Advaitavada and Gaudiya Philosophy

Question: Recently some people have spoken with me about Advaitavāda and Māyāvāda. One person said that Advaitavāda is different from Māyāvāda. He accepts Advaitavāda and says that it cannot be defeated, but he does not accept Māyāvāda. 

What is the difference between Advaitavāda and Māyāvāda? Throughout your Sandarbha commentaries, the word Advaitavāda is used synonymously with Māyāvāda. Is there a subtle difference between them? 

Answer: There is the primary meaning of a word and then secondary meanings. The words Advaitavāda and Māyāvāda are primarily used for the school of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya. They mostly call themselves Advaitavādīs and not so much Māyāvādīs. The first reference to the term Māyāvāda is found in the writings of the eight^th century scholar, Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara. He refers to Śaṅkarācārya’s philosophy as Māyāvāda and points out that this is borrowed from Buddhism. Later, Vaiṣṇavas began to refer to Advaitavāda as Māyāvāda, generally in a derogatory manner. The person who says that these words refer to different schools must explain the difference. Maybe he is using the words in a different sense. In that case, he must define them. Otherwise, I see no difference.

Question: The Māyāvāda theory brings the Supreme Lord to the position of the jīva by saying that the body of Bhagavān is material or māyā and that mānava-sevā is Mādhava-sevā, etc.

Answer: This is also the concept of Advaitavāda. According to Advaitavāda, Brahman conditioned by the avidyā potency of Māya is the jīva, and Brahman conditioned by the vidyā potency of Māyā is Iśvara.

Question: Advaita literally means nondual or oneness. In acintya bheda abheda tattva also, the qualitative oneness of the jīva with the Supreme Lord is there. In that sense, isn’t Advaitavāda also present in acintya bheda abheda? Therefore, Advaitavāda should not be criticized; only Māyāvāda needs to be criticized. This was one of the arguments presented. 

Answer: This does not make any sense. Ultimate reality is only one (See SB 1.2.11). This is accepted by all Vedāntīs, personalists as well as impersonalists. Śrī Rāmanujācārya’s philosophy is called Viśiṣṭa-advaitavāda, and that of Vallabhacārya, Śuddha-advaitavāda. Both of them strongly refute Advaitavāda.

Question: One of the members of Pañca-tattva is Advaita Ācārya. What is the meaning of this name? In India, many persons are named “Advaita.” 

Nityānānda Prabhu, in his joking conversation with Advaita Ācārya, criticizes him (Madhya-līla 12.193): 

nityānanda kahe,—tumi advaita-ācārya
‘advaita-siddhānte’ bādhe śuddha-bhakti-kārya

When Advaita’s name is criticized by Nityānānda Prabhu (as a vyāja-stuti), why are names such as Advaita given by Vaiṣṇavas to their children (here Advaita Ācārya)?

Answer: As far as the name of Advaitācārya, He is nondifferent from Ultimate Reality and thus is advaita.

Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentaries

 Question: The Gauḍīya sampradāya holds Śrīdhara Svāmī in high esteem and all the commentaries on the Bhāgavatam evolve around his commentary. This could lead one to the conclusion that the Gauḍīya philosophy itself accepts parts of Advaitavāda. I would like to know how Gauḍīyas view Advaitins and smārtas.

Going by text one of Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, one may speculate that the Gauḍīyas were originally pro smārta and Advaitin while their later texts evolved due to the external influence of other Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas.

Answer: I am not aware of anyone speculating that Gauḍīyas were originally pro smārta and Advaitin. This is the first time that I have heard someone raise such an issue. My guess is that such a view is rooted in the biased thinking of the questioner. I have heard a well-known Advaitavāda ācārya trying to prove that Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a staunch follower of Advaitavāda and the present-day Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are misrepresenting him and are committing a big offense. This is a gross misunderstanding and is not supported by any of the biographies of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

I will cite three ślokas from the maṇgalācarana of Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī’s commentary on the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, which is the first book of the Gauḍīya sampradāya. He was a close associate of Mahāprabhu and was personally instructed by the latter. From these verses, one can draw one’s own conclusion.

svāmipādair na yad vyaktaṁ yad vyaktañcāsphuṭaṁ kvacit
ṭippaṇī daśame tatra seyaṁ vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

“What has not been explained by Śridhara Svāmī or has not been stated very clearly, that should be known from this comment on Tenth Book (of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam) called Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī.” (11)

Please note the name of his commentary, Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī. It means that which brings pleasure to Vaiṣṇavas. Does it give any indication of Advaitavāda?

vaiṣṇavāparitoṣaḥ syād yatra yatra tatastataḥ
lekhyaṁ vaiṣṇava-siddhānta-dākṣiṇyenaiva kiñcana

“A Vaiṣṇava would feel dissatisfied by reading (Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary) in different places, therefore, I am writing something extra with the dexterity of vaiṣnava-siddhānta.” (12)

The commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī is strewn with Advaitic ideas. Sanatana Gosvāmī disregards all that and gives an explanation as per Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta. He makes this very clear here.

śrīmadbhāgavata-vyakta-bhaktyeka-puruṣārthinām
nābhedavāda ity eṣa nālekhi kṣamyatām idam

“This commentary is written for those whose puruṣārtha is only bhakti as explained in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. The purpose of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is not to establish Abhedavāda. Therefore, it is not written (in my commentary). I may be forgiven for this (by Śrīdhara Svāmī).” (13)

Sanatana Gosvāmī was known for his humble demeanor. For this, you can investigate Caitanya Caritāmṛta. Therefore, he acknowledges the help he got from the commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī. But he is not a blind follower. He rejects all those parts that convey Advaitavāda. And he boldly proclaims that he will write as per vaiṣṇava-siddhānta.

Bhakti through different Lenses

Question: How does the bhagavad-bhakti proposed by Śaṅkarācārya compare with the bhakti of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava? Śaṅkarācārya, in his book Prabhoda-sudhākara, has given a step-by-step progression to reach Kṛṣṇa according to his philosophy. Apart from knowing the self, his other philosophy seems to be like rāga bhakti. 

Answer: There is no similarity. Jīva Gosvāmī’s exposition of bhakti is based upon the pāramārthika distinction between the jīva and Bhagavān. Śaṅkarācārya does not have any such distinction. Jīva Gosvāmī accepts Bhagavān with vibhūtis at the pāramārthika level. Bhakti defined by Jīva Gosvāmī is the pāramārthika śakti of Bhagavān. Śaṅkarācārya does not accept that. His Brahman is nis-śāktika. So, there is no similarity from the very beginning. According to Śankaracārya, Kṛṣṇa Himself is not transcendental. He is also a product of māyā, but the vidyā aspect of māyā. There is the famous verse from Pañcadaśī (6.236), a popular work on Advaitavāda: “Māyā is a Kāmadhenu (wish-fulfilling) cow. It has two calves. One is called īśvara and the other jīva. Drink the milk called dvaita as much as you like but know that the Reality is only advaita.”