According to Osho, yes—it’s a compromise. By insisting on an incomplete truth, Shankara must concede the denied side of reality by naming it ‘maya,’ ‘inexpressible,’ or ‘utilitarian truth.’ Since what-is inevitably asserts itself, he’s forced into conceptual adjustments. In contrast, Krishna is ‘uncompromising’ because he embraces both dimensions of reality simultaneously, needing no after-the-fact compromise.
If you ignore part of life, it still shows up, so you call it ‘indescribable’ to fit it in; accepting everything avoids that.