God: Person or Energy?

From The Journey Home, by Radhanath Swami

For some time, I had been troubled by a fundamental philosophical dispute over whether God was ultimately impersonal or personal. On the one hand, I had heard some yogis and philosophers profess that ultimately God is impersonal and formless, but that he accepts a temporary material form as an avatara when He descends into the world for the benefit of all beings. After accomplishing His mission, He again merges into His formless existence. All form and personality, according to the impersonalists, is a nonpermanent product of material illusion. In the final state of liberation, the soul sheds its temporary identity and becomes one with God, merging into the all-pervading spiritual existence.
On the other hand, I had heard other yogis and philosophers profess that God is the Supreme Person, that His spiritual form is eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. At the time of liberation, the soul enters into the kingdom of God where it eternally serves the all-beautiful Personality of God in pure love.
I often pondered this apparent contradiction. How could they both be correct? God must ultimately be one or the other. Either He must be ultimately impersonal or personal. Out of respect for my beloved teachers, it had been difficult for me to think that any of them were wrong. Some attacked the opposing point of view while others refrained from argument by keeping the subject vague. I found that many spiritual teachings were similar until they came to this point.
What is the goal I should aspire to? I wondered. Should I strive to transcend dualities to become one with an impersonal, formless God? Or should I strive to purify my heart to serve a personal Lord with unconditional love in His eternal abode?
One afternoon, a guest asked Srila Prabhupada this very question. “Is God formless and impersonal or does He have form and personality?” The chattering of birds, screeching of monkeys, and honking of distant rickshaw horns were silenced by the anticipation in my heart. I sat up with attention, eager to hear his answer. Srila Prabhupada slowly leaned forward, his face perfectly relaxed and full lips curved downward at the edges. Sitting cross-legged on the floor, his elbows rested on the low table in front of him and his hands were clasped together under his chin. With a grave gaze, he quoted from the Vedas and explained, “We must first understand the inconceivable nature of God. The Supreme Lord is simultaneously personal and impersonal. It is an eternal truth that He is both formless and that He has an eternal, blissful form.”
I felt a warm, peaceful sensation flood my chest. With one hand Srila Prabhupada stretched his index finger upward. “The Lord’s impersonal, all-pervading energy is called Brahman. And Bhagavan is the personal form of God, who is the energetic source and never under the influence of illusion. Take for example the sun. The form of the sun as a planet and the formless sunlight can never be separated, as they exist simultaneously. They are different aspects of the sun. Similarly, there are two different schools of transcendentalists who focus on different aspects of the one truth. The impersonalists strive to attain liberation in the Lord’s impersonal, formless light, while the personalists strive for eternal loving service to the Lord’s all-attractive form. There is no contradiction.
“Similarly, the soul is part and parcel of the Lord, simultaneously one with God and different from God. Qualitatively we are one with God, being eternal, full of knowledge, and full of bliss. But quantitatively, we are always but a part, just as the sunray is but a tiny part of the sun and yet has the same qualities as the sun. We are both one with God and different from God. God is the independent controller, but when the soul misuses his God-given independence, he forgets his relation to the Lord and falls into illusion and subsequent suffering.”
Leaning back against the wall, he tilted his head slightly and gazed directly into my eyes. “The two schools, personalists and impersonalists, both approach different aspects of the One God.” He went on to explain how Krishna, His form, qualities, personality, and abode were unlimited, and that all the true religions of the world worshipped the same One God. He had simply revealed Himself in different ways at different times.
How beautiful. With these simple and intelligent words, Srila Prabhupada had harmonized two apparently opposing views. As I listened to him, tears of appreciation welled up in my eyes. Yes, now it all makes so much sense, I thought. A dilemma that had confused my progress was now completely removed. A spontaneous, joyous smile stretched across my face. Srila Prabhupada reciprocated with a smile, too, one endowed with both wisdom and serenity.
One guest asked him, “Are you the guru of the world?”
Srila Prabhupada meekly bowed his head and cast his eyes toward the floor. “I am everybody’s servant,” he said. “That’s all.”
I found a special charm in this exchange. Srila Prabhupada was so unpretentious, so free and comfortable in all that he did and said. I recalled the humility of dear Ganashyam, who had lived in a hallway outside a closet for fifty years. Srila Prabhupada was a learned scholar, eloquent orator, and powerful yogi who had founded a worldwide society with thousands of followers. Dignitaries came to honor him daily. Still, that natural spirit of humility was present—“I’m small. God is everything.” Paradoxically, that humility empowered him with unlimited confidence and determination.
After the meeting, I stood up and offered Srila Prabhupada a rose. He smelled it and graciously bowed his head. Departing from the house, I wandered back to the Yamuna, elated. Prabhupada’s words had put the puzzle of personalism and impersonalism together, piece-by-piece. And in so many other ways, he had impressed me deeply. But who is this amazing man? I wondered. What is he like as a person?

Favorite

0 members favorited this

Comment by Victoria on September 29, 2010 at 3:55pm: Beautiful. It is always difficult being torn between two seemingly different things... But it is a reassuring fact that everything is but one in the same. :)

Admin Team Comment by Acyutananda on October 17, 2010 at 4:39am: Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Srimad Bhagavatam 6.4.32

astiti nastiti ca vastu-nisthayor
eka-sthayor bhinna-viruddha-dharmanoh
aveksitam kincana yoga-sankhyayoh
samam param hy anukulam brhat tat

SYNONYMS
asti -- there is; iti -- thus; na -- not; asti -- there is; iti -- thus; ca -- and; vastu-nisthayoh -- professing knowledge of the ultimate cause; eka-sthayoh -- with one and the same subject matter, establishing Brahman; bhinna -- demonstrating different; viruddha-dharmanoh -- and opposing characteristics; aveksitam -- perceived; kincana -- that something which; yoga-sankhyayoh -- of mystic yoga and the Sankhya philosophy (analysis of the ways of nature); samam -- the same; param -- transcendental; hi -- indeed; anukulam -- dwelling place; brhat tat -- that ultimate cause.

TRANSLATION
There are two parties -- namely, the theists and the atheists. The theist, who accepts the Supersoul, finds the spiritual cause through mystic yoga. The Sankhyite, however, who merely analyzes the material elements, comes to a conclusion of impersonalism and does not accept a supreme cause -- whether Bhagavan, Paramatma or even Brahman. Instead, he is preoccupied with the superfluous, external activities of material nature. Ultimately, however, both parties demonstrate the Absolute Truth because although they offer opposing statements, their object is the same ultimate cause. They are both approaching the same Supreme Brahman, to whom I offer my respectful obeisances.

PURPORT
Actually there are two sides to this argument. Some say that the Absolute has no form (nirakara), and others say that the Absolute has a form (sakara). Therefore the word form is the common factor, although some accept it (asti or astika) whereas others try to negate it (nasti or nastika). Since the devotee considers the word "form" (akara) the common factor for both, he offers his respectful obeisances to the form, although others may go on arguing about whether the Absolute has a form or not.

In this verse the word yoga-sankhyayoh is very important. Yoga means bhakti-yoga because yogis also accept the existence of the all-pervading Supreme Soul and try to see that Supreme Soul within their hearts. As stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam (12.13.1), dhyanavasthita-tad-gatena manasa pasyanti yam yoginah. The devotee tries to come directly in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whereas the yogi tries to find the Supersoul within the heart by meditation. Thus, both directly and indirectly, yoga means bhakti-yoga. Sankhya, however, means physical study of the cosmic situation through speculative knowledge. This is generally known as jnana-sastra. The Sankhyites are attached to the impersonal Brahman, but the Absolute Truth is known in three ways. Brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate: the Absolute Truth is one, but some accept Him as impersonal Brahman, some as the Supersoul existing everywhere, and some as Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The central point is the Absolute Truth.

Although the impersonalists and personalists fight with one another, they focus upon the same Parabrahman, the same Absolute Truth. In the yoga-sastras, Krsna is described as follows: krsnam pisangambaram ambujeksanam catur-bhujam sankha-gadady-udayudham. Thus the pleasing appearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead's bodily features, His limbs and His dress are described. The sankhya-sastra, however, denies the existence of the Lord's transcendental form. The sankhya-sastra says that the Supreme Absolute Truth has no hands, no legs and no name: hy anama-rupa-guna-pani-padam acaksur asrotram ekam advitiyam api nama-rupadikam nasti. The Vedic mantras say, apani-pado javano grahita: the Supreme Lord has no legs and hands, but He can accept whatever is offered to Him. Actually such statements accept that the Supreme has hands and legs, but deny that He has material hands and legs. This is why the Absolute is called aprakrta. Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has a sac-cid-ananda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss, not a material form. The Sankhyites, or jnanis, deny the material form, and the devotees also know very well that the Absolute Truth, Bhagavan, has no material form.

[Bs. 5.1]
isvarah paramah krsnah
sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam

"Krsna, who is known as Govinda, is the supreme controller. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, for He is the prime cause of all causes." The conception of the Absolute without hands and legs and the conception of the Absolute with hands and legs are apparently contradictory, but they both coincide with the same truth about the Supreme Absolute Person. Therefore the word vastu-nisthayoh, which is used herein, indicates that both the yogis and Sankhyites have faith in the reality, but are arguing about it from the different viewpoints of material and spiritual identities. Parabrahman, or brhat, is the common point. The Sankhyites and yogis are both situated in that same Brahman, but they differ because of different angles of vision.

The directions given by the bhakti-sastra point one in the perfect direction because the Supreme Personality of Godhead says in Bhagavad-gita, bhaktya mam abhijanati: [Bg. 18.55] "Only by devotional service am I to be known." The bhaktas know that the Supreme Person has no material form, whereas the jnanis simply deny the material form. One should therefore take shelter of the bhakti-marga, the path of devotion; then everything will be clear. Jnanis concentrate on the virat-rupa, the gigantic universal form of the Lord. This is a good system in the beginning for those who are extremely materialistic, but there is no need to think continuously of the virat-rupa. When Arjuna was shown the virat-rupa of Krsna, he saw it, but he did not want to see it perpetually. He therefore requested the Lord to return to His original form as two-armed Krsna. In conclusion, learned scholars find no contradictions in the devotees' concentration upon the spiritual form of the Lord (isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah [Bs. 5.1]). In this regard, Srila Madhvacarya says that less intelligent nondevotees think that their conclusion is the ultimate, but because devotees are completely learned, they can understand that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate goal.

Admin Team Comment by Acyutananda on October 30, 2010 at 8:41pm: Śrī Brahma-saḿhitā 5.40

yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi-
koṭiṣv aśeṣa-vasudhādi vibhūti-bhinnam
tad brahma niṣkalam anantam aśeṣa-bhūtaḿ
govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi

SYNONYMS
yasya — of whom; prabhā — the effulgence; prabhavataḥ — of one who excels in power; jagat-aṇḍa — of universes; koṭi-koṭiṣu — in millions and millions; aśeṣa — unlimited; vasudhā-ādi — with planets and other manifestations; vibhūti — with opulences; bhinnam — becoming variegated; tat — that; brahma — Brahman; niṣkalam — without parts; anantam — unlimited; aśeṣa-bhūtam — being complete; govindam — Govinda; ādi-puruṣam — the original person; tam — Him; aham — I; bhajāmi — worship.

TRANSLATION
I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upaniṣads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth.

PURPORT
The mundane universe created by Māyā is one of the infinite external manifestations accommodating space, time and gross things. The impersonal aspect of Godhead, the nondifferentiated Brahman, is far above this principle of mundane creation. But even the nondifferentiated Brahman is only the external effulgence emanating from the boundary wall of the transcendental realm of Vaikuṇṭha displaying the triquadrantal glory of Govinda. The nondifferentiated Brahman is indivisible, hence is also one without a second, and is the infinite, and residual entity.

Admin Team Comment by Acyutananda on August 23, 2011 at 3:40am: Interesting quote from a military official at a Disclosure project meeting:

The unique thing I'd like to point out, for the most part, is that the entities that we did catalogue were in fact humanoid. Now this created a situation with the scientific community
trying to figure out why that would be the case, because you'd expect that if life evolved on other planets that they would take on some type of other... ummm... 'being' so to speak, not necessarily look humanoid or be bipedal such as we are. But apparently we got quite a few of the species out there that are humanoid in appearance, and that creates a question that yet has to be answered by science.