Māyāvāda-timira Bhāskara

Brahma is ajñeya, unknowable (?)
Māyāvādīs say, “Brahma is the one and only truth.” That is all fine and well, but now the issue is: before deciding whether or not brahma is true or false, naturally, there is a desire to know what exactly this brahma is. Because, if a vastu (an object or entity) is unknown, deliberating whether it is true or not is pointless. Right from the start, however, the Advaitavādīs have robbed us of any hope of knowing. They are busy deciding the truth of brahma, which may as well be a flower in the sky, but meanwhile, according to their own doctrine, brahma is unknowable, featureless, formless, and inactive. According to them:

"Brahma has no power to experience, no power of desire, and no power of action. And there is no proof or knowledge whereby brahma can be known. It is not knowable through words or through knowledge. It is a self-evident thing. Vivarta (perception of an apparent or illusory form) occurs in referring to brahma as guṇī (possessing qualities) or jñānī (possessing knowledge). In other words, this happens when any label or designation is superimposed upon brahma via māyā. Śāstra tends to prohibit those same qualities through a process of negation, or “neti, neti—not this, not this, etc.” Otherwise, śāstra can never impart knowledge of an unknowable thing. That which is somewhat knowable can be known, experienced; and that which is known or, in other words, that which one experiences as known, is asatya, false. Only jaḍa-vastu, mundane objects, can become the subjects of knowledge. That is why they are known, and for that exact reason, they are false. But brahma is cetana-vastu, an object of pure consciousness. One cannot subject it to knowledge, so one cannot know it. (Therefore) it is an unknowable and true vastu."

In this way, the brahma of the Advaitavādīs is beyond all manner of proof and no one knows nor can know what kind of vastu it is. No one can even grasp a semblance of it. How splendid is your glory, Māyā! You have consumed these Māyāvādīs from head to toe—in one gulp!

Brahma is inaccessible to the mundane mind and words
There are definitely several mantras in various places in the Vedas and Upaniṣads that, when interpreted in an ignorant way (ajña-rūḍhi-vṛtti), have engulfed the intelligence of the offensive, atheistic Māyāvādīs. “Yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha – God is that which words cannot describe and the mind cannot fathom.” The Māyāvādīs have taken up this and a few other verses of this sort to wield as veritable brahmāstras. However, the Māyāvādīs who are so excited to pick up their brahmāstras have not been able to foresee that those same astras have been taken up for the express purpose of cutting the refutations of the refuters. Śrīmat Ānanda Tīrthapāda has revealed their enlightened interpretation (vidvad-rūḍhi) and  used those very astras to decimate that covert Buddhism or Māyāvāda at its root.

If brahma were a material object, then one would be able to comprehend it through material knowledge. It follows that there would be no need for the Vedas to impart any independent instructions about it. And if brahma were unknowable, then there would not be any need for any Vedic teachings either, because that is a matter of tangible, eyewitness experience [whether something is knowable or not]. But brahma is not a prākṛta-vastu, a mundane object, nor is it an unknowable object. It is an aprākṛta (supramundane) vastu composed of saccidānanda (divine knowledge, eternity, and bliss) and it is knowable via aprākṛta knowledge. The significance of śāstra is seen in the instructions it imparts regarding this supramundane brahma-vastu that is knowable via supramundane knowledge. Mundane words and mental faculties cannot express brahma-vastu in words or contemplate it via their sensory efforts, and that is why the Vedas say things like “yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha.” To say “brahma is true and in no way knowable” is the same as saying “brahma is false.” When Māyāvādīs are saying brahma is true, is it based on any evidence? If there is no evidence provided for brahma, then how can one say it is true? And if the truth of brahma is based on experience, then that proves its knowability.

Avyakta (imperceptible) means “not fully perceptible”
Sphoṭa-śakti is the total power of meaning as it is conveyed universally from one conscious being to another via śabda (sound that coalesces into meaningful words), and this ultimately originates from Bhagavān Himself. The Māyāvādīs are rather impoverished in regard to a scientific understanding of śabda’s sphoṭa-śakti, so they are deceived by its ajña-rūḍhi-vṛtti, or unenlightened, literal interpretation. The interpretations they derive from the mantras of Śruti cannot reconcile apparent contradictions between proof and the thing to be proven, between a rudimentary grasp of a concept and its ultimate implications. If only they would take shelter at the lotus feet of a genuine guru, they would be able to understand that the aforementioned statements of Śruti are not saying that brahma is fully ajñeya (unknowable). Rather, because brahma is vibhu-cid-vastu (the supreme spiritual reality), no one can fully subject It to knowledge nor express It fully. Brahma is adhokṣaja-vastu (a reality beyond sense perception); only vaikuṇṭha-śabda, or word originating from the infinite spiritual realm of Vaikuṇṭha, which is Veda, can perform kīrtana of Its exploits. The ruckus a frog makes draws the snake near, and the frog gets eaten by the snake, thus incurring its own annihilation. Likewise, the ruckus of unrefined logic and futile debate created by the Māyāvādīs becomes the cause of their own annihilation when they do away with the tripuṭi, or triad, of reality: the knower, the known, and knowledge.

As the brahma of the Māyāvādīs is unknowable, at the time of their passing, brahma gives up their body, leaving them truly deprived. They do not actually attain mukti. But those who are brahma-vit come to know brahma at the time of their passing or even during their lives and becomely supremely mukta or jīvanmukta, liberated in life. At that time, they realize the constitutional nature of their soul’s existence as an ingredient in the divine play of advaya-jñāna Parabrahma, the Absolute Truth, and thus they become supremely blessed.

Because of the jīva’s minuteness, he cannot know that infinite Parabrahma in His entirety, and his words cannot properly render kīrtana of that Parabrahma’s infinite qualities, for that Parabrahma is the reservoir of all benefic qualities. That is why Veda has said: “yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha.”

This can be understood by means of a mundane example as well: If someone looks at the ocean, they cannot see its entirety. In other words, what they see depends on the capacity of their vision; they can only describe the ocean as their capacity permits. This is how it is with brahma. In other words, mukta-jīva (liberated souls) have darśana of Parabrahma and even describe Him with the aid of vaikuṇṭha-śabda. The Vedas are brahma, so veda-brahma and veda-vākya (the statements of the Vedas) are inextricably connected as vācya (the signified, or the meaning of a word) and vācaka (the signifier, or the word that conveys meaning).

The knowability of brahma precipitates the mind’s inclination to seek it
If brahma really was an utterly unknowable vastu, there would be no words to even broach the subject, nor would the mind have any inclination to seek brahma. Such things would not even be able to come into existence. But the mantra of Śruti states: “yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha – God is that which words cannot describe and the mind cannot fathom.” From this, we learn that words and the mind do indeed try to know that knowable Parabrahma, even though they fail to know Him in full and return incomplete from that venture. The reason they cannot know Him fully is because Brahma is vibhu-vastu (a vast, divine reality).

Brahma can be known via śabda
The Vedas, Brahma-sūtra, and Śrī Gītā—which are referred to as the prasthāna-traya, or three cannonical texts, whereupon the whole of Hindu philosophy is established—all state that the vastu that is Parabrahma is jñeya (knowable). The following mantra of Veda is proof of this: “Ātmā vā are śrotavyo draṣṭavyoḥ mantavyo nididhyāsitavyaḥ – the Ātmā (Paramātmā) is to be beheld, heard, contemplated, and deeply meditated upon repeatedly.”

The very first sūtra (axiom) of Vedānta is “athāto brahma-jijñāsā – now is the time to inquire about brahma.” If brahma were by nature unknowable, then what would be the point of such inquiries about brahma and what need was there for the nearly five hundred and fifty sūtras concerning that very topic?

Now the question is: what is the means to attain brahma? It is to address this doubt that the author of the sūtras writes the following sūtra: “śāstra-yonitvāt – scripture is the womb (of genuine knowledge of brahma).” Śāstra means śabda; this śabda is not mundane sound produced by the friction of airflow found in this finite realm, but rather, it is self-manifest “unstruck sound” of the spiritual sky. There is essentially no difference between the śabda of Vaikuṇṭha and brahma, the Absolute Truth. There is no separation between nāda-brahma (praṇava) and brahma. In other words, since praṇava itself is the svarūpa of brahma, the fact that brahma is knowable by śabda is self-evident.

Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa has stated in Gītā [15.15]: “Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedya – It is I who am to be known from all the Vedas.” Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [1.1.2], the natural commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, also delivers kīrtana of the same fact: “Vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadam – herein one can know reality as distinguised from illusion for the benefit of all.” Bestower of supreme auspiciousness and negator of illusion, the factual truth, the vastu, or substance, that is Parabrahma is vedya (knowable). Hence, what the Māyāvādīs say about Parabrahma being ajñeya (unknowable) and ineffable really is just like the frog’s croaking. Parabrahma is the reservoir of all benefic virtues, He has assumed the form of śabda, He is knowable by people, and He possesses inconceivable potency. Māyāvādīs simply become the laughingstock of civilized society when they display the audacity of trying to subdue that Parabrahma with tarka.

Covert Buddhism
This is why Śrī Padma Purāṇa has dubbed Māyāvāda as prachanna bauddha-mata – covert Buddhism. But Buddhists are actually more simple than Māyāvādīs. Because, they have made the straightforward conclusion that the absence of all manner of existence is tattva. In other words, they posit śunya (void, nothingness) to be the tattva, or essential truth of reality. This conclusion goes against the Vedas. And the Māyāvādīs resort to deceit. Despite the pretense of accepting the Vedas, they have become inclined to refer to brahma, who is knowable via Veda, as unknowable and ineffable. Just as the Buddhists say everything is void and then say that void is the truth, the Māyāvādīs say Parabrahma is unknowable and then cunningly say that is the truth. Whether a thing is true or false depends on proof, but Māyāvādīs cannot give any proof of brahma. That is why Śrīman Mahāprabhu has said:

veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta’ nāstika
vedāśraya nāstikya-vāda bauddhake adhika
jīvera nistāra lāgi’ sūtra kailo vyāsa
māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa
‘pariṇāma-vāda’ — vyāsa-sūtrera sammata
acintya-śakti īśvara jagad-rūpe pariṇata
maṇi jaiche avikṛte prasabe hema-bhāra
jagad-rūpa haya īśvara, tabu avikāra
vyāsa — bhrānta bali’ sei sūtre doṣa diyā
‘vivarta-vāda’ sthāpiyāche kalpanā kariyā
jīvera dehe ātma-buddhi — sei mithyā haya
jagat je mithyā nahe, naśvara-mātra haya
‘praṇava’ je mahā-vākya — īśvarera mūrti
praṇava haite sarva-veda, jagat-utpatti

        (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya, 6.168–178)

[As the Buddhists do not accept the Vedas, they are considered agnostic. The Māyāvādīs, however, who take shelter of the Vedas yet still preach agnosticism are more dangerous. Vyāsadeva composed the Brahma-sūtra to deliver the jīvas, but hearing the Māyāvāda interpretation of them spells utter ruin for them. Vyāsa’s sūtras aim to establish pariṇāma-vāda, the understanding that the Lord’s inconceivable potency transforms to create the world. Just as a special gem yields quantities of gold without undergoing any change itself, Īśvara manifests as the form of the world, yet remains unchanged. The Māyāvādīs say Vyāsa is wrong and thus denigrate those sūtras. They have contrived and established vivarta-vāda, the notion that the world is nothing but a mirage-like illusion. The jīvas’ identification with the body is false, not the world itself; the world is simply perishable. Praṇava, the supreme vibration of oṁ, is the transcendental form of Īśvara wherefrom all the Vedas and the manifest world itself springs.]

Brahma’s saguṇatva and nirguṇatva are synonymous
The Māyāvādī lineage conjures up a variety of svarūpas, or identities, for the one advaya-jñāna Parabrahma (the Absolute Truth). Brahma has two rūpas, or forms—saguṇa, which means it is saddled with upādhi (defining characteristics), and nirguṇa, which is a state of total freedom from definition, or limitation. (According to them) everything from the jīva to Īśvara, God Himself, is brahma saddled with upādhi; the moment the jīva and Īśvara become free from upādhi, they will have become brahma without any upādhi. The topic of brahma-vastu as discussed in the Vedic scriptures, which is referred to as jñāna-vedya (accessible via knowledge), must be understood to relate to saguṇa-brahma, not nirguṇa-brahma.

However, nowhere in all the Vedic scriptures is there any sort of mention that brahma is of two types, based on upādhi. The one advaya-jñāna Parabrahma is definitely referred to as saguṇa and nirguṇa. Humans come along after the fact of the matter and, resorting to convenient mundane (prākṛta-sāhajika) ideas, impose mundane qualities onto the supramundane (aprākṛta) vastu that is advaya-jñāna Parabrahma. It was to prevent that very mishap that śāstra has described Parabrahma as devoid of any mundane qualities, or nirguṇa. At the same time, the Vedic scriptures have highlighted Parabrahma’s supramundane, benefic qualities by glorifying Him as saguṇa Parabrahma (the Absolute Truth replete with all divine features and qualities). On the pretext of instructing Śrī Arjuna, Bhagavān Himself, with His own mouth, has said:

“jñeyaṁ yat tat pravakṣyāmi yaj jñātvāmṛtam aśnute |
anādi mat-paraṁ brahma na sat tan nāsad ucyate ||”
                         (Gītā 13.13)

This statement clearly describes brahma-vastu as knowable. Nowhere in the course of describing that knowable brahma-vastu whereby the jīva attains immortality is anything said of it having two variations of saguṇa and nirguṇa. In the Gītā-śāstra, only one svarūpa of brahma has been described. That brahma is anādi (without beginning) and though He is nirguṇa, He is beyond the three qualities of material nature and relishes six divine qualities, which are expressed by the word ‘bhaga’. He is knowledge itself (jñāna), He is a knowable entity, and is accessible through knowledge. Arjuna has expressed what the supreme principle is, speaking of Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa directly:

“paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān |
puruṣaṁ śāśvataṁ divyam-ādi-devam ajaṁ vibhum ||”
                         (Gītā 10.12)

You are the supreme entity, the supreme abode, the purest of all, the Absolute Truth. You are the original person, everlasting, divine, unborn, and the greatest of all.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa is Himself nirguṇa Parabrahma
The Māyāvādīs refer to the vastu that is Parameśvara as saguṇa-brahma, and they imagine that the supreme principle that is superior to Parameśvara is nirguṇa. Such a notion is opposed to the Vedas and Vedānta, and to the scripture of Gītā. It is but doctrine conjured from their imaginations. Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa has said, “sarva-dharmān parityajya māṁ ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja – relinquish all prescribed duties of religion and surrender exclusively unto Me.” But if there is someone else who is superior Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is nirguṇa Parabrahma, then why would we surrender at Kṛṣṇa’s lotus feet at all? If one is to believe Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s words, then one will understand that there is no para-tattva superior to Him—“mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya – there is nothing superior to Me.”

Thus, Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself is that Parabrahma. Because the Māyāvādīs endure various sufferings from their connection to their bodies, they think that if Śrī Bhagavān had a bodily connection, He too would fall into suffering like them. But the Māyāvādīs have been covered by māyā and cast away from the lotus feet of Hari by māyā’s two forces, its āvaraṇī (concealing) and vikṣepātmikā (dispersive) śaktis. Therefore, they cannot understand that Parabrahma Śrī Kṛṣṇa is never enveloped by upādhi (material limitations). He is para-tattva, the Supreme Principle, and the condensed form of saccidānanda. The Māyāvādīs do lip-service to para-tattva, saying it is one without a second, yet they speculate there is a difference between Parabrahma and Śrī Kṛṣṇa. At the root of perceiving such duality in Parabrahma is the influence of Buddhism. Śrī Kṛṣṇa is Parabrahma, Parabrahma is Śrī Kṛṣṇa—They are one non-dual vastu. The philosophy of Vedānta also speaks of inquiry about that one brahma, whereby the world’s genesis, stasis, and termination occur.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa is not the saguṇa-brahma spoken of by the Māyāvādīs
What is said of brahma, that brahma is saguṇa and nirguṇa, does not indicate an acceptance of there being two types of jñāna: saguṇa-brahma-jñāna and nirguṇa-brahma-jñāna; because: “gati-sāmānyāt”—this sūtra of Vedānta-darśana refutes that notion. What this sūtra expresses is that when brahma-jñāna arises, that Veda (pure knowledge) itself grants one mukti, and that Veda is itself the pramāṇa (proof of brahma). All Veda is devoid of all inferior, or mundane, qualities. Therefore, it is nirguṇa and replete with all benefic qualities; hence, ‘saguṇa’ refers strictly to the specialized knowledge of the one Parabrahma who is without any second. The Chāndogya-śruti has referred to Parabrahma as one without a second. No Śruti (Vedic scripture) speaks of brahma changing from one state to another. The Māyāvādīs have speculated that brahma is called Īśvara, or saguṇa-brahma, when saddled with upādhi and nirguṇa-brahma when in a state of total freedom from upādhi. But Māyāvādīs ought to know that if brahma had these two types of svarūpas, then the promise of Chāndogya’s “ekam evādvitīyaṁ – one wihout a second” cannot be kept; because, when Īśvara’s īśvaratva, or Godhood, is eternal, then there is no possibility that īśvaratva can cease to be, leading Īśvara to attain nirguṇatva (a state of having no qualities). Therefore, the eternal existence of saguṇa-brahma and nirguṇa-brahma—these two brahmas—is being preserved. But that does not transgress the promise of the Śrutis. Therefore, what is being concluded is that Parabrahma is one and He is Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the supramundane form of saccidānanda. When the Śrutis refer to that one Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa as nirguṇa, they mean He has no mundane qualities, and when referring to all His divine, benefic qualities, they call Him saguṇa. However, never do the Śrutis talk of the duality of Īśvara and brahma, one being saguṇa and the other nirguṇa, as this is something imagined by the Māyāvādīs. At all times and under all circumstances, the Śrutis have spoken only of Parabrahma’s one svarūpa.