Vaishnava and Mayavada - two incompatible ideologies

few hints to understand what makes the two pilosophies so antagonists



- 1 -

- Mayavadis hold: Brahman, the Supreme Truth, is nirvisesa, (devoid of attributes), nirguna (without qualities) and nihsakti (powerless or having no potencies); and it is only illusion which causes the appearance of jivas (the individual living entity) and jagat (the world of inert matter) in Brahman.
- Vaishnavas ask: to whom this illusion belong?
- Mayavadis answer: it belong to the jiva in the grip of ignorance; others say that the illusion of jivas and jagat arises when Brahman is afflicted by ignorance.
- Vaishnavas so reply: but you say that jiva is actually Brahman. In this way you hold that Brahman can be afflicted by ignorance. But cannot be so, because it is illogical and opposed to sastras. According to the Upanisads:

brahma satyam jnanam anantam brahma

"Brahman is truth, Brahman is knowledge and Brahman is without end."

ekam eva dvitiyam

"There is no other substance other than Brahman."
Brahman is described as the embodiment of knowledge, bliss and truth in all the three phases of time; it is also unlimited and one without a second. How, then, Brahman can be afflicted by ignorance? From where did this second substance called ignorance come? That ignorance is false, for it is neither real or unreal. Infact if there is no other substance apart from Brahman, it cannot exists something contrasting it
- Mayavadis may answer: it is the jiva to be illusioned.
- Vaishnava disagree in these terms: you say that jivas comes from Brahman in the moment become afflicted by ignorance. That means that Brahman should be the original shelter of avidya. This idea is contrary to Vaishnavas and even Mayavada basic ideology.
Therefore the theory of illusion cannot be accepted.

- 2 -

- Mayavadis say: Brahman is not covered by maya. Rather isvara is the reflection of Brahman in avidya and jiva is the semblance of Brahman in avidya. Both the reflection (isvara) and the semblance (jiva) are false because they have no transcendental existance. We can give the example of mistaking a rope for a snake. The rope's apparent condition of being a snake is false, but people make such a mistake because a rope and a snake are somewhat similar in appearance. Similarly, the illusion of jiva and jagat can arise in Brahman, but it is quiete false.
- Vaishnavas refute: firstly if avidya can give such a result means that it is a totally different entity from Brahman, and this cannot be. Secondly it is impossible for an unreal entity as avidya (ignorance) to cover a real entity as Brahman.
Also you Mayavadis contradict yourselves, first saying that that Brahman is formless, unlimited and without attributes and then holding the theory as by which Brahma reflects into avidya, (a quality of Brahman), which becomes a separate entity.
Also, using the analogy of the rope and the snake, would you imply that exist three separated and real entities, namely the snake, the rope and the osserver? If this is accepted, then the palace of the Mayavadis collapses on itself. If it is not accepted, then the theory of illusion is equally false.
Mayavadis proclaim their obedience to sastras. Then how do they reconcile with the numerous verses where Brahman is said to be the Creator of the universe, omniscent, omnipotent and the unequalled and unsurpassed Supreme Truth? (see Taittiriya Upanisas, bhrigu 1 anu, Vedanta-sutra 1.1.2, several Rig Veda' verses, Aitareya Upanisad 1.1.1., just to say a few)
Mayavadis actually go against the Vedas and can be safely called heretics.

- 3 -

Mayavadis maintain: Avidya is composed of three gunas, namely sattva, raja and tama; and that avidya is dependent on Brahman. In other words, avidya has accepted shelter of Brahman. This avidya is known as maya and has the characteristics of the throwing potency (viksepa-sakti), which throws the living into illusion, and the covering potency (avarnana-sakti), which covers over the living entity's knowledge. Jiva is then the reflection of the conscious Brahman in the avarnana-sakti and isvara is the reflection of the cnscious Brahman in the viksepa-sakti.
Vaishnavas replay: avidya cannot come from Brahman, because it would be eternal like Brahman itself and there would not be liberation. In so many places of the Vedas the Absolute Truth is been designated as the One giving release from maya. So Brahman cannot be subject to maya, otherwise how could he give release?

dva suparna sayuja sakhaya samanam vrksam parisasvajate
tayoranyah pippalam svadyatyan asnannanyo bhicakasiti
(Svetasvatara Up. 4.6, Mundaka Up. 3.1.1., Rig Veda 1.164.21

"Paramatma and the jivatma reside like two birds on the branch of a pipal tree which represents the gross and subtle body. The jiva is tasting the pipal fruits according to his fruitive activities whereas Paramatma does not taste the fruit. He is situated as a witness."
This shows that jivatma and the Paramatma are not one and that they are of a different predisposition.

mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sacaracaram
(Bhagavad-gita 9.10)

(Sri Krishna says) "My prakriti is the creator of this world of moving and non-moving entities."
From this words we understand that the world is real but subject to destruction. Sri Krishna is saktiman (possessed of potency).
- Mayavads say: Brahman is jnana (knowledge) and is not neither the knower (jnani) nor the one possessed of knowledge.
- Vaishnavas refute: in this case how avidya, which is totally opposite of jnana, could come from Brahman? Having qualities so opposite, they could come from the same source. It would like be saying that light and darkness are in the same place at the same moment, which is impossible. Where then ignorance comes from?
Therefore mayavada is untenable.

- 4 -

- Mayavadis teach: avidya exists from time without beginning and does not need the support of a second substance. it is due to this avidya that the dualities of existance such as jiva and so on are imagined to exist in Brahman.
- Vaishnavas so replay: the non-existance of a second substance would mean that is avidya itself to imagine to be Brahman. In this case avidya cannot become something different and liberation will become impossible. This conclusion will be aversed by the mayavadis themselves. Therefore this point of theirs have to be rejected.

- 5 -

- Mayavadis say: again, isvara is the reflection of Brahman in avidya, but that reflection is false, because has no transcendental existance.
- Vaishnavas refute: we see the reflection of the sun in the water because the sun and the water have each of them their specific characteristics. Therefore the idea that the formeless Brahman, which is without limbs and attributes reflects itself in a shapeless avidya to produce an unreal reflection cannot be proposed.
Also we are unable to imagine how unreal things can produce any reflections. Something unreal cannot became real at any moment in any way. The coming into existance of something implies the existance of a real cause.

- 6 -

- A Vaishnava point about the theory of reflection: the substance of a reflection is inert and it has no capacity either to imagine its designation or to destroy it. According to the theory of reflection, then, the reflected jiva is also unable to destroy the avidya of its false designation by genuine knowledge, namely the realization of "I am Brahman". Now, according to the mayavadis, moksa (liberation) is the destruction of the nescience which has taken shelter of the pure Brahman. But if jiva cannot even destroy its own avidya, how can it possibly destroy the avidya of Brahman?

- 7 -

- Mayavadis say: jiva is a reflection of Braman.
- Vaishnavas so replay: but the reflection and the objects who reflects are very different. We can watch the reflection of the sun, but we cannot approach the sun or even looking at it without burning the eyes. Therefore the thoery of reflection is unacceptable and the jivas and Brahman are not one and the same.

- 8 -

- Mayavadis maintain: when avidya acts in Brahman, jiva and isvara become situated in their own separated individuality and cannot come in touch.
- Vaishnavas replay this way: the sastras seem to do not agree in this proposition either. Infact in many places it is said that isvara resides inside the heart of the jivas.
Besides, the mayavadis are peremptory in preaching isvara's absolute absence of potencies. There is no need to remember the hundreds and thousands verses in which are taught the unlimited potencies of the Lord. All these would be invalidated if mayavada is accepted. The impesonalists themselves never want to go against scriptural injuctions.

- 9 -

- Mayavadis say: Brahman is exclusively composed of jnana, and its relationship with avidya is simply false conjecture.
- Vaishnavas replay: therefore how a simple conjecture cause so much mischief to tranform the perfect Brahman in imaginary forms such as isvara and jivas?

- 10 -

- Sri Sankara Acarya (the champion of impersonalistic doctrine) states:

brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah

"Brahman is true, the phenomenal world is false and the jiva is Brahman."
So the Vedas declare and we accept them as Truth.
- Vaishnavas replay: Sri Sankara Acarya has stated that four vedic mantras are the mahavakya, or main declarations. Actually nowhere in the Vedas has to be found such an importance given to these four mantras. They are:

aham brahma'smi
prajnanam brahma
sarvam khalv idam brahma
tat tvam asi svetaketo

Much time would be necessary to discuss about these vedic declarations. But the conclusion does not cannot differ: the Vedas never state that isvara, jiva or even the material world are false.

- 11 -

- Mayavadis say: the world is mithya (false).
- Vaishnava replay: we reject this proposition too. Infact if this falseness is true, then absolute falseness will automatically be untrue. If falseness is false, then the proposition immediately fall.
Therefore this philosophy known as kevaladvaita-vada, maya-vada, advaita-vada, nirvisesa-vada and other epithets has to be rejected and its tenets never praticed because it is against logic and scriptural injunctions.


note: this is by no means an exaustive treatise on the subject matter which is large enough. We'll take it up again in other occasions.
Inspiration for this essay has come from the book written by BV Narayana Maharaja entitled "Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami". These notes are from the teachings of the greatest spiritual masters of Gaudiya Vaishnavism