Sūtra 2.2.36

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Sūtra 2.2.36:

अन्त्यावस्थितेश्चोभयनित्यत्वादविशेषात्

antyāvasthiteścobhayanityatvādaviśeṣāt

antyāvasthiteḥ – in the final state; ca – and; ubhaya – both; nityatvāt – of being permanent; aviśeṣāt – because of there being no difference.

“This theory is untenable because the final state of liberation is nondifferent from the worldly state, because both are eternal.” (36)

Sūtra pagination:
Adhyāya 2:
  No Conflict Between Vedānta and Other Vedic Scriptures;
Pāda 2:
  Refutation of Opposing Views (continued);
Adhikaraṇa 6:
  The Jaina Theory Examined.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary (Govinda-bhāṣya)

The word na [not] is understood in this sūtra from the previous one. According to the Jainas, there is no difference between the state of mukti and the mundane state, for both are permanent. They define mukti as eternal progress upward, or remaining fixed in the aloka-ākāśa. Thus there is no difference between between worldly existence and release; for motion, whether in the worldly cycle or in a straight line or infinite progression is, after all, mundane. Moreover, no one can feel happiness in a state of constant upward motion, or in remaining stationary in one place without support. Both of these ideas of mukti of the Jainas are unsatisfying. The Jaina may say, “Such a state of constant motion or permanent fixture may be a cause of pain to an embodied soul, but not to a disembodied liberated soul.” To this we say that even in a state of mukti, the soul has his various limbs, and feels the weight of each one just as he feels the weight of the material body. Moreover, neither the condition of eternal progress nor the permanent fixture in aloka-ākāśa can be said to be eternal, because both presuppose action in order to maintain them, and consequently contain the liability of certain destruction.

Therefore this Jaina theory is futile and ludicrous. This refutation of the Jaina theory also includes the refutation of the Māyāvādins, the secret friends of the Jainas, who also assert that this world is māyā—neither real nor non-real—and that the Brahman taught in the Upaniṣads is not describable by words. The Vedic literature is to be considered a source of real knowledge, but if one does not take it as it is, one will be misled. For example, the Bhagavad-gītā is an important Vedic literature that has been taught for many years, but because it was commented upon by unscrupulous rascals, people derived no benefit from it, and no one came to the conclusion of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Since the purport of the Bhagavad-gītā is now being presented as it is, however, within four or five short years thousands of people all over the world have become Kṛṣṇa conscious. That is the difference between direct and indirect explanations of the Vedic literature. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, mukhya-vṛttye sei artha parama mahattva: “To teach the Vedic literature according to its direct meaning, without false commentary, is glorious.” Unfortunately, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, compromised between atheism and theism in order to cheat the atheists and bring them to theism, and to do so he gave up the direct method of Vedic knowledge and tried to present a meaning which is indirect. It is with this purpose that he wrote his Śārīraka-bhāṣya commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra.

One should not, therefore, attribute very much importance to the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. In order to understand Vedānta philosophy, one must study Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which begins with the words

ओं नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय, जन्माद्य् अस्य यतो ’न्वयाद् इतरतश् चार्थेष्व् अभिज्ञः स्व-राट्

oṃ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya, janmādy asya yato ’nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ sva-rāṭ

“I offer my obeisances unto Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, who is the Supreme all-pervading Personality of Godhead. I meditate upon Him, the transcendent reality, who is the primeval cause of all causes, from whom all manifested universes arise, in whom they dwell and by whom they are destroyed. I meditate upon that eternally effulgent Lord, who is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations and yet is fully independent.” [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1]

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. Unfortunately, if one is attracted to Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, his spiritual life is doomed. One may argue that since Śaṅkarācārya is an incarnation of Lord Śiva, how is it that he cheated people in this way? The answer is that he did so on the order of his master, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

This is confirmed in the Padma Purāṇa, in the words of Lord Śiva himself:

मायावादम् असच् छास्त्रं प्रच्छन्नं बौद्धम् उच्यते
मयैव कल्पितं देवि कलौ ब्राह्मण-रूपिणा
ब्रह्मणश् चापरं रूपं निर्गुणं वक्ष्यते मया
सर्व-स्वं जगतो ’प्य् अस्य मोहनार्थं कलौ युगे
वेदान्ते तु महा-शास्त्रे मायावादम् अवैदिकम्
मयैव वक्ष्यते देवि जगतां नाश-कारणात्

māyāvādam asac chāstraṃ pracchannaṃ bauddham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitaṃ devi kalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā
brahmaṇaś cāparaṃ rūpaṃ nirguṇaṃ vakṣyate mayā
sarva-svaṃ jagato ’py asya mohanārthaṃ kalau yuge
vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam
mayaiva vakṣyate devi jagatāṃ nāśa-kāraṇāt

“The Māyāvāda philosophy,” Lord Śiva informed his wife Pārvatī, “is impious [asac chāstra]. It is covered Buddhism. My dear Pārvatī, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brāhmaṇa and teach this imagined Māyāvāda philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedānta I describe the same Māyāvāda philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord.”

In the Śiva Purāṇa the Supreme Personality of Godhead told Lord Śiva:

द्वापरादौ युगे भूत्वा कलया मानुषादिषु
स्वागमैः कल्पितैस् त्वं च जनान् मद्-विमुखान् कुरु

dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā kalayā mānuṣādiṣu
svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṃ ca janān mad-vimukhān kuru

“In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them.”

These are the descriptions of the Purāṇas. The direct meaning of the Vedic scriptures is abhidhā-vṛtti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauṇa-vṛtti, the indirect meaning, is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kurukṣetra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gauṇa-vṛtti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is abhidhā-vṛtti. This is the distinction between the two. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidhā-vṛtti, and He rejects the gauṇa-vṛtti.

The purpose of the discussions in the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra is to philosophically establish the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The impersonalists, however, in order to establish their philosophy, accept these discussions in terms of lakṣaṇā-vṛtti, or indirect meanings. Thus instead of being tattva-vāda, or in search of the Absolute Truth, they become Māyāvāda, or illusioned by the material energy. When Śrī Viṣṇu Svāmī, one of the main ācāryas of the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, 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.

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, however, accepted the direct meaning of the Vedānta philosophy and thus defeated the Māyāvāda philosophy immediately. He opined in this connection that anyone who follows the principles of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya is doomed.

This is confirmed in the Padma Purāṇa, where Lord Śiva tells Pārvatī:

शृणु देवि प्रवक्ष्यामि तामसानि यथा-क्रमम्
येषां श्रवण-मात्रेण पातित्यं ज्ञानिनाम् अपि
अपार्थं श्रुति-वाक्यानां दर्शयल् लोक-गर्हितम्
कर्म-स्वरूप-त्याज्यत्वम् अत्र च प्रतिपाद्यते
सर्व-कर्म-परिभ्रंशान् नैष्कर्म्यं तत्र चोच्यते
परात्म-जीवयोर् ऐक्यं मयात्र प्रतिपाद्यते

śṛṇu devi pravakṣyāmi tāmasāni yathā-kramam
yeṣāṃ śravaṇa-mātreṇa pātityaṃ jñāninām api
apārthaṃ śruti-vākyānāṃ darśayal loka-garhitam
karma-svarūpa-tyājyatvam atra ca pratipādyate
sarva-karma-paribhraṃśān naiṣkarmyaṃ tatra cocyate
parātma-jīvayor aikyaṃ mayātra pratipādyate

“My dear wife, hear my explanations of how I have spread ignorance through Māyāvāda philosophy. Simply by hearing it, even an advanced scholar will fall down. In this philosophy, which is certainly very inauspicious for people in general, I have misrepresented the real meaning of the Vedas and recommended that one give up all activities in order to achieve freedom from karma. In this Māyāvāda philosophy I have described the jīvātmā and Paramātmā to be one and the same.”

How the Māyāvāda philosophy was condemned by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His followers is described in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, [2.94-99], where Svarūpa-dāmodara Gosvāmī says that anyone who is eager to understand the Māyāvāda philosophy must be considered insane. This especially applies to an aspiring Vaiṣṇava who reads Śārīraka-bhāṣya and then considers himself to be one with God. The Māyāvādī philosophers have presented their arguments in such attractive, flowery language that hearing Māyāvāda philosophy may sometimes change the mind of a devotee who is not very advanced. But an actual Vaiṣṇava or follower of Vedānta-sūtra cannot tolerate any philosophy that claims God and the living being to be one and the same.