Text 194] The Cleansing of the Gundicd Temple 95
SYNONYMS

tomara—Your; siddhanta-sanga—acceptance of the conclusion; kare—does;
yei jane—the person who; eka—one; vastu—substance; vind—except; sei—
such a person; dvitiya—a second thing; nahi mane—does not accept.

TRANSLATION

“One who participates in Your impersonal monistic philosophy does not

accept anything but the one Brahman.”
PURPORT

The impersonal monist does not believe that God is the only object of worship
and that the living entities are His eternal servants. According to the monists, God
and the devotee may be separate in the material state, but when they are
spiritually situated, there is no difference between them. This is called advaita-sid-
dhanta, the conclusion of the monists. Monists consider devotional service of the
Lord to be material activity; therefore they consider such devotional activities to
be the same as karma, or fruitive activity. This monistic mistake is a great stum-
bling block on the road to devotional service.

Actually this discussion between Advaita Acarya and Nityananda was a mock
fight to serve as a great instruction for all devotees. Sri Nityananda Prabhu wanted
to point out that Advaita Acarya, a pure devotee, did not agree with the monistic
conclusion. The conclusion of devotional service is:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvam yaj jidnam advayam
brahmeti paramatmeti
bhagavan iti sabdyate
“Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual sub-
stance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan.” (Bhag. 1.2.11)

Absolute knowledge consists of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. This con-
clusion is not the same as that of the monists. Srila Advaita Acarya was given the
title of acarya because He spread the bhakti cult, not the philosophy of monism.
The true conclusion of advaita-siddhanta is not the same as the philosophy of the
monists. Here advaita-siddhanta means advaya-jfiadna, or oneness in variety. Ac-
tually Srila Nityananda Prabhu was praising Srila Advaita Acarya through friendly
mock fighting. He was giving the Vaisnava conclusion in terms of the
Bhagavatam’s conclusive words, vadanti tat tattva-vidas. This is also the conclusion
of a mantra in the Chandogya Upanisad, ekam evadvitiyam.

A devotee knows that there is oneness in diversity. The mantras of the sdstras
do not support the monistic conclusions of the impersonalists, nor does Vaisnava
philosophy accept impersonalism without variety. Brahman is the greatest, He
