The subject of today’s discourse is Vraja Krśńa in the light of Vishuddha Advaetaváda.⁽¹⁾ The usual name of the Vishuddha Advaetaváda school of philosophy is Uttara Miimáḿsá Darshana. It was originally propounded by Vádaráyańa Vyása, yet it was developed by Shankaracharya, and more than ninety percent of it was influenced by Shankaracharya’s Máyáváda [the Doctrine of Illusion]. Needless to say, Vishuddha Advaetaváda and Máyáváda emerged long after the advent of Vraja Krśńa.

There is no scope to discuss Vishuddha Advaetaváda or Máyáváda in great detail here, nor is it necessary to do so. Its chief contention is Brahma satyaḿ jaganmithyá jiivah Brahmaeva náparah – “Brahma alone is real; the jagat [the creation] is false or illusory; all jiivas are nothing except Brahma.” Later I will explain what is really meant by the term Brahma, and what is meant by “Brahma alone is real.” I will also explain how they interpret the concepts of jagat and mithyá. But just now I will discuss jiivah Brahmaeva náparah – “all jiivas are nothing except Brahma.”

Jiivas are finite entities, handicapped by microcosmic limitations, suffering from numerous imperfections and weaknesses. People err all the time on account of their ingrained psycho-spiritual weaknesses. They often commit errors unknowingly and then realize that they have acted improperly and feel repentant. Sometimes they do not repent at all and sometimes they do not even realize their mistakes, what to speak of repent. These are the inherent imperfections, the ingrained weaknesses, of the microcosm. No right-minded person can deny this. Had all the microcosms been Brahma, such digressions would never have been made. Thus the contention that all jiivas are Brahma is a glaring defect of Vishuddha Advaetaváda in the practical sphere. If, even after seeing this serious flaw in their philosophy, they still contend that the philosophy is true, does it not amount to hypocrisy?

If after realizing the ingrained defects of the microcosm someone argues that they are not actually defects in practice, but only appear to be so due to the influence of Máyá, then the question arises, what is this Máyá? Máyá is explained as aghat́ana ghat́ana pat́iiyasii Máyá [“the dexterous hand of Máyá that can even create things impossible to create”]. Advaetaváda [non-dualism] contends that in reality nothing happens, but Máyá works in such a dexterous way that it seems as if something is happening. She who is very dexterous in this business of making what is not happening seem that it is happening, is known as Máyá. Suppose, for example, that Calcutta is non-existent, but due to the influence of Máyá appears to exist. If Máyá can make something appear, then where did this something come from? The city of Calcutta must have come from either something or nothing. If it appeared out of nothing, then that nothing must have a negative existence; and if it appeared out of something then that something must have a positive existence. Whether it is positive or negative in character, it is, after all, existence. If everything except Brahma is false then this existence is also false. So it logically follows that Máyá has built the city of Calcutta out of false materials. The whole thing seems impractical.

Now, if one contends that Máyá has built something out of false materials then one must admit the existence of Máyá. By admitting the existence of Máyá in this way one recognizes the existence of two entities: Brahma and the miracle-creating Máyá. Brahma exists along with the dexterous Máyá which makes nothing appear as something – non-existent Calcutta as existent Calcutta. So how many entities are there? Two. Then is this advaetaváda [non-dualism, monism] or is it dvaetaváda [dualism]? Monism surrenders to dualism and thereby digs its own grave.

To avoid the stigma of self-contradiction, the proponents of Máyáváda go one step further and declare that Máyá is mithyá svabhává; that is, Máyá also is unreal. It is the folly of madmen to claim on the one hand that whatever we perceive is the creation of Máyá, and on the other hand that Máyá Herself is unreal. Hence Máyáváda is full of contradictions from beginning to end. This sort of error is called pramáda in Sanskrit: error in the beginning, error in the middle and error in the end. The entire advaetaváda is pramádagrasta [full of errors].

Jiiva Brahmaeva náparah. It is as if Máyá was trying to convince the jiivas, “You are jiivas with bodies of flesh and blood, but living in a non-existent Calcutta, and those physical bodies are also unreal. You think you are jiivas, but actually you are Brahma.” They claim that you are unreal because you have been created by Máyá, but in the next breath they claim that Máyá Herself is unreal. Thus the entire philosophy is self-contradictory in nature. When one tells a lie, one is forced to concoct hundreds of additional lies to protect oneself from the stigma of falsehood. In exactly the same way, the proponents of Máyáváda have had to concoct one lie after another to protect their untenable position.

Once a certain mahápuruśa who happened to be an orthodox Máyávádin was walking along the road in Kashi [adjacent to Varanasi]. The popular saying goes that Kashi is famous for four things, for śánŕ, ránŕ, sinŕi, sannyásii – the bulls which throng the streets; the many widows; the stairs which one has to climb up or down every few metres; and the thousands of itinerant monks – and that in Kashi one should carefully avoid these four things. Anyway, one morning a wild bull suddenly started to charge that mahápuruśa, so he ran away as fast as his legs could carry him. A logician who happened to be standing nearby asked the mahápuruśa, “Well sir, if you say that this world is unreal, then the bull is also unreal, so why are you running in fear?” That mahápuruśa would not accept any defeat in logic and replied, “My running away is also unreal.” This is the way things went on for many centuries.

Though not so relevant, it would be good to mention one thing here. In those days, Baoddha [Buddhistic] Shúnyaváda was the dominant school of thought. It was a kind of nihilism. This philosophical doctrine had left the people cynical and brought them to the brink of disaster. In order to eliminate Shúnyaváda by any means, the word Brahma was used in place of the word Shúnya. This was not the Brahma as understood by genuine spiritualists, rather, it was merely an equivalent of the term Shúnya. It was nothing more than that, and this has been stated in clear terms. Shankaracharya said, Yathá shúnyavádináḿ Shúnyaḿ Brahma Brahmavidáḿstathá – “The Brahmavádins use the term Brahma in the same way as the nihilistic Shúnyavádins use the term Shúnya.”

To use the term Brahma in this way is acceptable neither to a philosopher nor to a devotee. If advaetaváda contends that this manifested universe has emanated from the One and will return to the One, that this plurality has evolved from the Supreme Singularity – Ekaḿ Sad vipráh bahudhá yad vadanti [“The Supreme Entity is one, but intellectuals explain It in various ways”] – and if they present thousands of similar arguments, then their contention will not stand in jeopardy. But if, while trying to justify the existence of this kind of Brahma (the Shúnya of nihilism) they deny the existence of any other entity or idea operating in the psychic, physical or psycho-spiritual spheres, then it is unmitigated foolishness. Regarding this, Jayanta Bhatta, the famous scholar and courtier of the Kashmiri king, Shankar Varma, said,

Yadi távat advaetasiddheh pramáńam asti, tarhi tadeva dvitiiyamiti nádvaetam atha násti pramáńam. Netaráń advaetam aprámáńikáyá siddherabháváditi mantrártha
vádottha vikalpamúlam advaetavádaḿ parihrtya tasmád upeyatámeśa padárthabhedah pratyakśa liuṋgágamágamyamánah.

The first part of his observation is quite correct. The fallibility of advaetaváda has been clearly shown. Only the portion upeyatámeśa padárthabhedah is debatable. The fallibility of advaetaváda and its uselessness in the field of dharma are bound to be accepted by all. Advaetaváda can be compared to unalloyed gold which itself is of no practical use. The scholar argues, “If you contend that there are pramáńas [proofs] in support of advaetaváda, then you are obviously supporting dvaetaváda [dualism]. Advaetaváda on the one hand, and its supporting logic on the other hand, are two entities, and so it is dualism. If you say ‘No, my advaetaváda is not based on any valid logic, it is only advaetaváda,’ then I will not accept advaetaváda! Without proof I will not accept it.” That is why Jayanta Bhatta declares that advaetaváda is based upon jugglery of words and philosophical rigmarole and as such does not deserve to be accepted. He asserts in his defense, upeyatámeśa padárthabhedah; that is, people should acquire knowledge according to its three valid sources (direct perception, inference and authority) as propounded by Sáḿkhya or Nyáya philosophy. However, one should not base one’s deductions on Nyáya philosophy, which contends that the jiivas and Parama Puruśa continue to remain separate entities, that the Supreme Entity does not attract the jiivas towards Himself nor do the jiivas attract the Supreme entity towards themselves. This is opposed to the fundamental principles of science. According to science, every entity attracts every other entity, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly. That Entity whose irresistible attraction frees the jiivas from bondage is Parama Puruśa.

Let us now turn to Vraja Krśńa (as I mentioned earlier that we would). Vraja Krśńa is not the Brahma of advaetaváda. Neither is He any worldly entity; He is an entity beyond the world. And jiivah Brahmaeva náparah. In fact, Vraja Krśńa is none other than Parama Puruśa Himself. This is something which can be readily demonstrated. I told you a little while ago that every entity attracts every other entity. Due to this force of mutual attraction, the stars, planets, meteors, and nebulae continue to move in their respective paths. In the event of the slightest weakening of this force the whole cosmological order would lose its balance and fall like a meteor. Just as planets continue to move around the sun in their respective orbits due to the force of attraction, in exactly the same way, all created beings move round Parama Puruśa, my beloved Krśńa, knowingly or unknowingly. Some love Him consciously, others unconsciously. Some love Him while thinking “I don’t love;” some sincerely believe in Him and love Him passionately, yet nonetheless continue to argue about Him because they want to find more and more justification for their love of Him. Even those who say “I don’t love Him” have love for Him, but their love is a negative love.

There are devotees who long to hear the name Rádheshyáma [a name of Lord Krśńa] over and over again. So if anyone says “Rádheshyáma,” they pretend to be extremely angry. Seeing how irritated they have become, the utterer of “Rádheshyáma” takes delight in repeating it again and again. The devotees are also delighted for they get a chance to hear the Lord’s name spoken so many times. This is why they so cleverly feign anger.

There is a story in the Rámáyańa. Sita was surrounded by a number of rákśasiis⁽²⁾ who were guarding her in the Ashoka forest. Ravana, being obsessed with the annihilation of Rama, his arch-enemy, repeated Rama’s name over and over again, saying that he should be defeated in battle. To repeat Rama’s name was actually his inner desire. But he had instructed Sita’s rákśasii attendants to tell her not to take the name of Rama. However, by telling Sita, “Sita, Rama’s name is not to be uttered,” they were also unwittingly repeating the name of the Lord: Sita-Rama.

All human beings love Parama Puruśa, some consciously, some unconsciously. A healthy person who delivers fiery lectures on atheism during a symposium quickly apologizes to the Lord when he starts getting heart palpitations. “O Parama Puruśa, You know how deeply I love You,” he says; “I only said those things to help the theists to find more points in favour of God.” Then and there the palpitation stops and he says, “O Parama Puruśa, this shows that You love me whether I speak for theism or not. In the future, I’ll criticize You more, just to save my prestige among my friends, but I’ll beg Your forgiveness before doing so.” Similarly, there are many leaders today who accept money from the capitalists to get their work done, but tell the people, “We hate the capitalists, we hate the capitalists.” But behind the scenes they tell the capitalists, “We are just telling the people these things. It will be to our mutual benefit.” The atheist psychology functions like this.

All created beings in the universe move around Parama Puruśa for their very survival, otherwise their existence would be jeopardized. The centripetal and centrifugal forces can never coexist. So the contention of Vedanta philosophy (Vedanta is another name for Vishuddha Advaetaváda), jiivah Brahmaeva náparah [“all jiivas are nothing except Brahma”] is downright falsehood. In reality, the jiivas are moving around Him. Parama Puruśa is the shelter of the jiivas, and the jiivas are sheltered in Him. When devotion is aroused in the jiivas, that is, when the centripetal force becomes predominant, the jiivas rush towards the Nucleus, decreasing their radius with every surge in devotion. The closer one comes to Parama Puruśa, the more the devotees feel that Krśńa is not a man, but a bháva [devotional sentiment born out of psycho-spiritual parallelism] personified. The more one advances on the spiritual path, the more one realizes that Vraja Krśńa is not only a bháva, but is the life of one’s life. As one advances even further one realizes, “He is not only the life of my life; I have no existence apart from Him. My existence depends upon His existence alone. Vraja Krśńa exists and due to this, I exist.”

So we find that Vishuddha Advaetaváda is a defective, illogical and impractical philosophy. When human beings realize that their hearts can be illuminated by the spiritual effulgence of Vraja Krśńa they turn away from the arid desert of philosophical rigmarole. Vishuddha Advaetaváda is like last week’s newspaper – it carries no importance.

Vraja Krśńa, resplendent in His own glory, has been illuminating the minds of all jiivas of the universe, and thereafter attracting them to Himself. This is a never-ending process. It started in beginninglessness and will merge into endlessness. Vishuddha Advaetaváda shines for a few days in the world of logic, but is subsequently extinguished in the folds of darkness. Vraja Krśńa, however, will continue to exist as the source and nucleus of the endless creation, and at the same time will continue to draw all unto Him by the force of His irresistible charm and universal love. Vishuddha Advaetaváda came into existence as a school of philosophy only recently, just 1500 years ago. But Krśńa existed even before philosophy emerged, long before human beings were born on the soil of the earth, and will remain in future. He will still remain when not even a single microcosm remains alive on this planet. He is eternal and infinite. He is established in His own matchless glory; He is the embodiment of effulgence; He is vast. Vishuddha Advaetaváda concedes defeat to Vraja Krśńa even more ignobly than does Sáḿkhya philosophy. It cannot approach the greatness of Vraja Krśńa. Moreover, it has not the least capacity to taste the sweetness of His great personality.

Footnotes

(1) Doctrine of Pure Non-Dualism. –Eds.

(2) In mythology, a demoness. The terms rákśasa and rákśasii were used by the Indo-Aryans to refer derogatorily to the indigenous Indians, especially the Dravidians (in the context of the Rámáyańa, the Dravidians of Lanka). –Eds.