Beyond
Nirvaana
This same
concept of ‘cause and effect’ is echoed in the Buddhist analogy
of the
mango. Now it is up to the respected reader to judge whether Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s
statement ‘what remains’ is not the same as çünya, void.
After the
mango loses all its qualities like taste and colour, nothing remains,
just çünya, void.
Çré Çaìkaräcärya covertly implies to Buddha’s çünya with
his own
terminology ‘avasistha’, the remaining rest. It will not be
unjustifiable
to say that Çré Çaìkaräcärya attempted to establish his
Mäyäväda
philosophy being influenced by Buddha’s Mäyäväda creed. We
will
clearly show that Çré Çaìkaräcärya fully subscribed to Gautama
Buddha’s
delineation of the process of attaining mokña,
salvation.
‘Çünya’ and
‘Brahman’ in the Buddhist Philosophy.
The next
step in our analysis will be to ascertain what differences, if
any, exist
between brahman and çünya. In the Buddhist text
Prajìäpäramitä,
verse 19,
this statement is written:
çaktaù
kastväà iha stotuà nirëimittäà niraïjanäm
sarva-väg
viñayätétaà yä tväà kvacid anéçrétä
Who in
this world is able to eulogise You, the one without
instrumental
cause, unattached, independent and beyond the realm
of all
narration.
We had
earlier discussed the different characteristics of the Buddhist
concept of
çünya, void, as described in these words:
äkäçäm
nirlepäm niñprapaïcäm nirakñaräm –
The
all pervasive ether or sky is unattached, nonmaterial and
formless.
In
Asta-saha Çréka Prajìä-päramitä, Çäkya Siàha Buddha describes the
qualities
of çünya,Verse 19:
ye
ca subhùüte çünyä akñayä‘pi te
yä
ca çünyatä aprameyatä api sä
O
Subhuti, the void is inexhaustible. That, which is known as
çünya, is
immeasurable.
In the
same book çünya is further described:
aprameyam
iti vä asaìgheyam iti vä akñayam iti vä çünyam iti vä
animittam
iti vä apranihitam iti vä anabhisaàskära iti va
anutpad
iti vä ajïätirikta vä abhäva iti
viräga
iti vä nirodha iti vä nirväëam iti
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
62
Beyond Nirväëa
The
following are the symptoms of çünya:
immeasurable, solitary,
imperishable,
void, causeless, unattached, incommutable,
inexpressible,
detached, the law and the ultimate goal.
In the
twelfth parivartta (horizon) of this same book it is written:
çünyam
iti devaputrä atra lakñaëäni sthäpyante
anabhisaàskära
ityunutpäda ityanirodha ity asaàkleça
ityavyavadänam
ity abhäva iti nirväëam iti dharma dhätur iti
tathät
eti devaputrä atra lakñanäni sthäpyante
naitäni
lakñaëäni rüpa-niçcitäni
O’
sons of the gods, in regards to the void, characteristics are put
forth
such as; not transformable, unproduced, difficult to grasp,
devoid
of afflictions, unhindered, non-existent, possessing the
nature
of Nirväëa. O’ sons of gods, they put forth these
characteristics
regarding this, but they are actually not determined
with
form.
Upon close
scrutiny of these characteristics, it is revealed that there is
no
difference between Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s precepts on brahman
and
Buddha’s
precepts on çünya. In fact, Çré Çaìkaräcärya even went
to the
extent of
calling brahman ‘çünya’. Below we have furnished the
necessary
proofs.
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s Conception of Void and Brahman
A thorough
study of Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s books like Vivek Cüòämaëi,
Aparoksanubhuti,
Brähmaëamaväli-mäla etc. will bring one to conclude
that he
has assigned all the symptoms and characteristics of çünya
onto
brahman. A
multitude of proofs can be furnished from his writings to
support
this view, but if all the proofs were to be cited, this book would
become
impractically voluminous. I therefore offer only few of the more
pertinent
quotes as follows:
From Vivek
Cüòämaëi 402:
drañtå
darçana drçyädi bhäva çünyaika vastuni
nirvikäre
niräkare nirviçeñe bhidä kutaù
Is
there a distinction between the viewer, vision and the object of
vision
in relation to the immutable, formless and attributeless
substance?
(Meaning, there is no distinction).
63
From
Aparokçanubhuti, 108:
väco
yasmän nivartante tad vaktuà kena çakyate
prapaïco
yadi vaktavyaù so’pi çabda vivarjitaù
Who
can describe something that exists beyond words? Though
it
allows itself to be the subject of discussion, yet it remains
ineffable.
From
Brahma-namavali-mala 4:
nityo’ham
niravadyo’haà niräkäro’ham akñaraù
paramänanda
rüpo’ham aham eva avyayaù
I am
eternal, flawless, formless, imperishable, supremely blissful
and
inexhaustible.
Non-Dualist
and Monist
A clear
indication from these analyses is that Buddhist thought has
nurtured
Mäyävädism. In the book ‘Amarkosa’ Çäkya Siàha Buddha is
addressed
as ‘advayavadé’, a non-dualist. Knowing that Çré Çaìkaräcärya
was an indisputable
advaitavadé, (monist), impartial and objective
observation
gives us enough reasons to believe that there is no difference
between
non-dualism and monism. Nevertheless, some dissimilarity may
seem to
surface between them every so often, hence a fact-finding probe
into this
matter is warranted.
Regarding pariëäma, the
theory of transmutation, Buddha said; “void
(çünya) must be
understood as non-existence, a complete lack of
everything,
nothingness and full emancipation. Even if enlightened
Bodhisattvas
do not accept çünya as void or consider full emancipation
a
qualitative
state of consciousness, then they are also in a deluded state of
conditioning
like one who is in a dream.”
Çaìkaräcärya
explained the theory of transmutation or evolution1 saying
that brahman
is the embodiment of eternity. In another place he said,
brahman
is the embodiment of bliss and the embodiment of full
emancipation.
On casual observation there is noticeable difference in the
language
they use to define their doctrines, but in essence their meanings
are not in
the least contradictory – a little exploration will prove this to
be true.
If the term nirväëa, complete emancipation, conveys the
sense of
an
enlightened state, devoid of dry knowledge and renunciation, and is
saturated with
spiritual humour, then no one can object to the use of this
word. Both
Buddha and Çré Çaìkaräcärya have defined their individual
essential
principle, namely çünya and brahman respectively
as the
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
64
Beyond Nirväëa
embodiment
of nirväëa. Çré Çaìkaräcärya propagated that in the postemancipation
state brahman
is perceived as the embodiment of unlimited
bliss. On
deeper scrutiny this statement is actually redundant, since
according
to him no one acquires the eligibility to personally attain that
state.
Thus, due to its unobtainable nature one might as well term it
embodiment
of sorrow; would that not be logical?
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya in Aparokçanubhuti, Vs 129,writes:
bhäva-våttyähi
bhävatvaà çünya-våttyähi çünyatä
brahma
våttyähi brahmatvaà tathä pürëatvam abhyaset
To
perceive that which exists requires meditating on its
propensities;
to attain the state of void requires developing its
characteristics
of absence of everything; and to attain the state of
brahman
requires being inclined to develop its (brahman’s)
properties.
In the
above verse, Çré Çaìkaräcärya has tried to establish the preeminence
of the brahman
concept over voidism, but closer scrutiny reveals
that this
could not be accomplished. It is simply redundant verbiage. What
is
insinuated here is that by meditating on the characteristics of a sentient
brahman, one will
attain the ontological realisation of brahman.
Similarly,
by
absorbing oneself in the characteristics of a non-sentient çünya, one
attains
the non-existent void. It is imperative that we discuss the
differences,
if any, between ‘sentient brahman’ and
‘non-existent çünya’.
The
question must be asked, who in truth really suffers or gains from
knowing
this? Is there a great advantage in seeking, via an application of
the
ontological principle, ‘the seer, the scene and the vision’, to discover
whether an
object like çünya can be known as sentient and existent
or
whether it
is non-sentient and non-existent? Scientists say that there are
many
things yet to be discovered or invented, and to simply acknowledge
that they
potentially exist will neither harm nor benefit anyone. In the
same vein,
discovering or inventing that which cannot exist benefits no
one. If an
object or reality is not perceived by spiritual or ontological
vision; if
it has no seer or witness it can be considered totally irrelevant –
by
whatever name we call it, it is all the same.
In this
context, it is relevant to discuss the following verse composed
by the
crest jewel among philosophers and saintly poets, Çréla Kåñëadäsa
Kaviräja
Gosvämé, in his book Çré Caitanya Caritämåta Madhya 6/168:
veda
nä mäniyä bauddho haya ta’ nästika
vedäçraya
nästikya-väda bauddhake adhika
65
The
Buddhists do not accept the authority of the Vedas, therefore
they are
considered agnostics. However, those who claim to have
faith
in the Vedic scriptures and yet preach agnosticism in
accordance
with Mäyävädism are indeed more dangerous than
the
Buddhists.
Çréla
Kåñëadäsa Kaviräja, while comparing Buddha and Çré
Çaìkaräcärya,
hardly finds any differences, but concludes that Çré
Çaìkaräcärya
was the stronger atheist of the two. The reasons for this is
that the
innocent general mass of people, believing Çré Çaìkaräcärya to be
a scholar
of Vedänta and a theist, will be easily misled by the outwardly
theistic
appearance of his teachings; and in this way, unknowingly also
become
atheists. This is one of the most cunning ways that Kali-yuga
establishes
itself.
The
Reasons for Camouflaging Mäyävädism
Although
Advayaväda, non-dualism and Advaitaväda, monism are
practically
the same, Çré Çaìkaräcärya refused to use the term Buddhism
in
identifying his own precepts, despite knowing fully well that there was
no
difference between them. He had a specific reason for doing so; it
hardly
mattered that there was little or no contradiction between his
precepts
and Buddhism. The real reason was, he had to execute the
Supreme
Lord’s command. Çréla Kåñëadasa Kaviraja sheds significant light
on this
matter in Çré Caitanya Caritämåta Madhya 6/180:
äcäryer
doña nähi éçvara-äjïä hoila
ata
eva kalponä kari’nästik-çästra kailä
Äcärya
Çaìkaräcärya is not at fault, he was simply following the
Supreme
Lord’s order. He had to fabricate from his imagination a
scripture
that preached atheism in the name of the Vedas.
On this
subject Çréla Bhaktivinode Thäkura has written in Jaiva Dharma:
“Hearing
Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s name mentioned, Çré
Paramahaàsa
Bäbäji prostrated himself on the ground while
offering
obeisances. He continued to speak: ‘Dear Sir, please always
remember –
‘Çaìkaräcäryah Çaìkaräcäryah saksat’, Çré
Çaìkaräcärya
is Lord Çaìkara (Çévä) himself. Lord Çaìkara is
considered
to be guru of the Vaiñëavas.
Çaìkaräcärya himself was
a great
Vaiñëava; hence Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu always
addressed
him as äcärya in veneration. At the time he appeared
in India, a guna-avatära
(a qualitative incarnation) of his stature
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
66
Beyond Nirväëa
was much
needed. The cultivation of Vedic scripture and the
practice
of Varnaçrama (religious principles) in India had become
stifled to
almost naught by the onslaught of the Buddhist
philosophy
of voidism. This theory of voidism is an extreme form
of
atheism. Although it acknowledges a few truths about the true
nature of
the soul, in essence this theory is totally transient. The
Brähmaëa
class in India
during this period were en masse
converting
to Buddhism and relinquishing Vedic principles. Just
then Çré
Çaìkaräcärya, an incarnation of the extraordinarily
powerful
Lord Çaìkara, Çévä, appeared and re-established the
authority
and pre-eminence of the Vedas, causing a metamorphosis
of
Buddhism to Brähmaëism. This was an extraordinary feat.
Bhäratvarña
(India)
and the Vedic culture will forever remain
indebted
to Çré Çaìkaräcärya.
All accomplishments
and works in this material world are
judged on
the basis of two things: Some works are time-bound
and
contemporary, while others are universal and eternal. Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s
accomplishments are time-bound. His work
created
many positive results, for he laid a strong foundation on
which
later äcäryas, preceptors like Çré Rämänujäcärya would
begin to
construct the temples of pure Vaiñëavism. Therefore,
Lord
Çévä’s incarnation as Çaìkaräcärya is a deeply committed
well-wisher
of Vaiñëavism and one of its earlier äcäryas.”
Thus, I
present these facts not to offend the order carrier of the
Supreme
Personality of Godhead, but rather to attempt to lay bare the
truth. In
order to comprehensively execute Lord Viñëu’s divine command,
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya camouflaged the concepts of Buddhism or voidism and
presented
them as his own. His predisposition toward Buddha is shown
clearly in
the text Daksinamurti-stotra, where he writes, glorifying Buddha
in this
manner:
citraà
vaöa-taror-müle våddhaù çiñyäù gurür yuvä
gurostu
maunaà vyäkhyänaà çiñyästu chinna saàçayäù
A
truly wonderful sight! The effulgent holy teacher is youthful
while
all his disciples are aged. Sitting under the banyan tree his
silent
instructions remove all doubts from the hearts of his
disciples.
There is
no doubt that Çré Çaìkaräcärya held Çäkya Singh Buddha in
good
respect. In the above verse the word citram signifies
awe and
wonderment.
Furthermore the reference to the banyan tree is telling, in
67
that it
unequivocally distinguishes between Lord Viñëu’s incarnation, the
original
Lord Buddha and the more recent Gautama Buddha who traveled
to Bodhi
Gaya to attain enlightenment under the now famous banyan
tree, the
subject of Çaìkaräcärya’s eulogy. Another interesting point is
how
Çaìkaräcärya was overjoyed when he came across a verse from the
Nåsiàha-tapani
Upäniçadä that underpinned his concept that the
ontological
principle defining çünya is the same as the one defining
brahman. This
verse is as follows, Nt.U 6/2/4:
ananda
ghanam çünyam brahma atma prakasam çünyam.
Çünya,
void, embodies bliss in the form of brahman.
Even Çäkya
Singh Buddha echoed the words of this verse in his book
Milinda
Pancaha describing the state of nirväëa by merging
in void as
‘ekanta
sukham’ – complete, total bliss; and ‘vimukta sukha
patisamvedi’ –
meaning
‘embodiment of unlimited bliss’.
The famous
Buddhist scholar Amara Siàha has described nirväëa as,
‘sreyasa
amrtam’ – the blissful highest good. The commentator to this
verse
writes:
nirvateh
atyantika duhkhocchede-bhavekta
Nirväëa
is a state of realisation which is attained after all sorrows
have
been completely uprooted.
This is
another clear proof of Çäkya Singh Buddha and Çré Çaìkaräcärya
speaking
of the same concepts, and using the same words and
characteristics
to describe their individual concepts with the only difference
that they
are given different appellations. Çäkya Singh Buddha called it
çünya, while
Çré Çaìkaräcärya termed his brahman.
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya reveals he is a Buddhist by his own
arguments
We have
earlier used the epithet ‘disguised Buddhist’ for Çaìkaräcärya.
To
vindicate this assertion we have, so far, gleaned the following parallels
from their
teachings:
__ Buddha’s
philosophy regarding the universe and Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s
are the same;
__ The means
to attain moksa, liberation or emancipation, are
the same;
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
68
Beyond Nirväëa
__ The
ultimate goal, or what is meant by moksa is also
the same.
(Buddha
termed it ‘çünya’ and Çré Çaìkaräcärya called it
‘merging
with brahman’).
The
unanimity on these cardinal ontological principles is testimony
enough
that there is no distinction between their philosophies. Some
Puräëas
also substantiate that Çaìkaräcärya is a Mäyävädé and a disguised
Buddhist.
The monistic sect, adherents of Çaìkaräcärya, attempt to
expostulate
and refute these scriptural statements with all and sundry
trashing
these Puräëic quotes as interpolations that are based on invented
logic and
argument, claiming that Çaìkaräcärya was neither a Mäyävädé
nor a Buddhist.
Some of them condescendingly acknowledge that these
Puräëic
statements are not interpolations but are authentic. However,
they
daringly attempt to corrupt historical truth by foisting off an
incredulous
theory that these Puräëas were compiled after Çaìkaräcärya’s
demise.
These same persons claim that the reason Çaìkaräcärya’s name
finds
mention in the Puräëas is because he appeared even before the advent
of Jesus
Christ. Such arguments are made by confused, ill-informed
speculators
who can not comprehend that proffering such arguments
distorts
historical fact so ludicrously as to pre-date the appearance of
contemporaries
of Çré Çaìkaräcärya, persons like Çré Padmapada and Çré
Govindapada
both of whom were born in the post-Christian era.
Regardless
of whatever case is made by them, it is clear that their
arguments
and logic are lopsided and motivated. A proper, comprehensive
rebuttal
supported by ample historical fact can be easily furnished to
defeat
these false arguments, the only reason for not doing so is to keep
this book
brief and concise.
The goal
of this book is to expose the Mäyäväda philosophy for what it
is. To
make a balanced, unbiased presentation we felt it incumbent upon
us to draw
primarily from the statements and teachings of Mäyävädis,
and to
defer from presenting our own, or other’s points of view on the
subject.
But for arugment’s sake, even if we admit that the above referenced
Puräëas
were compiled after Çaìkaräcärya’s time and that their
statements
regarding Çré Çaìkaräcärya were subsequently interpolated,
our
foregoing arguments and references have successfully established that
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya as the chief among Mäyäväda philosophers was in fact a
pure
Buddhist.
69
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya: a Mahäyäna Buddhist
Some may
claim that Çré Çaìkaräcärya appeared before Christ, but the
fact that
Çré Çaìkaräcärya debated with Äcärya Bhaskara, cannot be
debunked
by any upright monist. The most watertight proof of this fact is
mentioned
in Çaìkaräcärya Vijaya, a book written by Ananda Giri, a
direct
and
leading disciple of Çré Çaìkaräcärya. What is known from available
historical
records is that Çaìkaräcärya failed to defeat Bhaskaräcärya in
debate.
Furthermore, Bhaskaräcärya in his own commentaries confuted
many of
Çaìkaräcärya’s arguments and proved them to be of Buddhist
and
Mäyäväda persuasion. It is not our intention to embark on a tirade
against
the Mäyävädés and their devious methods of argument. Rather,
we will
simply present historical facts that vindicate and prove our
assertions.
Below we quote from Çré Bhaskaräcärya’s commentary on the
Brahma-Sütra,
published by Chowkhamba, Sanskrit Book Depot in 1914-
Page 85:
tathäca
väkyaà pariëämastu syäd dadhyädivaditi
vigétaà
vicchinamülaà mahäyanika-bauddha-gäthäyitaà
mäyävädaà
vyavarnayanta lokän vyämohayanti.”
(Çaìkaräcärya)
has taken the vile and baseless (without essence)
philosophy
of the Mahäyäna Buddhists and has promulgated them
(as
his own enlightened realisations) under the name of Mäyäväda
philosophy,
to beguile and ensnare the people.
In another
place of the same book, page 124, Bhaskara writes:
ye
tu bauddha-matävalambino Mäyävädinaste’pyanena
nyäyena
sütra-käreëaiva nirastä veditavyäù
The
author of this aphorism (Çréla Vyäsadeva) has himself used
this
logic and argument to refute Mäyäväda followers of Buddhism
– this
is the way to understand this statement.
In the
‘Foreword’ to his commentary Bhaskaräcärya writes:
süträbhipräya
saàvåtya-sväbhipräya prakäçanät
vyäkhyätam
yairidaà çästraà vyäkhyeyaà tannivåttaye
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
70
Beyond Nirväëa
For
the express purpose of refuting Çaìkaräcärya’s ontological
theses
this particular scripture (Brahma-Sütra) has been
commented
upon.
Whether
the Puräëas in discussion are recent or ancient, whether some
statements
in them are interpolated or not, is not the final issue; what the
respected
reader must decide is, are there sufficient testimonials to prove
that
Çaìkaräcärya was a Mäyävädé and a Mahäyäna Buddhist?
Bhaskaräcärya
was Çaìkaräcärya’s contemporary and opponent; this is a
unanimously
accepted historical fact. His statements are therefore solid
testimonials
that cannot be ignored. Other contemporary philosophers
also
concur with Bhaskaräcärya’s opinion that Çré Çaìkaräcärya was a
Mäyävädé
and a Mahäyäna Buddhist. The truth is that the Mahäyäna
Buddhist
teachings form the corpus, psyche and biography of Mäyävädism.
In this
regard it seems appropriate at this juncture, to quote the views of
a few
prominent monist philosophers.
(Footnotes)
1 See
“What is the definition of Mäyävädism?” on page 32.
71
Further
Evidence
Çévänatha
Çiromani
The
venerable monist philosopher Çévänatha Çiromani wrote about Çré
Çaìkaräcärya
in Çabdartha-manjari published in the Bengali era 1308. In
the parisistha
section on page 35 he says the following:
‘Mahatma
(great soul) Çaìkaräcärya has written the purports
to Éçopaniñad
and nine other important Upaniñadäs, the
commentary
to Vedänta or Brahma-Sütra and a plethora of other
texts. The
Çaririka Bhäñya, his commentary to the Brahma-Sütra,
is indeed
his immortal masterpiece. This book reflects his genius
and
profound knowledge. From reading this book it may be
concluded
that in the course of invalidating Buddhist theories he
has taken
recourse to Buddhist logic and argument. In many
instances
he has borrowed heavily from the past Buddhist masters
such as
Nagärjuna’s opinion.’
The
venerable Çiromani, desiring to preserve Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s preeminent
position,
says that he was responsible for confuting Buddhist
views. But
in truth was he really? Or was he responsible for furthering the
propagation
of Buddhism? In truth the success of his propaganda strategy,
the aim of
which was the respect and support of the public, was contingent
on this
deception. In the matter of confuting Buddhism, it seems
Çaìkaräcärya’s
contemporary philosophers, who strongly opposed him,
were far
worthier of praise.
Rajendranätha
Ghosh
The
venerable Rajendranätha Ghosh may easily be considered the most
prominent
Bengali monist of the 20th century. Infatuated with and
enamoured
by Çaìkaräcärya he was caustic and abrasive towards other
pure
religions. This streak in him exposed a narrow minded, blind faith in
monism.
Despite this, the respected Rajendra was forced to accept that
his
worshipable idol Çaìkaräcärya was an inveterate Buddhist. He confirms
this in
the preface to his book Advaitasiddhi:
‘Approximately
till 500 years after Buddha, i.e. up to shortly
before the
birth of Christ and the appearance of King Vikramaditya
(57 BC)
the philosophy of monism was professed vigorously in
the form
of Buddhism.’
72
Beyond Nirväëa
In this
statement Mr. Rajendranätha is saying that Buddhist philosophy
is not
‘non-Vedic’, but concurs with the Vedic view. He has reasons for
saying
this, for if he were to accept Buddhism as non-Vedic, he would
subsequently
be admitting that Çaìkaräcärya’s view was also non-Vedic.
Mr.
Rajendranätha has made the sincere attempt to identify certain
differences
between Buddhist views and Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s teachings. In
his
personal opinion, he makes the assertion that Buddhist views are
Vedic but
they nonetheless cut at the root of the Vedic tree, while
Çaìkaräcärya’s
views protect the root. The reality is however, that
Çaìkaräcärya
also cuts at the root of Vedic knowledge, as will be
elaborated
further on. While Mr. Rajendranätha tried his utmost to
safeguard
Çaìkaräcärya’s from being branded as a Buddhist, in the end
his
attempts proved futile.
73
The
Divine Plan
The
Reason for the Promulgation of Mäyävädism
Earlier on
I made some observations regarding the reason for the
propagation
of Mäyävädism. I would like to make a few more points on
this
subject. It is stated in Padma Puräëa Uttara khanda 25/7, where Lord
Çévä said
to his eternal consort Durga Devi:
mäyävadam
asac-chästraà pracchannaà bauddham ucyate
mayaiva
vihitaà devi kalau brähmaëa-mürtiëä
In the
age of Kali, I will appear as a Brähmaëa and disseminate
atheistic,
false philosophy in the name of the Vedas, teaching
Buddhism
in a hidden way.
In the
Padma Puräëa Uttara, 62/31:
svägamaiù
kalpitais tvaà ca janän mad-vimukhän kuru
mäm
ca gopäya yena syät såñöir eñottarottarä
Bhagavan,
the Supreme Lord, said to Çévä:
Interpret
the Vedas in such a way so as to mislead the general
populous
to become averse to Me.
Hide My identity, while
gradually
deluding people by encouraging them in the pursuit of
material
advancement.
These two
statements unambiguously indicate that Çré Çaìkaräcärya is
the
conceiver and professor of Mäyävädism. However, the words
pracchannaà
bauddham ucayate meaning, ‘covertly preaching Buddhism’,
would
obviously establish Buddha as the father of Mäyävädism. In the
second
verse cited above, the words mäm ca gopäya meaning,
‘hiding My
identity’
(spoken by Çré Kåñëa), clearly indicate that the prime reason for
creating
Mäyävädism is the Supreme Lord’s will. The transcendental reason
for Çré
Kåñëa to express such a wish is – bhakta-vatsalya protective
and
affectionate
guardianship over His loving devotees.
The jéva, living
entity, by forgetting Çré Kåñëa, turns his back on the
Lord
forever. Thus it is seen that when the jéva becomes
oblivious of his
service to
Kåñëa he is captivated by the feelings of ‘so’ ham’, (I am brahman,
the
Supreme). This feeling releases from within him deep-seated envy
toward the
devotees, who are surrendered to the Supreme Lord. Thus,
the prime
cause for the conception of Mäyävädism in the world can be
traced to
the jéva’s forgetfulness of God and the Supreme Lord’s own will.
74
Beyond Nirväëa
Hence from
the time of creation of this universe and the illusory state of
the jéva, it is
seen that someone or other was treading the path of monism.
In the
three previous yugas (cosmic ages) Satya, Tretä and
Dväpara,
there were
always a few empirical philosophers who pursued the path of
monism. By
the influence of their knowledge and by the scorching heat of
Mäyäväda
thought, the Supreme Lord observed that the delicate and tender
creeper of
bhakti, devotional service to the Lord, was in danger of drying
up. So, in
order to establish religious principles in the form of devotional
scriptures,
and also to uproot the malaise of Mäyävädism, the Supreme
Godhead
appears in every yuga. As Lord Kåñëa declares to Arjuna in
Bhagavad-Gétä,
4.8
pariträëäya
sädhünäm vinäçäya ca duñkåtäm, dharmasaàsthäpanärthäya
sambhavämi
yuge yuge
To
protect my devotees, annihilate the wicked, and re-establish
the
path of dharma, I appear yuga
after yuga.
In this
context, it must be mentioned that the cosmic work of protecting
the
devotees and celestial beings (demigods) and slaying the asuras
and
atheists
is the pastime enacted by Çré Kåñëa’s primary transcendental
expansion,
Lord Balaräma. For this purpose, the Lord appears in each
yuga,
rectifying the mental aberrations of Mäyävädés by eradicating their
atheistic
views and initiating them into the principles of devotion, (bhakti).
The
Mäyävädés, failing to be victorious in establishing their views over
others,
become attracted to the radiant path of bhakti. They
come to
reject the
humourless path of dry empiricism, considering it worthless
intellectual
‘excreta’, and by dint of the sweet taste of devotion, bow their
heads in
submission to the path of eternal loving service of the Supreme
Lord that
they relish as an intimate, personal relationship with Him.
Thus far I
have gleaned the relevant essence from the history in the
Puräëas
and other scriptures, endeavouring to present them succinctly
to avoid
unduly lengthening this book. Having established these historical
facts as a
common knowledge accepted by many without debate, I will
avoid the
labour of further substantiating every point with yet more quotes
from
authorised sources (although they are plentiful) and take the
opportunity
to advance our discussion so that we can make quick progress
with the
subject at hand.
75
Mäyävädism
in the Four Yugas
Monism
in Satya-yuga
‘Catuhsana’
– The story of the four Kumäras
There is
frequent mention throughout the Vedic scriptures of Catuhsana
–
referring to the great child sages of Satya-yuga called the Four Kumäras,
whose
names are Sanaka, Sanätana, Sanandana and Sanata-Kumära. By
their
birth the Four Kumäras defied the cosmic laws of procreation as
they were
born not in the manner of normal personalities who are products
of the
union between male and female energies. Rather, they were ‘psychic
offspring’
born from the mind of Lord Brahmä, the celestial being who, as
the
“Cosmic Father”, is empowered by the Lord to preside over the
Universal
creation. As such, they did not have normal parents, mother
and father
– but only their ‘psychic’ father, Lord Brahmä. From early
childhood
they observed a strict vow of celibacy inspired by their pursuit
of pure
spiritual knowledge. Their quest for knowledge was however,
subtly
tainted by the aberrations of impersonal thought which made their
efforts
unfavourable for the cultivation of pure bhakti realised
by devotional
surrender.
This saddened their well-wishing ‘father’, Lord Brahmä who
approached
the Supreme Lord Viñëu and prayed to Him for the
benediction
and good fortune of his sons. The Lord pondered over the
fact that
as the first offspring of the universal creator, the Four Kumäras
set a
precedent for the rest of the cosmic race. He concluded that the
matter was
serious enough to deserve His direct intervention and
descended
as the Haàsa-Avatära (incarnation in the form of a divine swan)
to
instruct the Four Kumäras and Närada Muni (another son of Brahmä),
in the
science of bhakti-yoga. Lord
Brahmä himself recounted this factual
event to
Närada Muni and the Four Kumäras, as is recorded in Çrémad-
Bhägavatam
2/7/19:
tubhyaà
ca närada bhåçaà bhagavän vivåddha
bhävena
sädhu parituñöa uväca yogam
jïänaà
ca bhägavatam ätma-satattva-dépaà
yad
väsudeva-çaraëä vidur aïjasaiva
O
Närada, you were personally instructed by the Supreme
Personality
of Godhead in His Haàsa incarnation on the science
of bhakti-yoga. The
Lord, being pleased with your devotion to
Him,
lucidly elaborated upon this devotional science, which is
especially
comprehensible to those who are surrendered to the
Supreme
Lord Väsudeva.
76
Beyond Nirväëa
Although
the Four Kumäras were not explicitly mentioned, the
composer
of the Govinda-bhasya commentary to the Çrémad-Bhägavatam
and
pre-eminent preceptor of the acintya-bhedäbheda philosophy,
Çré
Baladeva
Vidyäbhüñaëa, explains that the word ‘ca’ in the
verse (tubhyaà
ca
närada) refers to the Four Kumäras who were also present there. He
writes in
the Säraìgaraìgadä commentary to Laghu-Bhägavatamåta:
‘tubhyam
ca iti cat sanakadibhyah’; meaning “The word ‘ca’, in this
verse
applies to
the Four Kumäras”.
Çréla
Kåñëadasa Kaviräja writes that Lord Çeña (Lord Viñëu’s primary
expansion)
instructed the Four Kumäras on the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, as
is stated
in his epic scripture, Çré Caitanya Caritämåta Adi 5/120 – 122:
sei
ta’ ananta çeña’ bhakta-avatära
éçvarera
sevä vinä nähi jäne ära
sahasra
vadane kare kåñëa guëa gäna
niravadhi
guëa gäna anto nähi pä’na
sanakädi
bhägavata çune yäìra mukhe
bhagavänera
guëa kahe bhäse prema-sukhe
That
Ananta Çeña is the devotee incarnation of the Supreme Lord.
He
cares to know nothing other than service to the Supreme
Godhead.
He is engaged in incessantly singing the glories of Lord,
but
yet he is unable to find an end to the wonderful qualities of
Çré
Kåñëa. The Four Kumäras hear the Çrémad-Bhägavatam
recitation
from his lips and in turn they repeat it to others with
feelings
of divine exultation and love of God.
We learn
from the Çré Caitanya Caritämåta that the Four Kumäras had
more than
one instructor in the science of bhakti-yoga, the
Haàsa
incarnation
of Godhead as well as the Ananta Çeña incarnation who also
taught
them the Çrémad-Bhägavatam.
The
Çrémad-Bhägavatam is the most significant treasure trove of
ontological
principles, for it delineates the transcendental concept of
acintya-bhedäbheda-tattva. This
spiritual truth reveals that the Supreme
Godhead
Çré Kåñëa and His energies are inconceivably, simultaneously,
both one
and different. The Four Kumäras had the good fortune of
understanding
this spiritual truth from Çré Ananta Çeña, the Supreme
Godhead’s
devotee incarnation. Drawing fully from the teachings of the
Four
Kumäras, the illustrious Vaiñëava preceptor Çré Nimbarkäcärya, the
shining
star of the Catuùsana lineage, subsequently espoused the famous
dvaita-advaita-tattva
philosophy. Çré Nimbarkäcärya expounds on dvaitaadvaita-
tattva
in his famous commentary to the Vedänta Parijata Saurabha,
77
and thus
this legitimate and recognised Vaiñëava lineage is known as Sanaka
Samprädaya.
The annals
of this Vaiñëava lineage’s history confirm that the Haàsa
incarnation
of Godhead was the spiritual master and guide of the Four
Kumäras.
Instructed personally by Haàsa-avatära on the science of bhaktiyoga,
the Four
Kumäras relinquished the dry path of empiricism and wholeheartedly
embraced
the path of pure devotion, even to the extent of
propagating
it.
Väskali
History
relates that Väskali (also known as Väskala) was schooled in
non-dual
philosophy by the monist Sage Vadhva, (some persons also call
this sage
‘Badhva’). Legend has it that after Sage Vadhva’s demise, Väskali
gained
respect as a prominent monist in his own right. In Çaìkaräcärya’s
commentary
on the Brahma-Sütra 3/2/17, he has quoted the discussions
between
sage Vadhva and Väskali from the Vedas. This section is cited
below:
väskalinä
ca vähvaù påñöaù sannavacanenaiva brahma proväceti
çruyate
sa hoväcädhähi bhagavo brahmeti sa tuñëéà vabhüva,
tam
ha dvitéye vä tåtéye vä vacana uväca –
brahmaù
khalu, tvantu na vijänästupaçänto’yamätmä
To
attain realisation of brahman in the
Mäyävädé discipline, it is
enough
to sit in a secluded place and remain mute; one will
automatically
become enlightened after some time. Through logic
and
argument or by scriptural knowledge it is not possible to
know
anything about brahman within
the Mäyäväda discipline.
Vadhva’s
instruction to Väskali echoes the same mood and ontological
essence
that is quoted in the twelfth verse of Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s Daksinamurti
Stava,
earlier in this book. The following is a quotation from Vedänta
Vagisa who
offers his views on Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s comment:
More about
Sage Vadhva is known from the Çruti: On inquiry
from
Väskali, by maintaining silence, the sage indirectly inferred
to the
truth about brahman. Väskali enquired from the sage “O
great
soul! What is the discipline for brahman realisation?”
Then
the sage
spoke saying: “I state with certainty and conviction that
brahman, the ätma
is unceasingly non-dual.”
The sage’s
real contemplation is that because brahman is
formless and
impersonal,
it is inexplicable, as there are no words to describe it, hence
Mäyävädism
in the Four Yugas
78
Beyond Nirväëa
silence
was the only appropriate response to his question. There is no
doubt in
anyone’s mind that Väñkali was an inveterate Mäyävädé. Väñkali
also finds
mention in Çrémad-Bhägavatam 6/18/12,13,16:
hiraëyakaçipor
bhäryä kayädhur näma dänavé
jambhasya
tanayä sä tu suñuve caturaù sutän
saàhrädaà
präg anuhrädaà hrädaà prahrädam eva ca
tat-svasä
siàhikä näma rähuà vipracito’grahét
anuhrädasya
süryäyäà bäñkalo mahiñas tathä
virocanas
tu prährädir devyäà tasyäbhavad baliù
Hiraëyakaçipu’s
wife, Kayädhu, was the daughter of Jambha and
a
descendant of King Dänu. She gave birth to four sons, Saàhläda,
Anuhläda,
Hläda and Prahläda as well as a daughter named
Siàhikä.
Siàhikä married the asura Vipracit
and their son was
the
demon Rähu. Anuhläda’s wife was named Sürya, and together
they
had two sons, named Väñkala and Mahiña. Prahläda had one
son,
Virocana (whose son was Bali Mahäräjä).
Anuhläda
came in a line of powerful asuras, so
naturally his son Väñkala
was reared
on dark teachings growing to become a famous asura, atheist,
and
‘demon’ of his time. In Mäyäväda history, it is easy to find examples
like this
in every yuga. If we respect the tradition and knowledge of the
Vedas as
authentic, we can then accept their evidence as proof that
throughout
the ages it is especially the demonic and atheistic class of men
who have
favoured Mäyäväda philosophy. There are accounts of equiposed,
simple-hearted
and unbiased sages who temporarily embraced the path
of monism
but who later in life underwent a transformation of the heart
due to the
association of the Supreme Lord’s incarnation or His pure
devotee.
These fortunate, high-souls were able to reject monism and
completely
take loving shelter at the Supreme Godhead’s lotus feet. In
contrast,
atheistic men who fully took shelter of the path of Mäyävädism,
soon
became blind adherents to a hard-hearted philosophy that
disqualified
them from the chance to perform bhakti-yoga. The
Supreme
Lord and
His innumerable incarnations and empowered representatives
are the
protectors and guardians of the celestial science of bhakti. They
mercifully
vanquished those demoniac Mäyävädés and defeated their
philosophy,
and in so doing both purified and blessed them.
Lord
Vämana was the Supreme Godhead’s incarnation as a brahman
boy who
redeemed Väñkali. Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé, the crest jewel amongst
Vaiñëava
preceptors writes in his Laghu-bhägavatamåta that Lord Vämana,
besides
this one time when He delivered Väñkali, incarnated twice more.
79
The second
time at Bali Mahäräjä’s yajïa (sacrificial fire) and a third time
at
Dhundi’s yajïa. We quote below from this book verse 80:
mahäräjäs
triräbhivyaktim kälpe’smin pratipedivän
taträdau
dänavendrasya bäñkaler adhvaraà yayau
Lord
Vämana manifested himself three times in this kalpa
(cosmic
age),
first delivering the demon king Väñkali, while he was
performing
a fire sacrifice.
In the two
foregoing examples, first, the Four Kumäras who in the
Satya-yuga
rejected the path of empirical knowledge and took shelter of
bhakti-yoga, and
second, the demon Väñkali who was delivered from the
jaws of
Mäyävädism – in both cases, bhakti-yoga was
restored and
illuminated
as the supreme path for all sincere seekers on the quest for
perfection.
Monism
in Tretä-Yuga
Sage
Vasiñöha
In
Tretä-yuga, the sage Vaçiñöha was the chief preceptor of monism
and was
the royal guru to the Sun dynasty (sürya-vaàsa) in which
Lord
Räma
appeared. The Räma Carita-Mänasa offers a brief description of his
erudition
as an empirical philosopher. Nevertheless, even grave
philosophers
and empiricists can become immersed in the ocean of Divine
Love. This
happened to Vaçiñöha when he was consoling Bhärat, the brother
of Lord
Räma. who at the time was deeply upset by his brother’s banishment
and the
subsequent demise of his father, King Daçaratha. The sage entered
an
ecstatic trance while describing Çré Lakñmaëa’s and Sitadevé’s unalloyed
love for
Lord Rämacandra. The Vaiñëava poet Çré Tulsidäsa writes:
bhärata
vasiñöha nikaöa baiöhäre
néti
dharma-mäyä vacana ucäre
soka
saneha magana muni-jïäné
Bhärata
sat near Vasiñöha and heard words of spiritual wisdom
from
this most knowledgeable sage. The sage however, entered
into
an ecstatic trance due to speaking consoling words to mitigate
Bhärata’s
despondency.
In the
Bengali translation of Rämäyäna, the author Kirttivasa also
referred
to Vaçiñöha as the foremost of sages on the path of empirical
knowledge.
That the sage Vaçiñöha was a ‘brahman realised’
monist is
certainly
not contested by anyone. The famous composition Yoga-Vaçiñöha
Mäyävädism
in the Four Yugas
80
Beyond Nirväëa
Rämäyäna
is solid evidence of this. Vaçiñöha is described in the Çrémad-
Bhägavatam
6/18/5:
välmikiç
ca mahä-yogé valmékäd abhavat kila
agastyaç
ca vasiñöhaç ca miträ-varuëayor åñé
The
great yogé Valmiki was mystically
born in an anthill from
Varuëa’s
essence. Valmiki and Bhågu were considered Varuëa’s
special
sons, whereas Agastya and Vaçiñöha were the naturally
born
common sons of Varuëa and Mitra (Aditi’s son).
The
renowned commentator and erudite preceptor Çréla Çrédhara Svämé
also
writes in his commentary to the above verse:
‘Both
Bhågu and Valmiki exhibited profound erudition and
the
super-excellent qualities of Vaiñëavas, hence they are called
the
extra-ordinary sons of Varuëa. Whereas both Agastya and
Vaçiñöha
were ‘brahman realised’ monist Mäyävädés, hence they
are known
as ordinary sons of Varuëa.’
The
Çrémad-Bhägavatam poetically describes how the demigod Varuëa
on seeing
Urvasi the upsara (celestial damsel) uncontrollably
passed
semen,
which later mystically resulted in the birth of the two sages Agastya
and
Vaçiñöha. Vaçiñöha is therefore usually known as Urvasi’s son and
maybe it
is for this reason that Çréla Çrédhar Svämé described Vaçiñöha as
Varuëa’s
ordinary son. The sage Vaçiñöha was a monist pursuing the path
of
impersonal liberation, the empirical knowledge of which he was known
to teach
to his disciples at his hermitage. The Supreme Lord Rämacandra
was
greatly saddened to see His family preceptor so misguided and confused
about the
Absolute Truth. By the Lord’s causeless mercy Vaçiñöha was
delivered,
his empirical mind seemingly drawn into the incessant ambrosial
current of
bhakti from where he surrendered his heart at Lord Räma’s
lotus-feet
and remained there eternally engaged in His loving service.
Rävaëa:
The King of Laìkä
There is
an age-old adage in the spiritual lineage of Madhväcäryä, which
states
that the scholastic order in the Çaìkaräcärya cult offers respect to
Rävaëa,
the legendary King of Laìkä, as the original commentator of the
monistic
Mäyäväda persuasion. One can therefore safely and appropriately
address
the ‘King of Demons’ Rävaëa, as a monist. Regarding Ravaëa’s
birth, the
following can be found in the ‘Çré Kåñëa Saàhita’:
‘Pulastya
Åñi left the kingdom of Brahmavaåta (in India) and
travelled
to the island of Laìkä in the south. He lived there for
81
some time
and married a maiden from a Räkñasa family1. Rävaëa
was born
of this union, thus he was considered half åñé, half demon.’
This quote
corroborates the theory held in the Madhva-Sampradäya
that
Rävaëa was a confirmed Mäyäväda preceptor. From the famous
Buddhist
treatise Laìkä-Avatära Sütra, we learn that beside being a reputed
Mäyävädi,
he was also a voidist, a Çünyaväda yogé. In the
final analysis his
infamous
activities speak volumes about his Mäyäväda and monistic
conceptions
and confirm his great status as a prominent torchbearer for
both lines
of thought. The principal credo of the Mäyävädés is to try to
‘confiscate’
the Supreme brahman’s attributes, energies and form, and to
present
Him as impotent, attribute-less and impersonal. In so doing, the
impersonalist
subtly implies that his own constitutional position is equal
to that of
the Supreme Lord. The root of Rävaëa’s undoing was his attempt
to steal
Çré Rämacandra’s eternal consort, Queen Sétädevé, who is
recognised
as being the divine embodiment of Lord Räma’s mystical potency
– the
potency of the Supreme omnipotent brahman. Çré
Sétädevé, Herself,
personifies
the all-attractive opulence of the Supreme that Mäyävädism
attempts
to both usurp and deny. Unfortunately Rävaëa failed to grasp,
that one
humbly takes shelter of the Supreme brahman by first
taking
shelter of
His personified potency – and in doing so, one’s latent inclination
to
lovingly serve the Lord is awakened. If Rävaëa, who was bred on the
Mäyäväda
credo ‘I am brahman’ (so’ ham), had
sincerely sought refuge at
Queen
Sétädevé’s lotus feet instead of trying to confiscate, and selfishly
‘own’ Her,
he would have certainly renounced his demoniac plan to usurp
Lord
Rämacandra’s supreme position. And thus, by his actions Rävaëa
proved
himself to be an inveterate Mäyävädé and a monist.
In the
end, the great devotee-warrior Hanumän confronted the demon
king
during the siege of Laëkä. His thunderous fist, packed with the essence
of pure bhakti, struck
Rävaëa’s heart dissipating the dry empirical
knowledge
of monism and leaving him unconscious. At that point Lord
Räma,
taking the arrow dipped in the conclusion of the Vedas, severed
Rävaëa’s
ten heads all of which were infused with Mäyävädism and voidism.
As he lay
dying in this purified state, Rävaëa finally began glorifying Lord
Räma and
attained perfection. In this we have yet another example of
how, in
Tretä-yuga, the Supreme Godhead descends in His incarnation to
vanquish
the Mäyävädé demons and redeem the monist sages so that the
torchlight
of bhakti-siddhänta could burn evermore brightly.
Mäyävädism
in the Four Yugas
82
Beyond Nirväëa
Monism
in Dväpara-Yuga
Çré
Çukadeva
The great
sage Vyäsadeva fathered Çukadeva in the womb of Vitika.
Çukadeva
was, even in his mother’s womb, a liberated soul. He refused to
be born
and remained in his mother’s womb for twelve years out of
concern
that he would loose his spiritual knowledge after coming into
contact
with the illusory material nature. Only after his father’s repeated
requests
that he allevite the suffering of his mother, and only after having
darçan
(direct vision) of Lord Kåñëa and receiving His personal
reassurance,
was
Çukadeva finally born. Despite being quite big his birth did not hurt
his mother
at all. As soon as he appeared he began to chant hymns glorifying
Çré Kåñëa,
singing sweetly like a çuka or parrot and was thus named
Çukadeva.
These same facts are reiterated in Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté’s
commentary
to the Çrémad-Bhägavatam verse 1/11/25. Çré Çukadeva’s birth
is also
described in detail in the ‘Brahmä-Vaivartta Puräëa’. (Later
Çukadeva
is famous for reciting the entire Çrémad-Bhägavatam to King
Parékñita).
The book
‘Harévamça’ also speaks of a certain Çuka, but this is a different
personality
to Çukadeva, the son of Çréla Vyäsadeva. This other Çuka, it is
written,
was also Çréla Vyäsadeva’s son, born of Arané, and was known as
Chaya
Çuka. Chaya Çuka never met or had any relation with Mahäräjä
Parékñit,
therefore the two should not be confused. Chaya Çuka was
enlightened
in impersonal knowledge of brahman. Although
he was
engrossed
in impersonal brahman realisation, the Supreme Godhead’s
çaktyäveça-avatära
(empowered incarnation) Çréla Vyäsadeva, by powerful
means made
him abandon his monistic pursuits and brought him to the
uncomplicated,
heartfelt, and nectarean path of pure devotion to the
Supreme
Lord. Çréla Çukadeva has revealed his own inner mood in Çrémad-
Bhägavatam
2/1/8-9:
idaà
bhägavatam näma puräëaà brahma-sammitam
adhétavän
dväparädau pitur dvaipäyanäd aham
pariniñöhito’pi
nairgunya uttama-çloka-lélayä
gåhéta-cetä
räjarñe äkhyänaà yad adhétavän
(Çréla
Çukadeva Gosvämé said to Mahäräjä Parékñit:)
At the
end of Dväpara-Yuga, under my father Çréla Dvaipäyana
Vyäsadeva,
I studied this great Puräëa ‘Çrémad-Bhägavatam’, which
contains
the essence of all Vedic scriptures. O’ saintly King, despite
83
being
perfectly situated in transcendence, I was still attracted to
the
narration of the Supreme Godhead’s wonderful pastimes,
glorified
in enlightened verses.
At the age
of twelve Çréla Çukadeva left his mother’s womb, but being
so
apprehensive about the entrapment of worldly life, on being born he
immediately
set off for the forest to become a hermit. Knowing that his
son was no
ordinary child, and that his consciousness was far beyond the
reach of
the mundane world, Srila Vyäsa decided he should be a student
of
Çrémad-Bhägavatam. To achieve this he devised an ingenious plan. It
was
customary that everyday Vyäsa’s disciples would enter the forest to
collect
firewood for cooking, but now he instructed them to chant verses
from the
Bhägavatam while they did this. When the young hermit Çukadeva,
heard the
wonderful sound vibration of the transcendental Çrémad-
Bhägavatam
he became spellbound and overwhelmed in spiritual ecstasy.
Like a
bumblebee that chases nectar, he followed the sweet melodious
voices and
was soon led back to his father’s açräma where on
realising his
father’s
desire, he surrendered to him and became a high-class student of
the
Bhägavatam.
By his
father’s mercy Çréla Çukadeva was able to discern the sublime
difference
between a formless conception of the absolute and the tangible,
sweet
qualities of the Supreme Lord’s transcendental pastimes. Having
experienced
both, he was able to compare the two – and realised that
hearing
and glorifying the pastimes of any of the Lord’s incarnations to be
far
superior to all other realisations. Enlightened by this truth he
understood
that the greatest good fortune for all living beings is to hear
and recite
these auspicious, ambrosial works. To facilitate the ultimate
good of
all Çréla Çukadeva instructed Mahäräjä Parékñit on the complete
Bhägavatam
in only seven days, knowing that Parékñit, nor anyone else,
could
benefit from impersonal Mäyävädä knowledge. Çréla Çukadeva
Gosvämé is
therefore considered one of the most illustrious of Vaiñëava
preceptors.
Kaàsa
Demon
par excellence
King Kaàsa
was the son of Mahäräjä Ugrasena and Padmadevé. Kaàsa
incarcerated
Ugrasena because he was repulsed by his father’s devotional
inclinations
and, of course Ugrasena also stood in his way to the throne.
Kaàsa’s
sister was Devaké, who married the transcendental personality
Çré
Väsudeva. After the wedding Kaàsa was personally driving the newly
wedded
couple’s chariot when he heard a providential message warning
Mäyävädism
in the Four Yugas
84
Beyond Nirväëa
him that
Devaké and Väsudeva’s eighth son would be the transcendental
Personality
of Godhead Kåñëa, who would bring Kaàsa’s destruction.
The
demoniac Kaàsa wanted there and then to murder his sister Devaké
in an
attempt to reverse the prophecy. However, upon Väsudeva’s
intervention
and many wise words, Kaàsa agreed to spare her life.
Nevertheless,
he locked them up in the palace dungeon and waited for
the birth
of their eighth son so that he could kill it first-hand and thus
mastermind
his own destiny.
Mäyävädés
are antagonistic toward Çré Kåñëa’s worshipable Deity form.
According
to their philosophy God does not posses a form or body –
whether
eternal, transcendental or otherwise. In Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s
Çärérika
Bhäñya his opinion is that ‘form’ or ‘body’ is a manifestation of
mäyä’s
illusory nature: extirpation of the body or of form – which is
produced
of avidyä, is the attainment of liberation or mokña. Devaké’s
eighth child,
a son, was indeed the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Çré
Kåñëa.
Kaàsa assumed that this baby boy was no different to any baby
and that
it possessed a mortal body, which the evil king became anxious
to
destroy. What Kaàsa could not understand, was that Kåñëa or His
incarnation
never take a temporary material body when He descends.
Furthermore,
it was also beyond his comprehension that transcendental,
spiritual
objects are outside the jurisdiction of mundane sense perception.
The
Supreme Lord Çré Kåñëa knew that the atheistic-minded Mäyävädé
demon
Kaàsa was envious of Him and desired to kill Him. So Kåñëa
famously
vanquished Kaàsa’s agents one by one in divine pastimes
described
in the Bhägavat Puräëa. In the slaying of asuras like
Pralamba,
Tåëävarta,
Agha, Baka, and Pütanä, He actually showed them and the
world the
unique lovliness of His eternal transcendental form.
In the
fourth chapter of Kåñëa-Saàhita Kaàsa and the demon
Pralambasura
are described as Mäyävädés. By slaying these two demons
Çré Kåñëa
and Balaräma symbolically protected the living entities of this
yuga
from the dreadful clutches of Mäyäväda thoughts and atheism. These
statements
are found in Kåñëa-Saàhita:
devakéà
gåhit kaàsa nästikya bhaginéà satim
pralambo
jévacaurastu çuddhena çauriëa hataù
kaàsena
peritä duñöäh pracchanna bauddha-rüpa dhåk
Väsudeva
wedded Devaké, sister of the demon King Kaàsa, an
obdurate
atheist. A covert Buddhist icon of Mäyävädé thought,
snatcher
of the soul, mischievous demon Pralamba was sent by
85
Kaàsa
to wreak death and destruction, but was destroyed by
Lord
Balaräma.
The word ‘jévacaura’
in the above verse is significant. Like the Mäyävädés,
the
Buddhists espouse that only when brahman comes
under the spell of
avidyä, or
nescience does it accept a form or body. They teach that
brahman’s
transformation into a jéva, or
separate living entity, is an illusory,
conditioned
state. On this basis they postulate that with the dissipation of
avidyä
through realisation of brahman, the jéva
is no more as he merges
once more
back into brahman. For Vaiñëavas, this is known as stealing
the jéva’s
existence by denying his eternal individual identity. ‘Jévacaura’,
jéva-stealing
is a heinous habit of Mäyävädés and demons, which they
continuously
practice. This idea can be formulated in another way; there
is no
object, substance or entity known as the jéva –
everything is simply
a
transformation of the ‘one brahman’, for
nothing other than brahman
exists.
Under the influence of nescience, brahman takes on
the illusory
form of the
jéva. The monists endlessly, fruitlessly philosophise in this
manner,
although the Vedas bear evidence that even in Dväpara-yuga,
powerful
atheists and Mäyävädés were vanquished by the Supreme
Personality
of Godhead Çré Kåñëa and Lord Balaräma, symbolising the
eternal
victory of pure bhakti and Vaiñëavism.
The
Condition of Monism in the Three Yugas
By the
sweetwill of the Supreme, the first three of the four yugas
–
Satya,
Tretä and Dväpara saw the rise and fall of Mäyävädism. Each yuga
had it’s
impersonal yogés, as well as many asuras
who were atheists and
Mäyävädés.
I have presented only the protagonists from each class of
monists
and Mäyävädés in each yuga, merely to give an idea. The
infinitely
merciful
Supreme Godhead transformed the hearts of monist sages and
attracted
them to join the Vaiñëava fold and engage in serving Him
eternally,
while for the Mäyävädé atheistic demons the Supreme Lord
vanquished
each of them, after which by His causeless mercy He rewarded
them with
liberation. As such another name of the Supreme Lord is
‘muktipada’, the One
who offers liberation.
To
recapitulate, Mäyävädism or impersonalism in pre-historic yugas
does not
posses the same characteristics and practices of its modern
counterpart,
as propagated by Çré Çaìkaräcärya. Today’s modern form of
Mäyävädism
is not only recent in origin, but is indeed contrary to scriptural
conclusions
and the views of Çréla Vyäsadeva. The type of liberation it
grants is
a form of anaesthetic that puts the soul into a deep slumber, a
state of complete
forgetfulness which is in itself a very painful condition –
Mäyävädism
in the Four Yugas
Om Tat Sat
(Continued...)
Post a Comment