In my previous discourse, I analysed Vraja Krśńa in the light of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, but the discussion was incomplete. I mentioned that there are various branches and sub-branches within the school of Uttara Miimáḿsá Darshana. It is even true that the whole of Vishuddha Advaetaváda is not the same as Máyáváda, though most of it is Máyáváda.

First I proved that the statement jiivah Brahmaeva náparah is not worthy of being accepted, and that Vraja Krśńa is an entity who is diametrically opposed to this idea. Judged in the light of such an idea, Vraja Krśńa will remain beyond human understanding. People’s theoretical or philosophical knowledge will not be deep enough for them to comprehend Krśńa in this way.

Now, the second part of Vishuddha Advaetaváda’s contention is jaganmithyá. Brahma satyaḿ [is the first part,] jaganmithyá [is the second part]. What does mithyá really mean? It means “non-existent” or “unreal”. The contention here is that this perceivable world which we can see, touch, hear, smell and taste does not exist; and that since the sensible world does not exist, the sense indriyas [organs] such as the eyes, ears and nose do not exist either; and that in the absence of the indriyas, the jiivas’ bodies do not exist either.

Mátá kasya pitá kasya kasya bhrátá sahodará;
Káyapráńe na sambandah vrthá ká parivedaná.

[Father, mother, brother and sister are non-existent, so where is the relationship between the káya (body) and the práńa (vital energy)?]

So there is no relationship between the body and the práńa. In that case there is neither life nor body. And in that case this expressed world of vision, hearing, understanding, etc., also vanishes in a moment. But the question is, if we say that all these do not exist, then why do we see them, why do we hear or feel them? It is a very pertinent question. Then again if some argue, as does Kśańika Vijiṋánaváda⁽¹⁾ (Kśańika Vijiṋánaváda is part of heterodox philosophy and is included in Buddhist Maháyáńa doctrine) that all these are not totally mithyá but partly mithyá[, even then it will not be tenable.] One somewhat following Kśańika Vijiṋána would say that we perceive the world as a particular form at one moment but not at the next, depending on the systaltic movement of the light waves. If the crests of the waves are considered as real, then the troughs are considered as unreal. Now if we wish to see the crests only (the real world) and ignore the troughs (the unreal world), then we shall see only the collection of crests, and there will be a continuity of seeing [crests]. Again, if we want to see the troughs only, then we shall see the collection of troughs – that is, nothing.

If this doctrine is accepted, then one will have to perceive either the collection of crests (the collection of “somethings”) or the collection of troughs (the collection of “nothings”). Therefore some people will argue that the world exists and others will say that the world does not exist, depending upon their psychology or psychological condition. Judged in this light, a “something” is within the scope of Máyá’s mithyá svabháva [illusoriness] according to Máyáváda. Though we see that something, it is because the indriyas deceive us. The light-waves are defective in some way, and this is due to the influence of Máyá. If we take a “nothing” attitude, that is, if we say that mithyá means násti – or if we say (as does Kśańika Vijiṋánaváda) that it means násti [non-existent] one moment and asti [existent] the next moment – then the world does not exist from an absolute point of view. So it is said, jaganmithyá [“the world is false”].

Those who advocate the proposition jaganmithyá commit a serious philosophical and physiological blunder. They say aghat́ana ghat́ana pat́iiyasi Máyá – “It is the work of Máyá to make what is non-existent appear to exist.”

For instance, the “rope-as-a-snake illusion”: While taking a walk along a path at dusk you may wrongly take a rope to be a snake. “A snake, a snake!” you shout, startled and afraid. The Máyávádins say that the world is just like that. There is actually a rope, but you see a snake; there is actually nothing, but you see the world. Actually there is no world, just as actually there is no snake.

Or the “oyster-as-silver illusion”: An oyster being shiny-white, one who sees it may take it to be a piece of silver. Actually there is no silver, but one thinks there is silver; actually there is no world, but one thinks there is a world; actually there are no jiivas, but one thinks there are jiivas. And actually the “I” that everybody feels that one has, one does not have; one only thinks one has it.

You all have an “I”; but according to this doctrine you do not actually have it, you only think you have it. In other words, other than self-deception, nothing exists.

Vishuddha Advaetaváda makes another philosophical and psychological mistake in this regard. And that is, what kind of people can fall victim to the “rope-as-a-snake illusion”? Only those who have seen a snake can make such a mistake! The snake illusion cannot trap those who have never seen a snake. Only one who is already acquainted with a snake can have the defective perception of a snake. Similarly, an oyster can only be mistaken for a piece of silver if one has seen a piece of silver; one who has not seen silver will not make the mistake. At most one can think it to be a glittering substance, but one will not conclude that it is not an oyster or that it is a piece of silver. In this example, both the perception and the analogy designed to expose the perception are defective!

They make another serious mistake when they say:

Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah khapuśpakrtashekharah;
Eśah bandhyásuto yáti shashashrungadhanurdharah.

[Having bathed in the water of a mirage and adorned his head with flowers grown in the sky, the son of a barren woman holds a bow made from the horns of a hare.]

What is the nature of this world? It does not exist in reality but only apparently exists – Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah – like a mirage. A mirage, of course, does not exist anywhere. Due to reflection, it appears that there is water at some distance. When you go near it, it appears to recede from you. Running thus after the water of the mirage, people die of thirst. Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah means “having bathed in the water of a mirage”. Khapuśpakrtashekharah means “adorning the head with flowers grown in the sky”. Eśah bandhyásuto yáti means “the son of a barren woman”. How can a barren woman have a son? A woman is called barren becauseshe has no child. Shashashrungadhanurdharah means “holding a bow made from the horns of a hare”, but a hare does not grow horns. The contention is that to accept the world as real is just like accepting these things as real.

The person who composed this shloka must have had a very good sense of humour. The shloka is nicely composed, no doubt, but unfortunately makes a fundamental mistake. It says Mrgatrśńámbhasi snátah – “having bathed in the water of a mirage.” One should remember that there is such a thing as a mirage (there is no water in the mirage, but there really is a mirage), and there is also such a thing as water (perhaps not in the mirage, but in other places). Only this much can be said, that there is no water in the mirage. Similarly, khapuśpakrta shekharah: kha means “sky” and puśpa means “flower”. There is a sky and there are flowers, so at most we can say that there are no flowers in the sky. Again, eśah bandhyásuto yáti: well, barren women do exist, and so do sons, though the sons of barren women do not exist. At most we can say that there cannot be any son of a barren woman. Shashashrungadhanurdharah: Shasha means “hare”. (And shashaka means “rabbit”; khargosh is a general term for the two.) There is an animal called a hare and there is also such a thing as a horn, though horns do not grow on hares.

So while elucidating their philosophical points, the proponents of Máyáváda are making big mistakes. They want to say one thing, but in making their point they say something completely different. The most interesting thing is that all the items used in their analogies to prove the illusory nature of this world – mirages, water, barren women, etc. – are themselves objects of the world. Then they declare that the world is unreal. If the world is mithyá [unreal], then all the objects of their examples are also unreal, so the examples are unreal, and therefore fail to substantiate the viewpoint.

The Máyávádins, instead of declaring the world as outright mithyá, could better have said that no worldly form remains unchanged for a long period of time. The world always undergoes metamorphosis; this is how it maintains its existence – through evolution, through transformation. That is why I say the world is never static, is always moving. The Sanskrit word jagat means that which is always moving, always changing. Gam (the root verb) plus kvip (the suffix) [i.e., jagat] means “that whose nature is to move”; sam – sr (the root) + ghaiṋ = saḿsára, or “that which is always changing its position”. Jagat and saḿsára are synonymous. So those who deny the mobility of the world and declare it as false are only practising self-deception.

Now let us analyse Vraja Krśńa. To Him everything is sweet; every atom or molecule of this mundane world is sweet. He attracts all the atoms and molecules, all the ions, of this world, towards Himself by playing His flute, by radiating His charming smile. Had any one of these atoms and molecules, any one of these expressions – from a lowly blade of grass to Brahmá, the Creator of the world – been false, then His flute-playing would also have been false, because whom then would He have been calling? And regarding Máyá’s creation, Máyáváda says that this world, this “nothing”, which we take to be “something”, is produced by Máyá. If in reply to this, someone contends that since Máyá is creating, certainly She must be creating something (and creating that something out of something), they will again reply, “No, She is creating nothing out of nothing. The nothing only appears to be something.” If in reply to this one argues that the Máyá that is creating certainly must exist, otherwise how can She create, they in their turn will reply that there is only one singular Brahma; just as there is no pramáńam⁽²⁾ [supporting proof] as a second entity, so there is no Máyá as a second entity. Then who is creating these unreal objects? Well, it is Máyá. So then Máyá does exist? No, Máyá doesn’t exist, She only appears to exist.

What a miserable logical position! Máyá, the entity that creates this world, this apparent world, does not have any existence at all. She is by Her very nature false. Her existence is basically unreal. Her existence is based on non-existence.

This is all manipulation of words. That is why it has been said:

Vák vaekharii shabdhajharii shástravyákhyánakaoshalam;
Vaeduśyaḿ viduśaḿ tadvat bhuktaye na tu muktaye.

“Simply by playing on words and thereby confusing people, a section of so-called learned pandits may derive intellectual pleasure, their intellectual thirst may be quenched, but the human heart remains unsatisfied. These intellectuals, steeped in intellectual vanity, may get temporary satisfaction, but they can never attain salvation.”

However, Vraja Krśńa is quite different. He attracts all beings to Himself by playing His flute. For Him no one is downtrodden, no one is fallen, no one is neglected. All are equal to Him; His call is meant for all. The sound of Lord Krśńa’s flute has been resonating throughout eternity. One who contemplates Krśńa can immediately hear this sound (as those of you who practise spiritual sádhaná may have realized). But if people’s minds become engrossed in the mundane world and remain oblivious of Krśńa, they will be deaf to that divine sound.

I have already said⁽³⁾ that this world is a relative truth: jagadapi satyamápekśikam [“the universe is also truth, but relative”]. The entity which leads the jiivas away from Krśńa bháva is Máyá. Máyá leads the jiivas away from Krśńa first of all through the force of vikśepa shakti. Vikśepa shakti misguides jiivas by making them believe that this world is everything; that nothing exists beyond what is seen. A second force is ávarańii shakti. Vikśepa shakti no doubt draws the jiivas away from Krśńa, but it cannot keep them completely forgetful of Him. Ávarańii shakti, however, places a veil of ignorance over people’s eyes⁽⁴⁾ so that they cannot see Krśńa clearly. Máyá draws the jiivas towards crudity with the help of Her twin forces of vikśepa and ávarańii.

Máyá has another aspect which leads the jiivas towards Parama Puruśa, towards Vraja Krśńa. Even if people remain steeped in the darkness of ignorance due to the influence of Máyá they will suddenly come to their senses when the music from the flute of Krśńa falls upon their ears and touches the cores of their hearts. People say to themselves, “What am I doing? This is not the way to live. These transient objects can never bring me lasting satisfaction because nothing in this world is permanent.” Suddenly this idea strikes: nothing in this world is permanent.

Thákbe ná bhái, thákbe ná keu, thákbe ná bhái kicchu,
Ei ánande yáo re cale káler pichu pichu;
Adhik din to baite hay ná shudhu ekti práńa,
Ananta kál eki kabi gáy ni eki gán;
Málá bat́e shukiye mare, ye jan málá pare
Se-o to nay amar! Tabe duhkha kiser tare?
Thákbe ná bhái, thákbe ná keu, thákbe ná bhái kicchu,
Ei ánande yáo re cale káler pichu pichu.

[No one and nothing will remain permanently, O brother. Keep moving blissfully on the path of eternity. No one carries the burden of a life for long, no poet sings the same song forever; a garland soon withers, indeed, but the person who wears the garland is not around much longer. But why should one lament? No one and nothing will remain permanently, O brother. Keep moving blissfully on the path of eternity.]

That Máyá which awakens the jiivas to their senses and leads them towards Parama Puruśa by advising them to listen to His sweet flute is called Vidyámáyá. Vidyamáyá is that aspect of Máyá which arouses a consciousness in the human mind that nothing in the world will last long. “Those whom I went to seek, forgetting You – they do not seek me.” This realization is known as sambit shakti. Sambit means “consciousness”, “understanding”. “What am I doing? From this moment I must take to the right path.” Sambit shakti is a part of Vidyamáyá. The second aspect of Vidyámáyá is hládinii shakti (or Rádhiká shakti). Hládinii shakti means to derive joy. After sambit has been awakened, consciousness has been awakened, understanding has been awakened, one cannot remain away from Parama Puruśa. “Let me go to the source of that sweet flute sound,” the devotees say. “I must go there, for that is my real place.” With one-pointed determination and the sweetness of madhura bháva they advance towards Parama Puruśa, towards Vraja Krśńa, goaded by the hládinii shakti of Vidyámáyá. So Vraja Krśńa has nothing to do with the Máyáváda of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, with the Máyá which is mithyá svabháva [unreal by nature]. To Vraja Krśńa, Prakrti has two aspects: Vidyámáyá and Avidyámáyá. Vidyámáyá helps spiritual aspirants, and Avidyámáyá distracts them from the spiritual path. Are they two completely separate entities? No, they are not. When the same Máyá misguides sádhakas, She is called Avidyámáyá, and when She inspires them to move towards Parama Puruśa, She is called Vidyámáyá. In relation to Máyá, there is no difference between the roles of Vrajagopála and Párthasárathi Krśńa.

Daevii hyeśá guńamayii mama Máyá duratyayá;
Mámeva ye prapadyante Máyámetáḿ taranti te.⁽⁵⁾

[This Máyá of Mine is of the nature of three principles, and is almost insurmountable. Only those who take refuge in Me can overcome this Máyá.]

“It is incorrect to say that Máyá, whether Vidyámáyá or Avidyámáyá, is mithyá svabháva – She is not nothing, She is something, and She is My Máyá.” Shaktih Sá Shivasya shaktih – “This Máyá is the Máyá of Shiva [Consciousness], this Shakti is the shakti of Shiva. This Máyá is the Máyá of Viśńu, the veritable Viśńumáyá.” She is not by nature false. And because this Máyá is the Máyá of Parama Puruśa, mámeva ye prapadyante – “those who take Him as their shelter can easily overcome Máyá.” They surmount Avidyámáyá, Avidyámáyá cannot keep them in bondage any longer, and the Vidyámáyá of Vraja Krśńa takes them to Parama Puruśa with great speed.

That which takes human beings to Parama Puruśa is called upaniśad. Upa means “near”, ni means “ideally”, and sad means “to set near”. Upa – ni – sad + kvip = upaniśad. My beloved Vraja Krśńa is the quintessence of the Upanishads. One need not read the Upanishads to realize Parama Puruśa. Those who have inextinguishable love for Parama Puruśa rise above all theories, all learning; while Vishuddha Advaetaváda somehow maintains its precarious existence in moth-eaten palm-leaf and birch-leaf manuscripts. This school of philosophy has no importance whatsoever in human life, whether practical life or spiritual life.

Footnotes

(1) Doctrine of Momentary Existence. –Eds

(2) See preceding chapter. –Eds.

(3) Ánanda Sútram, 1962. –Eds.

(4) Ávarańa means “cover”. –Eds.

(5) Bhagavad Giitá. –Trans.