead, not separately, a fact we will thoroughly demonstrate later, in the second and third Sandarbhas. Thus here, as before, the sambandhi-tattva, the essential topic of discussion in Srimad-Bhagavatam, has been defined.

COMMENTARY Analysis of Srila Vyasadeva’s Trance, Part II Some editions of Srimad-Bhagavatam have the word purvam (“existing before”) in place of purnam in TEXT 1.7.4. This difference does not change the import of the verse, however. The word purusa can also mean “He who existed prior to the creation”: pura asit iti purusah. This phrase refers to the Supreme Lord as the source of everything. And this Supreme Lord is Krsna, as He confirms in the Bhagavad-gita (10.8): aham sarvasya prabhavah. “I am the source of everything.” Being the source of everything is the essential characteristic of the purusa. Since existing prior to everything else is the idea conveyed by the adjective purvam, the phrase purusam purvam is equivalent to purusam purnam insofar as indicating the Supreme Lord, Krsna. Sri Vyasa saw the Lord’s potencies along with the Lord Himself, just as one always sees the effulgent moonlight along with the full moon. The energies of the Lord are always present along with Him, inasmuch as an object’s attributes are always present along with the object. In the Visnu Purana (6.5.79) the attributes of Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are listed: jnana-sakti-balaisvarya-virya-tejamsy asesatah bhagavac-chabda-vacyani vina heyair gunadibhih “The word bhagavan indicates knowledge, sensory power, strength, wealth, prowess, and valor—all without limit, and all completely devoid of material qualities and their effects.” The Supreme Person has multifarious potencies, of which three are primary. As the Visnu Purana (1.12.69) states, hladini sandhini samvit tvayy eka sarva-samsraye: “The hladini, sandhini, and samvit potencies exist only in You [the Supreme Lord], who are the shelter of everything.” Hladini is the Lord’s pleasure potency, sandhini His supporting potency, and samvit His cognition potency. These three potencies constitute the Lord’s svarupa, or essential, internal nature. Srila Jiva Gosvami will give a detailed explanation of these potencies in the Bhagavat-sandarbha. In the spiritual sky these potencies are inherent in the Lord’s own person, but they are also present in the individual personal forms of His associates. In TEXT 47 Srila Jiva Gosvami will identify the form of the Supreme Lord that Srila Vyasadeva saw as Krsna in Vrndavana, where the Lord is always present with His most intimate devotees. Srimati Radharani is Lord Krsna’s personified pleasure potency, and with Her the Lord performs His most intimate pastimes. Therefore it should be understood that in his trance Srila Vyasa also saw Srimati Radhika along with Her associates, for the Lord is never separated from His internal potencies. Besides the Lord’s three internal potencies, Vyasa saw His external potency (Maya) and His marginal potency (the jivas). Maya is not part of the Lord’s svarupa. She is personally present in His entourage, but she chooses to remain out of His sight. Therefore she can never influence the Lord or His internal potencies. Generally a female influences a male by appearing before him, but Mayadevi, the female, external energy of the Supreme, cannot influence the Lord. Therefore it is said that she remains out of His view. As it is said (Bhag. 2.7.47), maya paraity abhimukhe ca vilajjamana: “Mayadevi keeps away from the Lord, feeling ashamed to come before of Him.” Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana compares Maya to a maidservant who discharges her duties outside the king’s inner quarters. She does not have the same privileges as his queens, who are like the Supreme Lord’s internal potencies in that they can directly associate with their master at all times. Maya, the Lord’s external energy, is inferior to both His svarupa-sakti and His marginal energy, the jivas. Still, she can subdue the jivas. This vulnerability of the jivas to illusion is stated in Bhagavatam 1.7.5: yaya sammohito jiva atmanam tri-gunatmakam paro ’pi manute ’nartham tat-krtam cabhipadyate “Bewildered by that external energy, the living entity, although transcendental to the three modes of material nature, thinks of himself as a material product and thus undergoes the reactions of material miseries.” Although both the individual soul and the Supersoul are conscious and reside in the same material body, only the jiva is bewildered by Maya and suffers the material miseries. Maya cannot affect the Lord because He is her master; by His inconceivable power He remains forever beyond her influence. In the Bhagavad-gita (7.5) Lord Krsna tells Arjuna that His marginal energy, the jiva, is superior to His separated, material energy, Maya. One may then ask, How does the superior jiva come under the control of the inferior nature, Maya? The answer is twofold: because the jiva is infinitesimal, and also because Maya can transcend logic in her actions. In the Third Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.7.9), Maitreya Muni responds to a question from Vidura as follows: seyam bhagavato maya yan nayena virudhyate isvarasya vimuktasya karpanyam uta bandhanam “The illusory energy of the Supreme Lord acts contrary to logic [i.e., her behavior cannot be understood simply through logic]; otherwise, how is it possible that the living entity, who is conscious and liberated, becomes bound and miserable?” Commenting on this verse, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura gives an analogy: Although the sun is powerfully effulgent, still the cloud, generated from the sun’s potency, can cover it. Similarly, although the jiva is by nature superior to Maya, she still has the power to cover him. Another important point made in this section is that the description of Vyasa’s trance does not explicitly mention either the Supersoul or the impersonal Brahman effulgence. The Supersoul (Paramatma) is the expansion of the Lord who presides over the affairs of the material energy. In the Bhagavad-gita (9.10) Lord Krsna says, mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram: “This material nature is working under My direction, producing all moving and nonmoving beings.” Here “My” means “My Paramatma expansion’s,” since it is through His Paramatma feature that Lord Krsna regulates the workings of the material world. Srila Jiva Gosvami points out that since the Paramatma expands from Krsna and is entirely dependent on Him, the description of Vyasadeva’s trance need not mention the Paramatma separately. The same holds true for Brahman, which is nothing but the effulgence emanating from the Lord’s transcendental body. Like the Paramatma, Brahman has no existence independent of the Lord. Krsna confirms this in the Bhagavad-gita (14.27): brahmano hi pratisthaham. “I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman.” According to the Nirukti dictionary, pratisthiyate asminn iti pratistha: “Pratistha means ‘shelter or basis.’” Just as the sun globe is the basis of the sunshine, so Krsna is the basis of the Brahman effulgence. From this analysis of Veda-vyasa’s trance, it is clear that the central subject of Srimad-Bhagavatam is the Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krsna, and that the process for attaining Him is bhakti-yoga. Brahman and Paramatma, being dependent manifestations of the Lord, cannot be separated from Him, but these two features are not the objects of Vyasadeva’s trance and so cannot be the central subjects of His greatest work, Srimad-Bhagavatam. We should nonetheless note that one who realizes Bhagavan, Lord Krsna, automatically realizes Brahman and Paramatma, in the same way that one who acquires a million dollars automatically possesses ten dollars, one hundred dollars, and similar small sums. In the next section Srila Jiva Gosvami discusses how the living entity comes to be bound up by Maya.

TATTVA SANDARBHA

BY SRILA JIVA GOSWAMI

[PART6]

English witness · section(s) 32

TEXT 32.1

atha prak-pratipaditasyaivabhidheyasya prayojanasya ca sthapakam jivasya svarupata eva paramesvarad vailaksanyam apasyad ity aha yayeti. yaya mayaya sammohito jivah svayam cid-rupatvena tri-gunatmakaj jadat paro ’py atmanam tri-gunatmakam jadam dehadi-sanghatam manute tan-manana-krtam anartham samsara-vyasanam cabhipadyate. The process (abhidheya) and the goal (prayojana), as we have defined them, are based on the essential difference between the Lord and the living entity. That Sri Vyasa saw this distinction is shown by the verse beginning yaya [Bhag. 1.7.5]. Although the living entity is by nature pure spirit, transcendental to the three inert material modes, when deluded by Maya he considers himself a product of those modes, the inert material body. This delusion causes the living entity to suffer unwanted consequences, namely the miseries of repeated birth and death.

TEXT 32.2

tad evam jivasya cid-rupatve ’pi `yaya sammohitah' iti `manute' iti ca svarupa-bhuta-jïana-salitvam vyanakti prakasaika-rupasya tejasah sva-para-prakasana-sakti-vat. ajïanenavrtam jïanam tena muhyanti jantavah @VCONTINUE = iti Sri-gitabhyah. tad evam upadher eva jivatvam tan-nasasyaiva moksatvam iti matantaram parihrtavan. atra `yaya sammohitah' ity anena tasya eva tatra kartrtvam bhagavatas tatrodasinatvam matam. Furthermore, not only does the living being consist of pure spiritual consciousness, but he also possesses consciousness as a component of his essential nature, just as light, which consists of nothing but illumination, also possesses the capacity to illumine itself and other things. That the living entity possesses consciousness is implied [in Bhagavatam 1.7.5] by the words yaya sammohitah (“deluded by that [Maya]”) and manute (“he considers”) and confirmed by the following words [in Bhagavad-gita 5.15]: “Living beings are bewildered because their consciousness is covered by ignorance.” Thus is refuted the contrary opinion that the jiva exists only as an upadhi of Brahman and that liberation is simply the elimination of this upadhi. Here [in Bhag. 1.7.5] the phrase yaya sammohitah shows that Maya alone is responsible for deluding the living being; the Lord remains uninvolved.

TEXT 32.3

vaksyate ca vilajjamanaya yasya sthatum iksa-pathe ’muya vimohita vikatthante mamaham iti durdhiyah @VCONTINUE = iti. atra vilajjamanaya ity anenedam ayati, tasya jiva-sammohanam karma Sri-bhagavate na rocata iti yady api sa svayam janati tathapi `bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syad isad apetasya' iti disa jivanam anadi-bhagavad-ajïana-maya-vaimukhyam asahamana svarupavaranam asvarupavesam ca karoti. Later Srimad-Bhagavatam [2.5.13] states: “The illusory energy of the Lord cannot stand in front of Him, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of ‘I’ and ‘mine.’” Here we can infer from the phrase “being ashamed” (vilajjamanaya) that although Maya knows her work of bewildering the living beings does not please the Supreme Lord, still she cannot tolerate that they have turned their backs on Him because of their ignorance of Him, which is beginningless. Srimad-Bhagavatam [11.2.37] describes the result of the jivas’ turning from the Lord: “When the living beings are attracted to something other than the Lord, they become fearful.” Therefore Maya covers their real nature and entices them to identify with matter.

COMMENTARY The Living Entity Is Distinct from the Lord In this TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami shows how service to the Lord is the process of self-realization (abhidheya) and how eternal love of God is the goal (prayojana). Since love of God is eternal, the Supreme Lord and the living entities must be eternally distinct, because wherever there is service or love, the server and the served or the lover and the beloved must be separate individuals. According to the Mayavada impersonalists this distinction of individual selves exists only in the conditioned (vyavaharika) stage. In the liberated (paramarthika) stage all such distinctions dissolve because on that level Brahman alone exists. Impersonalists insist that since Brahman and the living being are absolutely one and the same, there can be no distinction of identities in the reality of Brahman. The Mayavadis go on to say that when Brahman contacts Maya, Maya acts as its upadhi and Brahman is then known as isvara (God) and the jivas. Apart from these appearances arising from Brahman’s proximity to Maya, neither isvara nor the jivas exist. Concerning the jivas, featureless Brahman enters into delusion and displays the jivas' masquerade forms and personalities birth after birth—and all for no reason other than Brahman’s adulteration by Maya. And this same deluded Brahman will be redeemed when he simply gives up his false designations on the strength of acquired knowledge of Brahman. All this goes counter to what Vyasadeva actually saw in His trance. He saw that the jivas are intrinsically eternal spiritual entities, separate individuals in their own right. He further saw that Maya overcomes only the jivas, not Brahman (isvara, the Personality of Godhead); indeed, He saw that Maya, far from overcoming the Supreme Lord, could not even bare to face Him. He also saw that God Himself is not directly involved with deluding the jivas. In sum, Vyasadeva realized that the Lord, the jivas, and Maya are all eternal, and that the Lord supports the other two. In Bhagavatam 1.7.5 the words sammohitah (“becoming deluded”) and manute (“he then thinks”) are applied to the jiva, indicating that delusion and its effects, ignorance and misery, are not part of his original nature. These two words also indicate that the jiva is both consciousness and the possessor thereof. As a light bulb simultaneously illuminates itself and the objects around it, so the jiva is simultaneously conscious of himself and objects outside himself. In other words, cognition is an intrinsic aspect of his nature, not a temporarily acquired capacity, which is what the Mayavada doctrine implies by positing that the jiva’s attributes are only apparently real (as is the jiva himself) and that to gain salvation he has to acquire knowledge of his oneness with Brahman. The theistic understanding of the jivas’ situation in this world, gleaned from analyzing Srila Vyasadeva’s trance, is that Maya cannot tolerate the jivas’ refusal to serve her Lord, and so she covers the knowledge of such rebellious jivas and imprisons them in material bodies. Maya’s principal functions are to punish and to rectify the jivas who have turned away from the Personality of Godhead. Her motive is not to inflict suffering but to encourage the fallen jivas to accept rectification by inquiring into transcendental knowledge. Lord Krsna therefore says in the Bhagavad-gita (4.37) that transcendental knowledge burns all the bonds of karma in the same way that fire burns fuel, because once a person attains transcendental knowledge, Maya need no longer punish him. Sometimes, from our mundane point of view there appears to be a contradiction between the writings of the great acaryas. An example of this arises from Srila Jiva Gosvami’s use in this TEXT of the term anadi (“beginningless”) to describe Maya’s bewilderment of the jivas. From the way Jiva Gosvami uses this word elsewhere in the Sandarbhas, it appears that he intends for his readers to understand the word literally—that Maya’s conditioning of each jiva has no beginning but ends when a jiva becomes Krsna conscious. Srila Prabhupada, however, took the word anadi to mean “from time immemorial” in similar scriptural contexts, indicating that he understood the jiva’s conditioning to have an untraceable beginning. He expresses his understanding of this issue in his translation of and COMMENTARY on a verse in the Caitanya-caritamrta that Lord Caitanya spoke to Sanatana Gosvami (Cc. Madhya 20.117): krsna bhuli’ sei jiva anadi-bahirmukha ataeva maya tare deya samsara-duhkha “Forgetting Krsna, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy [Maya] gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence.” Purport: “When the living entity [the jiva] forgets his constitutional position as an eternal servant of Krsna, he is immediately entrapped by the illusory, external energy. The living entity is originally part and parcel of Krsna and is therefore the superior energy of Krsna.<193>[However,] he is sometimes attracted by the external, illusory energy,<193>and this is the beginning of his material life. When he enters the material energy he is subjected to the threefold time measurement—past, present, and future. Past, present, and future belong only to the material world; they do not exist in the spiritual world. The living entity is eternal, and he existed before the creation of this material world. Unfortunately he has forgotten his relationship with Krsna. The living entity’s forgetfulness is described herein as anadi, which indicates that it has existed since time immemorial. One should understand that due to his desire to enjoy himself in competition with Krsna, the living entity comes into material existence.” A deluded jiva retains his capacity to know the Supreme Lord. His condition is somewhat like that of a covered light bulb: the bulb’s light may not be visible beyond the covering, but it still shines within. Similarly, although the conditioned jiva’s ability to know the Lord is covered, it still exists. In this conditioned state the jiva misuses his mind and senses and misdirects his natural propensity to serve. Thus he suffers. But when he uses his mind and senses properly by practicing sadhana-bhakti, his true nature begins to emerge, and if he continues on the path of bhakti he attains his original identity and is established in the unending bliss of prema-bhakti. In the Paramatma-sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami discusses in more detail this and other aspects of the jiva’s nature. One may ask why the all-powerful Lord does not stop Maya from bewildering the jiva. Srila Jiva Gosvami answers this question in the next Text.

English witness · section(s) 33

TEXT 33.1

Sri-bhagavams canadita eva bhaktayam prapaïcadhikarinyam tasyam daksinyam langhitum na saknoti. tatha tad-bhayenapi jivanam sva-sammukhyam vaïchann upadisati daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te

@VL1 = satam prasangan mama virya-samvido @VL2 = bhavanti hrt-karna-rasayanah kathah @VL1 = taj-josanad asv apavarga-vartmani @VL2 = sraddha ratir bhaktir anukramisyati @VCONTINUE = iti ca. For His part, the Supreme Lord cannot withdraw His favor from Maya, whom He has delegated as the controller of the material creation and who has always been His devotee. Still, He wants the jivas to turn favorably toward Him, even if they must do so out of fear of Maya, and therefore He instructs them [in Bhagavad-gita 7.14]: “This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.” And [in Bhagavatam 3.25.25]: “In the association of pure devotees, discussion of the pastimes and activities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is very pleasing and satisfying to the ear and the heart. By cultivating such knowledge a person gradually becomes advanced on the path of liberation, and thereafter he is freed, and his attraction becomes fixed. Then real devotion and devotional service begin.”

TEXT 33.2

lilaya Srimad-vyasa-rupena tu visistataya tad upadistavan ity anantaram evayasyaty `anarthopasamam saksat' iti. tasmad dvayor api tat tat samaïjasam jïeyam. nanu maya khalu saktih saktis ca karya-ksamatvam tac ca dharma-visesas tasya katham lajjadikam. ucyata evam saty api bhagavati tasam saktinam adhisthatr-devyah sruyante yatha kenopanisadi mahendra-mayayoh samvadah. tad astam prastutam prastuyate. In His pastime form of Sri Vyasa, the Lord has very explicitly instructed the living beings in this way [namely, that they should surrender to Him so they can transcend Maya]. This we shall see shortly, in our discussion of the verse beginning anarthopasamam saksat [Bhag. 1.7.6]. Thus both the Lord and Maya have acted quite properly. But, one may object, if Maya is only an energy and an energy is the capacity to do some work and is moreover just a quality possessed by some entity, how then can Maya feel ashamed and have other, similar characteristics? The answer is that although Maya is in fact an energy, we do hear from the Vedic scriptures about female deities who preside over energies residing in the Supreme Lord. We see an example of this in the dialogue between Lord Indra and Maya in the Kena Upanisad. In any case, we shall now let this matter stand and return to the main topic of our discussion.

COMMENTARY Maya Is a Devotee of the Lord As Srila Jiva Gosvami explained in the previous Text, the Supreme Lord is not pleased that Maya has to delude the jivas; therefore Maya feels too embarrassed to face the Lord. One may ask, “If the Lord is all-powerful, why does He not intervene?” Our answer is that the Lord has appointed Maya the presiding deity of the material creation and she has been performing this service faithfully since time immemorial. Because she is His devotee, He kindly does not interfere with her service. But this reply may lead to a further doubt: Besides being all-powerful, the Supreme Lord is said to be unlimitedly merciful, always thinking of everyone’s welfare. Why then does He fail to stop Maya from harassing the jivas? To this Jiva Gosvami replies that even though the Lord does not stop Maya, He teaches the jivas how to get free from her clutches by surrendering to Him. Maya will never again harass any jiva who has taken full shelter of the Supreme Lord. Still a puzzle remains: Why does the Lord allow Maya to create obstacles for the jiva even when he wants to surrender to Him? Why does He allow her to repeatedly present various allurements that prevent the jiva from discriminating between proper and improper action and thus baffle his attempts at surrendering? Srila Jiva Gosvami answers this question by citing the verse beginning satam prasangan mama virya-samvidah, which Lord Kapila speaks in Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.25.25). This verse explains that devotees of the Lord associate favorably with one another and always relish talking about the Lord’s pastimes, which are a tonic for the hearts and ears of the sick and weak jivas. This tonic immunizes them against the disease of material illusion and gradually brings them back to the healthy condition of life, namely the Supreme Lord’s devotional service. The Lord’s only activity in the spiritual world is enjoying loving exchanges with His devotees, and His enjoyment would be disturbed by the intrusion of unhealthy jivas—that is, souls who have not become completely purified of material desire and reawakened their pure love for the Lord. Maya therefore employs various means to make sure no unfit souls bother the Lord. Because this is her assigned service to Him, He does not interfere. The Personality of Godhead has not, however, employed Maya just to inflict miseries on the jivas. She does that, but as mentioned earlier, her real purpose is to chasten the jivas, to encourage them to turn to the Lord. The punishment she metes out serves three purposes: to give the living entities the reactions for their sinful deeds, to deter them from further transgressions, and to impel them to search for a way out of this world of suffering. Since this punishment ultimately benefits the jivas by uniting them with the Personality of Godhead, He generally does not choose to come between the jivas and Maya. The governor of a state will usually not interfere when the court system sends a criminal to prison. On the contrary, he may commend the policemen who captured the wrong-doer. People do not think the governor is cruel to employ such able policemen, and in the end, when the criminal is rehabilitated and freed on parole, the former lawbreaker himself may thank the governor. So God’s motive for creating the prison house of this material world is actually to induce the rebellious jivas to surrender to Him and take up loving service to Him. Only in this way can they gain liberation from Maya’s clutches. In Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.87.2) Sri Sukadeva Gosvami confirms that this is the purpose of the creation: buddhindriya-manah-pranan jananam asrjat prabhuh matrartham ca bhavartham ca atmane ’kalpanaya ca “The Supreme Lord manifested the material intelligence, senses, mind, and vital air of the living entities so that they could indulge their desires for sense gratification, take repeated births to engage in fruitive activities, become elevated in future lives, and ultimately attain liberation.” One may still object that even if the Supreme Lord is not actively cruel, He is indifferent to the plight of the jivas. This is another mistaken notion. Far from being indifferent to the jivas’ suffering, the Lord frequently appears in this world to enlighten the fallen populace on the pre TEXT of educating such intimate associates of His as Arjuna and Uddhava. Sometimes He incarnates as Veda-vyasa or as another instructor to preach the message of bhakti and uplift the wretched jivas. All this He does out of His causeless mercy upon the fallen jivas, who, as we have learned from the pramana portion of Sri Tattva-sandarbha, can never understand anything beyond the material world by their own endeavors. So it is out of His causeless mercy that the Supreme Lord gives the entrapped jivas access to spiritual knowledge through the Vedas. Later on, as the Kali-yuga begins and the jivas all but lose their ability to comprehend spiritual knowledge, He further helps them by explaining the same message in the Itihasas and Puranas. Finally, He reveals the essence of all knowledge in the form of Srimad-Bhagavatam. So it can hardly be said that the Lord is indifferent to the plight of the jivas. Once a jiva takes advantage of the Lord’s arrangement for spiritual education and comes to the point of transcendental realization, he need not fear any punishment for his previous misdeeds, no matter how dreadful they were. As the Lord says in the Bhagavad-gita (4.37): yathaidhamsi samiddho ’gnir bhasma-sat kurute ’rjuna jïanagnih sarva-karmani bhasma-sat kurute tatha “As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities.” Thus the Lord confirms that the punishment of the jivas is meant not for inflicting suffering on them but for awakening them to the knowledge that will lead them to freedom from all suffering and to eternal life in the spiritual world. Yet another doubt may be raised: If the punishment inflicted on the jivas is for their ultimate good, why are they also allowed to enjoy in this world? If they were simply thrown into an ocean of ceaseless misery, they would have no choice but to quickly take complete shelter of the Personality of Godhead. We address this doubt with a twofold reply: First, we point out that ceaseless misery is not good for developing transcendental understanding because one’s mind becomes too disturbed to contemplate scriptural truths. Second, ceaseless misery is not necessary because any jiva with even a little rudimentary transcendental knowledge will realize that there is no real happiness in this material world. In the Bhagavad-gita (8.15) Lord Krsna characterizes this world as temporary and devoid of happiness: anityam asukham lokam. The so-called happiness one experiences here is nothing but a temporary cessation or diminution of misery. It is like the pleasure felt by a man who is repeatedly dunked in water and then brought to the surface just before drowning. Upon gulping down the life-giving air he feels great relief and joy, but such happiness is really only the temporary absence of continual misery. Lord Krsna therefore advises us not to strive for the so-called happiness of this material world: sama-duhkha-sukham dhiram so ’mrtatvaya kalpate. ”One who remains equipoised in both misery and happiness is qualified for liberation” (Bg. 2.15). Only such a person can taste real happiness; others experience only the illusion of happiness. In conclusion, therefore, the Lord has designed a two-part program for both chastening and rehabilitating the jivas: On the one hand, Maya kicks them, and on the other, the Lord instructs them through various incarnations, the Vedic scriptures, and His pure devotees. Thus Maya’s actions and the Lord’s perfectly complement one another. Although Maya is the Lord’s material energy, she also exists in her own personal form. All the energies of the Lord have their personal features. (Srila Jiva Gosvami will discuss this point in more detail in Sri Bhagavat-sandarbha.) That Maya has a personal form is evident from a dialogue between Lord Indra and Mayadevi narrated in the third chapter of the Kena Upanisad: Once there was a war between the demigods and the demons. After a long struggle, the demigods prevailed by the Supreme Lord’s mercy, but they mistakenly ascribed their victory to their own valor and became proud. To humble them, the Lord appeared before them in the guise of a Yaksa. Unable to identify the Yaksa, they appointed Agni, the fire-god, to find out who He was. When Agni asked the Yaksa to identify Himself, He placed a straw in front of Agni and said, “Burn it.” With all his power Agni could not burn the straw. Then Vayu, the air-god, was sent to identify the Yaksa, but he could not blow the straw away. Next Lord Indra approached the Yaksa, but the mysterious personality disappeared. Finally Mayadevi appeared to Indra in the form of Uma and told him that the Yaksa was in fact the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Many similar accounts in the Vedas and Puranas show that Maya and other energies of the Lord have their own personal forms. Thus the description of how Vyasa saw Maya standing behind the Lord out of embarrassment is not figurative. One more question might be asked: If Maya, the predominating deity of the material energy, can manage all her own affairs, what need is there for the Paramatma to control this world? Lord Krsna answers in the Bhagavad-gita (14.4): sarva-yonisu kaunteya murtayah sambhavanti yah tasam brahma mahad yonir aham bija-pradah pita “It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father.” Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without the help of a potent man, Maya cannot manage the material world without the help of the Paramatma. Maya has her innate potencies for serving the Supreme Lord, but still she needs His help in carrying out her duties. For this reason Vyasa saw that she was dependent on the Lord, a fact Krsna confirms in the Bhagavad-gita (9.10) when He says that this material nature, which is one of His energies, is ultimately working under His direction. The next TEXT further explains Sri Vyasa’s trance.

English witness · section(s) 34

TEXT 34

tatra jivasya tadrsa-cid-rupatve ’pi paramesvarato vailaksanyam tad-apasrayam iti yaya sammohita iti ca darsayati. Like the Lord, the jiva is purely spiritual, yet still he is different from the Lord. This truth is indicated by the words tad-apasrayam (“Maya is outside Him yet supported by Him,” [in Bhagavatam. 1.7.4]) and yaya sammohitah (“deluded by Maya,” [in Bhag. 1.7.5]).

COMMENTARY The Jiva Is Conscious and Distinct from the Lord In Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.4 the words used to describe Maya’s relationship with the Lord are tad-apasrayam. This phrase indicates that in His trance Srila Vyasadeva saw that the Supreme Personality of Godhead supports Maya and that she has no influence over Him. The prefix apa means “separate” and “inferior.” Maya is separate from the Lord in the sense that she is not one of His internal energies. That she is ashamed to appear in front of the Lord indicates she is inferior to both Him and His internal potencies. For this reason she cannot influence Him, though she is dependent on Him. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, she has been compared to a maidservant who works outside a king's inner apartments. While unable to influence the Lord or His internal potencies, Maya can influence the jiva, as the words yaya sammohitah indicate. Being part and parcel of God, the jiva is conscious by nature, yet he is not all-powerful like God, for his potencies are limited. Thus the Lord controls Maya, and she controls the limited jivas when they are not united with Him in bhakti-yoga. Just as sparks separated from a fire lose their brilliance but not their existence, so when the living beings are separated from the Lord they forget their nature and are absorbed in illusion. The Supreme Lord, however, is never affected by illusion. Thus jivas are different from the Lord, though they are qualitatively equal with Him in some respects. Commenting on Bhagavatam 1.7.4, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana points out that besides seeing the Personality of Godhead, Maya, and the jiva, Srila Vyasa also saw the time energy, as indicated by such verbs as apasyat (“He saw”), sammohitah (“he is bewildered”), and manute (“he considers”). How is this? Because all these verbs indicate action, which in turn implies the influence of time. As the Bhallaveya-sruti states, atha ha vava nityani purusah prakrtir atma kalah: “The Lord, material nature, the living entity, and time are certainly all eternal.” Time’s eternality is also mentioned by Parasara Muni in the Visnu Purana (1.2.26): anadir bhagavan kalo nanto ’sya dvija vidyate avyucchinnas tatas tv ete sarga-sthity-anta-samyamah “O twice-born Maitreya, supremely powerful time has no beginning or end. Thus the cycle of creation, maintenance, and annihilation continues perpetually.” And in the Bhagavad-gita (13.20) Lord Krsna says : prakrtim purusam caiva viddhy anadi ubhav api vikarams ca gunams caiva viddhi prakrti-sambhavan “Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.” In commenting on this verse in his Sarartha-varsini, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says, maya-jivayor api mac-chaktitvena anaditvat tayoh samsleso ’py anadir iti bhavah: “[Lord Krsna says:] ‘Since both Maya and the jiva are My energies, both exist since time immemorial. Therefore the jiva has been in contact with Maya since time immemorial.’” It follows from this that the jiva’s karma has been acting since time immemorial as well. Srila Vyasadeva acknowledges that this is the nature of karma in sutra 2.1.35 of the Vedanta: na karmavibhagad iti cen nanaditvat. “One might object that the law of karma cannot explain the inequality in the universe because to begin with everyone must be equal. But this objection is not valid, since the cycle of creation has no beginning. Inasmuch as creation has no beginning, karma also has no beginning.” Apart from karma, the other four entities Srila Vyasa saw—the Personality of Godhead, the jiva, material nature, and time—are eternal, without beginning or end. Of these four, the Supreme Lord and the jiva are conscious spirit, but the Lord is infinite and the jiva is atomic in size. Time is not conscious, but it is free from the control of the material modes. It is the cause of the threefold division of past, present, and future. The material energy is inert and is composed of three modes—goodness, passion and ignorance. Matter thus undergoes transformations in time and is the medium through which we perceive the three divisions of time. Although karma has been controlling every conditioned soul since time immemorial, karma can be brought to a close for jivas who perfect the practice of devotional service to Lord Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All this Srila Vyasadeva also saw. To enlighten the conditioned jivas about these all-important topics, He compiled the Satvata-samhita, Srimad-Bhagavatam. In the next eight Texts, Srila Jiva Gosvami shows that Sri Vyasa’s experience refutes the popular monistic philosophy of Sri Sankaracarya.

English witness · section(s) 35

TEXT 35

yarhy eva yad ekam cid-rupam brahma mayasrayata-balitam vidya-mayam tarhy eva tan maya-visayatapannam avidya-paribhutam cety ayuktam iti jivesvara-vibhago ’vagatah. tatas ca svarupa-samarthya-vailaksanyena tad dvitayam mitho-vilaksana-svarupam evety agatam. If it is indeed true that the one undivided Brahman, whose very nature is pure spirit, is the foundation of material illusion and also embodies the liberating force of knowledge, then it is illogical to say that Brahman falls under Maya’s influence and is overcome by ignorance. Thus we can understand that the jiva and the Supreme Lord are separate entities. Since both their identities and their capabilities are different, the jiva and the Lord are essentially distinct.

COMMENTARY The Jiva Is Not the Supreme Brahman Srila Jiva Gosvami has carefully analyzed Srila Vyasadeva’s trance, and now, on the basis of that analysis, he presents arguments against the Mayavada theory of the absolute oneness of the Supreme Soul and the jiva souls. The ideas of the Mayavadis are completely antagonistic to devotional service and are therefore one of the greatest obstacles on the path of real spiritual progress. Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami compared impersonalism to a tigress who devours one’s spiritual life. He said, kathah mukti-vyaghrya na srnu kila sarvatma-gilanih: “My dear mind, never listen to talk about liberation, which is like a tigress who swallows everything, including the self” (Manah-siksa 4). Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also gave a stern warning about the Mayavada philosophy to those who aspire to understand the Personality of Godhead in truth. He said, mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa: “Hearing Mayavada philosophy completely destroys one’s spiritual life” (Cc. Madhya 6.169). Ultimately, He said, because the Mayavadis describe Absolute Reality as featureless they are the greatest offenders against Sri Krsna, the Supreme Lord. Sri Madhvacarya presented forceful refutations of the Mayavada theory in a similar vein. One of his most impressive efforts in this line was his Mayavada-khandanam. In this and other works he exposed the way Mayavadis misuse grammatical analysis and employ faulty logic, which they resort to in their vain attempt to prove the absolute nondifference between Brahman and the jiva. In the same mood, Srila Jiva Gosvami will refute the Mayavada theory in the next few Texts and conclude by exhorting his readers to further investigate the Mayavadis’ “unintelligible concoctions.” In other words, Jiva Gosvami expects the followers of Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu to consider it their duty to defeat the impersonalists’ word jugglery in as many ways as possible. When the Mayavadis are so thoroughly exposed that not one of the pillars supporting their errant doctrine is left standing, then only fools will fall prey to their misleading ideas. The impersonalists headed by Sri Sankaracarya base their tenets on the Vedanta-sutra and the eleven principal Upanisads, and they also try to support their arguments with statements from the Bhagavad-gita. Jiva Gosvami contends, however, that their interpretations contradict what Srila Vyasadeva experienced in trance, which is narrated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, the essence of the Upanisads, the Vedanta-sutra, and the Puranas. Mayavadis claim that ultimate reality is nondual, pure consciousness, without form or attributes. They try to define ultimate reality only in negative terms, and so they repeat the aphorism neti neti, “Not this, not that.” To support their arguments they cite such Vedic declarations as sarvam khalv idam brahma (“Indeed, all this is Brahman”; Chandogya Up. 3.14.1), ekam evadvitiyam (“Brahman is one without a second”’; Chandogya Up. 6.2.1), vijïanam anandam brahma (“Brahman is consciousness and bliss”; Brhad-aranyaka Up. 3.9.28), and neha nanasti kiïcana (“Ultimately no variety exists in this world”; Brhad-aranyaka Up. 4.4.19). But then to explain the obvious variety in this world, the Mayavadis are forced to introduce the idea of some beginningless entity called Maya, or illusion. The Mayavadis say that this Maya cannot be defined as either existing or not exisiting. They further say that Maya has two aspects—vidya (knowledge) and avidya (ignorance). Somehow or other some part of Brahman comes in contact with Maya, and the result is illusion for that portion of Brahman. Brahman contacts both vidya and avidya. When the totality of Brahman contacts vidya, then the personal Godhead, known as isvara, comes into being. And when small parts of Brahman contact avidya, they become the jivas. According to the Mayavada doctrine, the difference between isvara and jiva is not intrinsic or eternal; it is due only to upadhis, or the apparent limitations superimposed on Brahman by Maya’s vidya and avidya potencies. When a jiva acquires spiritual knowledge and thus removes these upadhis from himself, he realizes himself to be the unlimited, nonvariegated Brahman. This attainment is supposed to be the perfection of spiritual life. In support of this concept, the Sankarites quote the Vedic statement rte jïanan na muktih: “There is no liberation without knowledge.” A favorite analogy the Mayavadis use to explain how unlimited Brahman becomes limited as the jivas is that of the sky and clay pots. Just as the vast sky seems to become limited in a pot and is then known as “the sky in the pot,” so the unlimited Brahman seems to become limited by the jivas’ subtle and gross material bodies. When a pot is broken there is no longer a distinction between the sky in the pot and the all-pervading sky, and similarly when a jiva’s false identity is dissolved the jiva no longer appears different from Brahman. Actually, the Mayavadis explain, the apparent distinction between the sky in the pot and the all-pervading sky did not really exist even when the pot was intact, and in the same way the difference between the individual self and the total Supreme is always illusory. The Advaita monists even see confirmation of all this in Srimad-Bhagavatam, as in the final instructions to Pariksit Maharaja imparted by Sukadeva, the leader of all transcendentalists: ghate bhinne yathakasa akasah syad yatha pura evam dehe mrte jivo brahma sampadyate punah “When a pot is broken, the portion of sky within the pot remains as the element sky, just as before. In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, the living entity within again becomes the Supreme” (Bhag. 12.5.5). Later in the same set of instructions, Sukadeva also says, aham brahma param dhama brahmaham paramam param evam samiksann atmanam atmany adhaya niskale “‘I am the Absolute Truth, the supreme abode, and that Absolute Truth, the supreme destination, is I.’ Meditating like this, merge yourself into that nameless universal self” (Bhag. 12.5.11). These statements of course need proper explanation, but when the Mayavadis explain them they do so without regard to the actual context. In fact, only by taking them out of con TEXT can one translate them as shown above. In the fifty-second TEXT of the Tattva-sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami will briefly discuss why such verses seem to have an impersonal slant, and in Sri Paramatma-sandarbha, sections 72–84, he will provide a more detailed discussion. Srila Jiva Gosvami here begins countering the Mayavada philosophy by establishing the essential distinction between jiva and isvara. His first point is, as we have learned from the account of Vyasadeva’s trance, that Maya controls only the jiva and not the Supreme Lord. Indeed, Maya is dependent upon the Lord and completely controlled by Him. The same Brahman cannot be the controller as well as the controlled, because ignorance and knowledge cannot exist simultaneously in the one undivided reality, just as light and darkness cannot occupy the same point in space. The jiva’s abilities and qualities are different from those of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This difference, moreover, is not a product of illusion. By constitution the jiva is atomic in size, and thus he is vulnerable to Maya’s influence when he disassociates himself from the Supreme Lord. But by surrendering to the Lord he can free himself from the shackles of Maya. Srila Vyasa saw all this in His trance. In the next Text, Srila Jiva Gosvami states that the difference between the jiva and the Lord is real and not just empirical.

English witness · section(s) 36

TEXT 36

na copadhi-taratamya-maya-pariccheda-pratibimbatvadi-vyavasthaya tayor vibhagah syat. Also, the Mayavadis cannot explain this difference between the jiva and the Lord simply as a division or reflection of Brahman into a hierarchy of upadhis.

COMMENTARY The Jiva Is Not Merely an Upadhi The Mayavada philosophers hold that there is one reality—the formless, indivisible, non-variegated, impersonal Brahman—and they have various theories for explaining the apparent existence of jivas and isvara. The two theories mentioned in this section are the most prevalent, and both have been expressed in several modified forms. According to the pariccheda-vada, the one indivisible Brahman appears divided into many embodied jivas because of various upadhis, just as the one great sky (mahakasa) appears divided by being contained in various pots (ghatakasa). This theory proposes that no real difference exists between the sky inside a pot and the sky outside. The distinction is assumed only for practical purposes. Once the pot is broken and the apparent distinction removed, the sky inside the pot and the great sky are understood to be one. Similarly, the proponents of pariccheda-vada say, there is so difference between the embodied jiva and Brahman. The jiva’s limiting adjunct, his subtle body, is actually a false covering superimposed on the jiva after he comes into contact with Maya’s avidya potency, and it is this false covering alone that makes him appear to be separate from Brahman. Thus when Brahman is limited by subtle bodies it becomes the jivas. But when it is limited by vidya it is called isvara. This doctrine of separation was formulated by Vacaspati Misra, the ninth-century author of the Bhamati COMMENTARY on Sankara’s Vedanta-sutra-bhasya. According to pratibimba-vada, when the formless, undivided Brahman is reflected in the various subtle bodies made of avidya, it appears to be many, just as the one sun reflected in various receptacles of water appears to be many. In this analogy, the sun remains uninfluenced by the agitation of the water in which it is reflected, even while the reflection is influenced. Similarly, Brahman is never influenced by the changes that its reflections, the jivas, undergo. Indeed, the happiness and distress the jivas experience are only illusions resulting from their conditioned, or reflected, state. When a jiva frees himself from illusion and achieves liberation, he reverts to his original Brahman consciousness. This is another Mayavada version of how the jivas come into being. According to the proponents of pratibimba-vada, the same Brahman that becomes the jivas when reflected in Maya’s avidya potency becomes isvara, the creator Godhead, when reflected in her vidya potency. By virtue of this contact with Maya, Brahman assumes a personal but temporary form that, unlike the jiva, is immune to Maya’s influence. Nonetheless, Brahman’s manifestation in the personal feature of isvara is the work of Maya and is inferior to the all-pervading Brahman. The pratibimba-vadis say that all the incarnations of God described in the Vedic literature are manifestations of isvara—the results of Brahman’s combining with Maya’s vidya potency. Like the jivas, such personal manifestations of God have subtle and gross bodies, but unlike the jivas They neither accept their bodies because of past karma nor are bound by the reactions of Their activities. Thus jiva and isvara are distinct. The Mayavadis try to support their ideas by citing scripture. For example, from the Suka-rahasya Upanisad (2.12) they quote the statement karyopadhir ayam jivah karanopadhir isvarah: “The jiva is a reflection [of Brahman] in the antah-karana, or heart, and the isvara is a reflection in Maya.” Also: yatha hy ayam jyotir atma vivasvan apo bhittva bahudhaiko ’nugacchan upadhina kriyate bheda-rupo devah ksetresv evam ajo ’yam atma. “Just as the one effulgent sun appears to be many when reflected in many pots of water, so the one unborn atma, Brahman, appears to be many beings when reflected in many bodies.” (This TEXT is quoted by Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Tattva-sandarbha COMMENTARY .) Some Advaita monists also cite Srimad-Bhagavatam in support of their pratibimba-vada and pariccheda-vada: na hi satyasya nanatvam avidvan yadi manyate nanatvam chidrayor yadvaj jyotisor vatayor iva “This is certain: there is no variety in the Absolute Truth. If an ignorant person thinks there is, his understanding is just like thinking there is a difference between the sky above and the sky in a pot, or between the sun and its reflection in water, or between the air outside the body and the air inside” (Bhag. 12.4.30). Srila Jiva Gosvami, following in Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s footsteps, contends that Sri Vyasadeva’s experience in trance contradicts both of these Mayavada doctrines—namely, pariccheda-vada and pratibimba-vada. This contradiction is evident from the analysis Jiva Gosvami has already presented, but in the upcoming Texts he will demonstrate it further by pointing out the specific defects in these doctrines.

English witness · section(s) 37

TEXT 37

tatra yady upadher anavidyakatvena vastavatvam tarhy avisayasya tasya pariccheda-visayatvasambhavah. nirdharmakasya vyapakasya niravayavasya ca pratibimbatvayogo ’pi upadhi-sambandhabhavad bimba-pratibimba-bhedabhavad drsyatvabhavac ca. upadhi-parichinnakasa-stha-jyotir-amsasyaiva pratibimbo drsyate na tv akasasya drsyatvabhavad eva. If we assume that these upadhis are empirically real and not illusory, still, because Brahman is not affected by anything, it cannot be delimited by them. Moreover, Brahman can cast no reflection because it is devoid of attributes, all-pervading, and indivisible. Since Brahman has no attributes, it can have no relation with upadhis; since it is all-pervading, it cannot be divided into a reflected object and its reflection; and since it is indivisible and uniform, it cannot be seen. In these respects Brahman resembles the sky. Because the sky is invisible, reflections are cast not by the sky itself but by limited luminous parts of the sky [namely the heavenly bodies].

COMMENTARY Flaws in Pratibimba-vada and Pariccheda-vada In Advaita monism, existence (satta) is understood on three different levels—pratibhasika (merely apparent reality), vyavaharika (ordinary, empirical reality), and paramarthika (absolute reality). Pratibhasika existence is perceived in such states as dreams and illusions but ceases when normal consciousness returns. One may, for example, mistake a rope for a snake in semidarkness, but this perception ceases as soon as light is shed on the rope. Therefore, the snake perceived in the rope was a merely apparent reality, or pratibhasika-satta. It cannot be considered an empirical reality because it is private and temporary. According to the Mayavadis, empirical reality, vyavaharika-satta, refers to our perception of the material world in ordinary waking consciousness. Ultimate reality, paramarthika-satta, is present in all objects of the material world, pervading them as the blissful source of all manifest varieties. In his Drg-drsya-viveka (20) Sripada Sankaracarya writes: asti bhati priyam rupam nama cety amsa-païcakam adya-trayam brahma-rupam jagad-rupam tato dvayam “Objects in the material world have five characteristics—existence, perceivability, attractiveness, form, and name. Of these, the first three belong to Brahman and the others to the world.” The last two items, form and name, are products of Maya and thus constitute only the empirical reality; they do not exist on the absolute level. They are manifest only as long as one has not realized Brahman. The other three are Brahman itself as perceived in empirical reality. The Mayavadis claim that the paramarthika-satta, or absolute reality, is impersonal Brahman, which, unlike the other two realities, cannot be negated by experience and scriptural authority. Just as dreams cease when one wakes, the material world will cease to exist when one becomes Brahman realized. There is no higher reality than absolute Brahman, no higher existence that can negate the real existence of Brahman in the past, present, or future. On the level of Brahman existence, there is no distinction between knowledge, the knower, and the object of knowledge. All three fuse into one absolute reality. The two lower realities, pratibhasika and vyavaharika, are not perceived on this level of consciousness. Srila Jiva Gosvami refutes both the pariccheda-vada (the theory of division) and the pratibimba-vada (the theory of reflection) by considering the Sankarites’ explanation of the upadhis covering Brahman as features of the two lower realities: These upadhis can never be real aspects of the absolute reality, since that would introduce duality on the nondual plane. In the case of pariccheda-vada, the upadhis can be either empirical reality (anavidyaka) or apparent reality (avidyaka). Srila Jiva Gosvami shows the fault in both of these alternatives. If the upadhis are empirically real, Brahman still cannot be limited by them because pure Brahman is unconditioned by anything else, empirical or otherwise. In the Bhagavad-gita (13.13) Lord Sri Krsna confirms this: jïeyam yat tat pravaksyami yaj jïatvamrtam asnute anadi mat-param brahma na sat tan nasad ucyate “I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the supreme spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.” Thus no upadhis can limit Brahman. But in the opinion of Sankaracarya, this Gita verse says, “I shall tell you that which has to be known, knowing which one attains immortality; it is the beginningless, supreme Brahman, which is said to be neither being nor nonbeing.” In commenting on this verse Sankara writes: idam tu jïeyam atindriyatvena sabdaika-pramana-gamyatvan na ghatadi-vad ubhaya-buddhy-anugata-pratyaya-visayam ity ato na san na asad ity ucyate. yat tv uktam viruddham ucyate jïeyam tan na sat tan na asad ucyate iti. na viruddham. “anyad eva tad viditad atho aviditad adhi” iti srute. “But this knowable Brahman, being beyond the reach of the senses, can be understood only by means of hearing revealed knowledge from scripture. Therefore, unlike the clay pot, etc., it can never be said to exist or not exist, and thus it can never be called sat or asat. “Objection: But what you said about Brahman, the object of knowledge—that it is neither existent nor nonexistent—is contradictory. “Answer: No, it is not, because the sruti states: ‘That [Brahman] is different from the known and from the unknown, for it is beyond both’” (Kena Up. 1.3). So according to the Mayavadis’ own version, Brahman is beyond sense perception, beyond empirical existence and nonexistence. Such being the case, if the upadhis of Brahman are empirically real they can never limit the undivided and indivisible Brahman and produce the jivas. Therefore the Vedas say, agrhyo na grhyate: “The untouchable [Brahman] cannot be perceived” (Brhad-aranyaka Up. 9.26). Brahman being neither pierceable nor divisible, it cannot be broken or delimited into jivas the way one might break a large stone into pebbles. If we hypothetically grant that the upadhis can divide Brahman into jivas, then in that case neither the jivas nor Brahman itself should be called eternal. But the Bhagavad-gita, which the Mayavadis accept as authoritative, describes both the jiva and Brahman as eternal. In Chapter Thirteen, TEXT 20, Lord Krsna says that the jiva is anadi, beginningless. The same is stated in texts 20–24 of the Second Chapter. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana states that even if the above point is overlooked, other inconsistencies abound in the Mayavada conception: The jivas and isvara move from one place to another, but Brahman is all-pervading. Somehow portions of Brahman become limited by upadhis to manifest as the jivas. When a given jiva moves from one place to another, either Brahman also moves along with it or it does not. But Brahman’s moving from place to place is impossible, because when something moves it leaves one location and then occupies another, where it was absent before. It is absurd to propose this situation for Brahman, since Brahman is always present everywhere. On the other hand, if Brahman does not move with the jivas, we must assume that when a jiva is moving from place to place its upadhi constantly delimits new portions of Brahman, simultaneously releasing the previously delimited portions. This reduces Brahman, the absolute reality, to a toy in the hands of its upadhis, a proposal that is also absurd. If it is instead proposed that all of Brahman is grasped by its upadhis, the problem of movement can be solved, but then there remains no Brahman free from upadhis, meaning that there is no chance for the jivas’ liberation or for useful discussion of philosophy; all of existence would consist of the deluded Brahman, and there would be no liberated domain to aspire for. If it is countered that Brahman is not the basis for its upadhis and thus they can move independently of Brahman, this means that even at the liberated level these independent upadhis will continue to exist. Srila Jiva Gosvami concludes that the interpretation of pariccheda-vada in terms of Brahman’s upadhis being empirically real is invalid. He then goes on to refute pratibimba-vada, the theory of reflection. Brahman, Srila Jiva states, can cast no reflection in its upadhis, or subtle bodies of material existence, because Brahman is devoid of all attributes. Only an object possessing attributes like form and color can have a reflection. If an object is invisible, how can it be reflected in anything? If it is countered that the sky, although invisible, casts a reflection in water, Jiva Gosvami replies that it is in fact the stars and planets in the sky that cast reflections in water, not the sky itself. If the sky could cast a reflection, then the wind would also be able to cast one, because air is a grosser material element than sky. According to modern science, the bluish background seen behind the visible bodies in the firmament is an optical illusion created by the refracted sunlight passing through the atmosphere. No concrete, underlying object is there to cast a reflection, only the invisible firmament. Hence the analogy comparing Brahman to the sky being reflected in water is inappropriate here. Furthermore, we have already shown that, according to the Mayavadis, Brahman is beyond empirical existence and nonexistence and thus also beyond sensory perception. It is foolish to then propose that Brahman reflects as the jivas. But Srila Jiva Gosvami is willing to grant the opposition a respite and hypothetically accept their premise that Brahman can reflect in upadhis, in which case all-pervading Brahman must also exist in the upadhis, in which it supposedly reflects. But if the reflected object, Brahman, is already present in the reflecting medium, the upadhis, how will it reflect there? As a mirror cannot reflect in itself, so Brahman cannot reflect in itself. Even if somehow it manages to reflect in itself, how will it be possible to distinguish the reflected Brahman from the original Brahman already present in the upadhis? The two will be coincident, allowing no basis for distinguishing one from the other. How can the reflected Brahman be singled out to be termed jiva and made to suffer? What was His offense? Why is it that the reflected Brahman becomes affected by upadhis and not the original Brahman, although the reflection is no different from the original? The Mayavadis have also told us that Brahman has no internal parts: niskalam niskriyam santam. “Brahman contains no limbs or parts. It is inactive and peaceful” (Svetasvatara Up. 6.79). But a formless, indivisible object cannot have a relation with any upadhi, real or imaginary, and thus it cannot reflect in any medium. In response to this contention, the Advaita monists cite the analogy of a clear crystal that appears red when placed in front of a red flower. Just as the red color, which is formless and partless, casts its reflection on the crystal, so it is possible for Brahman to be reflected in its upadhis. But this is a faulty argument. The red color in this analogy belongs to the flower, which projects its image through the crystal, although in the crystal we perceive only the flower’s color. The color exists simply as the flower’s attribute and cannot sustain itself independently. A flower, moreover, has shape, parts, and attributes. In sum, neither the color nor the flower compares adequately to Brahman. Therefore, like the analogy of the reflected sky, this analogy has also been applied incongruously by the Mayavadis. The sruti says, asango hy ayam purusah: “Brahman is free from any relation or association” (Brhad-aranyaka Up. 4.3.15). Therefore Brahman cannot engage in any relationship with a reflecting medium. The Mayavadis interpret the word asanga here as meaning “devoid of real relations.” This implies that Brahman can have nonreal relations or associations, created by Maya, but we have already shown that a formless Brahman has no ability to manifest a reflection in an empirically real medium or have any other relation with such a medium, and this impossibility is even more definite with respect to unreal relations with unreal mediums. The Prasna Upanisad (4.10) confirms this when it states, tad acchayam asariram alohitam: “That Brahman casts no shadow, has no body, and is colorless.” We can thus conclude that upadhis—whether real or unreal—can never impose themselves on pure Brahman. They affect only the deluded jivas. In the next TEXT Srila Jiva Gosvami presents more arguments against the Mayavada doctrine, hypothetically considering Brahman’s upadhis as real.

English witness · section(s) 38

TEXT 38

tatha vastava-paricchedadau sati samanadhikaranya-jïana-matrena na tat-tyagas ca bhavet. tat-padartha-prabhavas tatra karanam iti ced asmakam eva matam sammatam. Moreover, if there were empirically real upadhis delimiting Brahman (pariccheda) or acting as the medium of its reflection (pratibimba), a person could not escape from them simply by knowing he is one with the Supreme in essence. And if the Advaita monists propose that freedom from upadhis is due to the influence of the supreme entity, who is called tat, then they agree with us!

COMMENTARY Refutations of Pratibimba-vada and Pariccheda-vada Srila Jiva Gosvami here exposes further complications that arise from accepting Brahman’s upadhis as empirically real. The Advaita monists believe that a jiva can become free from bondage to his upadhis by becoming educated through the srutis. This is the idea of the following sruti statements: Tat tvam asi: “Thou art that” (Chandogya Up. 6.8.7). Tad atmanam eva vedaham brahmasmi: “It knew Itself: ‘I am Brahman’” (Brhad-aranyaka Up. 1.4.10). Tat tvam asy-adi-vakyebhyah jïanam moksasya sadhanam: “The means to liberation is knowledge arising from dictums such as ‘Thou art that’” (Brhan-naradiya Pur. 35.68). Brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati: “He who knows that Brahman becomes Brahman” (Mundaka Up. 3.2.9). Tarati sokam atma-vit: “The knower of the Self transcends grief” (Chandogya Up. 7.1.3). Thus, with the apparent support of Vedic scripture, the Mayavada school claims that liberation is achieved through knowledge. Indeed, the sruti says, tam eva viditva ati mrtyum eti/ nanyah pantha vidyate ’yanaya: “Only by knowing that [Brahman] can one transcend death; there is no other way to cross over” (Svetasvatara Up. 3.8). And in the Bhagavad-gita (4.37) Lord Krsna says: yathaidamsi samiddho ’gnir bhasma-sat kurute ’rjuna jïanagnih sarva-karmani bhasma-sat kurute tatha “As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities.” And again in the fourth chapter, verses 38 and 39, the Lord says, na hi jïanena sadrsam pavitram iha vidyate: “Nothing is as purifying as knowledge”; and jïanam labdhva param santim acirenadhigacchati: “Having attained this knowledge, one quickly attains the supreme peace.” In effect, the Mayavadis think the jiva is like a rich man’s infant son who has gotten lost in a busy public place and is then found by a poor man. As a result of this misfortune, compounded by the son’s ignorance of his true identity, the baby grows up in a humble setting as the child of the poor man. Later the child may be recognized by one of his father's servants. As soon as the boy comes to realize he is the son of a wealthy man, all his poverty evaporates. He does not have to toil hard to get rid of this poverty. In fact, he was never really poor, just ignorant, and thus simply coming to a proper understanding of his real identity was sufficient to reverse the situation. Another example: A person forgets that he put his watch in his pocket and searches for hours, but without any luck. Finally, a friend comes along and sees the watch strap sticking out of his pocket and tells him, “Your watch is in your pocket.” At once the person has the watch and his anxiety is gone. Knowledge alone was sufficient to relieve his distress. Similarly, the Mayavadis say, the jiva is nothing but deluded Brahman. As soon as he realizes this by properly hearing the Vedic instructions, he becomes liberated. He then understands that Brahman is not distant from him, for in fact he himself is Brahman. His only obstacle was ignorance, which hearing the Vedas has now removed. Of course, for the process to be effective one’s heart must be pure, and to achieve this purity Sripada Sankaracarya recommends the sadhana-catustaya, or “fourfold practice,” consisting of discrimination, dispassion, “the six achievements,” and eagerness for liberation. According to Sankara, one of the four maha-vakyas, or essential statements of all Vedic instructions, is tat tvam asi: “You are that [Brahman].” This statement underlines the oneness of the jiva with Brahman. But, we have to ask, since Brahman is all-pervading and all-knowing while the jiva is atomic and limited in knowledge, how can they be the same? To this the Mayavadis reply that tat tvam asi should not be understood in its primary, literal sense but only in a secondary sense. One can recognize the actual oneness between the jiva and Brahman when one puts aside their opposing qualities—omnipresence and omniscience versus atomic size and limited knowledge—and recognizes only their mutual quality of consciousness. This process is called bhaga-tyaga-laksana, or applying a metaphorical meaning to a phrase by avoiding part of a word’s literal meaning or some of its qualifications. Thus one can realize the true oneness between Brahman and jiva only when one puts aside the upadhi that limits Brahman into becoming a jiva. To help in this realization the guru instructs the disciple, “You are that.” Since the sruti statements cannot be meaningless, Sankara contends, this is the only way to understand the maha-vakya. Srila Jiva Gosvami answers this whole argument by pointing out that even when a jiva is absorbed in hearing the Vedic sound conveying the knowledge that he is one with Brahman, the upadhi covering the jiva, which is empirically real, will not magically dissolve. A man bound by chains will not become free just by meditating that his fetters are cut. A rabbit will not turn into an elephant just by meditating, “I am an elephant, I am an elephant.” Such achievements would be possible only if the upadhis were merely apparent. An intoxicated office clerk may think he is the President of the United States, but when he becomes sober he understands he is still just an office clerk. If the upadhis covering Brahman are real, the task of removing them is not so easy. Mere knowledge is not sufficient to liberate the jiva from Maya. If knowledge alone were actually sufficient for liberation, why do the scriptures recommend various austerities, penances, and rituals for self-purification? The Mayavadis can only say that these are preliminary steps for purifying the heart, for qualifying one to understand the meaning of the srutis’ maha-vakyas. But according to the sastras, knowledge (vidya) and ignorance (avidya) are both products of Maya. So even if a jiva, by studying Vedic texts, gets rid of his avidya with the help of vidya, he will still be bound by vidya. How will he do away with this other upadhi, vidya? Until he is free from all upadhis he cannot realize Brahman, which is beyond both vidya and avidya. Lord Krsna discusses this point with Uddhava in the Eleventh Canto of the Bhagavatam (11.11.3): vidyavidye mama tanu viddhy uddhava saririnam moksa-bandha-kari adye mayaya me vinirmite “O Uddhava, both knowledge and ignorance, being products of Maya, are expansions of My potency. Both knowledge and ignorance are beginningless, and they perpetually award living beings with liberation and bondage, respectively.” Here the Lord explicitly states that vidya is also a product of Maya. When He says that vidya gives liberation, He does not mean that vidya alone can grant it, because no one can become free from Maya without surrendering to the Supreme Lord. He emphatically declares this to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita (7.14): daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te “This divine energy of Mine—Maya, consisting of the three modes of material nature—is difficult to overcome. Only those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.” The term vidya means “knowledge” and also “devotion.” In Upanisadic statements such as tam eva viditva ati mrtyum eti, the word viditva (“after knowing”) really means “by being devoted to Him, fully knowing His essence”; it does not mean having knowledge without devotion. Lord Krsna confirms this in the Bhagavad-gita (4.9): janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvatah tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mam eti so ’rjuna “One who knows in truth the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.” Here the same root, vid (“to know”), is being used, and in this con TEXT it means “knowing with devotion.” Material knowledge is a feature of Maya, whereas transcendental knowledge about the Lord is manifested by the illuminating power of bhakti, an aspect of the Supreme Lord’s internal potency. Spiritual knowledge is inseparable from bhakti. The process of hearing—or in other words receiving knowledge—is in fact listed first among the nine processes of devotional service. A passage from the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (4.4.21) bears out our conclusion that vidya indicates knowledge with devotion: vijïaya prajïam kurvita. “After knowing, one should practice wisdom.” Here the word used for wisdom—prajïa—conveys the same meaning as vidya, and so the sentence indicates, “After knowing Him, one should practice devotion.” Also, in the Bhagavad-gita (9.2) the Lord says, raja-vidya, “This is the king of knowledge.” From the con TEXT it is evident that here vidya means “devotional service.” Thus it is devotional service and not mere knowledge that cuts the bonds of Maya, as stated in Bhagavad-gita 7.14 and confirmed later, in Bhagavad-gita 11.53–54: naham vedair na tapasa na danena na cejyaya sakya evam-vidho drastum drstavan asi mam yatha

bhaktya tv ananyaya sakya aham evam-vidho ’rjuna jïatum drastum ca tattvena pravestum ca parantapa “[Lord Krsna said to Arjuna:] ‘The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am. My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.” If the Mayavadis respond by suggesting that it is possible for the jiva to remove all upadhis and become Brahman by the mercy of the all-powerful and benign Brahman, Srila Jiva Gosvami is glad to accept this idea, since it amounts to surrendering to the Vaisnava view. The Advaita monists insist that Brahman is devoid of all attributes and potencies, but if that same Brahman is now required to bless the jiva, then it has to have some potency, namely mercy. By allowing featureless Brahman to have any potency at all, the Mayavadis conform to the Vaisnava definition of Para-brahman as Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In that case, Srila Jiva Gosvami says, asmakam eva mata-sammatam, “Their view then agrees with ours.” In the Bhagavat-sandarbha Srila Jiva Gosvami will prove that even for Brahman realization one must take shelter of the Supreme Lord. Next, Srila Jiva Gosvami exposes the fallacies of the second alternative, that Brahman’s upadhis are unreal.

TATTVA SANDARBHA

BY SRILA JIVA GOSWAMI

[PART 7]

English witness · section(s) 39

TEXT 39

upadher avidyakatve tu tatra tat-paricchinnatvader apy aghatamanatvad avidyakatvam eveti ghatakasadisu vastavopadhi-maya-tad-darsanaya na tesam avastava-svapna-drstantopajivinam siddhantah sidhyati ghatamanaghatamanayoh sangateh kartum asakyatvat. tatas ca tesam tat tat sarvam avidya-vilasitam eveti svarupam apraptena tena tena tad tad vyavasthapayitum asakyam. Conversely, if the upadhis are only apparently real, then Brahman’s delimitation (pariccheda) and reflection (pratibimba) are also only apparently real, since these processes would not in fact occur. Because in this case the Mayavadis’ doctrine would be based on the analogy of an unreal dream state, such analogies as that of the pot and the sky, which involve real upadhis, cannot serve to establish it. No proper analogy can be drawn between something that exists and something that does not exist. Therefore the Mayavadis’ theories of division and reflection are nothing but the play of illusion, unprovable by their faulty application of analogies.

COMMENTARY Further Refutations of Pratibimba-vada and Pariccheda-vada In previous Texts, Srila Jiva Gosvami has shown that if Brahman’s upadhis are empirically real one cannot satisfactorily explain the existence of either the jivas or the isvara. Now he will consider the Sankarites’ second option, that Brahman’s upadhis are only apparent. In this TEXT the upadhis are called avidyaka, or “illusory,” a specific reference to pratibhasika reality as defined in Mayavada theory. In this con TEXT the Sankarites do not intend “illusory” to mean altogether nonexistent, for nonexistence can never give rise to either the jiva or the isvara. Rather, they say, Brahman’s upadhis are “illusory” in the sense that they exist on neither the empirical nor the absolute level. They are an intangible, apparent reality, akin to dreams, misperceptions, and hallucinations. The objects one sees in dreams, misperceptions, or hallucinations are intangible. In a dream one may eat a big feast, for example, but upon waking up one will still feel hungry; the feast appears real only while dreaming. Similarly intangible are misperceived or imagined objects, such as a “snake” that is in fact a rope; fear of the snake will persist only as long as the misperception or hallucination continues. This kind of illusory reality (pratibhasika-satta) is inferior to the empirical world and to absolute reality. Nonetheless, the Mayavadis posit that such apparent upadhis can cause Brahman to take on the characteristics of jivas and the isvara. The first step in refuting this erroneous theory is to point out that an effect is always dependent on its cause and that specific effects arise from specific causes. For example, one cannot make water taste sweet by adding salt. It follows, therefore, that if the upadhis imposed on Brahman are only apparent realities they cannot produce empirical reality. A daydream may be a pleasant reverie, but no one gains any real benefit by imagining he has been crowned emperor of the world. Instead, as he whiles away the time the daydreamer may lose an opportunity for gaining some practical benefit in the real world. However much he dreams, his apparent reality will never become empirically real. In the con TEXT of discussing real upadhis, Srila Jiva Gosvami has already refuted the two analogies the Mayavadis use to explain pariccheda-vada and pratibimba-vada—the analogy of the sun reflecting in many waterpots and that of the sky becoming delimited by a pot. These analogies are also inappropriate here. The Mayavadis may justifiably presume the sky to be empirically real and thus delimitable by such an upadhi as a pot. But Brahman is neither empirical not divisible, and therefore it is impossible for empirical upadhis to delimit it. If any delimitation of Brahman can be reconciled with Brahman’s transcendental nature, such delimitation can occur only on the level of mere appearance, not in empirical reality. Such a pratibhasika delimitation, unreal in the empirical sense, will not help explain how the jivas and the isvara come into being on the empirical plane. This leaves no consistent explanation of how indivisible, formless Brahman can be divided into the jivas and the isvara by either empirical or merely apparent upadhis. A good analogy must be as similar as possible to what it illustrates. The greater the similarity, the stronger the analogy. But the analogy of the sky and the pot is not similar enough to the situation the Mayavadis try to apply it to: while the sky and Brahman are similar, the sky’s upadhi, the pot, is empirical, while Brahman’s upadhis must be merely apparent. The impersonalists compare this world to a dream in order to show its illusory nature and to demonstrate that the world does not really exist. But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion. If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, but in the phenomenal world he risks punishment for such an act. So it is improper to say that the world is just a dream. Sin and piety, which pollute or purify the heart of an actor, are not applicable to acts done in dreams; they give their bitter and sweet fruits only in the phenomenal world. The analogy of a dream, therefore, is not adequate for explaining the appearance of the material world from Brahman. The Vedic scriptures present the dream analogy only to illustrate the temporary nature of this world, with a view toward inspiring a sense of detachment from materialism in those desiring to walk the path of transcendence. The Mayavadis’ only other alternative is to assign Brahman to empirical (vyavaharika) reality by placing it in the same class as the sky, to which the Vedas compare it. But that leaves us with no absolute reality, in which case the whole idea becomes absurd because, logically, absolute reality must exist, and the Vedas and numerous saintly persons confirm this. Thus all these arguments fail to establish the doctrines of pariccheda and pratibimba, which are thus left as nothing more than mental exercises for impersonal speculators. They provide no sound explanation of how pure Brahman, by adulteration with upadhis, manifests as many, namely as isvara and the jivas. Srila Jiva Gosvami offers still more refutations of impersonalism in the next Text.

English witness · section(s) 40

TEXT 40

iti brahmavidyayoh paryavasane sati yad eva brahma cin-matratvenavidya-yogasyatyantabhavaspadatatvac chuddham tad eva tad-yogad asuddhya jivah punas tad eva jivavidya-kalpita-mayasrayatvad isvaras tad eva ca tan-maya-visayatvaj jiva iti virodhas tad-avastha eva syat. tatra ca suddhayam city avidya tad-avidya-kalpitopadhau tasyam isvarakhyayam vidyeti tatha vidya-vatte ’pi mayikatvam ity asamaïjasa ca kalpana syad ity-ady anusandheyam. In this way, by basing their ideas on Brahman and avidya alone, the Mayavadis contradict themselves when they say that the one undivided Brahman, pure by virtue of being unadulterated consciousness and thus altogether free from contact with avidya, is nonetheless polluted by contacting avidya and thus becomes the jiva. Then again, say the Mayavadis, that same Brahman becomes the personal Godhead when He serves as the basis of Maya, the illusion concocted from the jiva’s avidya. And under the influence of Maya, Brahman supposedly once more becomes the jiva. Here we have avidya within the pure spiritual being (Brahman), vidya within the upadhi called God, who is concocted by that avidya, and an illusory status of that same Godhead, who is the proprietor of vidya. We should carefully study how these and other similarly manufactured ideas are simply incoherent.

COMMENTARY Inconsistencies in Advaita Monism In the previous Texts Srila Jiva Gosvami has refuted the two main theories of Advaita monism, pariccheda-vada and pratibimba-vada. He showed that neither of these consistently explains the empirical world and the presence of the jivas and God within it. Now Srila Jiva Gosvami points out in further detail the fallacies in these theories. He argues that even if we accept either the pariccheda-vada or the pratibimba-vada as a description of how Brahman becomes divided into the many jivas, still the contradiction between Brahman’s perfection and the superimposition of avidya will remain unresolved. How can Brahman, which is indivisible pure consciousness, have portions that fall under the rule of Maya and think themselves jivas? Knowledge and delusion cannot share the same location, just as light and darkness cannot both be present in exactly the same place. Being indivisible, Brahman cannot become fragmented to manifest the jivas. Moreover, the absolute existence cannot include Maya (avidya), but only Brahman alone. For Maya to be involved with Brahman, either Brahman would have to degrade itself to Maya’s empirical level so it could be adulterated by upadhis, or else Maya would have to elevate herself to the absolute plane of Brahman so that she could influence it. The first of these alternatives is impossible because Brahman is without attributes and cannot change. The second alternative amounts to dualism, because then Maya and Brahman would have equal status on the plane of absolute reality. This, of course, contradicts the first principles of Advaita monism. Under the pressure of these arguments, the impersonalists may try to placate us with the claim that the vital issue at hand is not precisely how the jiva came under the influence of Maya but simply that he is now suffering in illusion. The house of material existence is now on fire; we do not have time to search out Maya’s origin but should try to escape the fire quickly before it devours us, before we lose the opportunity of human life. Even if we grant this point, the Mayavadis still must convince us that the end they want us to seek, impersonal liberation, is in our best interest. This they cannot do. Our house may be on fire, but it does not follow that we should panic and jump out the first available window to our certain death. As Srila Jiva Gosvami indicates here, the Mayavadis say that after Brahman comes under the influence of avidya He is called jiva. Then this jiva creates Maya by his imagination. A portion of Brahman next gives shelter to Maya and becomes known as isvara, or the Supreme Lord. From that point on Maya follows isvara’s dictates and controls the jiva, who is Brahman covered by Maya. So isvara is the basis of Maya, and the jiva is her visaya, or object of action. This is self-contradictory. This explanation is plagued with the logical fault called anyonyasraya-dosa, or “the defect of mutual dependence”: Maya’s existence supposedly originates from the jiva, and the jiva’s existence also originates from Maya. This means that without Maya there is no jiva and without jiva there is no Maya. In addition, a part of Brahman supposedly becomes isvara by contacting Maya, but then Maya becomes subordinate to this isvara. In this view even God cannot come into existence without the involvement of the finite living beings, who are themselves dependent manifestations of Maya. So ultimately isvara is dependent on Maya for His existence. Another absurdity in the pariccheda-vada and pratibimba-vada presentations is the claim that Maya has two features—vidya and avidya. The upadhi delimiting Brahman as isvara is supposedly Maya’s vidya portion, which is predominantly in the mode of goodness, while the upadhis limiting Brahman as the jivas constitute her avidya portion. In this way, isvara is the basis of the jivas’ illusion despite His being the embodiment of perfect knowledge, but the Mayavadis cannot explain how such a division of Maya into vidya and avidya comes into existence. Certainly Brahman, being devoid of qualities, cannot create this division. Srila Jiva Gosvami advises us to study other inconsistencies like these in Mayavada philosophy. For example, we should consider the following questions: If originally only featureless Brahman and nothing else exists, where does avidya come from? Or, if avidya can bind Brahman, isn’t it more powerful than Brahman? The Mayavadis compare Brahman to a spider that weaves its own web and somehow gets bound by it, but this analogy presents Brahman as possessing attributes and potencies, revealing a tacit acceptance of the Vaisnava dualistic understanding. We should also consider the following conundrums: (1) Since Brahman is unlimited and devoid of parts, it cannot possibly cast a reflection. (2) Brahman is described as pure awareness, but in order to function, awareness needs an object apart from itself. There is no meaning to knowledge without a known object. And when there is an object, there is the multiplicity of knower, knowledge, and known. (3) The very fact of Brahman’s existence proves that it is potent, because anything that exists necessarily has some kind of energy or attribute. Thus there is duality between Brahman and its potencies or attributes. From Sankhya philosophy we understand that the primeval pradhana generates the mahat-tattva, which then gives rise to false ego. Now, suppose we grant that, as the Mayavadis say, a jiva can dissolve his false ego by cultivating spiritual knowledge. But even if one does this, the other two basic elements of material nature—mahat-tattva and pradhana—will remain undissolved. How will the egoless jiva transcend the mahat-tattva and pradhana to realize Brahman? Egolessness is not equivalent to liberation, since at the time of universal annihilation, when the conditioned jivas merge into the body of Maha-Visnu, they are devoid of false ego but still bound by their karma. An analysis of the word “Brahman” reveals still further problems for the Mayavadis. Every word has an inherent relationship with its meaning. According to Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Hari-namamrta-vyakarana (2.1), a word that refers to something denotes either an object, a quality, a class, or an activity. Certainly the word “Brahman” represents neither a class nor an activity. If Brahman were a quality, there would have to be another object possessing that quality, since no quality can exist without belonging to some object. If, as the last alternative, Brahman is an object, then it must possess qualities because an eternal object cannot exist without qualities. In either case, Brahman enters into a duality. Mayavadis explain this material world on the basis of Maya, which is neither sat (real) nor asat (unreal). They say that Maya is thus inexplicable (anirvacaniya). But in the Bhagavad-gita (2.16) Lord Sri Krsna recognizes only two categories, sat and asat: nasato vidyate bhavo nabhavo vidyate satah ubhayor api drsto ’ntas tv anayos tattva-darsibhih “Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that the unreal (asat) has no existence and that the real (sat) has no nonexistence.” There is no mention here or in any other bona fide scripture of an inexplicable third mode. Thus there is no foundation for the Mayavadis’ concept that Maya and the material world generated from her belong to some inexplicable third category. To prove their contention that the material world is inexplicable (anirvacaniya or mithya), neither real nor unreal, the Sankarites cite the well-known example of the rope and the snake. If snakes were completely nonexistent (asat), they say, no one would ever mistake a rope for one in semidarkness, because a nonexistent thing can never be perceived. So the “snake” is not nonexistent, but still it cannot be considered real (sat) either, because in sufficient light no snake will be seen. Thus there must be a third category, separate from both sat and asat. This third category is anirvacaniya, inexplicable, and to it the Sankarites assign Maya. The truth, however, is that one need not resort to the Mayavada philosophy to explain the rope mistaken for a snake. The snake and the rope are both real. A person who mistakes a rope for a snake must have previously experienced a real snake, and the conditions must be insufficient for correct perception. His experience of snakes, therefore, will cause his mind to superimpose the impression of a snake on the rope in semidarkness. By contrast, someone who has no experience of snakes will never mistake a rope for one. An infant, for example, will never mistake a rope for snake. Thus there is no inexplicable third category in material existence, as the Mayavadis claim. Since Mayavadis accept only Brahman as the ultimate reality, they say that even scriptures that teach such statements as tat tvam asi (“You are that”) are true only empirically. Although such declarations have the power to uplift those who hear them, they are not absolutely true. In this way the Sankarites expose yet another inconsistency in their system. If the scriptures are only empirically real, how can they elevate anyone beyond Maya? By this logic even the enlightened writings of such liberated souls as Yajïavalkya and Sankara are unable to liberate their readers, for, not being absolute, they must be full of relative imperfections. In truth the jiva is not, as the Mayavadis say, merely an adulterated version of Brahman. As the Supreme Lord states in the Bhagavad-gita (15.7), mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah: “The jiva is My eternal fragment.” Thus the jiva can never lose his identity by merging back into the Brahman it supposedly really is. When wheat berries and rice grains are mixed, they do not merge into one another and lose their separate identities. We can easily distinguish the wheat from the rice. If, however, we mix papaya seeds with some similar-looking black peppercorns, we may have difficulty distinguishing between them. Still, this does not mean they have lost their distinct identities. Similarly, the jivas cannot merge into Brahman and lose their identity. Of course, if a jiva wants to feel that he has merged with Brahman and performs the appropriate spiritual practices, the all-merciful Supreme Lord will help that jiva imagine he has attained literal oneness with Him. In reality, God and the jivas are always distinct, and both the Lord and His pure devotees are always aware of this distinction. Having established that the Mayavadis’ philosophy is opposed to the truths revealed in Vyasadeva’s meditative experience, and having highlighted some of the prominent defects in their logic, Srila Jiva Gosvami next argues that the monistic conclusion also contradicts the experience of Sukadeva Gosvami, the principal speaker of Srimad-Bhagavatam.