The Impersonal Illusion: Why Māyāvāda Contradicts the Vedas and Devotion

Refuting Māyāvāda:

A Scriptural and Logical Critique of Impersonal Monism in the Light of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam

Author : H. G. Gauranga Sundar Dāsa,

President Krishna Consciousness Society

Abstract

Māyāvāda (Advaita Vedānta) proposes that the Absolute Truth is ultimately impersonal Brahman and that individuality, form, and devotion belong to a lower, illusory plane of reality. Although historically influential, this philosophy collapses under rigorous scrutiny. Drawing primarily from Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Tattva-sandarbha and the ontological vision of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, this paper demonstrates that Māyāvāda is internally inconsistent, logically untenable, and scripturally refuted. By examining its core doctrines—pariccheda-vāda and pratibimba-vāda—and contrasting them with Vyāsadeva’s samādhi realization, this study establishes acintya-bhedābheda-tattva as the coherent and conclusive Vedic siddhānta. The paper concludes that bhakti, not impersonal merger, is the final purport of the Vedas.

Keywords

Māyāvāda, Advaita Vedānta, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Acintya-bhedābheda, Bhakti, Impersonalism

1. Introduction

Among all philosophical deviations discussed in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava literature, Māyāvāda occupies a unique position. Unlike materialism or atheism, it accepts Vedic authority while simultaneously denying the eternal personality of the Supreme Lord. Śrīla Prabhupāda therefore described Māyāvāda as the most dangerous philosophy, for it nullifies devotion while retaining the language of spirituality.

This paper examines Māyāvāda not polemically but analytically, subjecting its foundational assumptions to logical (tarka) and scriptural (śabda) evaluation, with Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the final pramāṇa.

2. Historical Context and Provisional Role of Māyāvāda

Purāṇic sources record that Lord Śiva appeared as Śaṅkarācārya to restore faith in the Vedas after Buddhism’s dominance. Māyāvāda thus served a strategic, corrective role, not a final metaphysical truth. Lord Śiva himself labels it pracchanna bauddha—veiled Buddhism.

The subsequent appearance of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas—Rāmānuja, Madhva, Śrīdhara Svāmī, and ultimately Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu—confirms that impersonalism was never the Vedas’ concluding intent.

3. Ontological Foundations of Māyāvāda

Māyāvāda rests on two principal explanatory models:

1. Pariccheda-vāda – Brahman appears divided by limiting adjuncts (upādhis).

2. Pratibimba-vāda – Brahman appears as many jīvas by reflection in ignorance.

Both models attempt to reconcile plurality with absolute non-duality but fail to do so coherently.

4. Refutation of Pariccheda-vāda

Brahman is defined as indivisible, all-pervading, and changeless. Delimitation by upādhis implies spatial restriction, change, or dependency—none of which can apply to Brahman.

If upādhis are real, Brahman becomes conditioned.

If unreal, illusion produces real bondage—an impossibility.

Furthermore, movement of the jīva leads to absurd consequences regarding Brahman’s immobility or repeated fragmentation. Thus, pariccheda-vāda collapses both ontologically and logically.

5. Refutation of Pratibimba-vāda

Reflection presupposes form, attributes, and distance. Brahman, being formless and omnipresent, cannot reflect.

Common Māyāvāda analogies—sun and water, sky and reflection—fail upon closer analysis. The sky never reflects; only visible bodies do. An all-pervading reality cannot be both reflector and reflected.

Moreover, if reflection and original are identical, suffering becomes inexplicable, and liberation meaningless.

6. Internal Inconsistencies of Advaita Monism

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī identifies multiple logical defects:

• Avidyā overpowering Brahman

• Mutual dependence between jīva and māyā (anyonyāśraya-doṣa)

• Īśvara emerging from māyā yet controlling māyā

• Introduction of a third category (mithyā) unsupported by śāstra

Bhagavad-gītā recognizes only sat and asat, leaving no room for an “inexplicable” reality.

7. Vyāsadeva’s Samādhi and Scriptural Verdict

In trance, Vyāsadeva perceived Bhagavān with His energies—internal, marginal, and external. The jīva’s bondage arose from false independence, not from Brahman’s fall into ignorance. The prescribed remedy was bhakti-yoga, not impersonal realization.

Śukadeva Gosvāmī’s attraction to Kṛṣṇa-līlā—despite prior Brahman realization—further invalidates Māyāvāda’s dismissal of divine personality as illusory.

8. Interpretation of Monistic Statements

Statements such as tat tvam asi require secondary interpretation (gauṇa-vṛtti). They affirm qualitative similarity, not numerical identity. Vedānta-sūtra itself clarifies that reflection analogies establish difference, not absolute oneness.

9. Acintya-bhedābheda as the Vedic Resolution

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s doctrine of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference harmonizes all scriptural statements. The jīva is one with the Lord in quality, different in quantity, eternally dependent, and constitutionally a servant.

10. Conclusion

Māyāvāda fails as philosophy, theology, and hermeneutics. It contradicts logic, scripture, and realized truth. The final conclusion of the Vedas is not impersonal dissolution but loving devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION

CLAIM 1: Brahman alone is real; individuality is illusion.

Refutation:

If individuality is illusion, who is liberated? Illusion cannot attain liberation. Bhagavad-gītā (15.7) affirms the jīva’s eternal individuality.

CLAIM 2: Jīva is Brahman covered by ignorance.

Refutation:

Ignorance cannot cover omniscience. If avidyā covers Brahman, avidyā becomes superior to Brahman.

CLAIM 3: Jīva is a reflection of Brahman.

Refutation:

Reflection requires form and distance. Brahman has neither. An all-pervading entity cannot reflect.

CLAIM 4: Difference exists only on the empirical level.

Refutation:

Scriptures describing devotion, surrender, and divine qualities lose meaning if difference is unreal. Vyāsadeva’s samādhi affirms eternal distinction.

CLAIM 5: God’s form is māyā.

Refutation:

Śukadeva Gosvāmī, fully liberated, relished Kṛṣṇa’s form and līlā. Liberated souls are never attracted to illusion.

CLAIM 6: Māyā is neither real nor unreal.

Refutation:

Śāstra recognizes only sat and asat. No third category exists in Bhagavad-gītā or Upaniṣads.

CLAIM 7: Liberation means merging.

Refutation:

Merging negates bliss. Love requires two. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam defines liberation as reinstatement in one’s constitutional service.

CLAIM 8: Monistic statements prove identity.

Refutation:

They prove qualitative similarity, not numerical identity—just as “lion among men” does not mean a man becomes a lion.

CLAIM 9: Bhakti is a lower stage.

Refutation:

Bhakti attracted Śukadeva beyond Brahman realization. Therefore bhakti is higher, not lower.

CLAIM 10: Māyāvāda is the highest Vedānta.

Refutation:

Vedānta culminates in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which explicitly rejects impersonal conclusions.