A Look at the Personal Nature of God

Please also visit Hari Katha   on FB 
 

Radha and Krishna

Krishna also says, “Those who focus their minds on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with intense spiritual faith, are considered by Me to be most perfect.” (BG 12.2)
 
00

 


Healthy Love
As healthy love is out-going, the bhakta [devotee] will reject all suggestions that the God one loves is oneself, even one’s deepest Self, and insist on God’s otherness. As a devotional classic puts the point….

“I want to taste sugar; I don’t want to be sugar.”

Can water quaff itself?
Can trees taste of the fruit they bear?
He who worships God must stand distinct from Him,
So only shall he know the joyful love of God;
For if he say that God and he are one,
That joy, that love, shall vanish instantly away.
Pray no more for utter oneness with God:
Where were the beauty if jewel and setting were one?
The heat and the shade are two,
If not, where were the comfort of shade?
Mother and child are two,
If not, where were the love?
When after being sundered, they meet,
What joy do they feel, the mother and child!
Where were joy, if the two were one?
Pray, then, no more for utter oneness with God.

Poem by Tukaram

Why impersonalist oneness philosophers don’t see the whole picture.
Looking through most Bhgavad Gitas carefully, we notice that most translators misunderstood the basic teaching: that God is a person, Krishna, and that the goal of life is to develop love for Him. Instead, these “Gitas” claimed that God is an abstract force, an impersonal entity that lies beyond the purview of the senses. The commentators squeezed this out of the Sanskrit itself and often made it the focus of their analyses. The subtle element which makes them do this, is also due to their atheistic nature.

As Krishna Himself says in the Bhagavad Gita

avyaktam vyaktim apannam / manyante mam abuddhayah param bhavam ajananto / mamavyayam anuttamam

The unintelligent consider that I, who am unmanifest and beyond mundane existence, take birth like an ordinary human being. They do not know the supreme, excellent, immutable
and transcendental nature of My form, birth, pastimes and qualities. Bhagavad Gita 7.24

naham prakasah sarvasya
yoga-maya-samavritah
mudho ‘yam nabhijanati
loko mam ajam avyayam

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible.
Bhagavad Gita 7.25

Gods eternal form is not material

Meaning of Unborn: His personal form is transcendental to any material body, His existence is not dependent on a material covering “For example, It looks as if the sun is coming out of the ocean at sunrise, but we all know that this is not so”

There are hundreds of Vedic texts which describe The Absolute as personal and countless verses are spoken by Lord Sri Krishna Himself. We should also understand that Sri Krishna was there before any philosopher came and promoted his own understanding.

Therefore we are not interested on what they have to say, we only take knowledge from Krishna who is described in all the Vedas as the first and foremost person, the oldest
of all.

Something impersonal does not speak, but Krishna sung the Bhagavad Gita 5000 years ago.

And yet, despite the Gita’s emphasis on God’s personhood, the impersonalist dimension of the Gita has become more popular. Teachers in the Krishna conscious tradition suggest that the desire to depersonalize God comes, on a subliminal level, from the desire to avoid surrender. After all, if God is a person, then questions of submission and subservience come into play. If God is a formless abstraction, we can philosophize about it without a sense of commitment, without the fear of having to acknowledge our duty to a higher being. Then again, maybe the popularity of the impersonal conception, at least in relation to the Gita, can be traced, plain and simple, to inadequate knowledge of Sanskrit. Something impersonal does not speak, but Krishna sung the Bhagavad Gita 5000 years ago.

Why we foist formlessness on God and on all spiritual phenomena

There are billions of snowflakes and each and every snowflake has its own beautiful and individual shape and pattern

Form is everywhere, from mountain to snowflake. Everything has form. Even invisible things have shape. Consider the atom: Though we don’t see it, we knowit occupies definite space, and with the proper equipment we can perceive it. Deep down we know that in this world a thing and its form are inseparable. Also what are you going to do ones merged into the light And this, of course, is where the theory of impersonalism comes in. Impersonalists reason that if everything in this world has form, everything in “that” world must be formless, for matter and spirit are seen as diametrically opposed. While the premise here may be true, the conclusion is illogical.

The rules of the material logic do not apply in the spiritual world.
The impersonalists reasoning is likethe thinking of a cow that has once run from a burning barn: whenever it sees red, it runs. Similarly, everyone in this world knows that material forms are temporary and limited. This truth is embedded in our consciousness, and we naturally (if sometimes subliminally) apply it to all form, never imagining that spiritual form may have different characteristics altogether. So we foist formlessness on God and on all spiritual phenomena, inadvertently following a tradition of impersonalism with the enthusiasm of a fire-fearing cow running from red.

Krishna says, “I am at the basis of the impersonal Brahman
If one studies the Gita in Krishna consciousness, however, one sees clearly that the person Krishna, also known as Bhagavan (the Lord), reigns Supreme. Nearly every verse stresses service to Him. There is much evidence that the Gita supports the personalistic doctrine. Krishna says, “I am at the basis of the impersonal Brahman [the formless Absolute].” (BG 14.27) And when discussing the comparative value of the impersonal and the personal.

Never listen to oneness talk “I am you, you are me, we are all one, everything is one, everyone is God, A human being is God, The body separates us from experiencing oneness e.g. It is all bogus and nonsense and illusory. For example if the body separates us from experiencing our oneness with everything, then matter must be more powerful then spirit. Then they say "matter is an illusion" but in the impersonalists original description of oneness, which they strongly defend and believe, which are the teachings of Adi Sankara, there is no matter within Brahman and there are no attributes and no characteristics,  no personality, no qualities.  So when we ask "You are saying we are in illusion, so where does the illusion come  from?  they can not answer, so back to the drawing board.

Krishna also says, “Those who focus their minds on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with intense spiritual faith, are considered by Me to be most perfect.” (BG 12.2) In other words, according to the Gita the conception of God as a person, to whom one may become devoted, is prior to and superior to the conception of God as an impersonal force, into which one may merge.

It is difficult for a person who is too materially affected to understand the personal nature of the Supreme Absolute Truth
And what exactly is meant by “merging”? Vaishnavas, worshipers of Krishna, shun this idea of becoming “one with God,” saying it is almost as repulsive as gross materialism. Srila Prabhupada says the idea is motivated by fear. In his purport to Bhagavad-gita 4.10 he writes: It is difficult for a person who is too materially affected to understand the personal nature of the Supreme Absolute Truth… . Consequently, they consider the Supreme to be impersonal. And because they are too materially absorbed. For persons who are deeply materially absorbed, the conception of retaining their personality after liberation from matter frightens them. When they are informed that spiritual life is also individual and personal, they become afraid of becoming persons again, and so they naturally prefer a kind of merging into the impersonal void or light.

Great Vedic authorities declare that the light of the impersonal brahman emanates from the Indescribable beauty of the Lord

Impersonal light Impersonal void Mayavadism and Buddhism is very similar
So just as impersonalism stems from the fear that one will have to submit to a higher entity, as stated earlier, we now see that its concomitant “merging” is also a product of fear—the fear that one’s individual existence, with all its imperfections, will continue into eternity. They do not know that the abode of God is completely free from all that what is experienced here on the material platform, but they think that existence as it is, will continue. But Vaishnavas promote a philosophy of fearlessness, for they know that spiritual personality is not beleaguered by the limitations of matter. Some scholars are wise to this too. Professor Huston Smith, a prominent author and teacher in the field of comparative religion, eloquently expresses the Vaishnavas’ distaste for merging with the Supreme. He does this with the help of a traditional bhakti poem written in sixteenth-century India:

Healthy Love
As healthy love is out-going, the bhakta [devotee] will reject all suggestions that the God one loves is oneself, even one’s deepest Self, and insist on God’s otherness. As a devotional classic puts the point,

“I want to taste sugar; I don’t want to be sugar.”
Sugar can not taste itself
Can water drink itself
Can trees taste of the fruit they bear
He who worships God must stand distinct from Him,
So only shall he know the joyful love of God;
For if he say that God and he are one,
That joy, that love, shall vanish instantly away.

A green bird in a green tree
If a green bird flies into a green tree has he become one with the tree?
Pray no more for utter oneness with God:
Where is the beauty, if jewel and setting were one? The heat and freezing cold are two,
If not, where were is comfort of the cold?
Mother and child are two, If not, where is the love? When after being sundered, they meet,
What joy do they feel, the mother and child!
Where were joy, if the two were one and the same? Pray, then, no more for utter oneness with God.
Poem by Tukaram

Is God Really A Person?
There are so many impersonal translations and commentaries about The Absolute, but in truth, God is, first and foremost, a person. Srila Prabhupada and Srila Narayana Maharaja are clear on this in their Gita commentary, incredulous that anyone could accept the impersonal idea of the Absolute: We cannot understand how the Supreme Personality of Godhead could be impersonal; the imposition theory* of the impersonalist monist is false as far as the statements of the Gita are concerned. It is clear herein that the Supreme Absolute Truth, Lord Krishna, has both form and personality. (Bg. 7.24, Purport)

“Impersonalists bestow great misfortune to others!”
Vaishnava devotees feel sorry for others when their beautiful Lord is described as having no eyes, no mouth, no hair, no form, and as a result, no love. To deny God these distinct personal characteristics is the height of arrogance. Yet the atheisticly minded impersonalists, in their imagined superiority, like to belittle the devotees of The Lord
and look down at them, thinking the devotees to be foolish sentimentalists, whilst not knowing that they are bestowing great misfortune upon those they preach this impersonalist philosophy to. Do humans have something that God The Absolute has not? Would this not make us greater than He is—especially when it comes to loving exchanges. We can love, but the Absolute Truth cannot? To say that The Absolute is unlimited and then to say that He cannot have a form is an unfinished thought process and contradictory.

The impersonal Brahman, is but an aspect of the Absolute
If He is unlimited, He can do whatever He likes. And if loving exchange is the highest thing in creation, as most will admit, then God would most definitely deign to be a person, for loving exchange loses meaning without personhood; it can exist only between persons. Ultimately, Vaishnava philosophy says that all conceptions of God are included in the personal form of Sri Krishna. The impersonal Brahman, according to the tenets of Vaishnavism, is but an aspect of the Absolute, which by its very nature is endlessly qualified and perfect in unlimited ways. Vaishnavas dismiss as absurd and meaningless the concept of the Absolute as merely impersonal, beyond all thought and speech. Such an Absolute cannot stand, for it would cancel itself out. Our very language disallows it: Even to say that Brahman is inexpressible or unthinkable is to say or think something about it.

Adi Sankara failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the world of appearance.
Sankaracharya, an eighth-century Indian philosopher, was among the first to emphasize the impersonal Absolute. While he accepted the undifferentiated Brahman as the sole category of existence, he failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the world of appearance, which implies distinct qualities (vishesha) in Brahman. In other words, how can a variegated world, with such diverse attributes, come from an undifferentiated Absolute Impersonalist philosophers say that all variety in the material world is false and only the Supreme Brahman, or Spirit, is real.

If the world emanates from Brahman and if Brahman is real, then how can the world and its varieties be false and illusory?
Vaishnavas counter that if the world emanates from Brahman, if Brahman is real how can the world and its varieties be false? For example, if a tree bears fruits, can anyone realistically claim that the tree is real but its fruits are not?

The whole impersonalistic enterprise leaves some very basic questions unanswered.
The notion of personality is not only consistent with the infinite Godhead but essential to it. The whole impersonalistic enterprise leaves some very basic questions unanswered. Consider this: I’m a person. If my source is impersonal, then where do I come from and what am I in an ultimate sense If my source is impersonal, how can I, a person, relate to it Moreover, even if some kind of mystical, impersonal experience exists, such an experience always occurs to a person. It’s you and I—people—who have the “impersonal” exchange with God. In other words, even if you call the exchange impersonal, it must be considered a variety of personal experience because it happens to a person.

When all else fails impersonalistic philosophers generally grasp at one well-worn argument: A qualified and personal Absolute must be limited, they say, because to attribute certain qualities to it is to deny their opposites. But impersonalists must understand that it is not personification or the attribution of character or qualities to the infinite that limits it, but it’s these things not carried to their fullest extent. That what is Absolute must have form otherwise the term Absolute, can not be applied. Form is always superior to no form.

Gods Eternal Form
For example, Krishna’s form may seem limited in size, but it is described as inconceivably “all-pervading” as well. He has innumerable expansions and incarnations, and He is endlessly beautiful. His wisdom knows no bounds, and He experiences unending bliss. In short, His form is not like ours—it is entirely spiritual. Countless scriptural verses support this view, showing how He is, in fact, unlimited. So we should stop immideately transferring our own limitations to God, He is not limited like we are.

Lord Caitanya Lord Caitanya argued that the impersonalistic view of unqualified Brahman derives mainly from the indirect meaning of Sanskrit words. He says that the indirect meaning of words (lakshana vritti) is justified only where the direct meaning (mukhya vritti) doesn’t make sense. Sankaracarya’s exclusive emphasis on unqualified Brahman conceals the direct and real meaning of the scriptures, which more often than not describes Brahman as qualified.
How, then, can impersonalists who accept the Vedic texts make any case at all for a formless Absolute? To be fair, we must admit that many texts describe Brahman as unqualified. Katha Upanishad (1.3.15), for example, describes Brahman as being without sound, touch, or form. This idea is echoed in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.10), where Brahman is said to be without eyes, ears, speech, mouth, or mind. But what does this really mean?

Brahman is said to be without eyes, ears, speech, mouth, or mind such qualities are denied, so it would not be possible to attribute to Brahman the qualities of nityatva (eternity) and vibhutva (all- pervasiveness)
The celebrated philosopher Jiva Gosvami, in the line of Lord Caitanya, partly resolves the question by showing that the word nirvishesha (“without distinction or qualities”), for example, is often used by the scriptures to deny all prakrita (material) qualities of Brahman and not to deny qualities as such. If nirvishesha were used to deny qualities as such, it would not be possible to attribute to Brahman the qualities of nityatva (eternity) and vibhutva (all- pervasiveness), which even the followers of Sankaracarya accept as undeniable qualities of the Absolute. Jiva Gosvami also quotes from the Vishnu Purana to prove that although Brahman does not have any ordinary, or material, qualities, it has infinite transcendental qualities.

Gods effulgence

The impersonal Brahman is merely Krishna’s effulgence
Thus, Brahman, or God, cannot be described as merely impersonal or unqualified. Jiva Gosvami writes that such a “Brahman” is like a subject apart from its predicates or a substance apart from its attributes. Since the complete (samyak) form of an object includes both its substance and its attributes, the unqualified Brahman is only an incomplete (asamyak) manifestation of the Absolute. Jiva Gosvami insists that the personal Brahman includes the impersonal Brahman as the formless luster of His
divine form (anga-kanti). In Prabhupada’s words, the impersonal Brahman is merely Krishna’s effulgence.

His impersonal aspect depends upon His personal form, which is prior.
Implicit in these arguments is the understanding that God is inconceivable and, ultimately, both personal and impersonal. His impersonal aspect depends upon His personal form, which is prior. The arguments are logical enough, and yet our minds revolt against the idea of an Absolute being at once personal and impersonal. We want to choose one or the other, because we are inclined to think of the Absolute in human terms. Therefore, I should reiterate that the form of the Absolute is different from
our own. We have to be careful not to limit the infinite with our human thoughts and terms—the fallacy that impersonalists attribute to the doctrine of a personal God. When dealing with any problem relating to the infinite, we have to use the laws of our understanding with reservation and caution, not allowing them to impair the perfection of the infinite or impoverish our notion of divinity.

Henry L. Mansel, a nineteenth-century English philosopher, who was Professor of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy at Oxford, expressed the same idea in this way: It is our duty, then, to think of God as personal; and it is our duty to believe that He is infinite. It is true that we cannot reconcile these two representations with each other, as our conception of personality involves attributes apparently contradictory to the notion of infinity. But it does not follow that this contradiction exists anywhere but in our own minds; it does not follow that it implies any impossibility in the absolute
nature of God. The apparent contradiction, in this case, as in those previously noticed, is the necessary consequence of an attempt on the part of the human thinker to transcend the boundaries of his own consciousness. It proves that there are limits to man’s power of thought, and it proves no more.
Conclusion
To describe the Absolute as merely nirvishesha, or without distinct qualities and attributes, is to make Him imperfect by “amputating” His divine limbs. Once we recognize the absolute, complete, and perfect nature of the Divine Being, we move beyond the philosophy of impersonalism. We can reconcile conflicting statements of the Vedas and the Puranas when we understand the Absolute as both personal and impersonal,
or rather, as possessing in- finite attributes and forms, including an impersonal dimension. But according to the primary and general sense of the scriptures, the Absolute is essentially personal, because only in a personal Absolute, possessing infinite and inconceivable potencies, can the infinite forms of Godhead, including the impersonal Brahman, have their place.

Shiva Durga Ganesh Laksmi and other Demigods
In the Srimad Bhagavatam, (4.30.38) Srila Prabhupada explains that there’s an important verse regarding thinking that the demigods like Shiva Durga Ganesh or Laksmi are as good as God. in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.20):

kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ
prapadyante ’nya-devatāḥ
taṁ taṁ niyamam āsthāya
prakṛtyā niyatāḥ svayā

“Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.” One enamored by material benefits is called hṛta jñāna (“one whos intelligence is bewildered”) In this connection it is to be noted that sometimes in revealed scriptures Lord Śiva is described as being non different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The point is that Lord Śiva and Lord Viṣṇu are so intimately connected that there is no difference in opinion. The actual fact is, ekale īśvara kṛṣṇa, āra saba bhṛtya: “The only supreme
master is Kṛṣṇa, and all others are His devotees or servants.” (Cc. Ādi 5.142) This is the real fact, and there is no difference of opinion between Lord Śiva and Lord Viṣṇu in this connection. Nowhere in revealed scripture does Lord Śiva Durga Ganesh or Laksmi claim to be equal to Lord Viṣṇu. This is simply the creation of the so-called devotees of Lord Śiva, who claim that Lord Śiva and Lord Viṣṇu are one. This is strictly forbidden in the Vaiṣṇava-tantra: yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devam. Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Śiva and Lord Brahmā are intimately connected as master and servants. Śiva-viriñci-nutam.

Viṣṇu is honored and offered obeisances by Lord Śiva and Lord Brahmā. To consider that they are all equal is a great offense. They are all equal in the sense that Lord Viṣṇu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and all others are His
eternal servants.

When people say that Rama worships lord Siva…
Krishna also worshipped sudama by washing his feet and offering foodstuffs, but that
this mean Sudama is higher then krishna. The fact is that Krishna gives his heart to his devotees and worships them.

Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead is equal toward everyone, He is especially inclined toward those who engage in His devotional service. The Lord says, kaunteya pratijanihi na me bhaktah pranasyati: [Bg. 9.31] “My dear son of Kunti, please declare that My devotee will never be vanquished.”

Elsewhere, Krishna also says:
ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manushyah partha sarvasah

As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pritha. (Bg. 4.11)

yajnarthat karmano anyatra loko ayam karma-bandhanah
tad-artham karma kaunteya mukta-sangah samacara
yat karosi yas asnasi yaj juhosi dadasi yat
yat tapasyasi kaunteya tat kurusva mad-arpanam

Action should be performed only for the sake of sacrifice, otherwise it will bind the actor to the consequences of karma. Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you give in charity, whatever difficulty or sufferings you have to undergo, you must offer everything to the Lord in sacrifice. BG 3.9

satatam kirtayanto mam yatantas ca dridha-vratah
namasyantas ca mam bhaktya nitya-yukta upasate

Always chanting the glories of the Lord and talking about Him, endeavoring with great determination to stick to their spiritual principles, bowing down before the Lord, these devotees are always in the presence of the Lord and constantly worship Him with all their hearts. BG 9.14

Durga
“The goddess Durga was decorated with flower garlands, smeared with sandalwood pulp and dressed with excellent garments and ornaments made of valuable jewels. Holding in her hands a bow, a trident, arrows, a shield, a sword, a conchshell, a disc and a club, and being praised by celestial beings like Apsaras, Kinnaras, Uragas, Siddhas, Caranas and Gandharvas, who worshiped her with all kinds of presentations, she spoke as follows.” (SB 10.4.10-11)

I, jiva, am just a transcendental sparkle of an atomic size and according to my desire and karma I take birth in various material bodies one after another (the cycle of birth and death, or samsara) within this world characterized by all-pervading presence of birth, death, old age and disease (janma-mrtyu-jara-vyadhi). These are symptoms of my conditioned life based on my identification with matter. During my whole stay here I am accompanied by the Lord in His invisible form of in my heart. He lets me act according to my desires and witnesses and approves my actions.” Durga Ma

The Lord in everyones heart is called Paramatma Lord Krishna
“I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.” (BG 15.15)

“Sri Krsna, the Personality of Godhead, who is the Paramatma [Supersoul] in everyone’s heart and the benefactor of the truthful devotee, cleanses desire for material enjoyment from the heart of the devotee who has developed the urge to hear His messages, which are in themselves virtuous when properly heard and chanted.”
(SB 1.2.17)

So why approach the demigods when Krishna is the source of everything and nothing moves without His permission?

Lord Krishna to Arjurna
“I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me. The Wise who fully realize this engage in my devotional service and worship me with all their hearts.” ( Bhagavad Gita 10.8 )

“My pure devotees are absorbed in thoughts of me, and they experience fulfilment and bliss by enlightening one another and conversing about me.” (Bhagavad Gita 10.9)

“To those who are continually devoted and worship me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to me.” (Bhagavad Gita 10.10)

“Out of compassion for them, I, residing in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.” (Bhagavad Gita 10.11)

Krishna also says, “Those who focus their minds on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with intense spiritual faith, are considered by Me to be most perfect.” (BG 12.2)

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply