By
Śrī Śrīla Shyām Dās Bābā Mahārāj
Another point which the followers of Mayavadis proclaim is that beyond waking (jāgrat), dreaming (svapna), and deep sleep (suṣupti), there exists a fourth condition—turīya— in this case the conception of duality can get dissolved and a feeling of oneness can develop with the Brahman. From this, they hastily conclude: “I am everything. I am the Absolute, ahaṁ brahmāsmi.” This conclusion is nothing else but foolishness. To become free from material labels doesn’t mean that one becomes the supreme Lord (brahman) himself.
In the Bhagavad-gita it is very clearly spoken by Lord Sri Krishna — the Supreme Lord Himself that–
idaṁ śarīraṁ kaunteya kṣetram ity abhidhīyate
etad yo vetti taṁ prāhuḥ kṣetrajña iti tad-vidaḥ
(Bhagavad-gītā 13.2)
The Supreme Divine Lord said: O Arjun, this body is termed as kṣhetra (the field of activities), and the one who knows this body is called kṣhetrajña (the knower of the field) by the sages who discern the truth about both.
kṣetrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata
kṣetra-kṣetrajñayor jñānaṁ yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama
(Bhagavad-gītā 13.2)
O scion of Bharat, I am also the knower of all the individual fields of activity. The understanding of the body as the field of activities, and the soul and God as the knowers of the field, this I hold to be true knowledge.
“I am also the knower in all fields.” This single statement dismantles the impersonal conclusion entirely. If all selves were one undifferentiated consciousness, then the distinction between the individual knower and the Supreme Knower would be meaningless. But the Lord maintains both.
Srila Ramanujacharya, in his Gītā-bhāṣya (13.2), explains that the jīva is the knower of his own body alone, whereas the Supreme Lord is the knower of all bodies, possessing unrestricted and independent knowledge. Srila Madhvacharya, in his Gītā-tātparya, emphatically establishes that the distinction between the individual self and the Supreme is eternal, and that the Lord alone is the universal knower (sarva-kṣetrajña), never the jīva. Similarly, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana, in his Gītā-bhūṣaṇa, clarifies that the Lord exists as Paramātmā in all beings as the all-pervading knower, while the jīva’s consciousness remains confined and limited. These authoritative explanations, coming through the authentic disciplic succession, leave no room for the speculative conclusion that the jīva becomes the Supreme Lord (brahman).
The living entity (jīva) is conscious, but limited. He knows only one body. His awareness is fragmentary. He is subject to illusion. If by realization he becomes the Supreme, then why does ignorance arise at the first place, how is it possible for the Absolute to fall under illusion? If it would be like that, then illusion (or maya) is more powerful than the Supreme Lord Himself. Such contradictions expose the defect of impersonal doctrine. The finite cannot become infinite by mere denying misconception.
The Supreme Lord alone is the knower of all bodies, the witness of all actions, and the controller of material nature. This is the position of Paramātmā—never attained by the jīva through any process of mental speculation or meditative abstraction. The jīva may realize his spiritual nature, but he never becomes the all-pervading overseer.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has made this point very clear in the form of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. According to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu the jīva is one with the Absolute in quality (cit-svarūpa), yet different in quantity—atomic, dependent, and subordinate. He is not matter, yet he is never the Supreme Controller. This understanding alone reconciles all scriptural statements without distortion.
The doctrine “I am everything” (ahaṁ brahmāsmi) is nothing but dangerous and harmful philosophical conception, because it is nothing but something like suicidal squad. It does not extinguish the false ego; rather, it nourishes it, just like when a spark of fire going to get in touch with petrol, as petrol thrown upon a spark causes it to blaze forth with greater intensity. Under the deceptive garb of so-called liberation, it is in truth a rejection of divine service (bhagavat-sevā) and an offense at the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The genuine seeker does not aspire to become God. Rather, he realizes: “I am infinitesimal, dependent, and prone to illusion. The Lord alone is infinite, all-knowing, and independent.” From this realization arises true humility, and from humility one drop of bhakti may arise.
The claim that realization of turīya avasta results in becoming the Absolute Whole is never supported by any authentic śāstra. The living entity is eternally a conscious unit, a knower of a limited field, and a servant of the Supreme Knower.
The conclusions of the Bhagavad-gītā are further illuminated and firmly established by Jiva Goswami, the foremost theologian of the Gauḍīya sampradāya, in his Ṣaṭ-sandarbhas, especially the Paramātma-sandarbha and Bhagavat-sandarbha. He systematically demonstrates that the living entity (jīva) is intrinsically atomic (aṇu), as confirmed by the śruti—jīvasya aṇutvaṁ śruteḥ—and therefore possesses only infinitesimal consciousness (aṇu-caitanya), in contrast to Bhagavān, who is infinite, all-pervading consciousness (vibhu-caitanya). From this ontological foundation, he establishes an eternal and irreducible distinction between the jīva and the Supreme. The jīva is the localized experiencer, the knower of a single body (eka-deha-kṣetrajña), whereas the Supreme Lord, as Paramātmā, is present in all beings as the universal knower (sarva-kṣetrajña). Thus, the direct teaching of the Bhagavad-gītā—that the Lord alone knows all fields—is not metaphorical but ontologically precise.
Furthermore, in his analysis of statements of oneness found in the Upaniṣads and other śāstras, Jīva Gosvāmī clarifies that such declarations do not establish absolute identity in all respects, but rather indicate qualitative similarity (svarūpa-sāmya) between the jīva and Brahman. The jīva is indeed of the nature of consciousness (cit), yet he is never the infinite whole. If absolute identity were accepted without qualification, then bondage itself would become inexplicable, for the Absolute cannot be overcome by ignorance, nor can the Absolute ever fall into illusion. Therefore, the very existence of the conditioned experience proves that the jīva is not the Supreme in totality. In this way, Srila Jīva Gosvāmī conclusively refutes the notion that liberation culminates in becoming the all-pervading Absolute. Rather, the jīva remains eternally a finite conscious entity—dependent, limited in knowledge, and distinct—while Bhagavān alone is infinite, independent, and all-knowing. This understanding preserves both the reality of spiritual oneness and the eternal distinction necessary for devotion, and it forms the essential theological foundation of the Gauḍīya conception of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva.
The impersonal doctrine propagated under Advaita Vedānta rests upon a fundamental assertion: that Brahman alone exists, that the individuality of the living entity is merely a superimposition born of ignorance, and that the jīva is in truth identical with the Absolute. From this premise arises the claim that bondage is illusory and that liberation consists merely in the removal of ignorance. However, this assertion immediately gives rise to an unavoidable and fatal question—who, then, is subject to ignorance? If it is said that the jīva is ignorant, then since the jīva is declared to be non-different from Brahman, ignorance must be attributed to Brahman itself. But Brahman, being defined as pure, self-luminous consciousness, free from all defect and limitation, cannot be subject to ignorance without forfeiting its very status as the Absolute. If, on the other hand, it is proposed that ignorance exists separately from Brahman, then a second principle is admitted, and non-dualism has no meaning any more. To avoid this, ignorance is described as anirvacanīya, neither real nor unreal; yet such a position is not a solution but an evasion, for it neither explains the origin of bondage nor preserves logical consistency. If ignorance is real, then duality cannot stand, and if ignorance is unreal, then bondage and liberation alike become meaningless illusions, and all scriptural injunctions are rendered purposeless. Thus their so called doctrine is full of its own contradictions.
The Gauḍīya siddhanta vichar always establishes that the jīva is a real, a atomic conscious being, distinct but dependent, whose ignorance is factual but not intrinsic, while the Supreme Lord remains eternally omniscient and untouched by illusion. In this way, individuality, bondage, and liberation are all preserved as meaningful realities, and the Absolute remains truly absolute.
Gaura Hari Hari Bol
……………………………………………………….
THE FIVE STAGES OF KNOWLEDGE
— Śrīla Bhakti Rakṣak Śrīdhar Dev-Goswāmī Mahārāj
“Knowledge has been classified under five headings. The lowest is knowledge acquired through one’s own sense experience: pratyaksa—what we have experienced through our senses. That is the first stage. The next higher stage is knowledge we have not experienced with our own senses, but have gathered from the experience of others (paroksa), just as the scientists have their experience, and we have gathered some knowledge from their inventions and discoveries.
The third stage is above the stage of human experience (aparoksa). It is something like deep sleep. When we awaken, we say, “I slept very happily; I slept a very good, sound sleep.” But when in deep, dreamless sleep, we have no consciousness of that state. When we return from a deep dreamless sleep, we express some awareness of that experience, but it is hazy. Aparoksa is a sort of hazy experience which is indistinct, where the subject and material object come together, and the material object vanishes in the subject. Sankar Acharya, the great proponent of impersonalism, explains the gradation of consciousness up to this point.
On the other hand, the great devotee-scholar Ramanuja Acharya, as well as other Vaisnava Acharyas, are of the opinion that there is a fourth stage beyond this. That plane is called adhoksaja, transcendental, or that which exists beyond the scope of the senses, whether gross or subtle. It is a plane that we can experience only when, by its sweet will, it comes down to our gross plane of understanding. If it withdraws, we are helpless; we can’t find it. We cannot say that the Absolute Truth is under the control of our knowledge. We can’t measure it like that. It is independent. By its sweet will it may come down and we may experience that higher realm, but if it withdraws, we are quite helpless; we can do nothing. We may cry or we may pray, but we can’t enter there forcibly by dint of our own power. This is the fourth plane of consciousness, and it is grand, all-powerful, and awe-inspiring. Only if it reveals itself to us can we have some experience of that plane known as Vaikuntha, the unlimited spiritual region of awe and power.
That is the adhoksaja plane. So, there is pratyaksa, direct experience through sense perception, then paroksa, learning through the experience of others, then aparoksa, the negative plane of indistinct consciousness, and then the fourth dimension: adhoksaja. We are underground. Real knowledge is above, on the surface, beyond our experience. If we can pierce through the thick coverings walling up our experience, we can come in connection with another plane of consciousness: that is adhoksaja. Adhokrtam indriyajam jnanam: adhoksaja means the superior knowledge which can force down our knowledge of the experience of this world. That transcendental, supramental knowledge is the fourth stage of knowledge. That plane is different in every way. It is not similar to this world.
But through Srimad Bhagavatam and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, we come to know that there is a fifth stage of knowledge which is very similar to this mundane world, yet is not mundane. It is called aprakrta. That is Goloka, the full-fledged theistic conception which is only found in Krishna’s domain. Central knowledge of the Absolute must have a connection with even the lowest level of mundane creation; it must be able to harmonise the worst portion of the illusory world. This is known as aprakrta, supramundane. To enter that highest realm is possible only through divine love.
Everything can be compensated only through love. There is a saying that a loving mother thinks that her blind child has beautiful lotus eyes. She is blinded by affection. So, what is mean and low can only be compensated by love—that shines very beautifully. That is prema, or divine love. Through mercy, through pity, through grace, a king can come to play with a boy on the street. Affection can make it possible. The difference between high and low disappears at such a stage.”
By Śrīla Bhakti Rakṣak Śrīdhar Dev-Gosvāmī Mahārāj
Source: The Golden Volcano Of Divine Love