Bhakti Shastri (015) – Sri Isopanisad Mantra 12 (Part 02)

Podcast

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Hare Krishna. Welcome to the Ishopanishad class on Mantra 12. This is the second part of Mantra 12.

First part we discussed about the demigods. So demigod worshippers stay in the dark material world. And in this class we will discuss about Mayavada.

And tato bhuya eva te tamo eva sambhatyam rataha Impersonalists who mislead people go to the darkest regions of hell. So we will discuss why impersonalism is so strongly condemned by our Acharyas. So firstly impersonalists are of two broad types, Brahmavadis and Mayavadis.

So Brahmavadis are mentioned by Lord Krishna in verses 3 to 5 of chapter 10, chapter 12. And they do not commit any offense to the form of the Lord. They are just attracted to the impersonal Brahman.

And Krishna says that their progress is slow and troublesome. Now Mayavadis are talked about by Krishna in 7.24, 9.14 and 9.15. And they offend the Lord. So because they offend the form of the Lord, so Brahmavadis are not attracted to the personal form of the Lord.

Either they do not know about that form or they are not associated with devotees who will attract them to the form of the Lord. Bhakti sanjayate bhakti. So bhakti comes from the association of devotees.

When there is no association of devotees at that time, it may well happen that they are more attracted to the formless Brahman. That is Brahmavadis. And Krishna says those who are attracted like this, avyakta asakta cetusam, klesho diktaras tesham.

For those people, because they are avyakta asakta, attracted to the impersonal, for them there is klesha. But then he contrasts them, but then in contrast with that there is Mayavadis, those who offend the form of the Lord. avajananti mam mudha.

So those people, Krishna says they are mudha. He doesn't just say there is klesha in their path, but there is mogha asha, mogha karma, everything that they do goes in waste. Now we will look at Mayavad a little bit more deeply.

So is impersonalism taught in the scriptures? Impersonalism in the scriptures is transitional, not final. So on the right side, on one side of the chart you see the scriptures you are talking about. The Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavatam.

The Vedas talk about karma kanda, the Upanishads talk about jnana kanda and the Bhagavatam talks about bhakti, which is the conclusion of the Vedic scriptures. So now, what do the Vedas do? You see the arrow moving upwards? So the arrow moving upwards indicates that in karma kanda, people are interested in material things. They are interested in sense gratification, artha and kama as we discussed earlier.

But they are ready to do it under the guidance of scripture. So by this, they are elevated upwards because they are developing faith in God. And their consciousness is slowly getting elevated.

They are at least not going towards tamoguna, although they may be rajoguna. Because they have faith in scripture, they will move slowly towards goodness. Now, the Vedas glorify initially those people who want to gain material things but are ready to gain those material things through religious means.

But the Upanishads go one step forward. And then, what is the use of all these material forms? You are attracted to heavens, you are attracted to beautiful looking people. It's all temporary, it's all illusory, down with the form.

So now, the Upanishads are transitional. They take people from material form to spiritual form. Those who are attracted to material form, the Upanishads say it's all temporary, it's all illusory, give it up.

And then, they take them to the spiritual reality. But the Upanishads are transitional. If you consider the material forms to be negative axis and spiritual forms to be the positive axis, then Upanishads are at the zero position primarily.

They take people from the negative to the positive. Do they teach impersonalism? They do not teach impersonalism as a conclusion, but impersonalism is definitely there in the Upanishads as a transitional teaching. That means, like we discussed in the Bhagavatam, पश्चत्य चक्षो सुनोत्य करणः So the Upanishads say that the Absolute Truth does not have ears, but then the Absolute Truth sees also.

So how this happens? While talking about that, while focusing on this, getting materialistic people to focus on spiritual reality, material forms are negated, they are rejected. And as spiritual forms are being introduced, in that transition, some verses can seem impersonalistic. But if you look at the conclusion, the final teaching, it's not impersonalism.

The Upanishads take one towards personalism. And that personal conclusion is actually emphasized the most in the Bhagavatam, in the Sattvic Puranas and especially the Bhagavatam, where bhakti and spiritual form, spiritual activities, spiritual personality and spiritual relationships are talked about. So the impersonalism is there in the scriptures, but it is transitional as a stepping stone for those who are in material form to get them to be attracted towards spiritual form.

So now let's try to understand this person. We look at the history of Mayavad. So Mayavad is a subsection of impersonalism.

So how Mayavad spread during medieval times, then how it got a boost and it became twisted during modern times and what are the disasters caused by Mayavad. So we will look at this. First, let's look at the basic idea of Mayavad.

So Mayavad divides reality into Vyavaharik and Paramarthik. Vyavaharik means practical, Paramarthik means transcendental. So the idea is that all form and variety that is there, it is in the realm of operational reality, practical reality.

But in actual reality there is no form, there is no variety, there is just consciousness, there is just Brahman. That is the idea of Mayavad. Now in Mayavad what happens is, basing this teaching on scripture is very difficult because scripture in a vast section talks about relationships, talks about reciprocation, talks about God as a person and his devotees worshipping him.

So how does Mayavad reconcile this? Mayavad says that actually wherever scripture talks about form, personality, relationships, that is lower level teaching of scripture. And actually scripture's teaching is confidential and that is whatever reaches Paramarthik. So they divide scripture into two divisions.

One is higher level reality and other lower level reality. And they say that most of scripture also reaches this lower level reality. And actually the higher level reality is taught in a few sections of scriptures.

And Shankaracharya, who is a proponent of Mayavad, he and other Mayavadis, what they say is that the scriptures have Mahavakya. Everything else in scripture is Laghuvakya. Maha means great, Laghu means lower level, smaller.

So Pragyanam Brahma, Sarvam Kalmidam Brahma, Aham Brahma Asmi. Like these are Mahavakyas. And these all seem to say that the absolute truth is impersonal, Tattvamasi.

So you are that. Everything is Brahma. I am Brahma.

Brahma is conscious. These kind of statements are the conclusion of the Vedic literature. And everything else that is taught is of a lower level reality.

Now by this tool of dividing reality into Paramarthik and Vyavaharik and dividing scripture into that which is Paramarthik and that which is Vyavaharik, what happens is Mayavad creates a system of reasoning by which any scriptural verse or quotation which contradicts their idea, they will immediately relegate it to a lower level reality. So it is a very self-serving system by which all contradictions are conveniently rejected as lower level. So why did Shankaracharya have to teach this? Because historically speaking Buddhism had spread very widely all over the country and people had to be brought back to the Vedic fold.

So 5000 years ago Vyasadeva wrote down the Vedic literature and he wrote down all the literature. In those literature he focused on giving Karmakand, Jnanakand and Bhakti. But then people started abusing the Karmakand dissection for the sake of doing indiscriminate, unrestricted animal killing in the name of doing Yajnas which had animal sacrifices in them.

They started abusing the Vedas. So at that time Buddha had to come because so many animals were being killed. And what did Buddha do? He said, just reject.

He said, can't you see that animals suffer pain? If you can't give life, how can you take life? And people said, but the Vedas tell us to kill animals. He said, what kind of books are these? If they tell that you should kill animals, then don't reject the Vedas. Don't accept the Vedas, reject them.

And by that he said, then what about God? He said, don't bother about God. Don't bother about God because ultimately you can't know. At least practice morality.

So Buddhism created, sometimes people think of Buddhism as atheistic. But Buddhism is not atheistic. It is non-theistic.

It doesn't even talk about God. Subsequent teachers after Buddha made up arguments which sometimes seemed to reject God. But Buddha himself just did not talk anything about God.

He did not talk much about metaphysics. Because metaphysics or philosophy, we can't really talk about it without scripture. Without scripture, how can we know about higher realities? So everything that we talk about higher realities, without reference to scripture, will essentially be speculative.

So Buddha therefore said, don't do any speculation. Just don't bother about it. Practice morality.

So right conduct, right thought, right speech. And a central part of that right conduct, right thought, right speech is avoid violence. Don't kill animals.

And in this way he brought people to a level of goodness. And in that sense, it's not just non-theistic. It is pre-theistic.

It is creating a platform by which people can understand theism. Understand God in a proper way. So Buddhism spread very rapidly.

And when it spread very rapidly, because of the charisma of Buddha, and the appeal, historically speaking also, the Brahmanas were doing Karmakand. They had become very materially minded. And they were imposing their superiority on other castes, due to which the lower caste became alienated.

And many people from the lower caste, they found that in Buddhism, and similarly in Jainism, there is no caste discrimination. So they took to Buddhism and Jainism. And this spread rapidly.

At one time, practically all of India, large parts of India were Buddhistic. And over a period of time, in order to establish their own intellectual autonomy, that is to show how we are different from the Vedic tradition, Buddhists wrote many arguments and books which explicitly criticized Vedas. And therefore, what was meant to be a temporary program, for emergency program for checking people from doing indiscriminate animal slaughter in the name of Vedas, became a whole scale program against the Vedas.

So then to get people back to the Vedic fold, the Lord sent Lord Shiva as Shankaracharya. And Shankaracharya basically did a lot of debates, and he refuted Buddhism, and he brought India in the Vedic fold. But because Buddhism had completely rejected the Vedas, Shankaracharya could not give the complete conclusion of the Vedas at that time.

So he gave a transitional conclusion. So Buddha was talking about Shunya, and Shankaracharya said, you are attracted to Shunya? Actually the same conception is there in the Vedic literature. It is called as Brahma.

So actually if you look seriously, deeply, from the conceptual point of view, Buddha, Shunya and Shankara's Brahma, they are intellectual clones. They are basically so similar, just change the nomenclature and bring in the Vedic framework, and essentially both are similar. So he was able to get widespread acceptance of the Vedas and the Vedic culture by talking of the impersonal level.

At that time people were not spiritually evolved enough to talk about the higher level of reality. So Shankara's purpose is both historical as well as, in one level, scriptural. So his purpose historically was to check the spread of Buddhism and get people back into the Vedic fold.

And from the scriptural point of view, there is another purpose that is observed. Padma Purana gives a verse, a section where Lord Vishnu is telling Lord Shiva to come down to the world and preach this impersonalism, Mayavad. And Lord Shiva is also telling Parvati, Maya Kalpita Devi, Kalau Brahmana Murtina, Mayavadam Asat Shastram, Prachannam Baudham Uchchate.

Maya Kalpita, by me it is taught, O Devi, Kalau Brahmana Murtina, in Kali Yuga, in the form of a Brahmana, I teach, Mayavadam Asat Shastram, Mayavad, which is not the true scripture, it is a false conclusion of the scripture, Prachannam Baudham Uchchate, it is actually a scoured Buddhism. So, as I said, Shankara's Brahma is an intellectual co-clone of Buddha's Shunya. Because when Buddha was asked, what is the ultimate goal? Then there is no scripture, there is no understanding of positive spiritual reality.

So, like I was talking about the origin, negative, zero and positive. So, Buddha basically takes people to the zero. The Upanishads take people to the zero, but then from the negative axis, through the zero, they take people to the positive axis.

But Buddha, because he had rejected scripture, so he could not talk much about the positive reality. He could just get people to zero. So, both basically, Buddhism and impersonalism focus on the zero.

One is through the Vedic fold, Buddhism is not through the Vedic fold. Impersonalism, as taught by Shankaracharya and others, is in the Vedic fold. But what is transitional, if it is made into final, then that becomes a disastrous blunder.

So, Shankaracharya was told by the Lord to teach Mayavada, because those people who want to defy God and still claim to be religious, Mayavada serves as a very convenient cover for them. Because people can say that, I am God. Because ultimately, the absolute is formless.

And in this way, they can boost their false ego in the religious realm. The purpose of religion is to give up our false ego. But the ultimate glorification for the false ego is to say that, I am God.

So, actually speaking, that is not the conclusion of impersonalism. Impersonalism is that material form is false and we have to go beyond this material form. And what is that beyond material form, that is not very clearly talked about in one of the Upanishads.

It is mentioned and further we have to go to the Puranas, the Sattvic Purana and ultimately the Amal Purana Bhagavatam to understand that conclusion of personal reality. So, in this transitional journey, if one stage is only taken, then it leads to an erroneous understanding. So, if there is a long movie in which the hero and the villain are constantly at battle and initially, in the first half of the movie, the hero and the villain, whenever they are fighting, the villain is constantly beating up the hero.

And then at the end of the movie, the hero wins and the villain is defeated. But if somebody just takes one scene from the movie, the middle of the movie, where the villain is just beating up the hero, this is what the movie depicts, the hero getting beaten up. What kind of movie is this? So, we have to watch the movie to the conclusion.

Similarly, there is a historical master plan of the Lord, which spans over multiple centuries, starting from Buddha and going up to Lord Chaitanya. So, Buddha, he starts the Vedic restoration process by at least getting people to follow basic morality, stop animal slaughter. Even if for that sake, the Vedic authority has to be temporarily rejected.

Shankara gets people back into the Vedic fold by teaching about Brahman, which is similar to Shunya. Now, after Shankaracharya comes Ramavacharya. And Ramavacharya says that actually, yes, everything is one, but there is difference also.

So, Shankaracharya, what he taught was Advaitavada. Shankaracharya got people united within the Vedic fold, but by proclaiming impersonalism as the Vedic teaching. And what is that? Advaita.

There is no Advaita. There is only oneness. But now, Shankaracharya's influence was so great, that Shankaracharya's hold on Indian society was actually stronger than the hold of science in modern society.

So, to reject him entirely was not possible. So, Ramavacharya said yes, Advaita is there, but there is a difference with Advaita also. He said Vishishta Advaita.

So, he countered Shankaracharya's arguments, and he gave an understanding that actually, the scriptures do teach about relationships also. So, the Supreme Lord is like the soul, and material world, and the Jivas are like the body. So, the soul and the body, they are one, and they are different.

The body cannot exist without the soul. In that sense, they are related, but at the same time, there is a difference. So, the soul is the essence.

Soul is a source. Source is a sustainer. And the body is what is subsequently coming out from it.

Like that, we have a relationship with the Supreme Lord, and there is oneness, but there is difference. Vishishta Advaita, that was his teaching. And this is a very simple understanding.

It's very profound and complex. We will not go into that right now. I am talking right now for the historical flow.

So, impersonal and everything is one. So, then Ramacharya says yes, everything is one, but there is difference also. And then Madhavacharya came along.

Madhavacharya says, where is oneness? Actually, everything is different. He said, there is Jiva, Jagat, and Jagdish. So, Jiva, Jagat, and Jagdish.

What is the relationship? So, he said, actually, Madhavacharya said, what is the relationship? So, Jiva, he said, Jiva and Jagat are different. Jiva is soul. Jagat is universe.

And Jagdish is the Supreme Absolute Truth. So, Madhavacharya says, what is oneness? He says, Jiva and Jagdish is different. Jiva and Jiva is different.

Jiva and Jagat is different. Jiva and Jiva is different means different souls are different. They are not one.

Jiva and Jagat, matter and consciousness, they are different. And Jagat and Jagdish, matter and Supreme Lord, they are also different. So, he says, where is oneness? Actually, there is Bheda.

There is actually duality. It is not that there is oneness. So, through this, Madhavacharya countered Shankaracharya.

So, if you consider Shankaracharya's teachings to be one extreme, Vishishtadvaita comes back, brings things towards the center, and then Madhavacharya takes them to the other extreme. And then Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu comes along and Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu brings things back again in the balance, and he gives the highest understanding, the evolved understanding that actually the relationship between the Lord, between the Brahman and the Atma is Achintya Bheda. So, Brahman is just an alternative word used for Jagdish.

So, Jiva and Brahman, what is the relationship, same or different? Sometimes the scriptures seem to say that they are one, sometimes they say they are different. So, what exactly is the relationship between the two? How do we resolve this scriptural contradiction? So, Mayavad we say, Mayavad, what is the resolution? Actually, all statements which say that they are different, they are lower level reality. They are Vyavaharic reality.

On all statements that they say they are one, that is the higher level reality, that is Paramarthik. Now, Ramacharya says that if we resolve it this way, then the problem is that majority of scripture we are saying is false. By which then are we actually teaching scripture or are we imposing our own philosophy on scripture? Not only that, he says, on what basis are we dividing scripture like this? Scripture doesn't talk about any such division that there is higher, that these verses are talking about higher level reality, these verses are talking about lower level reality.

Scriptures don't teach anything like this. Scriptures give a teaching and we have to find out how the truth of scriptural statements can be seen. It is not that, if we say that this is real and this is false within scripture, then essentially we are imposing our philosophy on scripture.

And then we are not actually reflecting what is the teaching of the scripture. We are forcing scripture into saying what we want to say. So, this is actually violence against scripture.

And Ramacharya was very strong in his catechism. Madhavacharya was even stronger. by this gradually the Vedic understanding was revealed.

So, we see historically Buddha comes in, talks about Shunyam. So, everything is zero. The ultimate goal is zero.

Shankaracharya comes and says Advaita, everything is one. Then, Madhavacharya came after Ramacharya and Madhavacharya took the pendulum from the Advaita to the Dvaita. His fingers are raised.

Two. Everything is two. So, that is a further progress.

But then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu comes and he gives the balanced understanding. From this extreme Advaita to Dvaita Achintya Bheda. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has the upper hand, ecstasy.

Two, but there is an ecstatic joyful relationship of love between the two. That is Bhakti. Bhakti is filled with ecstasy, with joy.

So, this is a progressive understanding. From Shunyam Buddha to Eka to Advaita of Shankara to the Dvaita of Madhava to the Achintya Bheda of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It's a progressive evolution of theistic revelation.

Progressive evolution of theistic revelation. So, what is taught in the scriptures is revealed progressively by the Lord through the great Acharyas. That is theistic revelation.

But there is a progressive evolution in the understanding that is revealed by the Acharyas. So, now, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, when he came and taught Achintya Bheda, Jiva Goswami codified it through the Sandarvas and through that the highest understanding is revealed. Now, the problem comes up when a transitional understanding is thought of as conclusion, conclusive understanding.

So, Srila Prabhupada hammers simple points of logic which are often fatal for Mayavada. So, what is the problem with Mayavada? So, they say everything is Brahman. But then the question comes up, where does illusion come from? We are also Brahman.

The two questions which are always fatal for Mayavada, they have posed serious headaches for Mayavadis right from the inception of Mayavada and although they have done a lot of word jugglery, there is really no solution for them. What is it? If everything is Brahman, then where does illusion come from? Brahma, Satya, Jagan, Mithya. So, okay, Brahma is Satya, but where does Mithya come from? Where does illusion come from if everything is Brahman? First question is, what is the origin of illusion? And second question is, how does illusion overcome Brahman? Because Brahman is the supreme reality.

If illusion overcomes Brahman, then illusion becomes the supreme reality. How is that possible? So, their philosophy is called as Mayavada because in a sense they say in the form of the Lord, that which is the reality, they also call that as Maya. So, in that sense, that is the idea that Maya becomes supreme instead of Brahman remaining supreme.

So, these two questions, now how do Mayavadis try to answer this? They try to say that actually reality is so complex that we can't understand it. This is Anirvachani. So, how did the Jiva, how did Maya come from? It is Anirvachani.

It cannot be put in words. How did the Brahman come under Maya? It is Anirvachani. It cannot be put in words.

So, Ravindra Swaroop Prabhu is a scholarly disciple of Srila Prabhupada and he is the temple president of Philadelphia. So, he writes in his book Endless Love about his encounters with Mayavadis. So, at one time Mayavadis came to Philadelphia and they had their own posters.

Posters said something like Jesus, Buddha meditated and became the enlightenment divine. Jesus meditated and became the sacrifice divine. Krishna meditated and became the love divine.

You meditate and you become the supreme divine. So, the idea was you are God. That was the meditation.

So, the devotees told, we should go for this program and we should smash this. So, Ravindra Swaroop Prabhu decided to go for that program. It was apprehensive because going to somebody else's program and refuting them, how it would come out.

He was not sure. But he decided to go. And there were these two Mayavadis who were speaking.

When they were speaking, both of them, one of them would speak for some time and another person would speak. And then after that, after the class any questions? So, immediately Ravindra Swaroop Prabhu raised his hand. So, now they looked at him.

They saw him with dhoti kurta, tilak, shikha. They understood these are Hare Krishnas. They looked everywhere around.

Now they wanted, somebody else will raise hand and they will ask that person to ask question. But when they saw that, people saw these are Hare Krishnas and these are, nobody else raised hand. They wanted to see what is going to happen.

So, then he said, yes, reluctant he said, yes. So, you said that Krishna meditated and became God. Yes.

But Krishna killed the demon Putana when he was just a baby, less than a month old. So, when did he meditate to become God? So, one man looked at the other. Both of them looked at him with a pained expression.

And one of them said, words. The other said, words, words. And they had some of their students, some of their followers in the crowd.

They said, words, words. He says, my dear friend, don't you understand that words are the sole cause of illusion? We have to go beyond words. Words will create illusion.

Words will perpetuate illusion. When you go beyond words, then you understand reality. Don't get trapped in words.

Go beyond words. So, then Ravindra Prabhu said, wait a minute. He says, for two hours when you were speaking, words were not illusion.

When I ask one question, then words become illusion. It is nonsense. So, this is how Mayavada is.

As long as they are speaking, words are not illusion. But as soon as some difficult question is asked, he says, oh, absolute truth is beyond words. It is beyond words.

And by saying that it is beyond words, they try to escape all problems in their philosophy. But it doesn't work. Because, cannot become an excuse for running away from logical problems and philosophical problems.

So, see how it is. So, what we see on the up is a strategy of the Mayavadis. And below is a strategy that the Vaishnavas use, especially Yugoslavia uses.

So, there are scriptural contradictions. Actually, there are no contradictions in scriptures. There are apparent scriptural contradictions.

So, as we discussed earlier, there are paradoxes. So, what the Mayavadis do is, they divide scripture into true, false. That means, this is Vyavaharik, this is Paramarthik.

This is higher, this is lower. So, although they will not say lower is false, but for all practical purposes, they end up saying that it's false. So, now, when they divide it into true and false, then they run into logical problems.

And when they run into logical problems, how do they say it's beyond words? It's Anirvachani. So, now, Achintya, which Yugoslavia talks about, is fundamentally different. What is the basic understanding of the Vaishnavas is that scripture is true.

Everything in scripture is true. Now, how that is true, that we may not be able to understand. Why? Because scripture is the word of God and God is infinite.

Because God is infinite, so, we with our finite intelligence may not be able to understand everything about God. So, we can't understand how simultaneously. What is simultaneously? Actually, how we are one with God and different from God.

And we can't understand that simultaneously. That is Achintya. So, what is the basic principle of Achintyatva? The basic principle is that we are finite, God is infinite.

So, God has revealed the scripture. And if scripture says something, it is true. How it is true, we may not be able to understand it right now.

But that doesn't mean that it is not true. We can't divide it, we can't rupture or fracture scripture into false and real. Scripture, whatever is said, is true.

But we have to understand how it is true. There may be a hierarchy within scripture. There may be a hermeneutic, hermeneutic method of understanding required to understand the scripture.

But ultimately, to say that scripture is false is to do violence to scripture. So, yes, Jeeva and Brahman, how are they one? Now, Prabhupada gives simple examples to illustrate that we are one in quality and we are different in quantity. So, the oneness is in quality, the difference is in quantity.

But beyond that, when we go to a deeper philosophical level, there is what is the exact relationship between us and the Lord. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu makes it very clear. Jeevay Rasoorukoy Krishneranitidas We are the servants of Krishna.

That is true ultimately. But when we go into the Upanishads, there may seem to be statements which are contradictory. And ultimately, the attributes of the Ishwara, they are not very easy to understand.

So, there may be achintyatva. Achintyatva, or inconceivability, is a glorification of the absolute truth. It's the glory of the absolute truth that the finite human mind can't conceive it.

Whereas, anirvachiniya, which the Mayavadis talk about, that is what? First of all, rather than talking about the absolute truth having inconceivable property, the characteristics, they say, this is the truth. What is the truth? The absolute truth is impersonal. And everything is Brahman ultimately.

And when logical problems come up, then the response is anirvachiniya. So, scripture itself is first interpreted and one's own philosophy is imposed on the scripture. And then when there are problems with it, then the anirvachiniya, the ineffability, that is the word they use, ineffable, that which cannot be put in words.

Ineffability is used as a subterfuge, as an excuse, as an escape way, as a cop-out to try to do away with all logical problems. But those logical problems do remain. Prabhupada would simply argue, proving the point that if Brahman is the absolute truth, then how can Brahman come under illusion? And if Brahman is the absolute truth, by extension we can use the argument, if you are Brahman, I am Brahman, everyone is Brahman, if you become liberated, you and I are one.

So why don't I become liberated? So if we are all Brahman, then why is it your liberation doesn't lead to my liberation? So there are many logical problems which come up. They say, oh no, but actually, you are also liberated, but you don't realize that you are liberated. Okay, I don't realize that I am liberated, but what is it that prevents me from realizing it? That is illusion.

That means illusion is controlling me. He says, no, no, illusion is not controlling, you are only thinking that illusion is controlling. But still, illusion is causing the illusion of thinking that I am under illusion.

What is causing that? That means illusion is above the Brahman. So ultimately, the problem is there which cannot be resolved. So this is Mayavada.

Now, now this is a summary of what we are discussing. Upanishads are a stepping stone in the Vedic master plan. How? Remember, this chart we discussed about.

Karmakand is negative axis, then Jnanakand is the intermediate zero point, and then there is positive form, which is Draupadi. So they are stepping stones. So now, where impersonalists are right, and where they go wrong? Where they are right is in saying that material form, material variety, everything that is false, they are right.

But where they go wrong is saying that the rejection of form is the ultimate truth. That rejection of form is the ultimate truth. That is where they go wrong.

So, for example, the idea is the absolute truth has to be unlimited. So when you say absolute truth has to be unlimited, they say wherever there is form, it creates limitation. Therefore, for the absolute truth to be unlimited, there should be no form.

But that doesn't work, because for example, say I am in a room, all of you are in a room, and that room has a form and it is limited. But if somebody destroys that room, then the formless heap will remain. Will that formless heap be limited or unlimited? It will still be limited.

So, just by removing form, we don't actually create unlimitedness. So unlimitedness is not a result of form or formlessness. Actually, matter is always limited.

And if you want unlimitedness, it is not that we have to remove form, we have to go beyond matter. Spirit is unlimited. Spirit can have form and still remain unlimited.

Krishna, he has a form which seems to be so small and so finite that it can fit on the lap of Yashodamayi. At the same time, Krishna, when he opens his mouth, while being on the lap of Yashodamayi, all the universes are contained in him. That means Krishna's form is not an ordinary form, it is spiritual, and because that form is spiritual, it can seem to be limited and at the same time be unlimited.

So, the impersonals are right in saying that material forms are false, but they are wrong when they say that all forms are false. So, what is the progression? See, the impersonals, what is their reasoning? In one sense, where they are right? See, material forms and varieties, they lead to material desires. There are so many good-looking objects over here, and there are various objects.

So, I enjoy one object, and I think I should enjoy that object. And in this way, my desires keep multiplying, multiplying, multiplying. And because of these desires, I end up in miseries, because desires cause bondage.

So, if I have to go from bondage, I don't want the material miseries, so my reasoning is, I don't want material miseries, so go backward. I shouldn't have material desires. And why do I have material desires? Because there are material forms and varieties, they attract me.

Therefore, I say material forms and varieties are false. Which is true. But, what the Mayavadi says, all forms and varieties are false.

But that is not true. So, to become free from miseries, I have to become free from desires. And to become free from desires, I have to give up all forms and varieties.

That is the Mayavad philosophy. The Vaishnava understanding is, no. To become free from miseries at the material level, I have to give up desires at the material level.

To give up desires at the material level, I have to give up infatuation with forms and varieties that are material. But there are forms and varieties that are transcendental. And the more we become attracted to them, the easier it will be for us to become spiritually advanced and ultimately liberated.

So when the transitional is considered to be final, it becomes fatal, it becomes lethal, it becomes very dangerous for the spiritual advancement. So let us see how it becomes dangerous now. So now, Srila Prabhupada was very strongly critical of modern Mayavada especially.

So Mayavada itself is a deviation from the Vedic scriptures. It is not the real teaching. It is a deviant teaching.

It is a transitional teaching. When the transitional teaching is made into conclusive teaching, it becomes deviant. So Mayavada itself is a deviant teaching.

But modern Mayavada is an even more deviant teaching. Why is it deviant? Let us look at it. So modern Mayavada is a dangerous, hodgepodge khichdi.

And this khichdi is made of 4 things. The grains of impersonalism are drawn from the Upanishads. There is some scriptural basis.

But then khichdi, it has to be very delicious. So sugar of social service is taken from Christianity. And the spice of nationalism is taken from the Indian independence movement.

And then it has become popular because of the envy of Krishna that has come from the hearts of the conditioned souls. So what does this mean? So let us look at this. As I said, a khichdi, the main content of it is grains.

So impersonalism has a scriptural basis in the perverted, distorted, and then it becomes poisonous because of the envy of Krishna that is there. So historically, after Ramavicharya, Madhvacharya, Jiva Goswami and Baldev Vidyabhushan, they all refuted Mayavada very strongly. Then after that, Mayavada had become very weak.

So actually there was like an intellectual war between the Advaitins and the Advaitins. Vaishnavas and the impersonalists. And the Vaishnavas, generation after generation after their fighting, they strongly weakened and defeated Mayavada in many ways.

But then due to centuries of foreign rule, the Kshatriyas who were there had become weak and the Brahminical culture had also become corrupted. And because of Brahmin and Kshatriyas not being good, so the overall economic and social health of the people had become very poor in the sense that the lower caste were being exploited, there was poverty and there was weakness, various factors because of which the Europeans were able to conquer India. Now poverty in India in the past was never perpetual because people were based on agriculture.

So poverty would come, but agricultural regeneration would be there, crops would come and things would become good. So Europeans came to India, not because India is a poor country, because India is a wealthy country. When I am talking about poverty, I am talking in terms of the culture and the philosophical understanding.

The culture was still there, but the culture was not just devotional, it had become mixed with Mayavada. And it had become mixed with Karmakand also, with the smart Brahmin tendency, just religious rituals were there without understanding the substance. So in such a setting, when the Europeans came to India and they colonized India, they tried to convert India to Christianity.

And Christianity does not have much philosophy actually, because the teachings of Bible, if we see, they are basically moral teachings. They are talking about morals and there is not much positive knowledge about God also. So Christians, they started opening schools, they started doing social service and they started attracting people.

And at that time they said, you Hindus, what do you do? You know, you yourself, you say you are, the word Hindus actually is not there earlier so much. It is popularized mainly by Christians and Muslims who came before that. They said, you are yourself confused, who is supreme? One person says one God is supreme, another person says another God is supreme, you are so confused.

They said, we believe in one God. And because we care for God, we care for His children. And they started doing a lot of social service and they started converting people through social service.

So now, many Hindus felt that actually, why should just for the sake of social service, because of getting some material benefits at a humanitarian level, why should Hindus become Christians? So we want to keep them Hindus. So they said, we should encourage Hindus to start doing social service. I am talking about the pre-independence Indian history, the Bengali Renaissance period, roughly from when Bengal was the place where Britishers first came to rule India.

And after that, from there British rule spread everywhere. And Bengal was the first place which was intellectually and culturally very strongly influenced by British culture. And the Bengali intellectuals responded to it.

And the response of the Bengali intellectuals, that led to the development of what is called modern Hinduism. So during this period, many Hindus, many Bengali intellectuals, they started feeling that, Bengali spiritual teachers, they felt that, you know, if we should, we Hindus should also do social service. And to get Hindus to do social service, they started coming up with slogans like, Mana sevai, Madhav sevai, Dharidra Narayan seva.

So poor people are there, you know, serving poor people is actually a real service to Narayan. Now serving poor people is good. It's a part of Vedic culture.

It is to be done primarily by the Kshatriyas. Now Pruthu Maharaj, when the kingdom was filled with people who were starving because of droughts, Pruthu Maharaj made vigorous arrangements by which the people could be fed. But serving poor people is not exactly devotional service.

It can be devotional service if it is done in proper consciousness and people are also given spiritual wisdom and spiritual experience. But that doesn't, if it is not spiritual, that doesn't mean it has to be neglected. It is to be done by Kshatriyas who are meant to take care of the material welfare of people.

So what happened is impersonalists, they started saying that, actually you serve poor people because everybody is Narayan, everybody is Brahma. And don't go into the temple and serve people over there in the temple. You just serve the poor people who are the Brahma and then Brahma and the Narayan who are in the heart of the poor, please serve them.

And this may have been well-intentioned in terms of material intentions. Okay, you want to serve poor people and they want to stop people from converting to Christianity because of social service appeal. But then the attack was very malicious in the sense that actually devotional service was greatly minimized.

There are impersonalist leaders who said that, what is the use of watering Tulsi? You water a brinjal tree, you will at least get something to eat. What is the use of studying Bhagavad Gita? For us, for children, they should play football and they should eat meat and they will become strong and when they become strong, they will be able to do a lot of things. So the attack on devotional culture that happened, that was very severe, quite caustic at times.

And the whole idea was that we have to work at a humanitarian level. Yes, working at a humanitarian level is important, but that is not the ultimate goal of life, humanitarian welfare. We will discuss about social service a little bit later in our class, in a future class.

But here the point is we are focusing on impersonalism right now. So impersonalism said that, made the idea that social service is not only equivalent to devotional service because there is Brahman in the temple and there is Brahman in the poor people. But they have made the further claim that to see Brahman in the hearts of poor people is higher than to see Brahman as the temple deity.

Social service is not only equivalent to devotional service, but social service is superior to devotional service. And this made many people feel yes, there is no need to go to the temple and worship. And that was a very, very severe attack on the foundation of the bhakti culture that was the essence of Vedic spirituality.

That is why Bhakta Swamiji Thakur and Shilpa Prabhupada, they very strongly responded and they criticized Mayavada. So Shilpa Prabhupada writes in this purport, these are the most dangerous rogues in society. These impersonalists who create this, they are shackled by the golden shackles of humanity and work, social service, but they stay in illusion and they keep others in illusion.

So now along with that, another factor that came in was the spike or spice of nationalism. So many of the spiritual teachers, they also felt that we want to unite India and we want to drive away the Britishers. So how will we drive away? In India, religion is a very strong force.

So we can unite all people religion under the banner of religion. But the problem is that in India, in the name of religion, people are divided. Some people worship Kali, some people worship Ganesh, some people worship Vishnu, some worship Shiva, some people worship Ram, some people worship Krishna.

They are all different, different gods they are worshipping. So how do we unite them? Some people worship like that. So then they decided actually the best way would be that make one thing the reality.

What is that? The formless Brahman. That is the reality. And say that all gods are just the representation of that Brahman.

So whichever god you are worshipping, it doesn't matter because ultimately all of us are worshipping the same Brahman. They came up with the idea that all the gods, they are just means to the Brahman. So with this idea, they tried to unite India at a nationalistic level.

So that they could drive away the Britishers. So in this whole process, the spiritual aspect, the conclusion of the scriptures that ultimately bhakti to a personal god, to Bhagwan Krishna, that is vedasya sarvair aham eva vedya, that was just swept aside. There are many commentators who wrote commentaries in the Bhagavad Gita, but glorifying Krishna and being Krishna at the center of the Bhagavad Gita was not very politically expeditious for them, was not very convenient for them.

So they rejected Krishna and they just made Krishna into a metaphor for some anonymous genius to speak through. So because of this multi-pronged attack by modern Mayavad on the foundational bhakti of the Vedic culture, our Vaishnavacharyas have responded very strongly to it. So we have to understand the context and the seriousness of the problem.

So what happens because of modern Mayavad? People are attracted much more to social service and to nationalism, because these are things which seem to be materially good, they seem to be materially better than what other people are doing, and at the same time they also seem to be spiritual. Especially if they are made to seem to be spiritual, then what is really spiritual, that becomes lost for most people. So now along with that, there is always the envy of Krishna that is there in the heart.

So for the soul to surrender to Krishna is glorious, because through that surrender, eternal love is attained and eternal happiness is attained by that. But Mayavad say there is no need to surrender, because ultimately you are God. So there are Mayavadi teachers.

Now today's Mayavad is so cheap and so trivialized. So there is a Mayavadi who says, you know, there are many teachers who come and say they are God. I have not come to tell you that I am God, I have come to tell you that you are God.

So this is the ultimate flattery for the conditioned soul's ego. Conditioned soul's ego loves it. And the Mayavadis do all kind of word jugglery and they attract people.

And basically because of the modern brand of Mayavad, spirituality has been just reduced to feel-good nothingness. So whatever makes me feel good, that is spiritual. There is no need for rules, there is no need for commitment, just experience.

You are that light, you are the Brahman, you are God. So let's look at what happens and talk on two disastrous consequences of Mayavad. So first is, if there is no God to surrender to, no God to devote to, then Mayavad deprives soul of the natural higher taste of bhakti.

Why? Because ultimately I am God. So if I am myself God, how can I devote myself to God? If I can't devote myself to God, I don't get the higher taste of devotion. If I don't get the higher taste of devotion, then the whole concept of higher happiness remains a very abstract reality.

It is not a lived experience. And naturally when I don't get the higher happiness, see I am practicing religion, in fact I may claim that to think that I am Brahman is the ultimate conclusion of the Vedic scripture, that is the highest reality. So I claim that I am having understanding of the highest reality, but I get very little higher happiness by that.

So when I don't get the higher happiness, then I think that I am being religious, but at the same time, because of not getting spiritual happiness, I am attracted towards lower pleasures. And then what happens is, if I look at spiritual reality, spiritual reality doesn't seem very attractive. What do I do when I go back to spiritual reality? Oh, you just exist.

Shanti, shanti, shanti. Just exist. Exist for all of eternity.

What do you do? Oh, the only thing to do is that there is nothing to do. The only thing to talk is that there is nothing to talk. The only thing to think is that there is nothing to think.

And what is left then? So, as well as Jayadvait Maharaj says that the Mayavadis, their names end with Anand, and the Anand in their life ends with their name. So what happens is that actually the Mayavadis, they may be respected as nationalist leaders, as social leaders, and their contributions at that level, if they have made some contributions, that can be appreciated at that level. But when that is made into spiritual, and when that is made into not just spiritual, but the conclusion of spirituality, then it is a very serious misleading that happens.

So, people think that they are spiritual, but in the name of being spiritual, they are getting no spiritual higher taste. And that's why they get gravitated down to lower levels of materialism only. So, Prabhupada writes right in the first canto of Bhagavatam itself, in one of the first purports, the first chapter, he says Mayavad makes material life appear more attractive than spiritual life.

How is that? Because in spiritual life, the ultimate conclusion is to merge in Brahman. And then what do you do after merging in Brahman? Just exist, exist, exist, exist. And that's not very exciting, is it? It's like, it is not at all an appealing proposal.

And that's why temporarily out of frustration with material life, people may be attracted to spirituality. But then ultimately, because there is no positive vision of spirituality, people come back to material life. So, it's like if I am very sick, if I have got some disease, some say I got arthritis or some other bone problem, because of which every time I move, I move my hand, I feel pain.

I cough, I feel pain. I just breathe heavily, I belch, I feel pain. So, every moment causes me pain.

So, at that time, I feel, if I just stop moving, I'll become free from pain. All that I want is to stop moving. Now, if I stop moving, first of all, to stop moving is very difficult.

But even if I stop moving, I may become free from pain, but will that be the perfection of my life? No, my goal in life is not just to become pain-free, it is to become joyful. And just stopping motion and thereby becoming free from pain is not the goal of my life. Although when I'm having pain, which is caused by motion, I may feel that I want to become free from pain.

So, mayavad is like that. Material activities and material desires cause entanglement. So, go beyond them.

But then when I go beyond them, what do I do beyond them? There's nothing beyond. So, I go towards that impersonal realization, but the impersonal realization is not attractive. And then what happens? Because I don't know anything positively attractive in the spiritual realm, so I come back to material life.

And this is the paradox that we see in India. In India, many people are religious, but at the same time, people are materialistic. And the people are so materialistic, and at the same time, they claim to be very religious.

Why is that? Because their religion is not giving them a higher spiritual taste. And that's why they're being dragged down to the material taste. So, there are all different kinds of mayavadis who make all sorts of crazy claims.

There's one mayavadi who claims that actually, you know, he says in a public lecture, he says, you know, one time I was in London, and I was smoking cigarette in London. So, one man came and says, you're a sadhu, how can you smoke cigarette? That's bad. What is good? What is bad? Ultimately, everything is illusion.

And what is good and bad is all determined by the mind only. So, if your mind is strong, then nothing is bad, everything is good. And if your mind is weak, nothing is good, everything is bad.

Well, it doesn't matter whether mind is weak or strong, when death comes, death is going to be painful for everyone. If I'm attached to the body, it's going to be painful. And just by thinking that everything is good or bad, that's not going to change my attachment to the body.

We need a process of purification. And without the process of purification, just imagining that I'm God is not going to do any good to anyone. So, the original Mayavad, which is taught by Shankaracharya, that at least taught serious regulative principles, and that did not mixed populism in the name of nationalism or humanitarianism with Mayavad.

But today's Mayavad mixes everything into a dangerous khichdi. And it deludes people away from the essence of the Vedic scriptures. That is the pure devotional service to Lord Krishna.

So, it was Bhakta Sastra Thakur and Srila Prabhupada who strongly countered this. And then they established the conclusion of personalism, of pure devotion. So, when Srila Prabhupada came to India, it took some time for him, because most Indians were steeped in Mayavad.

But when they saw people from all over the world have become devotees, and then Srila Prabhupada had his books in which he strongly and logically and scripturally countered Mayavad. Now a bhakti resurgence is happening. And the bhakti resurgence that Srila Prabhupada has done is so remarkable, that actually now so many people all over the world have built temples and they are worshipping deities.

And in the last say 50 to 100 years, more temples have been built by people in general than have been built in the last 300-400 years. Because there has been a resurgence of bhakti that has happened because of, primarily because of the serious vigorous outreach of Srila Prabhupada. And deities have been worshipped and the personal form has been understood.

So, nirvishesh shunyavadi pashyate desha tarane. Srila Prabhupada came to free the western countries and the westernized countries, which is India also, from impersonalism and avoidism. So, to summarize, we discussed about how is impersonalism there in the scriptures? It is there, but it is transitional, it is not final.

To take people from material form towards spiritual forms, in between they are told that actually, go away, don't be attracted to the forms, don't be attracted to personality, relationships, because that is meant to say that to get people detached from material form and material relationships. So, there is transitional, but modern Mayavad, what it did is, whatever higher teachings of bhakti were there, sorry not modern Mayavad, the Mayavad which was taught by Advaitins, what it did was, whatever higher teachings of bhakti were there, they said they were lower by calling all of them as vyavaharic teachings. And then when the logical problems were there, they used the subterfuge, the excuse of anirvachaniyam to escape those subterfuge, to escape those logical problems.

And then we discussed about how there is a historical master plan for this. Buddha came and taught Shunya, Shankara came and taught Advaita, Madhavacharya came and taught Advaita, and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came and taught Achaindya Veda, ecstatic too. So, if only one part of the whole progression is made the conclusion, then it is like the part of the movie where the hero is getting beaten and that is the climax.

It gives a long picture. So, we have to go through the whole progression and then we get the complete understanding. So, then we discussed about modern Mayavad especially.

Mayavad itself is a deviation from Vedic scriptures and modern Mayavad is a greater deviation. Because modern Mayavad, it is like a dangerous hodgepodge khichdi with grains of impersonalism from the Vedic scriptures, with the spice of nationalism from the Indian independence movement, which wanted to unite India, the sugar of social service from the Christianity and envy for Krishna from the heart of the conditioned souls. Through all this, it has actually made material life appear more attractive than spiritual life and because of that, because people do not get the higher taste of bhakti because they think, I am Bhagawan, so how can I worship Bhagawan? What is the need to worship Bhagawan? So, because material life appears more attractive, so people while claiming to be religious, spiritual, impersonalistic, they become more materialistic and this way they try, stay trapped in material existence.

That is why this is why the verse says, Tato bhuya eva te tamo ya usambhutyaam rataha. So, they think they are doing worship of so-called absolute. They are worshipping themselves, imagining that they are God, they will go into deeper darkness.

Thank you very much. Shri Shropanishad ki jai, Shri Prabhupada ki jai, Shri Shropanishad ki jai, Shri Prabhupada ki jai.