100 Refutations of the Mayavada Conception
by Srila Madhvacarya

Text 1

All glories to Lord Krsna, who is simultaneously the protector of the faithful devotees and the devastating eternal time factor destroying the cruel demon kings. Krsna, the son of Maharaja Nanda, is as splendid as a young tamala tree. He is the source of the limitless brahman effulgence. He is the master of all potencies. He is decorated with a vaijayanti flower garland, and His forehead is splendidly decorated with tilaka.

A devotee has full faith in the words of the Puranas. Every morning he faithfully and happily studies the Puranas, and in this way his mind penetrates the actual meaning of the scriptures.

A certain imaginative Vedanta commentator has presented a false theory that the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are one in all respects. A devotee scholar, learned in the Puranas, rejects this fallacy, and, with expert logic, establishes the eternal distinction between the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Quoting abundant evidence from the Sruti and Smrti, the devotee scholar presents many arguments to conclusively prove the difference between the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The individual spirit soul is always limited. The Supreme is always unlimited. This difference is clearly established in the descriptions of Vedic literature. Because the natures of the Supreme and the individual spirit soul are so different it must be concluded that they are eternally different entities. They cannot be the same.

The Mayavadis may object: "The individual spirit souls are not different from the Supreme, just as the air in a pot and the air in the sky are not different. Indeed, simply by citing this analogy, I have proved that the individual spirit souls are identical with the Supreme." To this statement I reply: "This is not a very good argument. The Supreme is unlimited and cannot be compared to any limited material manifestation, such as the material sky. He is not at all like the material sky, and therefore your analogy is not very good evidence to support your views."

The Mayavadi commentator on the Vedanta claimed that the words 'tat tvam asi 'are the maha-vakya - the most important statement in the Vedas. According to his explanation 'tat' means 'the Supreme', 'tvam' means 'you', and 'asi' means 'are'. He interpreted the phrase to mean: 'You are the Supreme', and he claimed that there is no difference between the Supreme and the individual spirit souls.
The Vaisnava commentator on Vedanta interpreted these words in a different way, saying that 'tat-tvam' is a possessive compound word (sasthi-tatpurusa-samasa). According to his explanation 'tat' means 'of the Supreme', and the entire phrase means 'You are the servant of the Supreme'. In this way the proper meaning of the scriptural statement is clearly shown.

O friend, the Supreme is all-knowing, and He sees everything. From Him this entire astonishing and variegated material cosmos has emanated. He creates, maintains, and destroys the entire universe by slightly moving His eyebrow. O friend, you are not like Him. You are ignorant of so many things, and your vision is limited although you wish to see everything. The Supreme is full of all opulences, and He is the ultimate witness who observes everyone. O friend, the individual living entities are numerous, but the Supreme is one only. You are stunted and impure by material contact, but He remains always pure. and free from the touch of matter. O friend, your nature is completely different from his in these ways.

The objection may be raised: "The Vedas say 'Brahmaham asmi' ('I am Brahman')." The word 'brahman' is certainly in the nominative case (prathama vibhakti). You cannot say it is possessive (sasthi) and thus change the meaning. How is it that you have foolishly interpreted 'tat tvam asi' as a possessive compound (sasthi -tatpurusa-samasa)? How can you avoid interpreting the quote 'api ca so 'yam devadattah' ('O Devadatta, you are that') in the nominative (prathama) and try to make it genitive (sasthi)?" To this I reply: "When the scriptures explain that the individual spirit soul is Brahman, the proper understanding is that the individual souls are like tiny sparks that have emanated from the great fire of the Supreme Brahman. As far as the possessive compound (sasthi-tatpurusa) interpretation of 'tat tvam asi': you may not like it, but it is certainly grammatically sound. Why do you not accept it?"