Once, a group of Mayavadis connected with an important university in India challenged Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura for a debate on the Vedas. Mayavadis are well known for having an impersonal interpretation of the sastras, defending that the absolute truth is ultimately impersonal, and all forms and variety exist only under the influence of Maya, or illusion. Even the forms of Lord Vishnu and different avatars are interpreted by the Mayavadis as being composed of matter and performing their activities under the influence of the three modes. In other words, even when the Supreme Brahman appears in this world, He does it under the influence of Maya. That’s why we call them Mayavadis because their philosophy incorrectly concludes that Maya is greater than God. Their philosophy is based on the Sariraka-bhasya, the indirect commentary on the Vedanta Sutra written by Srila Sankaracarya.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura on the other hand was famous for teaching the theistic Vaishnava interpretation of the sastras, which is based chiefly on the Srimad Bhagavatam. When challenged by this group he nonchalantly answered that he was ready to debate with them. They had just to set a date and time.
The Mayavadis took weeks to answer. Instead of offering a time for the debate, they composed another message, telling him that he could not use verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam and other Puranas. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural interpretation of the Vedanta Sutra, written by Srila Vyasadeva himself, but Mayavadis don’t accept it very well because it’s very difficult for them to maintain their indirect interpretation when confronted with it. Right in the first verse of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila Vyasadeva completely dismounts the Mayavada fallacy by defining Brahman as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Krsna, who has not only a personal form but is also full of opulences and performs transcendental activities.
Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura again nonchalantly answered that he would be ready to debate at any time. If the Mayavadis objected to the use of the Puranas they could debate based on other books. Apparently, the Mayavadis were a little concerned about their capacity to defeat him even after imposing these artificial limitations, since they again took a long time to set a date for the debate. Finally, they sent him a third message, saying that after careful deliberation they concluded that the debate would be conducted exclusively on the aphorisms of the Vedanta Sutra. No verses from the Upanishads, Mahabharata, or any other books could be quoted. Again, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura answered he was ready to debate with them at any time.
Normally, Vaishanavas and other classes of theistic philosophers contest the Mayavada philosophy by using verses from different sastras that emphasize the personal aspect of God. Although God has also an impersonal aspect, the personal aspect prevails, and there are many verses directly attesting to this. In the Bhagavad-Gita, for example, Krsna directly says that He is the source or basis of the impersonal Brahman (brahmano hi pratisthaham). The Vedanta Sutra however speaks about God in an indirect way, referring to Him as the supreme Brahman, which has no material qualities. Mayavadis can usually hold very well to their philosophy when using the Vedanta Sutra, but Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was confident that he could defeat them using their own book. How is it even possible?
Srila Prabhupada gives us a few tips on how this can be done in the Teachings of Lord Caitanya. It happens that Lord Caitanya also debated with many great Mayavadis, including Prakasananda Sarasvati and Sarvabhauma Battacarya, and was able to easily defeat them using his direct interpretation of the Vedanta Sutra. Lord Caitanya could defeat these great philosophers using nothing more than just logic and the original verses from the Vedanta, without having to quote extensively from other books. In the book, Srila Prabhupada extensively explains this direct interpretation of the text.
For example, the first aphorism of the Vedanta Sutra is “athāto brahma-jijñāsā”, which can be translated as “now it’s time to enquire about Brahman”. We can see that this first aphorism encourages us to seek this Supreme Brahman, without directly defining what it is.
The second aphorism is “janmādy asya yataḥ”, which can be translated as “From Him, everything emanates”. As we can see, this second verse defines Brahman as the source of everything. That’s when the philosophy of the Mayavadis starts to collapse. If I say “Sergey created this car”, without defining who or what Sergey is, the logical conclusion would be that Sergey is a human being or at least some kind of conscious being, otherwise it would not be possible for him to create a car. Therefore, even without any further definition, “Sergey created this car” implies that Sergey is a person. If I say that Sergey is a lamp, it doesn’t make any sense, since lamps, rocks, and other objects don’t create cars. Since Brahman is the creator of everything, Brahman must be a person.
After understanding that Brahman is a person, where can we find more about Him? This is answered in the third sutra, “śāstra-yonitvāt”. This aphorism can be interpreted as “He is the source of the sastras” or “He can be known through the sastras”. If the first meaning is accepted, it reinforces the personal interpretation, since a lamp or any impersonal being can’t write books, and if we accept the second meaning it gives us the idea that we can understand Brahman by studying the sastras. If we study carefully the sastras we will eventually reach Srimad Bhagavatam, which offers the ultimate conclusion of the Vedas, and makes clear that the Supreme Brahman is Krsna, the son of Vasudeva, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This progression is indicated in sutra 4, “tat tu samanvayāt”, “by the harmony of different statements” (from the sastras), which again reinforces the idea that the scriptures led to a logical conclusion and that such conclusion is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
At this point, a Mayavadi could try to hold on to the idea that Brahman can’t be expressed in words, and thus any attempt to understand or define Brahman is illusory. However, this is contradicted by the 5th sutra, “īkṣater nāśabdam”, “Brahman is not inexpressible” (in words), which indicates that Brahmana can indeed be explained by words. This is reinforced by the 6th sutra, “gauṇaś cen nātma-śabdāt”. This sutra has two parts, “gauṇaś cen nā” means that even if described in words, Brahman doesn’t become covered by the material modes, because “ātma-śabdāt”, Brahman is “atma”, he is non-material and existed before the material modes were created. This contradicts the Mayavadi theory that Brahaman becomes covered by Maya when coming to this material world as an avatar. No, Brahman is always transcendental. He is a person, he has spiritual qualities and activities and He never becomes covered by Maya, even if described in words.
In this way, we can see that when the logical and direct interpretation of the verses of the Vedanta Sutra is accepted, the Mayavada philosophy is contradicted in the Vedanta Sutra itself at every step. Sankaracarya had to go to great lengths in his commentary of the Vedanta Sutra to sustain his ideas, by using an indirect and contradictory interpretation, up to the point of indirectly accusing Vyasadeva of making mistakes when writing the Vedanta Sutra. In this way, the Mayavada philosophy is based on a book that directly contradicts it right at the second line, and to counter it, they say the book has mistakes. If the book has mistakes why do they base their philosophy on it in the first place? This is just one of the many contradictions found in their philosophy.
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was able to easily defeat the greatest logicians of His time by just offering a direct and logical interpretation of the Vedanta Sutra, and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was confident he could do the same. The Mayavadis however were not so sure of their philosophical strength, since they retracted their invitation, indirectly admitting defeat before the debate even began.
After his debate with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Prakasananda Sarasvati, one of the greatest Mayavadis of his time was forced to admit that: “Whatever You have said concerning discrepancies in the Māyāvāda philosophy is also known by us. Indeed, we know that all the commentaries on Vedic scriptures by Māyāvādī philosophers are erroneous, especially those of Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya’s interpretations of the Vedānta-sūtra are all figments of his imagination. You have not explained the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra and verses of the Upaniṣads according to Your imagination but have presented them as they are. Thus we are all pleased to have heard Your explanation.”
Later he added: “We have given up the actual path of spiritual realization. We simply engage in nonsensical talk. Māyāvādī philosophers who are serious about attaining benediction should engage in the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa, but instead they take pleasure in useless argument only. We hereby admit that the explanation of Śaṅkarācārya hides the actual import of Vedic literature. Only the explanation given by Caitanya is acceptable. All other interpretations are useless.”