“The Lord is personal although impersonal, He is atomic although great, and He is blackish and has red eyes although He is colorless.” (Kurma Purana)

Download this episode (right click and save)

अस्थूलश् चानणुश् चैव स्थूलो ’णुश् चैव सर्वतः
अवर्णः सर्वतः प्रोक्तः श्यामो रक्तान्त-लोचनः

asthūlaś cānaṇuś caiva sthūlo ’ṇuś caiva sarvataḥ
avarṇaḥ sarvataḥ proktaḥ śyāmo raktānta-locanaḥ

“Wouldn’t the presentation of bhakti-yoga be better served minus all the imagery? People will mistake that for dogmatic insistence. They will think that you are competing with their vision of God. Granted, their vision might be based only on mental speculation or incorrect assumptions passed down in a relatively modern tradition of spiritual life, but there will be a feeling of competition all the same.

“Rather, does not the heart of the matter lie within the principles themselves? The teachings of Bhagavad-gita. The core principles of Vedanta. The accompanying way of life, focused on jnana and vairagya. Knowledge and renunciation to build a better future. I think most people would go for this.

“Once you introduce deities, mantras, and paintings, you drive people away. They will lose their interest. Don’t you think that is how it goes? What is the benefit to so much focus on the personal side?”

There is no validity to the concept of competing Gods. Let’s say that we are two employees within a business. At the office, we speculate as to the founder. I only know him by name. I refer to the founder through this name. That is all of the information I have to go by. I also happen to know the year in which the company was founded.

You, on the other hand, know the founder personally. You have met him. You have seen him. You know what he likes to do. You know his disposition. You have been a regular guest at his home. When you refer to the founder of the company, it is with a different level of understanding. You bring something entirely different to the table.

In this case, there is no such thing as two founders. Though you and I have different conceptions of a single point of reference, this does not mean that the founder has suddenly divided himself. It is like people having different ideas of the sun. At the end of the day, no pun intended, there is only one sun.

There is the common saying that without a face, you have no case. The personal testimony from the witness stand can make or break the outcome of a trial. The face is everything. The same for if you have a photograph of the prime suspect, who you believe to have committed the crime.

In a playful manner, if we view the entire creation with a negative eye, upset and angry at the resulting effects, there is an original cause that holds the blame. Bhagavad-gita confirms this truth, that there is a seed-giving father.

सर्व-योनिषु कौन्तेय
मूर्तयः सम्भवन्ति याः
तासां ब्रह्म महद् योनिर्
अहं बीज-प्रदः पिता

sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ
tāsāṁ brahma mahad yonir
ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā

“It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 14.4)

It cannot be denied that there is an original cause. That issue is not up for debate. Any honest person would acknowledge that so many effects are only possible when there is an original cause. Some effects last longer than others. Some can be seen, while others are more difficult to detect. There is still always a cause.

अदृष्टगुणदोषाणामध्रुवाणां तु कर्मणाम्
नान्तरेण क्रियां तेषां फलमिष्टं प्रवर्तते

adṛṣṭaguṇadoṣāṇāmadhruvāṇāṃ tu karmaṇām
nāntareṇa kriyāṃ teṣāṃ phalamiṣṭaṃ pravartate

“Unseen and indefinite are the good and bad reactions of fruitive work. And without taking action, the desired fruits of such work cannot manifest.” (Lakshmana speaking to Lord Rama, Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kand, 66.17)

The culture of bhakti-yoga essentially puts a face on the culprit. The original instigator, the cause, can be visualized. Granted, the cause can never be tied down to a single image. Though He has no eyes, His eyes are the most beautiful, resembling lotus flowers. Though the original cause is the greatest in stature, He is also the smallest; He is the atom, paramanu.

In this sense, there is no reason to create a rivalry. There is only one God. The worship is directed towards the same concept, with varying levels of understanding. The bhakti-yoga tradition facilitates the highest level of understanding. It reaches the ceiling, so to speak, and with that extended height there is more room for bliss, enthusiasm, joy, interaction, and pleasure that renews.

क्लेशो ऽधिकतरस् तेषाम्
अव्यक्तासक्त-चेतसाम्
अव्यक्ता हि गतिर् दुःखं
देहवद्भिर् अवाप्यते

kleśo ‘dhikataras teṣām
avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
dehavadbhir avāpyate

“For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 12.5)

Without the accompanying face, we are left to contemplate the impersonal. This is relying only on the reactions. Respecting the sun based on its impact on the world. Knowing a person only by what they have done in this world, as opposed to knowing who they are. That impersonal path is more difficult for those who are embodied, who live life applying one distinction after another, unfamiliar with the concept of duality.

In Closing:

With distinctions committed,
While in duality fitted.

Difficult impersonal to conceive,
Proper understanding not to receive.

Better when a face appearing,
Towards transcendence clearing.

Who the original culprit to call,
The source of reactions all.

Categories: questions

Tags: hare krishna, hinduism, impersonalism, mayavada, poem, poems, poetry, vedanta