How Can You So Brazenly Insult Past Acharyas Of Vedanta

“Krishna is the Supreme Person, but at the same time He is beyond the knowledge of Brahman and Paramatma. The yogis and jnanis are confused in their attempts to understand Krishna, although the greatest of the impersonalists, Shripada Shankaracharya, has admitted in his Gita commentary that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But his followers do not accept Krishna as such, for it is very difficult to know Krishna, even though one has transcendental realization of impersonal Brahman.” (Shrila Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita, 7.3 Purport)

Download as podcast episode (right click and save)

“Listen, I am no expert, by any means. I can barely keep track of household responsibilities. For instance, the bread is almost finished. I need to maintain a watchful eye because the only bread that we can eat, that is not laced with poison from industrial farming, is available at a store far away. The bread is not always in stock, either, so I have to visit the store on a particular day, at a particular time, in order to return home a winner, in the eyes of my family.

“Sorry for the tangent, but I am bringing this up to highlight that studying Vedanta philosophy is not easy for me. The presentation of the Vaishnavas has so many terms that you could write an encyclopedia on it. The full set would expand out many volumes, to fill up an entire shelf of a bookcase. I am most familiar with the works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I mean no disrespect by this, but the part that bothers me most is the repeated criticism of Mayavada philosophy and the people who follow it, who are the dreaded Mayavadis.

“Okay, I get it that there are differences in philosophy. There are different conclusions. That is what ‘vada’ refers to. I am not one to insert myself into the discussion, to choose sides. The thing is, Mayavada is from a respected teacher, is it not? I have heard that Shankaracharya is supposed to be an incarnation of Mahadeva, who is also known as Lord Shiva. How, then, can we so capriciously criticize such a person? This is not an ordinary teacher. This is the wisest among the wise. He is like the roots of a tree that still produces new branches to this day.

“Do you get what I am saying? Shouldn’t there be some respect? Shouldn’t the Vaishnavas view the Vedantists as colleagues? Aren’t we all on the same team here? I just don’t get it. I am sometimes turned away by the harsh criticism. I am sure others have a similar experience.”

The harshness might be in the words of criticism and in the teachings to students, but certainly not in the behavior. There is always mutual respect. There should be a gentlemanly approach, when meeting in person. This is the way Chaitanya Mahaprabhu behaved, after all. He is the prominent saintly personality revealing the spiritual conclusion of achintya-bhedabheda-tattva. This conclusion incorporates Mayavada, but goes one step further.

The same can be said of respected leaders like Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya. Indeed, it can be said that such leaders appeared in this world specifically to refute Mayavada philosophy. If not an outright rebuke, then at least a clarification. The living beings are indeed Brahman. You and I are equal to God. We are the same as Him. At the same time, we are separate. We are different. He is distinct from us. He has a potency that we could never possibly comprehend. It may take several lifetimes before we acknowledge the difference.

बहूनां जन्मनाम् अन्ते
ज्ञानवान् मां प्रपद्यते
वासुदेवः सर्वम् इति
स महात्मा सु-दुर्लभः

bahūnāṁ janmanām ante
jñānavān māṁ prapadyate
vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti
sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ

“After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 7.19)

Someone who aligns with the Mayavada conclusion might speculate that maya itself is the equivalent to the Devil of other religious traditions. Sort of an adversary, someone who urges the opposite of pious behavior. The Devil shares equal footing with God, supposedly. God apparently has no control over this Devil, and so it is up to the helpless individuals to choose properly. They should go towards the light and leave the darkness behind.

The reality is that maya is an energy of God. She is a goddess. She is not an adversary. The wise individual respects maya. They, therefore, automatically respect someone who properly identifies her, in the way of Shankaracharya. Different divine personalities appear in this manifest world at different times, for different purposes. Mahadeva is the greatest Vaishnava. He can never be against the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If he teaches something while in this world, it must be to steer others away from a negative tendency, to correct a wrong within society.

Madhvacharya corrects the incorrect conclusion of Mayavada. Ramanujacharya also corrects. The same for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. There is nothing offensive in following their example, in highlighting flaws in a philosophy that goes against the very nature of the individual, who is spirit soul. There is a relationship which results from the proper conclusion. By knowing that I am equal to and separate from God, I can take up loving service to Him. This creates a oneness far superior to anything experienced in the mukti advocated by the impersonalists.

“Salokya means that after material liberation one is promoted to the planet where the Supreme Personality of Godhead resides. Samipya means remaining an associate of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sarupya means attaining a four-handed form exactly like that of the Lord. Sarshti means attaining opulences like those of the Supreme Lord, and sayujya means merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Lord. These are the five types of liberation.” (Shrila Prabhupada, Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya 6.266 Purport)

The first snare of maya is identifying with the body. If I take this lifetime to be everything, this turn on the wheel of existence, then I am in illusion. I do not know things as they are. The last snare of maya is to think that I have become God. This is the reason for the strong rebuke from the Vaishnava acharya. A person gravitates towards the conclusion that validates their desire. If they wish to stay in illusion, they will find Mayavada philosophy appealing. If they wish to finally be in knowledge, to understand things as they truly are, then they will find the shelter of Vasudeva, who is the cause of all causes.

सालोक्यसार्ष्टिसामीप्यसारूप्यैकत्वमप्युत
दीयमानं न गृह्णन्ति विना मत्सेवनं जना:

sālokya-sārṣṭi-sāmīpya-
sārūpyaikatvam apy uta
dīyamānaṁ na gṛhṇanti
vinā mat-sevanaṁ janāḥ

“A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation – salokya, sarshti, samipya, sarupya or ekatva – even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” (Shrimad Bhagavatam, 3.29.13)

In Closing:

Not something new,
From past teachers too.

That Mayavada to condemn,
And difference to defend.

That to God certainly the same,
But merging not the aim.

Since a difference inside,
Vasudeva as topmost to preside.