The Vishuddha Advaetavádiis say Brahma satyam [“Brahma alone is real”]. Before analysing this part of their proposition, we should know what the two terms Brahma and satyam really mean.

The word Brahma is derived from the word brhat. Brhat means “vast” – so big that the entity cannot be measured. (It can be said that something is “this big”, but it cannot be said that something is “this vast”.) Brahma may also be derived from another word, brḿhań. Brḿhań has two meanings: the first is “to make others great”; the second is “to make others hear, see or understand something very, very big or great”. So if derived from brḿhań, Brahma means the Entity who has the capacity to make others as great as He is. The one who is brhat is Brahma, and the one who makes others great is Brahma. (You must be very careful in following this analysis. I am mentioning a very important point.)

Brahma Derived from Brhat

To indicate vastness there are two Sanskrit words – vishála and virát́a. When something is very big but comes within the scope of measurement, we call it vishála; and when it is beyond measurement it is called virát́a. (The Bengali word baŕa [big] came from the word brhat.) Does not the term brhat [a superlative, closely related to virát́a] imply, directly or indirectly, that all other entities are smaller? If there is an “eldest brother” in a certain family, it necessarily implies that there are younger brothers – maybe two, three, four or more. If there were only one brother, we would simply say “brother”, not “eldest brother”. Similarly, when we say Brahma – that is, “the greatest entity”, the “vastest entity”, the “entity defying measurement” – then that necessarily implies the existence of many small or very small entities. According to Vishuddha Advaetaváda, only Brahma is real, everything else is unreal, non-existent. If we say other entities are non-existent, then how can He be Brahma, the Greatest Entity! If we say that there are no other entities besides Brahma, then the term Brahma becomes meaningless. This is a fundamental mistake.

Brahma Derived from Brḿhań

The second derivation is brḿhańatvád Brahma.⁽¹⁾ He is great, so He is called Brahma; and “He makes others great, so thereby also He is called Brahma.” But if no other entity exists apart from Brahma, then whom will Brahma make great? The question of making something great can only arise when there is something small to be made great. Either He will make that other entity equal to Himself or He will make it greater than Himself. He will decide to do whatever He likes, but still there must be something small to be made great. If there is no one apart from Him, then the second part of the proposition – brḿhańatvád Brahma – becomes meaningless.

Hence [by either derivation] the use of the term Brahma in Brahma satyam is defective.

Satyam “for the Welfare of Others”

One meaning of the word satyam is rtam [“stating the fact as it is”]. Satyam is also defined Parahitárthaḿ váunmanaso yathárthatvaḿ satyam – “The use of speech and thought for the welfare of others is known as satya.” But if we say Brahma satyaḿ jagat mithyá, that the “world is false” and the jiivas are non-existent, then whose welfare can you promote? Parahitártham [“For the welfare of others”]: If, as according to Vishuddha Advaetaváda, there is no such thing as para [other entities], then the existence of satyam [which is for others] remains in jeopardy.

Satya Meaning Aparińámii

A second interpretation of satya is aparińámii, “that which undergoes no metamorphosis”. If we want to categorize something as unchangeable, then we must admit the concept of change, and we must say that all other entities undergo metamorphosis, while Brahma alone remains unchanged. So in order to call Him unchangeable, we must admit the existence of other entities which are subject to change.

It is only by means of the characteristic of change that we can distinguish Him from other entities. When we deny the very existence of other entities as the Vishuddha Advaetavádiis do in saying jaganmithyá, then His unchangeability is also mithyá [false]. If the relative existence of jiiva and jagat is not accepted, then the existence of Brahma is called into question.

What a suicidal argument this is! It is surely an intellectual extravaganza, rather, a foolish intellectual extravaganza!

Satyam as Rtam

The third thing about satyam is that it is [sometimes] synonymous with rtam, which means “stating the fact as it is”. The shástra which is based on satya [satya in this sense] is called itikathá (history). (It is not called itihása. Itihása has a different meaning.) Thus a chronological record of events – as something occurs, so it is written – is satyam. Using this definition of satyam, if someone then claims that there is only Brahma and no one else, then how can any events occur? For there is no one and nothing except Brahma.

Aśt́akulácaláh saptasamudráh Brahma purandarah
dinakararudráh;
Na tvaḿ náhaḿ náyaḿ lokah vyarthah kimarthaḿ kriyate shokah.

“The eight mountains, the seven seas, the vast nebulae, the Creator Brahma, the sun, Rudra – none of these exist in reality. Neither you nor I exist. Then why should you weep for these things?” This is how Vishuddha Advaetaváda propounds its philosophical ideas. But in the absence of existence, how can events take place? Events invariably presuppose clash and cohesion between so many things. If one moves this bolster from one side to another there are two entities: the bolster and the person who moves it. The action of displacement occurs. But if there is nothing other than Brahma, then no event can take place. Events presuppose acting agents, things and connecting verbs. Since nothing takes place, there is no question of recording chronological events; there is no person to record the events, no pen, no paper, no history, no historian. So when there are no events to be recorded – since satya is a record of events – then it stands to reason that there is no satya either. So how can we accept Brahma satyam? How can we say that Brahma is satyam when satya itself is non-existent? It is another fundamental mistake.

If we accept that Brahma is the composite of Puruśa and Prakrti, and Puruśa is satyam while Prakrti is instrumental in the creation of countless entities[, a sound philosophy can be built.] Aghat́anaghat́anapatiiyasii – “Máyá has been creating numerous names and forms in this universe with Her dexterous touch.” Brahma is the composite of Puruśa and Máyá, and Máyá creates countless things. Let us illustrate this by using a piece of paper. It has two sides. If one side represents Puruśa, then the other side represents Prakrti or Máyá. Puruśa cannot be separated from Máyá, just as one side of a piece of paper cannot be separated from the other. If one side of the paper is removed, then the other side can no longer exist. Similarly, Puruśa and Prakrti are inseparably connected. Let us take another example, milk. Milk is inseparable from its whiteness. If the whiteness is removed, then the milk is no longer milk. Entities which cannot exist without each other are said to be avinábhávii with each other. If we remove one side of a piece of paper, the other side also disappears.

Puruśa and Prakrti are avinábhávii. Puruśatattva remains as the fundamental substance, as well as the witnessing entity, while Prakrtitattva is responsible for creating the countless number of entities. Tvameko dvitvamápannah Shivashaktivibhágasah – “You are one, called Brahma or Parama Puruśa. Your one side is Puruśa, or Citishakti, and the other is Máyá, or Prakrti.” Essentially, He is one, like a sheet of paper. If such a Brahma is accepted, a sound philosophy can be built around It which will be easily acceptable to learned people.

The Brahma of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, however, is different. Vishuddha Advaetaváda contends that one aspect of Brahma, Puruśa, is satyam [real], and the other side is mithyá svabháva [unreal]. Can one imagine a sheet of paper with only one side? Hence, this whole philosophy is hypocritical. It is nothing but the practice of self-deception. Moreover, it is self-humiliating – those of discerning intellect will easily discover its obvious defects. They are sure to see that it is nothing but a play on words, merely philosophical rigmarole. Suppose a mother asks, “Who is in the kitchen?” and her child replies, “No, I didn’t eat the biscuits!” From the answer itself, we know that the child has definitely eaten the biscuits.

Now, according to the Vishuddha Advaetavádiis, if Brahma is Puruśatattva, then the other side of the paper is Máyá, who is giving shape to the an infinite variety of forms. If Máyá is the Creative Principle, then where does She get Her materials from? If you want to make pancakes, you require flour, milk, baking powder, etc. You cannot suddenly produce a pancake out of nothing. So how does Máyá create this world? She collects her materials for Her numerous objects – hills, mountains, water, etc. – from the vast Puruśadeha [body of Puruśa], just as a potter collects clay from the earth and produces a variety of pots, pitchers, etc. In the same way, Máyá uses the body of Puruśa as Her basic building material and from it creates Her innumerable entities. It follows that this Máyá, who has the capacity to utilize the Cognitive Faculty as the fundamental substance of the creation, is no ordinary entity. She has tremendous power. How can that Entity, who possesses enormous power, who can create this vast world out of the Puruśadeha, be unreal? She cannot be mithyá svabháva [unreal by nature]. Rather, She is pracańd́a svabháva [having a strong personality by nature]. Her presence is felt by all. Thus advaetaváda, while trying to downplay Her importance by branding Her as mithyá svabháva, shows itself to be an untenable philosophy. The idea itself is absurd.

Regarding Puruśa, Vedanta and Vishuddha Advaetaváda claim that He is merely a witnessing Entity. But how can His witness-ship be accepted philosophically? The one who remains as the witness of the created world is described as Saguńa Brahma [Qualified Brahma]. If, however, we call this world mithyá, having no existence in reality, then what is there to witness? It is the witness-ship of nothing. In other words, He continues to witness that expression of Parama Puruśa that actually does not exist. The idea is fantastic. If this is true, then He is Nirguńa Brahma [Non-Qualified Brahma]. He has the capacity to witness, but in the absence of anything to witness, His witness-ship becomes suspended. To accept an entity whose very existence is in jeopardy is finally untenable.

Now, what about Vraja Krśńa? He is Parama Puruśa Himself. Which part of Parama Puruśa? He is the Táraka Brahma aspect of Parama Puruśa. He is the nuclear point from which Parama Puruśa witnesses the entire universe. By His active witness-ship, balance is maintained in the universe. Here I am deliberately using the phrase “active witness-ship”.

The head of a family is seated, as it were, in one corner of a big marriage pavilion. He does not do anything specific. Others are doing their respective duties: some make bread, some make sweets, and some lay the dinner table. He is in the role of active witness-ship (but according to advaetaváda is witnessing nothing!). If he happens to detect someone putting too much semolina in the rasagollás, he immediately takes the guilty party to task. If someone puts too much ground chilli in the vegetables, he takes the guilty party to task. If the vegetables get a little burnt, he says, “Oh, people can’t eat this. Quick – pour a lot of water onto them, and add fifteen or twenty betel leaves. That will reduce the burnt effect.” Though not doing anything specific, his is the active witness-ship.

My beloved Vraja Krśńa has been playing His flute and calling people to Himself since the dawn of time. The created beings of the universe are revolving around Him. Because they are constantly moving, their balance is maintained, otherwise they would fall apart. The planets move around the sun, and thus they maintain their balance. The moment they stop revolving, they will disintegrate. Similarly, every microcosm is moving, dancing around my beloved Vraja Krśńa. In His ocean of blissful bháva [devotional sentiment born out of psycho-spiritual parallelism], in His eternal flow of infinite sweetness, He is making others dance in joy and bliss, filling their minds with divine ecstasy. This is His rásaliilá, His divine sport of joy. Raso vae sah [“He is an eternal flow of bliss”]. Remaining in the middle of the ocean of bliss, He maintains the balance of the universe. No one is detached from His Cosmological order, no one feels isolated.

Everyone knows that Vraja Krśńa exists to take care of those who have no one of their own. He is amidst all; He does not neglect me, He does not neglect anyone. I exist because He exists, that’s why He is Krśńa. One of the meanings of the root verb krś is “He exists, that’s why I exist.” The word krśńa also has the same meaning. And like the head of the family in the marriage pavilion, He is an impartial witness who not only sees, but oversees, everything. (Remember, “to see” is also a verb.) So the impersonal Nirguńa Puruśa of Uttara Miimáḿsá may have His existence in the intellectual world of visionary idealists, but not in the practical world.

My beloved Vraja Krśńa is drawing everyone to Himself, making others move or dance around Him in His rásaliilá. Not only that, it is He who sustains the very existence of everything. Hence to move towards Him, to rush headlong towards Him, is the dharma [predominant characteristic] of the jiivas. This is the only dharma of the jiivas.

This being so, you might, of course, raise a question about your material needs. If your basic physical needs are not fulfilled, you cannot move towards Parama Puruśa. So you make necessary arrangements for your food and clothes, build a well-knit society, try to provide people with the five essential needs – food, clothes, shelter, education and medical treatment. But why? So that you can create a congenial atmosphere to move towards Parama Puruśa in a better way, in a nicer way. If your food is not provided for, you will not be able to concentrate your entire mind on Parama Puruśa; part of your mind will flow towards your stomach. Food is the top priority and should be arranged first to prevent the mind from running towards the stomach. So human beings should be provided the basic necessities of life so that the mind, freed from the worries of mundane problems, can rush towards Parama Puruśa. This is the beauty of the sweetness of Vraja Krśńa; this is His rásaliilá.

But this is not all. I said a little while ago that the head of the family at a marriage does not witness passively, but actively. That is, if someone makes a mistake, he immediately intervenes: he points out the mistake, chastises the person at fault, rectifies the mistake and takes the offender lovingly on his lap – all of this is his duty. So when Krśńa attracts all by His divine flute music, what does it signify? It means He calls the jiivas, saying: “O my loving children, come to Me, come to Me, one and all, and live with Me in joy throughout eternity in this Cosmological order. The world of jiivas is not absolute satya, but relative satya. From that relative world, come to Me. This is what you and I both desire. This is what will give us both bliss.” This is the final word of Vraja Krśńa.

We have discussed today only one part, that is, Brahma satyam, of the shloka of Vishuddha Advaetaváda. Unfortunately, the proponents of Vishuddha Advaetaváda philosophy could not grasp the significance of the word satyam. If at all they understood anything about it, then they deliberately misguided the common people. Vraja Krśńa is sweetness as only sweetness can be. He lies beyond all these misconceived and confused assertions.

Footnotes

(1) Referring to the definition Brhattvád Brahma, brḿhańatvád Brahma. –Eds.