Māyāvāda

Māyāvāda

एकान्तिनो यस्य न कञ्चनार्थं वाञ्छन्ति ये वै भगवत्प्रपन्ना: ।

अत्यद्भ‍ुतं तच्चरितं सुमङ्गलं गायन्त आनन्दसमुद्रमग्ना: ॥ २० ॥

तमक्षरं ब्रह्म परं परेशमव्यक्तमाध्यात्मिकयोगगम्यम् ।

अतीन्द्रियं सूक्ष्ममिवातिदूरमनन्तमाद्यं परिपूर्णमीडे ॥ २१ ॥

Many so called gauḍīyas nowadays are blatantly calling out śaṅkarācārya a ‘demon’, most of them do not know the gauḍīya vaiṣṇava position on śaṅkarācārya. This post will educate these people. 

This theory is supported by the Garuḍapurāṇa mokṣakhanda ‘maṇimānnāma daityastu saṃrākhyo bhaviṣyati sarveṣāṃ saṃkaraṃ yastu kariṣyati na saṃśayaḥ’, but it’s for a different kalpa as here we see Saṃkara has a daughter ‘saṃkarasya gṛhe vīndra bhaviṣyati kalau yuge’ which is not coherent in this age of kali. So it must be of a different kaliyuga altogether.

Śaṅkarācārya, as commonly understood, was not the originator of the Advaita system. He frequently cites authorities such as Brahma Nandin and Draviḍācārya, which shows that the tradition predated him. It is certain that Gauḍapāda, who flourished before Śaṅkara, can be identified as a preeminent Advaitin, although his works bear noticeable Buddhist influences. This is especially apparent in the fourth chapter of the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, titled Ālātaśānti, where Buddhist terminology and ideas dominate, in contrast to the first three chapters, which have a more evident Vedāntic tone. Śrī Śaṅkarācārya himself in his Bhāṣya to the kārikā 4.27 writes ‘prajñapteḥ sanimittatvamityādyetadantaṃ vijñānavādino bauddhastha vacanaṃ bāhyārthavādipakṣapratiṣedhaparamācāryeṇānumoditam’ ‘The statement beginning with 'prajñapteḥ sanimittatvam' up to the end is a saying of the Buddhist Vijñānavādins, which has been approved by the venerable Ācārya [Gauḍapāda] for the purpose of refuting the position of those who advocate for external objects.’ Bhāviveka (c. 500–570 CE), also known as Bhāvaviveka or Bhavya, was a prominent 6th-century Madhyamaka Buddhist philosopher. He is best known for authoring the Madhyamakahrdaya (Heart of the Middle Way) along with its auto-commentary Tarkajvālā and the Prajñāpradīpa. We will quote some parts of the book Tarkajvala as it contains a latent synthesization of vedānta system viz. '(Prime facie 'Hināyāna') 'na buddhoktirmahāyānaṃ sūtrāntādāvasaṃgrahāt, mārgāntaropadeśād vā yathā vedāntadarśanam.' (rebuttal 'Mahāyāna') 'vedānte ca hi yat sūktaṃ tat sarvaṃ buddhabhāṣitam,, dṛṣṭāntanyūnatā tasmāt sandigdhaṃ vā parīkṣyatām''. Asserting that Mahāyāna had a 'vedānta' [as they perceived it due to Kali age] leaning attitude can't be wrong, Bhavya must be referring to some predecessors of Gauḍapāda as vedāntins, also as noted Buddhists didn't see Vedānta as presented by Gauḍapāda etc was not seen as a doctrinal threat by Buddhists.

There are other ways in which Advaitins match the Buddhist views viz.: 1.Both Mahāyāna Buddhism and Advaita Vedānta regard duality as illusory, likening it to a gandharva-nagara or indra-jāla, denying ultimate reality to perceived multiplicity. 2. Both śūnyatā (in Mahāyāna) and nirguṇa Brahman (in Advaita) are conceived as beyond attributes, names, and forms. 3. The dissolution of individual selfhood is common to both, with Buddhism negating ātman and Advaita asserting the illusory nature of individuality upon realization of non-duality. 4. Neither system posits a personal God at the level of absolute reality, though Advaita admits Īśvara provisionally within empirical (vyavahārika) reality.

Some may object, pointing out that even Ācāryas such as Madhva accept the validity of the first chapter of Gauḍapāda’s work, treating it as śruti. To this we respond: the first chapter is itself called the Āgamaprakaraṇa and consists of citations from authoritative texts, rather than independent verses authored by Gauḍapāda. Thus, these verses are acceptable as pramāṇa when properly interpreted through sampradāyic commentaries, such as those by Madhvācārya or others. Moreover, each kārikā in this chapter begins with the expression 'atraite ślokā bhavanti', which is characteristic of several Upaniṣadic texts, such as the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, reinforcing their scriptural nature. Thus it is very much possible that the 1st chapter is the entire māṇḍukyopaniṣad with no alteration by gauḍapāda and was later ascribed to him. Madhvacarya ascribes them to Brahmā quoting garuḍa 'प्रमाणस्य प्रमाणं च बलवद् विद्यते मुने । ब्रह्मदृष्टान् यतो मन्त्रान् प्रमाणं सलिलेश्वरः ॥ अत्र श्लोका भवन्तीति चकारैव पृथक् पृथक् ॥ इति गारुडे ।', The absence of reverential attribution to Gauḍapāda in Śaṅkara’s glosses on the first three chapters of the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, contrasted with their appearance in the fourth chapter, indicates a layered textual perception. This asymmetry, when coupled with Madhvācārya’s independent treatment of the Āgama Prakaraṇa as śruti attributed to Brahmā (per Garuḍa Purāṇa), suggests that the first chapter may have circulated as an extension of Upaniṣadic material prior to being consolidated under Gauḍapāda’s authorship in Advaita tradition.

There must certainly some reason why none of the Buddhists ever write against Advaitam, rather they always take mīmāṁsakas and naiyāyikas as their opponent. Interestingly the opponent of mīmāṁsa [mānameyodayakāra; Nārāyaṇa bhaṭṭa] and nyāya systems were buddhist but the opponents of śaṅkara predominantly were naiyāyīkas and mīmāṁsakas. This can be inferred from his texts and also the fact that he never converted a buddhist into his fold but did so for a mīmāṁsaka like Maṇḍaṇa miśra. If at all Śaṅkarācārya ever posed a threat to buddhists why not do, we find any rebuttal coming from their side.

However with close introspection there is some deviation in Śaṅkara’s genre in contrast to Gauḍapāda. Not going into that in detail but no one can deny Buddhist influences on Gauḍapāda, he was rather a link of synthesis between the buddhist ideas and vedānta as ‘he perceived’. The Gauḍīya position on Śaṅkarācārya is that Lord Hari sent Lord Śiva in the form of Śaṅkarācārya to bewilder the demoniac beings, he did not himself find the core principles but drew them from his predecessors like gauḍapāda and rest. As Lord Śīva said to Mother pārvati in the Padmapurāṇa Uttarkhaṇḍa  ‘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 crypto 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.”’

Some say that this śloka is for Lakulīśa and not for Śrī Śaṅkara, this is a wrong belief as Lakulīśa was the founder of Pāśupata sect of śaivism which has nothing to do with vedas ‘vāmaṃ pāśupataṃ somaṃ lākulaṃ caiva bhairavam asevyametat kathitaṃ vedavāhyaṃ tathetaram [kūrmapurāṇa 2.37.146]’ or vedānta thus Lakulīśa meet the criteria of ‘mohanārthaṃ kalau yuge vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam mayaiva’ of the verse. Also the incarnation of Lakulīśa happened in dvāpara as in the vāyupurāṇa 1.23.206-10 and liṅga purāṇa 1.24.125-127  ‘parāśarasutaḥ śrīmān viṣṇurlokapitāmahaḥ yadā bhaviṣyati vyāso nāmnā dvaipāyanaḥ prabhuḥ, tadā ṣaṣṭhena cāṃśena kṛṣṇaḥ puruṣasattamaḥ vasudevādyaduśreṣṭho vāsudevo bhaviṣyati, tadāpyahaṃ bhaviṣyāmi yogātmā yogamāyayā lokavismayanārthāya brahmacāriśarīrakaḥ’, this proves Lakuliśa being a contemporary of Kṛṣṇa and Vedavyāsa and we know from bhāgavatam that ‘yasminn ahani yarhy eva bhagavān utsasarja gām tadaivehānuvṛtto ’sāv adharmaprabhavaḥ kaliḥ’ Thus Lakulīśa doesn’t meet ‘kalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā’ as well. As the Lord said to Śrī Rudra in Varāha Purāṇa 70.35-36 and also Padmapurāṇa 70.106-110 ‘dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā kalayā mānuṣādiṣu, svāgamaiḥ kalpitaistvaṃ ca janānmadvimukhānkuru | māṃ ca gopaya yena syātsṛṣṭireṣottarottarā, eṣa mohaṃ sṛjāmyāśu yojanānmohayiṣyati | tvaṃ ca rudra mahābāho mohaśāstrāṇi kāraya, atathyāni vitathyāni darśayasva mahābhuja | prakāśaṃ kuru cātmānamaprakāśaṃ ca māṃ kuru’ ‘Being born in the ages like Dvāpara [as lakulīśa] and among men in the Kali [as Śaṅkarācārya] age make the people averse to me with the sacred texts prepared by you. So also censure me so that the world becomes better and better. I shall produce this delusion which will delude people [as Buddha]. You too, O mighty-armed Rudra, produce sacred texts that would delude people. O you of great arms, produce (the texts) that are false and spurious. Manifest thyself and keep me hidden.’ This is found in Śaṅkarācārya’s works directly like rejecting the authenticity of the Pañcarātras by strawman arguments in ‘utpattyasambhavādhikaraṇam’ or in the sarva-vedānta-siddhānta- sāra-saṁgraha ‘sarvasyānityatve sāvayavatvena sarvataḥ siddhe, vaikuṇṭhādiṣu nityatvamatirbhrama eva mūḍhabuddhīnām.’ But himself essentially being a devotee [as lord śiva] he didn’t try to pollute the bhāgavata thus restrained himself from commenting on it, nonetheless he composed many stotras for the Lord like ‘govindāṣṭakaṁ’ etc. Statements in Kūrmapurāṇa and Liṅgapurāṇa like ‘yatayaś ca bhaviṣyanti bahavo 'sminkalau yuge puruṣālpaṃ bahustrīkaṃ yugānte samupasthite nindanti vedavidyāṃ ca dvijāḥ karmāṇi vai kalau kalau devo mahādevaḥ śaṅkaro nīlalohitaḥ’ are for instilling faith of deviants in śaṅkarācārya so that the mission can be fulfilled this is called arthavāda for the deviants so that they can rely upon him.

Some who are ashamed of their Identity try to call this Śloka [māyāvādam asac chāstraṃ..] prakṣipta [interpolated], they often quote page 217 of Mādhavācārya śāstrī’s ‘Purāṇa digdarśaṇa’, there he writes:

From a novel view it may seem that Śāstrijī is defending śaṅkarācārya against Māyāvāda claim, but it’s not so which will be shown later a hint there in is ‘trikāladarśi vedavyāsajī ke liye apne se paravarti śrī śaṅkarācārya kā māyāvāda jāna lenā kucha āścarya kī bāta nahīṁ hai’, Here he is accepting that śaṅkarācārya’s philosophy is Māyāvāda. The main argument of this section is that an Ārya samāji says that purāṇas are interpolated as we can see that novel ideas like māyāvāda are also mentioned there in. Śrī Kālurāma Śāstri in his ‘Purāṇa siddhi’ argues against the authenticity of the Śloka his arguments are here :

Here also as we see Kālurāmji is not denying Śaṅkarācārya’s doctrine being māyāvāda but arguing for its position being established by the scriptures itself [which is a blatant sectarian brand marking]. I do not understand why and how Mādhavācārya śāstri can quote in defence of māyāvāda in his work if he was at all affiliated with the Rāmānuja sampradāya though he didn’t deny that Śaṅkarācārya’s māyāvāda  is the subject of this verse as read: 

But the Ṛgveda mantras he quoted itself proves that Māyā is not asat, it has an existence dependent on Brahman, as in ‘indro māyābhiḥ pururūpa īyate’ also the śruti ‘māyābhirindra māyinam’ establishes māyā as a natural potency of Brahman also in Śaṅkaramata Māyā is considered ‘Mithyā’ not ‘asat’ one of the many definitions of mithyā is 'sannāpyasannāpyubhayātmikā no bhinnāpyabhinnāpyubhayātmikā no , sāṅgāpyanaṅgā hyubhayātmikā no mahādbhutānirvacanīyarūpā.' given by Śaṅkarācārya himself in Viveka Cuḍāmaṇi. An interesting point to be noted is he himself earlier in his book argued against the idea of interpolation in purāṇas and ridiculed Āryasamājis for the same :

Some however take a modern approach, they quote ‘Padma Purāṇa; A study’, which argues that the verse is only available in Vanga, Andhra recensions but also says that it’s there in the recension archived in the Asiatic society .

Though it’s not available in ‘some’ it must not be spurious because other authentic and well preserved manuscripts have the same. Interesting point to be noted is the Author himself acknowledges Sankara’s doctrine as Mayavada : 

Thus we see that None of the modern scholars are considering the text to be spurious on the account of Sankaracarya’s association with Mayavada rather they consider it so because Mayavada being of novel origin viz 8th cent can’t be mentioned in a prior text, such doubts are cleared by this verdict of Vaisampayana from the Svargarohanika Parva ‘yad uvāca mahātejā divyacakṣuḥ pratāpavān muniḥ purāṇaḥ kauravya pārāśaryo mahāvrataḥ’. As Śrī Madhvācārya has explained, philosophies (darśanas) are beginningless and cyclically rise to prominence under the influence of influential teachers. As he states: darśanānāṃ pravṛttatvān manda āśaṅkate punaḥ | anādikālato vṛttāḥ samayā hi pravāhataḥ | na cocchedo ’sti kasyāpi samayasya ity—“Due to the perpetual activity of the darśanas, the dull-minded suspect their recent origin, though these doctrines have flowed from time immemorial; indeed, there is no extinction of any tradition.” Thus Vedavyāsa refuted Buddhists and their subschools even before they came into being.

Some quote Śvapneśavara bhāṣya on śāṇḍilya sūtra 29-31, to show that Vedavyāsa supported Advaitavāda, this however holds no water as Svapaneśvara is mistaken here. Let's Analyse the sūtras in detail, 'tāmaiśvaryaparāṃ kāśyapaḥ paratvāt ātmaikaparāṃ bādarāyaṇaḥ ubhayaparāṃ śāṇḍilyaḥ śabdopapattibhyām', '"Kāśyapa holds that (supreme bliss arises from) knowledge directed towards His omnipotence (aiśvarya), because (the Supreme Lord) is superior (paratvāt) to the individual soul.", "Bādarāyaṇa holds that (supreme bliss arises from) knowledge directed towards the Self alone (ātman) [i.e., Brahman as the Self].", "Śāṇḍilya holds that (both views are valid, i.e.,) knowledge directed towards both (the Self and the Supreme Lord), on the strength of scripture (śabda) and reasoning (upapatti)."', Here the sūtra 4.1.3 of Brahmasūtra needs to be reffered 'ātmeti tūpagacchanti grāhayanti ca' 'But as the Self; this (the ancient Devotees) acknowledge (since the texts) make (them) apprehend (in that way).', there in as perceived it can't be the jīvātmā itself as said several times by the same author 'bhedavyapadeśācca' 'bhedavyapadeśāccānyaḥ' 'adhikaṃ tu bhedanirdeśāt' 'jagadvyāpāravarjam' '' etc, thus the meaning here to be taken is explained in the Gītā 'ahamātmā guḍākeśa sarvabhūtāśayasthitaḥ', 'īśvaraḥ sarvabhūtānāṃ hṛddeśe'rjuna tiṣṭhati .', however He should not be confused with the Jīvātmā as the difference is also drawn by the Lord himself 'paramātmeti cāpy ukto dehe ’smin puruṣaḥ paraḥ' presence of two ātmās [Jīva and Paramātmā] in the body is acknowledged by 'guhāṃ praviṣṭāvātmānau hi taddarśanāt' similar is said by the Lord 'yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham akṣarād api cottamaḥ ato ’smi loke vede ca prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ, yo mām evam asammūḍho jānāti puruṣottamam sa sarva-vid bhajati māṁ sarva-bhāvena bhārata' the vedic etymology of puruṣa is 'puruṣo yo 'yam pavate so 'syām puri śete'. Śrī Bhagavān is the ātma of jīvātma as in the nārāyaṇasukta 'ātmā nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ' this is also accepted in the śatapatha brahmaṇa also in bṛhadāraṇyaka 'ya ātmani tiṣṭhannātmano'ntaro yamātmā na veda yasyātmā śarīraṃ ya ātmānamantaro yamayati sa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ, 'He who dwells in the self, is within it, whom the self does not know, whose body is the self, who rules the self from within, he is your Self, the inner controller, the immortal', also in the taittiriya āraṇyaka 'a̱ntaḥ pravi̍ṣṭaḥ śā̱stā janā̍nām . eka̱ssanba̍hu̱dhā vi̍cāraḥ . śa̱tagͫ śu̱krāṇi̱ yatraika̱ṃ bhava̍nti . sarve̱ vedā̱ yatraika̱ṃ bhava̍nti . sarve̱ hotā̍ro̱ yatraika̱ṃ bhava̍nti . sa̱ māna̍sīna ā̱tmā janā̍nām'. 'ubhayaparāṃ śāṇḍilyaḥ śabdopapattibhyām', This is in reference to Chāndogya 3.14.1-4 'sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahma tajjalāniti śānta upāsīta', 'eṣa ma ātmāntarhṛdaye'ṇīyānvrīhervā yavādvā sarṣapādvā śyāmākādvā śyāmākataṇḍulādvaiṣa ma ātmāntarhṛdaye jyāyānpṛthivyā jyāyānantarikṣājjyāyāndivo jyāyānebhyo lokebhyaḥ', 'sarvakarmā sarvakāmaḥ sarvagandhaḥ sarvarasaḥ sarvamidamabhyātto'vākyanādara eṣa ma ātmāntarhṛdaya etadbrahmaitamitaḥ pretyābhisaṃbhavitāsmīti yasya syādaddhā na vicikitsāstīti ha smāha śāṇḍilyaḥ śāṇḍilyaḥ' this is also found in the Mahābhārata's Anuśāsana parva 'nāradaś cābravīd enaṃ brahmaṇoktaṃ mahātmanā śṛṇuṣvāvahitas tāta jñānayogam anuttamam, aprabhūtaṃ prabhūtārthaṃ vedaśāstrārthasārakam yaḥ paraḥ prakṛteḥ proktaḥ puruṣaḥ pañcaviṃśakaḥ, sa eva sarvabhūtātmā nara ity abhidhīyate narāj jātāni tattvāni nārāṇīti tato viduḥ, tāny eva cāyanaṃ tasya tena nārāyaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ nārāyaṇāj jagat sarvaṃ sargakāle prajāyate, tasminn eva punas tac ca pralaye saṃpralīyate nārāyaṇaḥ paraṃ brahma tattvaṃ nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ, parād api paraś cāsau tasmān nāsti parāt param vāsudevaṃ tathā viṣṇum ātmānaṃ ca tathā viduḥ, saṃjñābhedaiḥ sa evaikaḥ sarvaśāstrābhisaṃskṛtaḥ āloḍya sarvaśāstrāṇi vicārya ca punaḥ punaḥ, idam ekaṃ suniṣpannaṃ dhyeyo nārāyaṇaḥ sadā, tasmāt tvaṃ gahanān sarvāṃs tyaktvā śāstrārthavistarān ananyacetā dhyāyasva nārāyaṇam ajaṃ vibhum, muhūrtam api yo dhyāyen nārāyaṇam atandritaḥ so 'pi tadgatim āpnoti kiṃ punas tatparāyaṇaḥ, namo nārāyaṇāyeti yo veda brahma śāśvatam antakāle japann eti tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padam,'. Thus the three sūtras have been explained in true light, kaśyapa's position is encapsulated in 'nārāyaṇaḥ paraṃ brahma tattvaṃ nārāyaṇaḥ paraḥ, parād api paraś cāsau tasmān nāsti parāt param', Vyāsa's view in 'vāsudevaṃ tathā viṣṇum ātmānaṃ ca tathā viduḥ, saṃjñābhedaiḥ sa evaikaḥ sarvaśāstrābhisaṃskṛtaḥ āloḍya sarvaśāstrāṇi vicārya ca punaḥ punaḥ, idam ekaṃ suniṣpannaṃ dhyeyo nārāyaṇaḥ sadā', Śāṇḍilya's view in 'atandritaḥ so 'pi tadgatim āpnoti kiṃ punas tatparāyaṇaḥ, namo nārāyaṇāyeti yo veda brahma śāśvatam antakāle japann eti tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padam'.

The exact verse is quoted by Vijñāna Bhikṣu in his commentary to Sāṅkhyadarṣaṇa, ‘यत्तु वेदान्तिब्रुवाणामाधुनिकस्य मायावादस्यात्र लिङ्गं दृश्यते तत् तेषामपि विज्ञानवाद्येकदेशितया युक्तमेव-- मायावादमसच्छास्त्रं प्रच्छन्नं बौद्धमेव च । मयैव कथितं देवि कलौ ब्रह्मणरूपिणा।। इत्यादिपद्मपुराणस्थशिववाक्यपरम्पराभ्यः।’, Jīva Gosvāmi Prabhupāda quoted the same in Bhagavat sandarbha, ‘तदेवं च पाद्मोत्तरखण्डे देवीं प्रति पाषण्डशास्त्रं गणतया श्री महादेवेनोक्तम् मायावादमसच्छास्त्रं प्रच्छन्नं बौद्धमुच्यते । मयैवं कथितं देवि कलौ ब्राह्मणरूपिणा ॥, Vallabhācārya also quoted the same verse in his Brahma-sutra commentary. Though not having quoted the exact verse many Ancient Ācāryas of different sects have straight away called out Śaṅkarācārya’s philosophy as māyāvāda, first among them is Bhāskarācārya [9th century] he writes in his Brahma sutra commentary ‘तथा च परिणामस्तु स्याद् दध्यादिवदिति विगीतं विच्छिन्नमूलं माहायानिकबौद्धगाथितं मायावादं व्यावर्णयन्तो लोकान् व्यामोहयन्ति॥’[1.4.25], Śrī Yāmunācārya in his Siddhitraya at some lengths have also said the same regarding māyāvādins the only difference he accepted between buddhas and māyāvādins is that the bauddhas accept being buddhists but māyāvādins don’t, Śrī Rāmānujācārya says in his Brahmasutra bhāṣya on 2.2.27 ‘वेद्गवादच्छह्मप्रच्छन्न-वौद्धनिराकरणे निपुणतरं प्रपञ्चितम्’, One may say he didn’t mention śaṅkara explicitly that claim is taken care of by vedānta deśikan he blatantly in his comparative text ‘Paramata bhangam’ viz. ‘வேதங்கள் மௌலிவிளங்க வியாசன் விரித்த நன்னூல் பாதங்களான பதினாறில் ஈசன்படிமறைத்துப் பேதங்களில்லையென்று ஓர்பிரமப்பிச்சியம்புகின்ற போதங்கழிந்தவனைப் புத்தர்மாட்டுடன் பூட்டுவமே’ ‘For the purpose of understanding the true meaning of Upanishads, Sage VyAsa compiled Brahma Soothrams in four adhyAyams containing  sixteen padhams. Adhvaithins do not accept Iswaran's anantha kalyANa guNams and Svaroopam proclaimed by the above VedAntha Saasthram. Instead, they describe Brahman as mere Jn~Ana Svaroopan without any guNams (nirguNa Brahman). They  assert Brahman alone is Real (sathyam) and all else are false. They declare that Maya does make all these unreal objects appear real to Brahman as a result of its Ajn~Anam. We have no choice under these circumstances than to link adhvaitham with Bhouddham and reject both as unsound in this adhikAram of Pracchanna BhouddhA Matha Bangam.’ similarly have they been treated in Śrī vedānta deśika’s another work called ‘śataduṣaṇi’. Nor can it be said that it is just a secterian view of vaiṣṇavas, for a Vīraśaivācārya; Śrīpati Paṇḍitācārya is found to say this 'evaṁ buddhamataṁ nirasya pracchannabauddhābhidhāna jīveśvara jaganmithyātva pratipādaka śrutyābhāsapradhāna nirviśeṣādvaita matamadhikaraṇāntareṇa nirākaroti.' in his commentary of sūtra 2.2.26.

The term Māyāvāda has recently gained a sense of shame among the neophyte followers of the sect whereas their own previous ācāryas have accepted themselves as māyāvādi and actively defended it as a valid position. As seen for the Bhāmativyākhyā ‘परमार्थतस्तु भाविकं परिणामं वा कार्यकारणभावं वेच्छतामेष दुर्वारो दोषो न पुनरस्माकं मायावादिनामित्याह’, in the vivaraṇa-prameya-saṅgraha ‘भवेदयं दोषः पारमार्थिकप्रपञ्चवादे, मायावादे तु न कोऽपि दोषः; वस्तुतो ब्रह्मणो निर्लेपत्वात्’, in the pañcadaśi ‘अविवेक कृतः सङ्गः नियम श्चेति चेत्तदा। बलादा पतितो मायावादः साङ्ख्यस्य दुर्मतेः’ [Here the author is showing that how saṅkhya must ultimately resort ot māyāvāda] also in the anāndagiri ṭīkā of mānḍukyopaniṣad ‘अभेदेऽपि मायावादे नैष दो’, in Vaktavyakāśikā of Uttamajña Yati (958-1038) he actively defends vivartavāda against pariṇāmavāda 'विरोधिशुक्त्यात्मत्वज्ञाने नेदं रजतमिति बाधः स्यादित्याशङ्क्य क्षीरस्य दधिरूपपरिणामे पुनर्विरोधिक्षीरात्मत्वज्ञानं यथा न भवति तथा विरोधिशुक्त्यात्मत्वज्ञानमपि न भवेदित्याह - नापि क्षीरमिदमितीति । रजतस्य शुक्तिपरिणामत्वं मायावादिना त्वया अङ्गीकृतमित्याशङ्क्य अविद्याविशिष्टशुक्तिपरिणामत्वाभ्युपगमात् अविद्यापाये रूप्यंमत्राक्षेपगच्छति इति मत्पक्षेऽपगच्छति, त्वत्पक्षे तु शुक्तिपरिणामत्वमेवेति नापगच्छेदिति मत्वा आह – क्षीरमिवेति ।', In his Ratnaprabhāvyākhyā Śrī Govindānanda twice mentions the term and shows defence in favour of it 'tatra brahmaṇo vivartopādānatvaṃ svapnasākṣidṛṣṭāntena draḍhayanmāyāvādaṃ sphuṭayati sūtrakāraḥ- ātmani ceti rathayogāḥ aśvāḥ[2.1.28]' 'uktaṃ hi māyāvāde svapnavatsarvaṃ sāmañjasyam, ato niravayave brahmaṇi samanvayasyāvirodha iti siddham [2.1.29]' These and many other Advaitin Ācāryas have accepted themselves as māyāvādins and defended the position. This novel stigma in neo advaitins regarding the term ‘māyāvāda’ comes due to their lack of knowledge on the matter. Now some people ask why we should be termed māyāvādins and not Brahmavādins, we say there is no harm in accepting both, but the stigma should not persist you are termed māyāvādins due to your peculiar understanding of māyā as shown by the pañcadaśikāra ‘na nirodho na cotpattirna baddho na ca sādhakaḥ . na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityeṣā paramārthatā  māyākhyāyā kāmadhenorvatsau jīveśvarāvubhau  yathecchaṃ pibatāṃ dvaitaṃ tattvaṃ tvadvaitameva hi’ [Chapter 6].

Thus the Advaitins rather being shameful of their identity should accept it with firm faith in their ācāryas and try to defend it rather than brushing it off. Thus we have shown the Gauḍīya position on śaṅkarācārya as in the padmapurāṇa and as a whole. Śrī Śaṅkarācārya is a respectable personality even those who are currently holding the maṭhas must be respected but their siddhānta is not at all acceptable to any sane man. Those who say Śrī Śaṅkara was a demon are actually offenders at the feet of Lord Śiva [Those who believe in that by tradition may have different views but as a gauḍīya we must be coherent with what our pūrvācāryas have said].

मन्त्रतस्तन्त्रतश्छिद्रं देशकालार्हवस्तुत: ।

सर्वं करोति निश्छिद्रमनुसङ्कीर्तनं तव ॥

यच्छक्तयो वदतां वादिनां वै विवादसंवादभुवो भवन्ति ।

कुर्वन्ति चैषां मुहुरात्ममोहं तस्मै नमोऽनन्तगुणाय भूम्ने ॥

 ~Raṅganātha