[Prev][Next][Index]
Mayavada-sata-dusani, pt.1 (long)
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Mayavada-sata-dusani, pt.1 (long)
-
From: nparker@crl.com (Nathan Parker)
-
Date: 31 Mar 1995 20:52:31 -0800
-
From nparker@crl.com Fri Mar 31 23: 42:36 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
[ Article crossposted from alt.religion.vaisnava ]
[ Author was NAMA HATTA ]
[ Posted on 31 Mar 1995 15:20:59 -0500 ]
Sri Tattva-muktavali or Mayavada-sata-dusani
The Pearl Necklace of Truths or 100 Refutations of the
Mayavada Fallacy
by Srila Madhvacarya (translation Kusakratha prabhu)
The Life of Srila Madhvacarya
Sripada Madhvacarya took his birth at Udupi, which is situated in
the South Kanada district of South India, just west of Sahyadri. This is
the chief city of the South Kanada province and is near the city of
Mangalore, which is situated to the south of Udupi. In the city of Udupi
is a place called Pajaka-ksetra, where Madhvacarya took his birth in a
sivalli-brahmana dynasty as the son of Madhyageha Bhatta, in the year 1040
of sakabda (A.D. 1118). According to some, he was born in the year 1160
sakabda (A.D. 1238). In his childhood Madhvacarya was known as Vasudeva,
and there are some wonderful stories surrounding him. It is also said that
his father piled
up many debts, and Madhvacarya converted tamarind seeds
into actual coins to pay them off. When he was five
years old, he was offered the sacred thread. One demon
named Maniman lived near his abode in the form of a
snake, and at the age of five Madhvacarya killed that
snake with the toe of his left foot. When his mother
was very disturbed, he would appear before her in one
jump. He was a great scholar even in childhood and,
although his father did not agree, he accepted sannyasa
at the age of twelve. After receiving sannyasa from
Acuyta Preksa, he received the name Purnaprajqa Tirtha.
After traveling all over India, he finally discussed
scriptures with Vidyasankara, the exalted leader of
Srngeri Matha. Vidyasankara was actually diminished in
the presence of Madhvacarya. Accompanied by Satya
Tirtha, Madhvacarya went to Badarikasrama. It was there
that he met Vyasadeva and explained his commentary on
Bhagavad-gita before him. Thus he became a great
scholar by studying before Vyasadeva.
By the time he came to the Ananda Matha from
Badarikasrama, Madhvacarya had finished his commentary
on Bhagavad-gita. His companion Satya Tirtha wrote down
the entire commentary. When Madhvacarya returned from
Badarikasrama, he went to Ganjama, which is on the bank
of the river Godavari. He met there with two learned
scholars named Sobhana Bhatta and Svami Sastri. Later
these scholars became known in the disciplic succession
of Madhvacarya as Padmanabha Tirtha and Narahari
Tirtha. When he returned to Udupi, he would sometimes
bathe in the ocean. On such an occasion he composed one
prayer in five chapters. Once, while sitting beside the
sea engrossed in meditation upon Lord Krsna, he saw
that a large boat containing goods from Dvaraka was in
danger. He showed some signs by which the boat could
approach the shore, and it was saved. The owners of the
boat wanted to give him a present and at the time
Madhvacarya agreed to take some gopi-candana and, as it
was being brought to him, it broke apart and revealed a
large Deity of Lord Krsna. The Deity had a stick in
one hand and a lump of food in the other. As soon as
Madhvacarya received the Deity of Krsna in this way, he
composed a prayer. The Deity was so heavy that not even
thirty people could raise it. Madhvacarya personally
brought this Deity to Udupi. Madhvacarya had eight
disciples, all of whom took sannyasa from him and
became directors of his eight monasteries. Worship of
the Lord Krsna Deity is still going on at Udupi,
according to the plans Madhvacarya established.
Madhvacarya then for the second time visited
Badarikasrama. While he was passing through Maharastra,
the local king was digging a big lake for the public
benefit. As Madhvacarya passed through that area with
his disciples, he was also obliged to help in the
excavation. After some time, when Madhvacarya visited
the king, he engaged the king in that work and departed
with his disciples.
Often in the province of Ganga Pradesh there were
fights between the Hindus and the Mohammedans. The
Hindus were on one bank of the river and the
Mohammedans were on the other. Due to the community
tension, no boat was available for crossing the river.
The Mohammedan soldiers were always stopping passengers
on the other side, but Madhvacarya did not care for
these soldiers. He crossed the river anyway and, when
he met the soldiers on the other side, he was brought
before the king. The Mohammedan king was so pleased
with him that he wanted to give him a kingdom and some
money, but Madhvacarya refused. While walking on the
road, he was attacked by some dacoits but by his bodily
strength he killed them all. When his companion Satya
Tirtha was attacked by a tiger, Madhvacarya separated
them by virtue of his great strength. When he met
Vyasadeva, he received from him the salagrama-sila
known as Asta-murti. After this he summarized the
Mahabharata.
Madhvacaryas devotion to the Lord and his erudite
scholarship are known throughout India. Because of
this, the owners of the Srngeri Matha established by
Sankaracarya became a little perturbed. At that time
the followers of Sankaracarya were afraid of
Madhvacaryas rising power and they began to tease
Madhvacaryas disciples in many ways. There was even an
attempt to prove that the disciplic succession of
Madhvacarya was not in line with the Vedic principles.
One persona named Pundarika Puri, a follower of the
Mayavada philosophy of Sankaracarya, came before
Madhvacarya to discuss the sastras. It is said that all
of Madhvacaryas books were taken away, but later they
were found with the help of King Jayasimha, ruler of
Kumla. In discussion, Pundarika Puri was defeated by
Madhvacarya . A great personality named
Trivikramacarya, who was a resident of Visnumangala,
became Madhvacaryas disciple and his son later became
Narayanacarya, the composer of Sri Madhvavijaya. After
the death of Trivikramacarya, the younger brother of
Narayanacarya took sannyasa and later became known as
Visnu Tirtha.
At that time it was reputed that there was no
limit to the bodily strength of Purnaprajqa,
Madhvacarya. There was a person named Kadaqjari who was
famed for possessing the strength of thirty men.
Madhvacarya placed the big toe of his foot upon the
ground and asked the man to separate it from the
ground, but the great strong man could not do so even
after great effort. Srila Madhvacarya passed from this
material world at the age of eighty while writing a
commentary on the Aitareya Upanisad. For further
information about Madhvacarya one should read Madhva-
vijaya by Narayanacarya.
--His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada
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.
Text 2
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.
Text 3
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.
Text 4
The individual spirit soul is always limited. The
Supreme is always unlimited. The 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.
Text 5
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."
Text 6
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 this
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.
Text 7
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.
Text 8
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?"
Text 9
Accustomed to speak in metaphors, poets say: "This
youthful brahmana is a blazing fire," "This beautiful
face is the disc of the full moon," "These breasts are
Mount Meru," or "These hands are blossoming twigs." The
charm of these metaphors lies in considering two
things, which are actually different, to be completely
equal because they have one common feature. The poetic
author of the Vedas has used this device in the phrase
brahmaham asmi. The spiritual living entities have
emanated from the Supreme Brahman, but they are not
equal to Him in all respects.
Text 10
Innumerable waves splash within the great ocean and, in
the same way, countless spirit souls exist within the
Supreme Brahman. A single wave can never become the
ocean. O individual spirit soul, how do you think you
will become the Supreme Brahman?
Text 11
Everywhere in the Vedic scriptures pairs of opposites
are described. Spiritual enlightenment and spiritual
darkness, religion and irreligion, knowledge and
ignorance are all described as different. The Vedic
scriptures also describe the Supreme Brahman and the
individual spirit soul as different in the same way. O
saintly audience, how can anyone, with an honest heart,
claim that the individual spirit soul and the Supreme
Brahman are identical in all respects?
Text 12
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the foundation
upon which everything rests. He is the supreme monarch
and the independent controller of the illusory potency
(maya). O individual spirit soul, you are simply a
reflection of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only
one moon shines in the sky, although innumerable
reflections of that moon may appear in the water or
other places. O individual spirit soul, the Supreme
Personality of Godhead is like that single original
moon, and the individual spirit souls are like
innumerable reflections of Him. Just as the reflections
remain always distinct from the moon itself, in the
same way the individual spirit souls remain eternally
different from their original source, the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. O individual spirit soul, this
is the eternal distinction between you and the Supreme.
Text 13
The Vedic scriptures say that the Supreme Brahman is
immeasurable, inconceivable, and without any material
activities or duty. O individual spirit soul, you are
very easily perceivable by the material mind and
describable by material words. How is it possible,
then, that you are the same as the inconceivable
Supreme Brahman?
Text 14
O individual spirit soul, your intelligence has been
stolen by the darkness of the Mayavada theory, and for
this reason you continually mutter brahmaham asmi ("I
am the Supreme Brahman") as if you have become mad. I
say to you, "If you are the Supreme Brahman, where is
you unparalleled opulence? Where is you supreme
dominion over all? If you are the Supreme Brahman,
where is you all-pervasiveness and all-knowledge? Your
equality with the Supreme Brahman is like the equality
of a mustard seed with Mount Meru!"
Text 15
O individual spirit soul, you are by nature very
limited, but the Supreme Lord is unlimited. You can
only be at one place at one time, but the Supreme is
eternally everywhere. At one moment you enjoy, and at
another moment you suffer. In this way, your happiness
and suffering is all temporary, but the Supreme Lord
experiences the perfection of transcendental bliss at
every moment. O individual spirit soul, why are you not
embarrassed to speak these words so ham ("I am the
Supreme")?
Text 16
Glass is glass. A jewel is a jewel. An oyster is an
oyster. Silver is silver. They will never lose their
nature and become each other. If one thinks that glass
is a jewel, or an oyster is silver, he is mistaken.
Impelled by the same kind of illusion, the individual
spirit soul imagines he is the same as the Supreme
Brahman. Illusioned in this way, the spirit soul
propounds the Mayavada interpretation of tat tvam asi
and other statements of the Vedas.
Text 17
The Vedic statement tat tvam asi should be interpreted
in the following way: tat means "the Supreme Brahman
who is like a nectar ocean of perfect transcendental
bliss." Tvam means "the distressed individual spirit
soul, whose mind is anguished by the fears produced by
continued residence in the material world." Because the
natures of the individual spirit soul and the Supreme
Brahman are different in this way, they cannot be
equated. In reality the Supreme Brahman is the supreme
object of worship for innumerable universes, and the
individual spirit soul is His servant. This is the
actual meaning of tat-tvam asi.
Text 18
The Mayavadis claim that when the Supreme Person is
described in the Vedic literatures, one should reject
the literal meanings of such descriptions, and instead
accept them allegorically, or not in the sense conveyed
by the primary meaning of the words.
Text 19
O Mayavadis, if you insist on interpreting the Vedic
description of the Supreme in an allegorical, or
indirect, sense, then please tell us why you abandon
the direct literal meaning in favor of this indirect
interpretation?
Text 20
There are three reasons for rejecting a words primary
meaning and accepting a secondary meaning instead. They
are: 1. If the primary meaning makes no sense; 2. If
tradition or common usage supplants the primary meaning
with a generally accep
ted secondary meaning; 3. If an authorized commentary
explains that a secondary meaning should be understood.
In these circumstances one may reject the primary
meaning and accept the secondary meaning of a word.
Text 21
If the primary meaning is senseless, one must find a
secondary meaning that makes sense.
Text 22
One should not accept the primary meaning if it makes
no sense. For example, the primary meaning of grama is
"village," but if the grama is described as unlimited,
one must reject the primary meaning and accept a
secondary one ("multitude"). In the same way, the
primary meaning of putra is "son," but if the putra is
described as appearing without a father, the primary
meaning should be rejected and a secondary one ("that
which rescues from hell") should be accepted.
Text 23
The sentence kumbha-khadga-dhanur-banah pravisanti is
an example of the use of secondary meaning. Pravisanti
means "enter" and kumbha, khadga, dhanuh, and bana mean
"pitchers, swords, bows and arrows" respectively. The
primary meaning of the sentence is "pitchers, swords,
bows, and arrows enter." This interpretation clearly
makes no sense. In these circumstances, the secondary
meaning should be accepted. If the first two words are
accepted as bahuvrihi-samasas, then the secondary
interpretation "men carrying pitchers, swords, bows,
and arrows enter" may be accepted to replace the
rejected primary meaning.
Text 24
The sentence gangayam ghosah is another example of the
use of secondary meaning. The primary meaning here is
"the River Ganges spoke." This primary meaning should
be rejected because a body of water cannot speak. Here
the secondary interpretation "he spoke the word Ganges"
is more appropriate.
Text 25
The sentence ayur ghrtam is another example of the use
of secondary meaning. Taken literally, the sentence
means, "Clarified butter is identical with long life."
In this sentence clarified butter and long life are
equated although they are not at all the same thing. In
this sentence, the secondary interpretation "Eating
foods prepared with clarified butter prolongs ones
life" must be accepted if the sentence is to make
sense.
Text 26
A text may be interpreted in three ways: 1. The literal
(primary) meaning may be accepted; 2. One may reject
the literal meaning and accept a secondary, not so
commonly used, meaning of the words, or 3. One may
accept the statements as metaphorical or allegorical.
In order to establish their theory, the Mayavadis have
diligently rejected the literal interpretation of the
Vedic statements and have put forward an interpretation
based on accepting the secondary meanings of the words.
Text 27
Taken literally, the Vedic statements do not at all
support the theory that the individual spirit soul is
the same as the Supreme Brahman. For this reason, the
Mayavadis have rejected the literal meaning of the
texts and concocted a figurative interpretation based
on accepting obscure definitions of words and rejecting
the commonly used meanings of words. How do the
Mayavadis expect to understand the truth about Brahman
if they adopt this devious policy?
Text 28
The Vedas directly state that the Supreme Brahman is
the original creator of the universe (jagat-karta).
>From this statement it is only logical to infer that
the one Supreme is the cause of the many living
entities. The many living entities thus have the
Supreme as their creator. This is the direct meaning of
the Vedic statement.
Text 29
The sruti and smrti give abundant evidence to support
this interpretation: that the one Supreme Brahman is
the creator of the many living entities. That the Vedas
describe the distinct individuality of the one Supreme
Brahman and the many individual spirit souls is
confirmed by Lord Krsna in Bhagavad-gita, where He said
(15.15): vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah ("by all the
Vedas I am to be known").
Text 30
The Mayavadis claim that the Vedas say that the
material world is unreal. O Mayavadis, even if this is
so, how can you infer from it that the Supreme Brahman,
who is full of all opulences and the origin of all
moving and unmoving entities is also unreal?
Text 31
The Mayavadis may say that the Vedic scriptures clearly
state that the Supreme cannot be understood by the mind
or described in words.
To this I respond: "O Mayavadis, please hear my reply.
This statement means that the Supreme cannot be
understood by the mental gymnastics of foolish
speculators. The Supreme can only be understood when
one hears about Him from the right source and with the
proper devotional spirit. Furthermore, because the
Supreme Brahman possesses infinite and unfathomable
transcendental qualities, no one is able to completely
know or describe Him."
Text 32
The Mayavadis claim that the Vedic statement avan-
manasa-gocaram ("the Supreme cannot be understood by
the mind or described in words") proves that the
Supreme cannot be described or understood.
To this I reply: "This description may apply to
ordinary words or thoughts, but not to the words of the
Vedas. The Vedas elaborately describe the Supreme
Brahman. Please do not think that the statements of the
Vedas are like a limping cripple who cannot describe
the Supreme."
Text 33
O proud Mayavadis, you think yourselves to be great
scholars although you actually have no place in the
company of the learned. The Vedas say, sabda-brahmani
nisnatah para-brahmadhigacchati ("expert in
understanding the Supreme, they who are actually
learned attain the spiritual realm"). There is no error
in these words of the Vedic sages. Please do not say
that no one can understand or describe the Supreme.
Text 34
The word ghata has a specific meaning, and the word
pata also has a specific meaning. Various words
indicate specific objects. In the Vedas the words sat
("eternity"), cit ("knowledge"), and ananda ("bliss")
are used to directly indicate the Supreme Brahman.
Text 35
Words have both primary and secondary meanings. If the
meaning of a word is ambiguous, then in the course of
the conversation the proper meaning will become clear
by the context. If one enters a conversation when
someone asks a boy, "please bring the saindhava," the
meaning of the mans statement may be unclear, for the
word saindhava may mean either "salt" or "horse."
However, when the boy returns with the saindhava the
persons intention will be at once understood. In the
same way, the proper meaning of ambiguous words in the
Vedas become clear when the serious student studies the
entire body of Vedic literature and sees the ambiguous
statement in the proper perspective.
Text 36
By repeatedly hearing the words of the spiritual master
and by thoroughly studying the Vedic literature, the
sincere student will be able to understand the proper
meaning of brahman and the other words in the Vedic
vocabulary.
Text 37
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is also the supreme
controller and the supreme performer of activities and,
therefore, His form is perfect and eternal. A performer
of activities always has a form. No one has ever seen a
formless performer of activities.
Text 38
If the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is also the
supreme controller, has a form and is not formless,
then we may easily conclude that He has a human-like
form similar to the forms that we ourselves bear. This
may be concluded because al performers of activity have
forms that are quite similar. We do not see why the
Supreme Personality of Godhead should be an exception
in this regard.
Text 39
There is a difference between the one all-powerful
Supreme Personality of Godhead and the many living
entities. The living entities are continually beset by
the six waves (beginning with hunger and thirst) of
material existence. In order to accomplish something,
the living entities have to work very hard, holding
shovels, plows, and scythes in their hands. In this
way, very fatigued by working hard, the living entities
become morose at heart. The Supreme Personality of
Godhead is not at all like the individual living
entities in this matter. Simply by moving an eyebrow
the Supreme Personality of Godhead can attain whatever
He wishes.
Text 40
The Supreme Personality
of Godhead is able to effortlessly do anything, change
anything, or destroy anything. This is a very great
difference between the Supreme and the tiny jivas
(individual spirit souls).
Text 41
Someone may say: "If the living entities in the
material world sometimes suffer and sometimes enjoy
because of their bodies, then, if the Supreme has a
body, He must also suffer and enjoy in the same way."
To this I reply: "The conditioned living entities
possess material forms subject to six changes (growth,
decay, death, etc.). The spiritual body of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, because He is the master of all
opulences, is not at all like these material forms. The
Lords spiritual body is never subjected to old-age,
decay, and death, and His happiness never diminishes."
Text 42
Someone may object: "Every living entity attains a
certain body because of his past karma and, therefore,
when the Supreme manifests a body, He has also attained
that body as a karmic reaction."
To this I reply: "The Supreme is the ultimate
controller, and it is He who awards the karmic results
to us living entities. As the ultimate administrator of
the laws of karma, He is not under their jurisdiction.
That is the relationship between Him and us."
Text 43
Someone may object: "All bodies are temporary.
Therefore, the body of the Supreme must also be a
temporary manifestation."
To this I reply: "No! The body of the Supreme is
eternal. Just as earth assumes various temporary
shapes, although the atoms that are the source of the
earth element remain eternal, in the same way, the
eternal living entity accepts different material bodies
because of his karma. The original spiritual forms of
both the Supreme and the subordinate living entities
remain eternal, although the conditioned soul may
accept different material coverings because of his
karma."
Text 44
The Vedic literatures explain that under ordinary
circumstances the conditioned living entity cannot
negate the results of his past karma. In order to
maintain the truth of this statement, the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, who holds the Sudarsana cakra
in His hand, pretends to be bound by the reactions of
past pious and impious deeds when He appears in this
world disguised as an ordinary person.
Text 45
I have heard in the Puranas that this entire universe
came into existence from the lotus flower sprouted from
the navel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Are we
then to conclude that the Supreme has only a
disembodied navel and not a complete body? If the
Supreme Lord has a navel, then He must have a body
complete with all limbs and senses also.
Text 46
The transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead is elaborately described in all the Vedas. That
celebrated form is very handsome, and it completely
delights the senses of all the devotees. That
transcendental form is endowed with the six opulences
of all beauty, strength, fame, knowledge, wealth, and
renunciation. The sacred Ganges river is the water that
has washed the Lords lotus feet.
Text 47
Whenever, by the force of time, irreligion increases
and religion declines, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead protects the saintly devotees and destroys the
demons.
Text 48
The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself in
two features: 1. In His original form as the source of
all incarnations; 2. In His many visnu-tattva
incarnations. The many living entities may also be
divided into two groups: 1. The devotees (who are free
from the influence of the illusory energy); 2. The
nondevotees (who are bound by the illusions of maya).
Text 49
Some theorists claim that the individual spirit souls
are actually the Supreme, just as reflections on water
are the same as the reflected object. By simply
fabricating this analogy, these foolish persons do not
at all establish the identity of the individual spirit
soul and the Supreme.
Text 50
How is it possible that the individual spirit souls are
reflections of the Supreme and equal to Him in all
respects? The individual spirit souls are not equal to
the Supreme. If they are equal, then why is the Supreme
described as unlimited, all-pervading, and free from
material contamination? Why are the individual living
entities described as being conditioned, subject to
material illusion, engaged in the pious and impious
deeds described in the Vedas, and thus experiencing the
alt.religion.vaisnava
