He says, after using the analogies from:
- Brahma Soothra Verse 2 (janmādy asya yataḥ: “The Absolute Truth is the original source of everything.”),
- Bhagavad Geetha 10.8 (mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate: “From Me, everything emanates.”),
- Tattireeya Upanishad 3.1.1. (yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante. “The Supreme Absolute Truth is that from which everything is born.”) and
- Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.7 (yathorṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca: “[The Lord creates and destroys the cosmic manifestation] as a spider creates a web and draws it back within itself.”),
he made the point that none of this is in line with Parinaama Vaada. So far, correct. But then he says:
However, being very anxious to protect Śrīla Vyāsadeva from criticism, Śaṅkarācārya became a pseudo gentleman and put forward his theory of illusion (vivarta-vāda). Śaṅkarācārya concocted this meaning of pariṇāma-vāda, and by word jugglery he endeavored very hard to establish pariṇāma-vāda as vivarta-vāda.
When he equates Parinaama Vaada with Vivarta Vaada like this, it only shows he did not understand what Vivarta Vaada was. Basically it says (in the spider-web analogy) the spider is real, but the web is not.
What he holds is, as far as I can see, that a Jeeva is a part, but Eeshvara is the whole. It is not Dvaita, in the sense that Eeshvara is separate, not Advaita in the sense that Jeeva is non-different from Eeshvara, not Vishishta Advaita in the sense that Jagath is only a part of Eeshvara.
And I was right, he explains it is Achinthya Bheda-Abheda here!:
SB 8.20.22, Purport: Māyāvādī philosophers think that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, has become everything, He has no separate existence. Their philosophy is called advaita-vāda. Actually, however, their philosophy is not correct. Here, Bali Mahārāja was the seer of the Personality of Godhead’s universal body, and that body was that which was seen. Thus there is dvaita-vāda; there are always two entities—the seer and the seen. The seer is a part of the whole, but he is not equal to the whole. The part of the whole, the seer, is also one with the whole, but since he is but a part, he cannot be the complete whole at any time. This acintya-bhedābheda—simultaneous oneness and difference—is the perfect philosophy propounded by Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
More misconceptions
1. Thinking Advaitha is Shuddha Advaitha
SB 10.13.39, Purport: Spirit and matter cannot be made one, for actually they are superior and inferior energies, yet the Māyāvādīs, or Advaita-vādīs, try to make them one. This is wrong. Although spirit and matter ultimately come from the same one source, they cannot be made one. For example, there are many things that come from our bodies, but although they come from the same source, they cannot be made one. We should be careful to note that although the supreme source is one, the emanations from this source should be separately regarded as inferior and superior. The difference between the Māyāvāda and Vaiṣṇava philosophies is that the Vaiṣṇava philosophy recognizes this fact.
He clearly mistakes Shuddha Advaita for Advaita.
More:
CC Adi 7.10, Purport: The Māyāvādī philosophers, however, try to equate the minute living entities with the supreme living entity. Because they recognize no distinctions between them, their philosophy is called Advaita-vāda, or monism. Factually, however, there is a distinction. This verse is especially meant to impart to the Māyāvādī philosopher the understanding that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme controller. The supreme controller, the Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa Himself, but as a transcendental pastime He has accepted the form of a devotee, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
2. Turns out he does understand Shuddha Advaitha
CC Adi 7.110, Purport: When Śrī Viṣṇu Svāmī, one of the four ācāryas of the Vaiṣṇava cult, presented his thesis on the subject matter of śuddhādvaita-vāda, immediately the Māyāvādīs took advantage of this philosophy and tried to establish their advaita-vāda or kevalādvaita-vāda. To defeat this kevalādvaita-vāda, Śrī Rāmānujācārya presented his philosophy as viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda, and Śrī Madhvācārya presented his philosophy of tattva-vāda, both of which are stumbling blocks to the Māyāvādīs because they defeat their philosophy in scrupulous detail. Students of Vedic philosophy know very well how strongly Śrī Rāmānujācārya’s viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda and Śrī Madhvācārya’s tattva-vāda contest the impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy.
So he seems to have an issue with Maaya, but not so much of an issue with Shuddha Advaita. According to them, Shuddha Advaithins can be corrected more than the Advaithins, who can’t be told that the world is less meaningful than the ultimate, because they already hold that view.
3. Thinking Impersonal Brahman is the misconception of reality
CC Adi 2.5, Purport: The beginning of spiritual enlightenment is realization of impersonal Brahman. Such realization is effected by gradual negation of material variegatedness. Impersonal Brahman realization is the partial, distant experience of the Absolute Truth that one achieves through the rational approach. It is compared to one’s seeing a hill from a distance and taking it to be a smoky cloud. A hill is not a smoky cloud, but it appears to be one from a distance because of our imperfect vision. In imperfect or smoky realization of the Absolute Truth, spiritual variegatedness is conspicuous by its absence. This experience is therefore called advaita-vāda, or realization of the oneness of the Absolute.
Oh, so he considers the impersonal Brahman to be the first misconception of the ultimate? I see.
4. So he doesn’t hate Shankara entirely, but only thinks that his argument is misrepresented?
Renunciation Through Wisdom 5.1: In recent times we have heard two words being loudly voiced: Māyāvāda (impersonalist) and Advaita-vāda (monist). I deem it proper to write a few words about them. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya was a brāhmaṇa who propagated the impersonalist philosophy. But if he were to hear the pathetic version of his theory being espoused today, complete with nonbrahminical Western logic and mundane concepts, he would surely be struck dumb. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya taught and exhibited ideal brahminical behaviour. He propounded irrefutable arguments that destroyed materialistic views. Furthermore, his erudition, realization, and renunciation were of an extremely high caliber. Yet when his so-called followers dilute and mutilate his philosophy, we are moved simultaneously to tears and laughter.
What does he reject?
- Individual Soul and God are absolutely one.
- Any distinction is only due to Avidya
- Non-Different, Impersonal Brahman is ultimate
He says:
- Individual Soul is a Part of God (Pan-Theism with Difference)
- Distinctions are Real as designed by God
- Different and Non-Different, and Personal Brahman is the ultimate
He said it leads to rejection of Bhakthi. But I ask, why would a part worship the whole? If the part is controlled by the whole, how is it a part? It is only a puppet with a “provisional” free will. But then I guess my robots with provisional free will could worship me too. Though I wouldn’t make them do that, unless, I was the only ultimate source! Fine, I agree.
But as ChatGPT described my criticism of him:
He does not treat Śuddhādvaita as a threat, He rarely explains it, He often calls out “Advaita” as a problem, But the specific criticisms he makes often match Śuddhādvaita’s claims more than Śaṅkara’s.
So his main criticism seems to be the denial of form of the Godhead, and that of Bhakthi and Leela as illusions.
Even though Shuddha Advaitha is monistic, it asks one to see more than themself, but Advaita asks one to realize their own self to be Brahman.
But then, how does it agree with his idea that we were created when we sought separation from him? If it’s perfect, why would we seek separation, and why did he create us such that we sought separation? That is irrational.
Also see: https://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Advaita_Philosophy
Doesn’t Always Hate
On Bhagavad Geetha 7.8:
This verse explains how the Lord is all-pervasive by His diverse material and spiritual energies. The Supreme Lord can be preliminarily perceived by His different energies, and in this way He is realized impersonally. As the demigod in the sun is a person and is perceived by his all-pervading energy, the sunshine, so the Lord, although in His eternal abode, is perceived by His all-pervading diffusive energies. The taste of water is the active principle of water. No one likes to drink sea water, because the pure taste of water is mixed with salt. Attraction for water depends on the purity of the taste, and this pure taste is one of the energies of the Lord. The impersonalist perceives the presence of the Lord in water by its taste, and the personalist also glorifies the Lord for His kindly supplying tasty water to quench man’s thirst. That is the way of perceiving the Supreme. Practically speaking, there is no conflict between personalism and impersonalism. One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva — simultaneous oneness and difference.
To Organize
Saying that Western philosophers do not get to the level of Vedaanta, and nor is Shankara right:
“The Western philosophers mostly of the Sankhya school have less aquaintance with the Vedanta Darsana and philosophers like Kant, Mill, Aristotle or Schopenhauer etc all belong to either of the above five Darsanas except Vedanta because limited human thinking power cannot go beyond that stage. But Vedanta Darsana is far beyond the limited mental speculation of the human brain conditioned by material nature. Unfortunately Sankara who belonged to the Mayavada school made a misinterpretation of the Vedanta for his own purpose to convert the Buddhists in India.
…Other Acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhva etc and lately Sri Caitanya—all belong to the original Vedantist school by direct disciplic succession. According to these Acaryas Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam are, in their original stand, the real commentaries of the Vedanta Sutras. The Mayavadins who do not actually belong to the Vedanta school have overcast a cloud unnecessarily over the Bhagavad-gita and therefore common people are misled by them. In other words they have no entrance in the Vedanta Darsana so to say.”
Srila Prabhupada Letter to Mr. Bailey, 10-02-51