How do we respond to the Mayavadi notion of a two-level Brahman?
Mayavadis say that the saguna Brahman with form is lower and the nirguna Brahman without form is higher. How do we refute this conception?
Transcript
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Question, how do we respond to the Mayavadi conception of a two-level Brahman, a higher nirguna Brahman and a lower saguna Brahman and the idea that the lower saguna Brahman has formed and the higher nirguna Brahman is beyond form? Answer, this is analyzed, ultimately we have to analyze this based on scriptures. So, in the Bhagavad Gita there are many verses very clearly which establish that the absolute truth in the highest manifestation is a person. For example, in 7.7, Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that there is no truth higher than me.
Even slightly, this is a very unambiguous, very clear statement. Similarly, 10.8 says, aham sarvasya prabhavo. So, yo mam eva samudho janaati purushottama sa sarvavit sarvabhajati mam sarvabhav eva na bharatam.
So, this verse is 15.19, this comes at what, at the end of what Vaishnavacharyas call as Trishloki Bhagavad Gita, 15.16, 17, 18 and this verse is very unambiguous. Krishna is telling, yo mam eva samudho, one who understands me, janaati purushottama, as the absolute truth, he, that person is asamudho, is free from all illusion and he is sa sarvavit, he is the knower of everything, it's a very important word. So, to know Krishna as purushottama is to become sarvavit.
So, the Mayavadi idea that actually going to the worship of Brahma is to get the full knowledge, that is refuted by the combined use of two things over here, sarvavit and purushottama, mama purushottama, no me is purushottama, one becomes sarvavit. Similarly, in 10.8 also, aham sarvasya prabhavo iti matva vajatimam budhabhavo, one who understands me to be the source of everything becomes buddha. So, like that there are several verses, I give three, 7.7, 10.8 and 15.8, but several other verses can be also used to substantiate this point, but the Bhagavad Gita itself is quite clear about this.
Now, if you look at the Upanishads, the Upanishads often talk about the impersonal Brahman, no doubt, but the Upanishads don't talk about the impersonal Brahman as the conclusive absolute truth. It is a transitional understanding of the absolute truth, in the sense that it is one feature in the spiritual evolution of the soul, of the seeker's understanding of the absolute truth, and this issue is analysed by, again by Baldevidya Bhushan in the Govinda Bhashyam. So, he points out that actually there is no reference anywhere in the scriptures to the concept of saguna brahma.
Wherever Brahman is talked about, that Brahman is talked about as nirguna only. So, the idea of saguna brahma, what he means by that is, that the idea that Brahman has material qualities, this has no support anywhere in the scriptures. So, whenever Brahman is talked about, it is talked about as having, as nirguna.
So, now what does this point out? Does this support the Mayavadi idea that Brahman is having no qualities and no form? No. Baldevidya Bhushan makes a very important point, that the concept that when the absolute truth comes as an avatar, that avatar is saguna brahma. That is a non-scriptural figment of imagination of the Mayavadis.
So, the concept of saguna brahman, that Brahman assumes material qualities, does not find any basis in the scriptures. Neither the word nor the concept is found. Then, what does the idea of nirguna brahma convey? So, for example, when the scriptures talk about the absolute truth being nirguna, they talk about two things, Baldevidya Bhushan analyzes.
First is that, they do describe qualities. For example, they describe that satyam jnanam nantam brahma, that the absolute truth is satyam. Now, truthfulness is a quality, jnanam, to have knowledge is a quality.
Similarly, anantam, to be unlimited is a quality. So, similarly, the absolute truth is anandmayo, described as blissful. Similarly, it is that wherever the Brahman is talked about, it is also said that the knowledge of the Brahman leads to liberation.
So, what this indicates is that to say that the Brahman is devoid of all qualities is not possible. Because even any description of the Brahman will involve some description of the qualities, the omniscience, the joyfulness, the unlimitedness, all these are qualities of the Brahman. So, then the idea is, but it is said that these qualities lead to liberation.
Now, we know that material qualities lead to bondage and yet it is said that the qualities of Brahman, knowing the qualities of Brahman, knowing the Brahman with quality, knowing about the Brahman who has the qualities of omniscience and omnipresence and joyfulness leads to liberation. So, this indicates that these qualities are not material, they are transcendent and there are several references to substantiate this. Now, in the Vishnu Puran, there are, Hari hi nirguna sakshat, there is a verse that always, Lord Hari's qualities are nirguna.
So, he described Hari and then he said nirguna sakshat and the most classic example of this is, in the 8th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, when Gajendra offers his prayers, he is offering prayers, namaropa gunadesha eva va. So, he gives a series of prayers where he is describing that Lord who does not have name, who does not have qualities, who does not have anything material, I am prayed to that Lord and it is a long verse which concludes with, tasmai namah pareshaya, brahmane ananta shaktaye, arupaya ururupaya, namah ashcharya karmane. So, he describes, tasmai namah pareshaya, brahmane ananta shaktaye, arupaya ururupaya.
So, he is describing that, that Lord who is paresh, who is transcendental, a controller, who is brahman, who is unlimitedly powerful, is a significant word, arupaya ururupaya. He does not have any form and he has many forms. So, before that he is describing, na vidyate yashcha janma karmava, na namarupaya guna dosha eva va, dhapilokaptya yashcha sambhavaya, somaya yathanya anukalnam rkshati.
So, he describes, na vidyate yashcha janma karmava, that absolute truth does not have janma, he does not have karma, he does not have nama, he does not have rupa, he does not have any guna dosha, any flaw because of material quality, because of qualities, any flaws or qualities he does not have and therefore he descends, somaya yathanya anukalnam rkshati. And that, so now, if you look at the incident of the Upanishads, it is very clear that he is calling to a Lord who does not have qualities, but then in response, Lord Vishnu appears and Lord Vishnu actually has all those qualities which he says the absolute truth doesn't have. So, na namarupaya guna dosha eva va, but there is a nama, there is a rupa, vidyate yashcha janma, so then, is it that the wrong person has appeared? No, if it was a wrong person that had appeared, then Gajendra would not have plucked a lotus flower and offered prayers to that person as an expression of gratitude for having appeared to rescue him.
So, it indicates that actually who is called and who has come is the same person, but who is called is being referred to as having no name, no qualities, no form, but then who is coming is a person who has name, qualities, form. How do we reconcile this? So, Jiva Goswami analyzes in Sundarpad and Baldev Vidya Vishnu also talks about it in the Govinda Vashya and he explains that the way to reconcile this is to understand that when Gajendra is calling out, he is saying that the absolute truth does not have any material qualities and when the Lord is appearing with qualities, the Lord qualities are not material and in this way, actually the idea that when we talk about nirguna brahma, that does not mean that the absolute truth does not have any qualities, it simply means that the absolute truth does not have any material qualities, that Ramanacharya says that Narayana is ananta guna sampanna, far from having no qualities, unlimited qualities and all attractive qualities. So, actually speaking, this conception of a lower Brahma and a higher Brahma is non scriptural, there is no conception of a sagun Brahma, Brahman is always nirguna, but nirguna, it cannot be referred to entirely quality-less because some qualities are described for Brahman always, it is omniscient, omnipresent or whatever and then this nirguna Brahma, the qualities that are talked about are transcendental and that is understood from the point that those qualities lead to liberation, those qualities are described as transcendental scriptures and also from the incident of Gajendra.
So, therefore, actually there is only one Brahma who is transcendental and who has transcendental qualities, the nirguna simply means that the qualities of the absolute truth are not material, the word guna means qualities, the word guna also means three modes of material nature. So, nirguna means that the qualities are not products of the three modes of material nature, they are transcendental. Thank you.