Gita key verses course 27 – Is the ultimate reality personal or impersonal? – Gita 07.24

Hare Krishna. So today we continue our discussion on the Bhagavad Gita. We’ll be discussing the seventh chapter, 24th text, and the topic we’ll be discussing is: Is the ultimate reality personal or impersonal?

A quick overview of what we have discussed in the previous sessions: in the last session, we discussed different Gods. The overall theme of the seventh chapter is that we are discussing how God manifests in the world. Now, continuing that thread of discussion, we are exploring how, when we start from the world and try to conceive of God, we arrive at particular conceptions and how those conceptions may not be the fullest or the most complete.

This is 7.24 in the Gita. Krishna is speaking here: avyaktam vyaktim aapannam. Avyaktam means unmanifest, and vyaktim aapannam means to become manifest. So, those who think that “I was unmanifest before, and now I have become manifest” are lacking in intelligence. They do not understand my ultimate transcendental nature. I am imperishable, and avyaya also means imperishable. Anuttamam means transcendental. Tama is darkness. I am transcendental. I am supreme. I exist beyond matter and material conceptions.

So, based on this verse, let’s begin our discussion today. I’ll be talking about three broad points. First is the inconceivable multilevel nature of the ultimate reality. Second, within this multilevel conception, we’ll examine where the impersonal conception is right and where it goes wrong. Then we’ll look at the transpersonal conception, which is Krishna.

The Inconceivable Multilevel Nature of the Ultimate Reality

When we talk about inconceivability, we can begin with our day-to-day experiences, wherein we notice that ordinary objects, as we start studying them deeper and deeper, become more and more complex. Even in science, material reality, when examined in depth, reveals layers of intricacy. For example, quantum physics is so complicated that a prominent quantum physicist once said, “If you think you have understood quantum physics, then you haven’t understood it.” The universe is not only stranger than what we imagine; it is stranger than what we can imagine.

Quantum physics, with its array of particles, makes no sense to our normal way of perceiving things, and yet, it works. The math behind it is remarkably powerful. The point here is that as we delve deeper into things, they become increasingly complex. Physical reality itself is complex—although much of it, or at least some of it, is perceivable to us through our senses. But when it comes to the ultimate reality, which is beyond the reach of our senses, it becomes even more challenging to comprehend.

One of the defining attributes of the ultimate reality is said to be that it is achintya—inconceivable. Jiva Goswami, a prominent Vaishnava Acharya from the 16th century, writes that the achintyatva (inconceivability) of the absolute truth means that the supreme is, by definition, superior to our intelligence. If we could fully understand the supreme by our intelligence, then our intelligence would itself become supreme. By definition, the supreme must surpass our intellectual capacity, meaning the absolute cannot be comprehended solely through intellectual analysis or conquest. Therefore, the ultimate reality must be approached with humility.

Why is this point important in the light of our discussion today about whether the ultimate reality is personal or impersonal? Because understanding the nature of ultimate reality is inherently complex and not easy. Some people claim the ultimate reality is personal, while others claim it is impersonal. This debate has persisted for millennia. So, what is correct?

Niels Bohr made an interesting statement: “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement, but the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” In ordinary dealings, the polarity of true and false applies. For instance, in math, 3 + 7 = 10 is true, and 3 + 7 = 11 is false. But when it comes to profound truths, the opposite of a profound truth may not be falsehood—it could be another profound truth.

The claim “God, the ultimate reality, is personal” is a profound truth. The claim “The ultimate reality is impersonal” is also a profound truth. To assert that one is right and the other is wrong oversimplifying and distorts the matter. Both have truth and reality at a profound level. That’s why we should approach this topic with humility, avoiding the notion that “my understanding is right, and yours is wrong.”

For example, personalists might consider the impersonal understanding wrong, while impersonalists might consider the personal understanding wrong. However, our understandings lie at various positions on a spectrum of rightness and wrongness. We need to carefully and humbly seek to understand things as they are.

Thus, the first point I made is that the ultimate reality is multilevel and inconceivable.

Where the Impersonal Understanding is Right—and Where it Goes Wrong

When we say something is inconceivable, does it mean it can’t be understood at all? No, it means it can’t be understood exhaustively or completely. Still, we can gain some understanding.

Let’s now explore where the impersonal understanding is valid and where it falls short. Intuitively, we know that many saints and great devotees have communed with God or experienced divine presence. When they pray, they often treat God as a person. Many have described God as a person with whom they interacted deeply.

So, the personal understanding at one level is widespread, but at another level, there is an impersonal understanding. Why might somebody think that the ultimate reality is impersonal, and what could be right or wrong about their understanding? It’s not that their understanding is entirely right or wrong, but rather that there are aspects of their understanding that are correct and others that are not so accurate.

At the very first level, one reason why people think the ultimate reality cannot have a form and cannot be a person is the belief that the ultimate reality, often referred to as God, is unlimited. Normally, when we encounter anyone with a form or personhood, they are limited. For example, if somebody has a form—say, I am situated here right now in India, near Mumbai—then I am not in America. If you are in New York, then you are not in New Zealand. Having a form inherently limits us.

Personhood also implies limitation in the sense that different people possess different qualities—everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, form is often seen as temporary. For instance, even the most attractive forms, after some years or decades, lose their attractiveness. So, if God is unlimited and not confined by space or time, how could God have a form? This line of reasoning leads people to conclude that God must be formless or impersonal.

Now, it’s true that form implies limitation, but we can turn this argument around: does formlessness make something unlimited? Consider a person living in a house—it may be an apartment or a mansion, but it is finite and has a form. Suppose someone detonates a powerful bomb, demolishing the house entirely. What remains? The form is gone, but what is left is a heap of debris. Is that debris unlimited? No, it is also limited.

So, while form may involve limitation, the removal of form does not automatically remove limitation. Therefore, if we argue that the ultimate reality must be unlimited and formless, this does not necessarily equate formlessness with unlimitedness. On the other hand, the term “formless” inherently implies “less”—a lack of something. This suggests that the ultimate reality, being formless, is deficient or devoid of form. However, form is one of the most attractive realities in the world—whether it is the form of people, objects, or products, we are naturally drawn to forms.

If form is one of the most attractive aspects of existence and the ultimate reality is the source of all existence, then claiming that the ultimate reality lacks form—something present in the very creations it has sourced—leads to a deficient understanding. In this sense, describing God as formless can also limit God, as it denies God one of the most appealing and significant aspects of existence.

That’s one perspective. Another argument raised by those who support the impersonal conception is the idea that if God has a form, why should it resemble ours? This notion is often referred to as anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism means attributing human-like form to the divine.

Some people argue that if there were a community of elephants, they would likely envision God as the largest and most majestic elephant. Similarly, a community of eagles might conceive of God as a mighty eagle. Since we are human beings, we naturally imagine God in human-like form. This reasoning suggests that our depiction of God as a person with a form is merely a product of our imagination.

This is a valid concern. If we have attributed a human-like form to God, it could indeed be a projection of our imagination. However, the critical question is: when God is worshiped in a particular way, or when the ultimate reality is conceived in a specific form, how can we determine whether that form is purely imaginary?

This brings us to an important point. While the concern about anthropomorphism is valid, it can also be a double-edged sword. The same reasoning can be turned around. Instead of saying that God’s form is anthropomorphic, we could say that our form is theomorphic. The term theomorphic implies that our form is modeled on God’s form, not that God’s form is modeled on ours.

The two ideas are significantly, if not radically, opposite. Now, we might ask: with so many forms in existence, why should our form be modeled on God’s form? The reason is that the human form, among all forms in nature, is the one that can bring us closest to God.

Here, “form” refers to species, or bodily forms. The soul evolves through various species during material existence, and the human form represents the pinnacle of this evolution. In the human form, the soul’s consciousness is most evolved, making it closest to perceiving and pursuing the ultimate reality. Thus, the human form is uniquely suited for realizing the divine and, consequently, the divine form.

Because the human form is rich with spiritual potential and pregnant with transcendental inclinations, God has arranged it to be modeled on His own form. It is not that we have imposed a particular form on God; rather, God has granted the form that is closest to attaining Him to be modeled on His own. In this sense, it is not that God is anthropomorphic, but rather that our form is theomorphic.

Now, moving forward, let’s revisit the earlier concern: if God does have a form, wouldn’t that limit Him? Not necessarily. As discussed earlier, while form may imply limitedness, formlessness does not inherently remove limitation. What truly causes limitation is not form itself but matter. Matter—whether it has form or not—is finite and limited.

This concept can be illustrated with a graph on an XY axis. On the negative Y-axis is matter or the material, while on the positive Y-axis is spirit or the spiritual. Material form, being on the negative axis, is inherently limited—finite in time and space. In contrast, a spiritual form, though it may appear limited, has the potential to be unlimited.

For example, in the pastimes of Krishna, who is revealed in the Bhagavad Gita as the ultimate reality, He often appears finite in form but performs actions that are impossible for any finite being. A classic example is the pastime where Krishna, as a child, opened His mouth to show His mother, Yashoda, the entire universe inside it.

This incident occurred when Krishna’s friends accused Him of eating mud. When Yashoda confronted Him, Krishna denied it, saying His friends were lying. She then asked Him to open His mouth, and when He did, she didn’t just see His tongue or teeth—she saw the entire universe. She saw the sky, the earth, the oceans, even Vrindavan, and herself inside Krishna.

Now, some might dismiss this as mere mythology, but to understand the conception of God as revealed in scripture, we cannot impose our own interpretations. Instead, we must see what scripture actually says. The Bhagavata Purana (or Shrimad Bhagavatam) repeatedly declares Krishna as supreme and describes His pastimes. In these pastimes, Krishna demonstrates how, despite appearing in a finite form, He is not limited by it.

God’s unlimitedness is extraordinary. He is unlimited but not confined to His unlimitedness. For instance, tall people may find their height advantageous in certain situations but inconvenient in others, such as needing to bend to pass through a door. They are “stuck” with their tallness. God, however, is not like that.

God is unlimited, but He is not restricted by His unlimitedness. For the purpose of His pastimes and to reciprocate love with His devotees, He manifests in a personal form. While this form may seem limited to us, it is not limiting to Him. For example, if God manifested only as an unlimited entity—like the sky—it would be challenging to have a personal relationship with Him. How do we hug the sky or interact with it in a meaningful way?

Thus, God, while unlimited, can manifest in a form that appears limited but is not bound by those limitations. This is because His form is spiritual. Spirit has the potential to be unlimited, even while appearing limited.

This brings us to the earlier point about the inconceivable nature of the ultimate reality. How can something have a form and still be unlimited? This is not easy for us to conceive, which is why it is often described as inconceivable.

To explore this further, let us examine the concept of the spiritual form as presented in scripture. Impersonalists may quote that the ultimate reality, or Brahman, is described as Nirguna (without qualities) and Nirakar (without form). However, the same scriptures also contain vivid descriptions of the divine form. Great devotees and saints have glorified this form in their verses, and it is adored and worshipped.

So, both descriptions—the ultimate reality as formless and as possessing form—exist in scripture. What does this mean? To reconcile these apparent contradictions, we turn to a hermeneutical principle called Arthapatti.

Hermeneutics refers to the art of interpreting texts, particularly scriptural ones. Arthapatti is a strategy used to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements. Consider a traditional example: there is a young man named Devdutt. One statement says, “Devdutt doesn’t eat any food throughout the day.” Another statement says, “Devdutt’s weight is increasing.” These two statements seem contradictory because, if someone doesn’t eat, their weight should decrease.

If we know both statements are true, we must reconcile them by postulating a third statement. In this case, we might infer that Devdutt eats at night, which explains both his weight gain and his fasting during the day.

To resolve the contradiction using Arthapatti (postulation), the third statement would be: “Devdutt eats secretly at night.” This reconciles the apparent contradiction between the statements “Devdutt does not eat during the day” and “Devdutt’s weight is increasing.” Similarly, scripture contains two seemingly contradictory assertions:

1. The ultimate reality has no form.
2. The ultimate reality has a form.

How do we reconcile this? The Arthapatti here is that the ultimate reality has no material form but does possess a spiritual form. The statements about formlessness refer to the absence of a material form, while the statements about form refer to the existence of a non-material or spiritual form.

On the “negative axis” (material reality), there is no form. However, on the “positive axis” (spiritual reality), there is profound existence. This leads to the term transpersonal.

Often, the term impersonal may be misunderstood to imply “less than a person,” while the term personal might suggest that God is a person like us. The term transpersonal, however, captures the transcendental nature of God as a being who is more than a person. This means that:

• God’s impersonal aspect does not lack personality.
• God’s personal aspect is not limited to a personality like ours.

The ultimate reality is thus transpersonal, a holistic understanding that encompasses both the personal and impersonal aspects:

• Personal: God has form, but it is spiritual, existing on the positive axis.
• Impersonal: God is not bound by a personality similar to ours, nor limited by material constraints.

This understanding can be seen in the Shrimad Bhagavatam (Canto 8, Chapter 3, Verse 39), where the devotee Gajendra prays to the ultimate reality for protection. In his prayer, Gajendra refers to the divine as both Arupaya (without form) and Ururupaya (with many forms):

• Arupaya: No form.
• Ururupaya: Many forms.

How can the same ultimate reality be described as having no form and many forms? Gajendra then describes this ultimate reality as performing astounding deeds (karma). The reconciliation is that God has a spiritual form—one that is not material—and this form is capable of extraordinary, inconceivable actions.

This brings us to the transpersonal conception. So far, we’ve discussed:

1. The inconceivable nature of the ultimate reality.
2. The limitations and completeness of the impersonal conception.
3. The transpersonal understanding that reconciles the two.

Let’s now delve deeper into this transpersonal conception using a classic verse from the Shrimad Bhagavatam (1.2.11):

“Those who know the truth declare that the ultimate reality is one, but it is perceived in three ways: Brahman (the impersonal aspect), Paramatma (the localized aspect), and Bhagavan (the personal aspect).”

The ultimate reality is singular but can be perceived differently depending on one’s perspective. A helpful metaphor for understanding this is the experience of a cake.

Imagine you’re in a room, and from the kitchen nearby, you catch the fragrance of a cake. Intrigued, you move closer to the kitchen and see the cake. Finally, you’re offered a piece, and when you taste it, you experience the fullness of the cake.

In this analogy:

• The fragrance represents the impersonal aspect of the ultimate reality (Brahman), which is distant and abstract.
• The shape of the cake represents the localized aspect (Paramatma), which is closer and more defined.
• The taste represents the personal aspect (Bhagavan), which is the most complete and intimate experience.

The cake remains one object throughout, but your experience of it changes based on your proximity and interaction. Similarly, the ultimate reality is one, but the level of perception varies:

1. Brahman is the aspect of eternal existence (Sat)—it is the underlying, unchanging reality amidst the flux of the material world.
2. Paramatma is the aspect of consciousness (Chit)—the divine presence that pervades and observes all existence.
3. Bhagavan is the aspect of bliss (Ananda)—the personal and loving form of the ultimate reality.

These three aspects—Sat, Chit, and Ananda—are inherent attributes of the ultimate reality. They are also what every living being inherently seeks:

• Sat: The desire to live eternally.
• Chit: The thirst for knowledge and understanding.
• Ananda: The longing for happiness and fulfillment.

Thus, the ultimate reality, being complete in Sat, Chit, and Ananda, fulfills the deepest aspirations of every soul.

This analogy and explanation deepen our understanding of the transpersonal conception, illustrating how God encompasses both personal and impersonal aspects while transcending them entirely.

The ultimate reality can be perceived at varying levels of proximity and depth. Let us explore this step-by-step with an analogy of experiencing a cake:

1. Distant Perception – Eternal Existence (Brahman):
   When perceived from a distance, the first aspect of the ultimate reality that thoughtful seekers notice is its eternal existence. Across different spiritual traditions, the initial realization is often not of a personal or relational ultimate reality but rather of something that exists beyond this temporary material world.

Similarly, when we sense the fragrance of a cake from afar, it is still the same cake, but our experience of it is limited to its aroma. In the context of the ultimate reality, when only the eternal aspect is perceived, it is referred to as Brahman or Brahmajyoti. This impersonal realization is the understanding of the ultimate reality as eternal existence (Sat).

2. Closer Perception – Consciousness and Awareness (Paramatma):
   As one draws closer to the ultimate reality, they begin to perceive not just its existence but also its consciousness. The ultimate reality is seen as overseeing and organizing the world with intelligence and design. This aspect reflects the divine as an observer and supervisor.

The Bhagavad Gita (13.23) describes this as:

“Upadrashta Anumanta cha”
Meaning, the ultimate reality oversees and permits the functioning of the world.

In the cake analogy, this is like moving closer and perceiving its shape. Similarly, at this stage, the seeker perceives the ultimate reality as Paramatma, the localized aspect of God who is both immanent in the world and aware of it.

3. Innermost Perception – Joyful and Loving Personality (Bhagavan):
   When one comes even closer to the ultimate reality, they experience its most intimate aspect—that of a sentient being who is not just a neutral judge or overseer but a source of joy, love, and reciprocation. This is the Ananda aspect of the ultimate reality, wherein the divine is understood as Bhagavan, the personal and relational God who engages in loving pastimes with His devotees.

In the analogy, this is like tasting the cake, which offers the fullest and most fulfilling experience. Similarly, realizing the ultimate reality as Bhagavan is the most complete understanding, where Sat (existence), Chit (consciousness), and Ananda (bliss) are fully realized.

Transition from Impersonal to Personal:

The aspect of Paramatma serves as a transition point between the impersonal (Brahman) and the personal (Bhagavan). When someone is “in office,” such as a military leader or a judge, they might appear neutral or distant because they focus on duties and rules. However, this does not mean they lack emotions or personal relationships outside their professional role. Similarly, the Paramatma aspect reflects the divine in an overseeing capacity, where personal interactions are not prominent but still latent.

Names and Nomenclature of the Ultimate Reality:

The ultimate reality is known by various names, such as Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan, Ishvara, and Jagdish. In a generic sense, all these names can refer to the same absolute truth. However, in a technical sense, these names are used to describe specific attributes or realizations:

• Brahman: Refers to the impersonal aspect, where the ultimate reality is perceived as eternal existence.
• Paramatma: Refers to the localized aspect, where the ultimate reality is seen as the overseer of the world.
• Bhagavan: Refers to the personal aspect, where the ultimate reality is understood as a source of love and joy.

Using the cake analogy:

• At a distance, one perceives only the fragrance (Brahman), but the cake still retains its shape and taste.
• Closer inspection reveals the shape (Paramatma).
• Finally, tasting the cake reveals its flavor (Bhagavan).

At all stages, the cake remains whole. Similarly, the ultimate reality is always complete as Sat-Chit-Ananda (eternity, knowledge, and bliss). It is only our perception that is partial or incomplete at different stages.

Application in Traditions:

In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, specific nomenclature emphasizes these distinct realizations:

1. Brahman realization is the pursuit of the impersonal aspect, focusing on eternal existence.
2. Paramatma realization highlights the awareness of God overseeing the universe.
3. Bhagavan realization focuses on the personal and relational aspect of God.

In some contexts, Brahman may also be used generically to refer to the ultimate reality. For instance, in Gajendra’s prayers, the term Brahman is used to refer to Vishnu. Similarly, in the Madhva tradition, a treatise titled Brahman is Vishnu elaborates on the equivalence of Brahman and Vishnu.

By understanding these levels of perception and their corresponding nomenclature, we gain a clearer insight into the multifaceted nature of the ultimate reality, allowing us to appreciate both its impersonal vastness and personal intimacy.

So, Brahman doesn’t necessarily always, when it is used in scripture, refer to the impersonal aspect. Sometimes the word Brahman is a generic reference, and it can be used to refer to the personal aspect also. But within the technical analysis that is done to understand the different levels of the absolute, there is a particular nomenclature that is used. So, within this nomenclature, Brahman is the name used for the ultimate reality, which is only pursued as the eternal. Paramatma is the name used for the ultimate reality, which is pursued as eternal and cognizant. And Bhagavan is the term used for the ultimate reality, which is eternal, cognizant, and blissful.

Having said this, sometimes Krishna may be referred to as Paramatma. Why? Because these names, when they are not used in a technical context, are generic references to the absolute truth in its completeness. So now, another way to understand this point is that when the ultimate reality is perceived as mere existence, then there are no material potencies and no spiritual potencies.

What do we mean by material and spiritual potencies? This is, again, Jiva Goswami’s analysis in the Sandarbhas, that when there is simply existence, this world is like a temporary illusion, and the ultimate reality has nothing to do with this world. So, the ultimate reality exists because this world is an illusion. When we wake up from a dream, the dream has no reality. Similarly, the ultimate reality has nothing to do with this.

When the ultimate reality is perceived simply as existence with no material potencies or spiritual potencies, that conception is called Brahman. Paramatma is the conception of the ultimate reality where it has material potencies, meaning it is overseeing the material world. That is the Paramatma conception. And the ultimate reality as having both material and spiritual potencies is Bhagavan. Bhagavan is that aspect where, yes, there is a Lord who controls this world and oversees this world, but then the Lord also has qualities and attributes which are completely non-material.

He has a form, He has a personality, which are all spiritual, and with which He reciprocates with His devotees in the spiritual world. So here, when we say material potencies, “potency” can include form, personality, qualities, and activities. Brahman has no material potencies in the sense that there is no material form. Now, does Bhagavan have a material form? Not exactly a material form, but He has a form that can manifest even in the material world.

When Krishna comes, His form is not material, but it manifests in the material world. And Krishna can control, and He does control, material things. That is, spiritual doesn’t mean that He has nothing to do with the material or that He can’t do anything material. It means He is not entangled or contaminated by the material, but He does control material things. So that is Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan—the three levels.

Now, the concluding point here with respect to concept and nomenclature is that Krishna is both the highest manifestation of the absolute truth and the whole absolute truth. This means, in this particular diagram we discussed earlier, Krishna can refer to the ultimate reality. For example, when Krishna says to Arjuna that He—Krishna—is standing before Arjuna, and Krishna says to Arjuna that nothing exists beyond Him, in Bhagavad Gita 10.39, He says, “Nothing would exist without Me.”

So, when He says this, what does it mean? He is referring to Himself as the ultimate reality: “By Me, all of existence is pervaded.” Now, when Krishna is saying this, how do we make sense of it? Krishna is present in front of Arjuna on his chariot, so Krishna is in one place. Then how is He pervading everything?

There are times when the word Krishna is used, and Krishna is referring to Himself. So, the word Krishna can refer to the ultimate reality in all the manifestations—Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan. And sometimes, when Krishna says, “Come to Me,” that means, “Don’t go there.” When you come to Me—if the ultimate reality is everywhere—then what is the point of Krishna saying, “Come to Me”? What is the point of saying, “Surrender to Me and come to Me,” when He is everywhere?

Or Krishna says that you will attain Him if you understand His transcendental pastimes in truth, then you will come to Him. Now, if Krishna is everywhere, what is the meaning of coming to Him? Here, when Krishna is using “Me,” He is referring not to Krishna as the ultimate reality but to Krishna in the feature of Bhagavan. That is, although God exists everywhere, that doesn’t mean He does not exist at a particular place.

In His Brahman manifestation, He pervades all of existence. As Bhagavan, He is present at a particular place, where by that presence, He reciprocates loving relationships and loving pastimes with His devotees. So Krishna refers to both the ultimate reality as well as the topmost manifestation of the ultimate reality—that is, the Bhagavan aspect.

So again, based on context, we need to understand what, in the Bhagavad Gita as well as in other scriptures, when the word Krishna is used or “Maam” is used when Krishna is speaking, is it referring to?

This is a technical and profound subject, but essentially, the concluding point would be that Krishna, God, is both personal and impersonal—He is transpersonal.

To summarize, we can take your questions. Today, I discussed the topic: Is the ultimate reality personal or impersonal? I started by talking about the inconceivable nature of the ultimate reality. Even matter, when studied deeply, is too complex, as seen in quantum physics. So what to speak of the transcendental reality, which is not perceivable?

It is not simplistic to say the ultimate reality is personal or impersonal. The opposite of one profound truth—”God is personal”—is another profound truth—”God is impersonal.” Both are profound, and we need to approach the ultimate reality with humility.

Then, we discussed what “inconceivable” means—beyond our intelligence. By definition, our intelligence alone cannot conquer or comprehend the absolute fully. We then discussed where the impersonal conception is right and where it goes wrong. We discussed four points:

1. Forms are limited, and the ultimate truth is unlimited. That is true.
2. Just formlessness doesn’t make anything unlimited. A house can be demolished, but the debris doesn’t become unlimited.
3. If you say something is formless, it is deprived—it is less.
4. If form is very attractive in this world, how can the source of this world not have that which is most attractive?

Lastly, we discussed how Krishna’s form is spiritual and beyond material limitations, as seen in His pastimes and descriptions in the scriptures.

So, the Arthapatti is that God has no material form but has a spiritual form, so Arupaya and Uruupaya come from Rajendra’s pastime. The last part was more technical about how the three levels of the Absolute can be explained using the cake metaphor. The cake may be pursued only in terms of fragrance—that’s like pursuing the ultimate truth only in terms of eternal existence. This refers to the Brahman aspect of ultimate reality: pure existence without any potencies, just mere existence.

Then, when the ultimate reality is said to have potencies to control and orchestrate this world, that is the Paramatma conception, where Sat and Chit are perceived. Finally, Sat, Chit, and Ananda together represent the ultimate reality reciprocating love and gaining joy through it, which is the Bhagawan aspect. Within the Gaudiya Vaishnava analysis, Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagawan are technical terms that signify particular conceptions of the Absolute.

Otherwise, generically, Brahman can also refer to the ultimate reality. In essence, Brahman also refers to Krishna. Additionally, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna sometimes refers to himself as the transpersonal Absolute and, at other times, as the complete material reality. Ultimately, God is not just personal in the sense of having limitations like us, and God is not impersonal in the sense of being less than a person. Rather, God is transpersonal.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

Okay, so how do we understand the manifestation of the Lord as the Devatas? The Devatas are manifestations not in the sense that they are non-different from him, but rather in the sense that some of his power is manifested in them to a significant degree. Thus, it is not said that the Devatas are entirely the same as the Divine. There are various levels of manifestation.

We will talk about this in more technical detail in a future session. But for now, there are the manifestations of Krishna or Vishnu, such as Ram, Narasimha, Varaha, and Vamana, who are non-different from the Absolute—they are all equally God and equally the ultimate reality. However, there is also one supreme being, God, and then there are other manifestations at intermediate levels.

We humans also manifest as sparks of God and exhibit some potency of God, but the potency we manifest is far less than what the Gods or Devatas manifest. However, what Krishna or Vishnu manifests is the fullest. The Devatas are manifestations in the sense that some of his potencies are manifest in them.

Why do impersonalists (rankaris) have so many followers? Well, it’s not exactly that impersonalists themselves have many followers. It is more that spiritual teachers, who do not demand their followers to follow many rules but still give them an appearance of spirituality—a feeling that they are being religious and connected with God—attract a lot of people.

If you observe, most impersonalists with mass followings talk about bhakti in their discourses. They may claim that the ultimate reality is niraka nirva, but in their talks, they often describe the leelas and bhakti as a way to Brahman or mukti. However, this is not a scriptural understanding; it is their own concocted idea. They use bhakti as a tool in an impersonal mode.

What attracts mass followings is not their philosophy but their bhakti, even though it may lack scriptural alignment. Often, such leaders proclaim themselves as God because they interpret that everyone is Brahman. They assert, “I am realized Brahma; you are not yet realized Brahma, so you worship me as Brahma.”

This is why they have people chanting their names in bhajans and recounting the leelas of their gurus, whom they consider divine. It is not possible to talk much about Brahman itself because of its abstract and philosophical nature. Instead, they lean on relational and devotional concepts to sustain discussions. Moreover, their laxity in rules allows people to feel spiritual without surrendering to a rigorous practice.

Now, we cannot gauge the correctness of a conception by the number of followers it has. Materialistic people have always been more numerous than spiritual ones throughout history, but this does not imply materialism is right or spirituality is wrong. This world is a place of maya (illusion), and it takes intelligence to pursue reality. Advertisements often make false claims, yet many people are persuaded by them. Similarly, incorrect or incompletely correct ideas can also gain mass followings.

Thank you.

Now, about the path of devotion—can one start with the Brahman realization and then gradually progress through Paramatma to Bhagawan? In the path of devotion, we start with the Bhagawan conception itself. When practicing bhakti, we worship Krishna in his deity form. However, while worshipping Krishna, we may not fully appreciate or understand Krishna’s true nature.

On the other hand, someone following an impersonal path and pursuing or realizing Brahman might be more realized in the temporary nature of material things. This is in contrast to someone worshipping Krishna but being infatuated with temporary things and seeking them from Krishna.

So now, when we are on our spiritual path, does a devotee first consciously realize the Brahman aspect, then the Paramatma aspect, and then the Bhagawan aspect? Well, these aspects are not like three discrete things. It is not that Brahman is here, Paramatma is here, and Bhagawan is here. They are all one reality. As devotees, it could be that we go through a progressive realization. For example, we are practicing bhakti, and while practicing bhakti, we slowly start realizing that there is something eternal beyond the temporary.

Maybe we go to some sacred place, and there we see magnificent temples. By simply seeing the height of the temples, we start thinking there is something beyond all this—something eternal. Now, of course, because it is connected with Krishna, it is not simply a Brahman realization. But if you just appreciate the eternity of something beyond the temporality of the various things in the world, we could say that is, in some ways, an appreciation of the Brahman realization, the Brahman aspect of the Absolute.

Then the Paramatma is the ultimate reality with material potencies—not attributes, but potencies. So then, say in the course of our life, when we face difficulties and terrible things happen, we wonder, “Why is this happening to me?” But then we see that, even through bad things, something good comes out, and we understand there was a plan, there was a purpose. When we see that things were purposefully orchestrated, and even from the bad, good came, and we see the hand of God in that, then that is, in some ways, realizing the Paramatma aspect.

When we see God’s hand leading us through darkness to light in this world, that is the Paramatma aspect. Then, say, when we experience non-material divine devotional joy independent of our material situation—so we might be in great anxiety, materially very sick and in pain, but then we start glorifying Krishna, we start hearing about Krishna, speaking about Krishna, singing about Krishna, and we experience non-material joy independent of whatever our material situation is. Even if it is not resolved, we experience a flood of love for Krishna and attraction for Krishna within us—then that could be said to be an experience of Bhagawan.

Now, will these be linear? No, they can all happen in parallel. We can be relishing the personal aspect of the Absolute and, at the same time, getting a deeper realization of the eternity of that being, the eternal reality beyond. So devotees will not necessarily go through Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagawan realizations in a strict sequence. Devotees already have a Bhagawan conception through the practice or study of devotional books. During our spiritual journey, we realize different aspects of the divine. Ultimately, of course, we realize the personal aspect of the Absolute.

Do souls in animal bodies also have a spiritual form? If animals also have souls, why is the enjoyment they pursue limited compared to what humans seek? It is because, firstly, the soul is the same, but the consciousness—the extent to which it is expressed—depends on the body. Just like if there is a light source, a bulb covered by a very thick film, the light that comes out may be very diffused and not very bright. But if the bulb is covered by a very thin film, the light that comes out is brighter.

The soul enters an animal body because it has a lot of material conditioning and desires for material pleasures. Because of this, spiritual consciousness doesn’t manifest much. In the human form, however, the soul has evolved through various lower species, and now it has the opportunity for spiritual growth. That is why there is a greater manifestation of consciousness in humans, which enables a greater variety of ways to pursue pleasure.

We can experience more pleasure when we are awake than when we are asleep. For example, if someone is singing a lullaby to put a baby to sleep, it can be comforting. But the beauty and the melody of the lullaby can only be truly relished when the person is awake. Wakefulness and sleep represent different levels of consciousness.

When there is greater consciousness, there is a greater capacity to experience life and enjoy it. The soul itself is always what it is, but its consciousness changes. The soul’s spiritual form is latent within it, and the soul’s spiritual form manifests when it returns to the spiritual world. But right now, whether it is in a human body or an animal body, the soul exists in the form of a spark. The soul is described as being 1/10,000th the tip of a hair in size, which is how the soul is in all bodies, human or non-human. The manifestation of consciousness differs in different bodies.

Now, we explained pantheism, panentheism, and theism.

Pantheism is the idea that everything is God. This means there is no specific God with a particular form, and there is no divinity beyond nature—the universe itself is divine. Pantheism is different from impersonalism, though. Impersonalism holds that God is non-material and that the ultimate reality is distributed across all of existence, but the ultimate reality is spiritual. Pantheism may not have that idea; it could be materialistic. For example, atheistic scientists who say, “For me, the universe is God” or “The law of gravity is everywhere, and therefore, the law of gravity is like God for me,” don’t conceive of God the way religious traditions do. Pantheism could thus mean that matter itself is God for materialists.

For a spiritualist, pantheism could mean that, like Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, “Vasudeva sarvam iti”—everything is Krishna. However, this is not a pantheistic statement in the typical sense because for spiritualists, the concept of God goes beyond just being all-encompassing.

Panentheism is the idea that God is everything, but God is also something more—that is, everything manifests God, but God also has his own personal manifestation.

Theism is a Western interpretation of the Indian spiritual tradition. When European scholars came to India, they observed the multiplicity of gods being worshipped and the impersonal concept of reality. They concluded that the ultimate reality is impersonal, but it can be conceived of in whichever form we want. So, the impersonal reality can be worshipped through various forms. This is called henotheism, where the form is seen as a transitional tool to attain the formless Absolute.

In this way, most impersonalist paths that are popular are not openly monistic (monism being the belief that there is only one substance or ultimate reality) but are often henotheistic.

So they have their idea of worshipping God, and because they are quite, they seem to be quite liberal. You don’t have to worship one particular form; you worship any form, and you can worship. The guru might say that I am also Brahman, you can worship my form also. So henotheism is the idea that we can worship God, we can worship the ultimate through any form that we want because ultimately the form, the ultimate is formless, and the form is just a conceptual, just a transitional conceptual tool.

Now sometimes personalists may also become Brahman worshippers. Why is that? Well, if that happens, that’s not because the Brahman conception is higher than or more relishable than the Bhagawan conception; rather it is because sometimes those who are worshipping from Bhagawan, they might be judgmental, they might be condescending, they might be holier-than-thou. So atheism, for example, is not like a very attractive or fulfilling doctrine. 

The main reason for atheism is not because atheism is attractive but because these are often unattractive, even repulsive people—extreme people who encounter sentimentality or fanaticism among these theistic followers, they become atheistic. So similarly, somebody who experiences narrow-mindedness, bigotry, or sectarianism, extremism among those who are following the bhakti path or worshipping a personal aspect, then if people encounter such people, that will repel them. So that’s how sometimes people who are following a personal path might go towards impersonalism—not because the personal conception is less attractive and impersonal more attractive, but because sometimes the personal worshippers, because they are neophytes, they are new, they’re immature, they might repel people.

Yes, and this relates with the next question about sometimes, although we are personalists, our behavior is impersonal. Yes, that happens because there is this tendency to become self-righteous, if I think that I know what is right and this is wrong. So sometimes we, as those who are devoted to God, we are meant to manifest the love and compassion of God first, not his wrath or his judgment. Yes, God gives wisdom, and based on the wisdom, judgment is to be made, but devotion is primarily about love and compassion, not about judgment and condemnation. But sometimes what happens while practicing bhakti, because bhakti involves surrender, surrender involves following certain rules and regulations, which are important for a serious practice of bhakti and developing a personal relationship with Krishna, but because we do this, we might become quite self-righteous and proud. “I am following this. I have the correct understanding, and I have the correct practices, and you have an incorrect understanding. You have an incorrect practice.” 

So there are two aspects to any spiritual path that is what is called a doxy and praxis. Doxy is with respect to doctrine or beliefs or philosophical understanding, and praxis refers to practices. So when we practice bhakti, we become quite judgmental about, “My understanding is right, and my practice is right. Your understanding is wrong. Your practices are wrong.” So our spirituality is meant to make us more empathic. Everybody is so like us. Everybody has conditions like us. Their conditions may be different from our conditions, but everybody is struggling, and we all need to help each other. 

But sometimes our spirituality, instead of forming a bridge between us and others, says, “The other person is here, I am here,” so they are forming a bridge between us. It forms a barricade between us, a blockage between us. Why? I am high. We place ourselves on top of the barricade and say, “I am pure, you are impure. I am right, you are wrong.” So impersonal tendency comes largely because of judgmentality. Also, it may come because within the path of bhakti, we may have a superficial understanding of bhakti. Bhakti is not just about what we do, but also about how we do. So we may want to do lots of services for Krishna, and in wanting to do a lot of things for Krishna, we may neglect people. We neglect the devotees of Krishna. We trample over them. We may use and then discard them, and you did the service, now I don’t care for you. 

So when we think of success in bhakti only in terms of targets and goals and achievements and projects, then what happens is we are doing it for Krishna, but actually, what Krishna wants the most is not projects. What Krishna wants is people. Krishna wants us, and Krishna wants other devotees. All the projects are meant for Krishna. Krishna doesn’t want temples in this world. Krishna wants the souls in this world to come to him. Even the most magnificent temple in the world, eventually, it is going to—because of the nature of material things in the world being temporary—that temple is going to be affected by the ravages of time. So anyways, that was the answer to that question—that sometimes, because of being too project-oriented, we might neglect devotees, and that’s how we become impersonal.

So how is negation of the absolute truth also absolute? Well, I didn’t say that exactly—that negation of the absolute truth is absolute. What it means is in the context, what I meant was that there is a personal aspect and an impersonal aspect, and both of them are true. It is not that every negation is itself an absolute truth. That if we say, “Krishna is Krishna is all-attractive,” and somebody says that “Krishna is unattractive,” that is not the absolute. That is not the correct understanding. It is not that for every positive attribute, its opposite is also applying. It also applies to Krishna. No, Krishna is inclusive of everything, but at the same time, he manifests some things. No, so Krishna is—Krishna is beautiful. Now does that—now if Krishna includes everything, does that mean Krishna is the opposite of beauty? Is ugliness, so the negation of beauty will be ugliness? 

So is Krishna ugly? Well, not exactly. Krishna can also manifest a form which is ferocious, like Narasimhadev. That’s not exactly ugly. It’s scary, but for a devotee, it’s not scary. For those who are demoniac, it’s scary. So it’s not that the negation of the absolute truth is also absolute. It’s just that the personal conception and the impersonal conception—it’s not that one is right and the other is wrong. Both are right because the absolute truth is neither personal nor impersonal; it is transpersonal. So normally, by negation of worldly things, one can get to a transcendence. So there’s form. The forms captivate us. “No, for this form is not real. Then what is real?” So negation in the domain of matter can take us to a transcendence, and in some analytical ways, we could say that the absolute truth is so inclusive that even the opposite attributes are included in it. But that doesn’t mean that every negation of the absolute truth is itself an absolute.

Does Krishna stabilize the faith of sadhakas who are worshipping self-proclaimed godmen who claim that they are God? Krishna works in mysterious ways, and one aspect of worshipping him is to understand that he is inconceivable. So then we make choices. It’s not that every choice that we meet is what Krishna wants us to make that choice. But so we might make wrong choices, we might make mistakes, and those mistakes are because of our own desires. So now, Krishna is so expert that he can use our mistakes for helping. He can even use our mistakes to take us forward. 

So with respect to, say, somebody, somebody starts to worship, starts coming in contact with a person who claims to be God. So now, it could be that that person is just a spiritual seeker, but maybe because of their family, their culture, their context, that was the path they encountered the first time. So now, in this case, what will happen? They may explore it, and Krishna will guide them. So now, how deep should they explore it? It depends. They may explore that path, but Krishna is there with them, and what is necessary for their spiritual evolution, Krishna will do. Sometimes, somebody has to go deep into a particular path to get jolted out of it. “Hey, this doesn’t make sense at all.” But some people explore a little bit and understand, “This doesn’t make sense.” So each person is different, and each person is on their own level in their spiritual evolution, and whatever is appropriate for them, Krishna does that. So sometimes, a person has to—they quickly understand something is wrong. Sometimes they have to go a long way off to understand that something is wrong. But either way, Krishna is always with them, and Krishna is guiding them. So in that sense, Krishna is like the ultimate GPS. So GPS, we are going on a particular road, and the GPS says, “Turn right.” Then if we turn left, GPS doesn’t abandon us. GPS will keep still telling. GPS will okay, now reroute and go from here. But if you keep going left, GPS will keep rerouting. Of course, it will take us a long time for us to reach the destination, but GPS will keep rerouting. So Krishna is like that. Krishna does not plan our mistakes, but Krishna’s plan includes our mistakes. Krishna doesn’t want us to make those mistakes. So it is not that Krishna is giving us faith in something which is not good for us, but sometimes that’s what is required for us to grow.

So from our perspective, if we know someone who is worshipping some godman who claims to be God, or is worshipping some teacher who is as if they are God, that teacher is God, then we need to see what is the best role that we can play in a mode of service to Krishna. Is it that we can at that stage, with patience, with gentleness, with logic, challenge their conceptions and help them evolve to a higher conception? Or sometimes, it might be that at this stage, they’re not open to hearing anything else. Then maybe, so we—then maybe we just maintain a good rapport with them, try to have a good working relationship with them, and eventually when the right time comes, we can play a role in helping them come to a better understanding. 

So generally, just like when we enter into a lake, first we put our maybe toe in to see how cold it is. So like that, we need to—we need to explore, we need to test the pulse to understand how best we can play our part. So Krishna is playing his part, and Krishna’s part may be that he may sometimes give them the necessary conviction to go along that path, or he may give them the understanding by which they can change course. And by testing the pulse, we can move forward and gain a better understanding of how best we can play a part in Krishna’s plan.

So thank you very much. Hare Krishna.