SECTION FORTY-ONE       

            Moreover, if oneness of Brahmän with the jéva was the conclusion of Çrémad Bhägavatam, then Süta Gosvämé would have described: "Çré Vyäsadeva experienced in His trance that the one Brahman appears divided because of ignorance, and that the suffering caused by this division can be mitigated by knowledge." And if the pastimes and attributes of the Supreme Lord were not real that would defy the experience of Çré Çuka.

 

ÇRÉ JÉVA TOÑAËÉ COMMENTARY

                       After giving logical refutations of monism, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé proceeds to disprove it by reference to çabda pramäëa, or scriptural evidence. This is the Vedic system. So far as understanding the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, logic has no stance by itself. The final arbiter is always scriptural evidence. Scriptural evidence is so decisive that even if something defies logic, but it is supported by the çabda pramäëa, it must be accepted as conclusive truth. Any standard lower than this would be inconsistent with the Vedäntic epistemology, which establishes the Vedas as emanating from the Absolute Truth and thus infallible.

            Earlier, in the pramäëa portion of Tattva Sandarbha, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé established the Çrémad Bhägavatam as the supreme authority among all types of pramäëas. Now he puts monism to the Çrémad Bhägavatam test. The core of Çrémad Bhägavatam is the verses narrating Çréla Vyäsa's trance, in which he saw the Supreme Personality of Godhead, complete with His potencies, including Mäyä, who was far removed from the Lord. Vyäsa did not see a non-differenciated Brahmän being overpowered by Mäyä and turned into many jévas. Rather He saw the jéva distinct from the Lord, but captivated by Mäyä because of thinking himself independent of the Lord. He saw that this false independence is the cause of the jéva's suffering. Simultaneously, He saw that the solution to the jéva's bondage is devotional service to the Supreme Person (bhakti-yogam adhokñaje), not knowledge of oneness with Him.

            Süta Gosvämé confirms this inferior position of oneness in his prayers to Çukadeva Gosvämé, his spiritual master. While speaking the Çrémad Bhägavatam to the sages at Naimiñäraëya, Süta Gosvämé specifically mentions that originally Çukadeva was absorbed in the bliss of Brahmän. Later, upon hearing some selected Bhägavatam verses describing the pastimes and attributes of Kåñëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his heart was captivated. So much so, Çukadeva studied the Lord's pastimes and excelled in narrating them.

            Therefore it is said that the Bhägavatam, which is the ripened fruit of the tree of Vedic literature, became even more relishable when it emanated from the mouth of Çukadeva, who is like a parrot. Çuka means parrot, and the allusion here is to the experience that fruit pecked by parrots are sweeter than other fruit from the same tree.  When the fruit of the Bhägavatam was first pecked by Çukadeva Gosvämé then tasted by Parékñita Mahäräja, it was sweeter than ever.

            This means that the pastimes and attributes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are not imaginary, otherwise a liberated soul like Çréla Çukadeva Gosvämé, who was beyond any mundane desire would never have taken interest in them. Çukadeva was the chief among all the Brahman realized transcendentalists and worshipable by them all. By his example he rejected the state of absolute oneness between the Lord and the jévas. Therefore, the keys to the monistic doctrines--paricchedaväda and pratibimbaväda--are supported neither by logic nor by the scriptures, especially not the supreme pramäëa, Çrémad Bhägavatam. Rather, the Mäyävädis arrive at their conclusions by word jugglery and distorting the scriptural truths, which only serves to confuse the innocent hearer.

            Next, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé explains the reason for the monistic statements found in the scriptures.