SECTION THIRTY-EIGHT    

             Moreover, if the upädhis are empirically real and thus limit Brahman (Pariccedaväda), or if they are the medium of reflection for Brahman (Pratibimbaväda), they cannot be abandoned merely by acquiring knowledge of oneness (of the jéva and Brahman). And if it is assumed that the influence of that Brahman will be the cause (in removing the upädhis), then their view agrees with ours.

 ÇRÉ JÉVA TOÑAËÉ COMMENTARY

             Çréla Jéva Gosvämé exposes further defects in accepting the upädhis as empirically real. The monists hold that by becoming educated through the Çruti, the jéva becomes free from bondage to the upädhis. That is the meaning of the çruti statements:

            tat tvam asé, "Thou art that"

            tadätmänameva vedahaà brahmäsmi, "It knew Itself as,  'I am Brahman'" (Båhad 1.4.10)

            tattvamasyädiväkyebhyaù jïänammokñasya sädhanam, "The means to liberation is the knowledge arising from dictums such as: Thou art that" (B.Näradéya 35.68)

            brahmaveda brahmaiva bhavati, "He who knows that Brahman becomes Brahman" (Muëòak 3.2.9).

            tarati çokamätmavit, "The knower of the Self transcends grief."(Chan. 7.1.3)           

            Hence the Mäyäväda school claims liberation is achieved through knowledge and the scriptures seem to agree. Indeed the Çruti says, tameva viditva ati måtyumeti, nänya panthä vidyateyanäya (Svet. 3.8.,5.15), "Knowing Him alone one transcends death, there is no other way to crossover." And in Bhagaväd-gétä (4.37) Lord Kåñëa says: 

"As a blazing fire turns firewood to  ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities." And again,in the fourth chapter, thiry-eight and thirty-ninth verses, the Lord says, na hi jïänena sadåçaà pavitramiha vidyate, "Nothing is as purifying as knowledge"; jïänam labdhvä paräà çäntimacireëädhigacchati, "Having attained this knowledge, he immediately attains the supreme peace".

            In essence, the Mäyävädis compare the jéva to man's baby that got lost at a city festival and was found by a poor man. As a result of this misfortune coupled with ignorance of his true identity the baby grows up in a humble setting as the child of that poor man. Later on the child is recognized by a servant of his father. As soon as he came to realize that he is the son of a wealthy man, all his poverty evaporates into nothingness. He did not have to toil hard to get rid of this poverty. In fact he was never really poor, just ignorant. Now, just having proper knowledge was sufficient to reverse the situation.

            Another example: A person misplaces his watch, which is in his pocket. He  searches for it all around, but without any luck. Finally, a friend comes along and sees the strap of the watch sticking out of the person's pocket and informs him, "Your watch is in your pocket". Immediately the person has the watch and his anxiety is relieved. Knowledge alone was sufficient to relieve his distress.

            Similarly, the jéva is nothing but deluded Brahman. As soon as he understands this by hearing the Vedic canon, he becomes fully realized. He understands that Brahman is not far away from him, for he himself is Brahman. His only obstacle was ignorance, which is now removed by the Vedas. Of course for this the heart must be pure, for which Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya recommends a process called sädhana-catuñöaya, or the fourfold practice.

            According to Çaìkara, the Mahäväkya, or the essence of all Vedic instructions, is tat tvam asé, "You are that (Brahman)". It emphasizes the oneness of the jéva with Brahman. But Brahman is all-pervading and all-knowing and the jéva is atomic and limited in knowledge, so how can they be the same? To this the Mäyävädis reply that tat tvam asé is not meant to be explained in its primary sense, only in a secondary sense. Oneness between the jéva and Brahman is possible if their opposing qualities--all-pervasiveness and all-knowingness versus atomic size and limited knowledge--are dropped and only their mutual consciousness is accepted. This is called bhäga-tyäga-lakñaëä, or giving meaning by dropping a part of the word or a part of the qualities. When the upädhi that limits Brahman into a jéva, is dropped, then the state of oneness is realized. For this the guru instructs the disciple "tat tvam asé". Since the çruti statements cannot be meaningless, this is the only way to understand the mahäväkya.

            All this Çréla Jéva Gosvämé counters with the fact that even if one gets knowledge of oneness with Brahman, the upädhi, which is empirical reality, will not magically dissolve just by the sound of the Vedas. A man bound by chains will not become free just by meditating that his fetters are cut. A rabbit will not turn into an elephant just by meditating "I am an elephant, I am an elephant". Such an achievement is possible if the upädhi was apparent. Just as an intoxicated man may think himself president of the U.S.A., but when he sobers up he understands that he is just a simple office clerk. In the case of an empirical or real upädhi, the solution is not so simple. Mere knowledge is not sufficient to give the jéva liberation from Mäyä.

             If knowledge alone was sufficient, why do the scriptures recommend various austerities, penances, and rituals for one's purification? The Mäyävädis say these are preliminary steps for purifying the heart so that the practitioner becomes qualified to know the meaning of the çruti mahäväkyas.

            But according to the çästras, knowledge (vidyä) and ignorance (avidyä) are both products of Mäyä. So even if one gets rid of his avidyä with the help of vidyä by studying the Vedic verses, he is still bound by vidyä. How will he do away with this upädhi called vidyä? If he is not devoid of all upädhis he cannot realize Brahman, since Brahman is beyond both vidyä and avidyä. This Kåñëa explained to Uddhava in the Eleventh Canto of the Bhägavatam (11.11.3):           

            "O Uddhava, vidyä (knowledge) and avidyä (ignornace) which cause liberation and bondage to the human beings, are two primordial energies created by My Mäyä."

 Mere knowledge of Brahman, therefore, cannot bring about liberation. On the other hand, surrender to Kåñëa will rid a person of the influence of Mäyä. Lord Kåñëa says this Himself in the Bhagavad-gétä (7.14): 

"This divine energy of Mine, Mäyä, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered only unto Me can easily cross beyond it."

            The term 'vidyä' means knowledge and devotion. In the Upaniñadic statements such as 'tameva viditvä ati måtyumeti' the word viditvä (after knowing), really means "by being devoted to Him", having fully known His essence and not just getting knowledge without devotion. Lord Kåñëa also confirms this in the Bhagavad-gétä (4.9): 

"One who knows in truth the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."

            Here the same root 'vid' (to know) has been used, but it means knowing with devotion. Material knowledge is a feature of Mäyä, whereas transcendental knowledge about the Lord is  manifest by the illuminating power of bhakti, which is under the internal potency of the Lord. Spiritual knowledge, therefore, is inseperable from bhakti. Hence, among the nine types of devotional service, hearing, that is to say acquiring knowledge, is listed first.

                        A passage from the Çruti bears out this conclusion, the Båhad Äraëyaka Upaniñad. (4.4.21) states, vijïäya präjïa kurvita, "After knowing, let him practice wisdom." Here the word used for wisdom, präjïa, means the same as vidyä and the sentence means, "After knowing Him, practice devotion." In the Bhagavad-gétä (9.2) the Lord says, räja-vidyä, "This is the king of knowledge." As is evident from the context, vidyä is used here in the sense of devotion. Thus it is devotion and not mere knowledge that cuts the bonds of Mäyä, as confirmed in the daivi esa guna-mayi verse of Bhagavad-gétä (7.14) and is confirmed later in Bhagavad-gétä, (11.53-54) : 

            "The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am. My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding."

            And to this, if the Mäyävädis reply that it is possible for the jéva to remove all upädhis and become Brahman by the mercy of the all-powerful and benign Brahman, then Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, anticipating this plea, says,  "We have netted you". The monists agree that Brahman is devoid of all attributes and potencies. If that same Brahman has now to bless the jéva, then It has to have some potency, namely mercy. But if the featureless Brahman has any potency at all, that conforms to the Vaiñëava definition of Bhagavän as the Para Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In that case, Çréla Jéva gosvämé says, asmäkameva mata-sammatam, "Their view matches ours". He has no objection to that. In Bhagavat Sandarbha He will prove that even for Brahman realization one needs to take shelter of the Supreme Lord.

            Next, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé exposes the fallacies of the second option, the upädhis being unreal.