The question may arise as to whether or not Bhagavān has a personality. Because, if He does not have vyaktitva (personality), then He cannot have a form. That which is cetana-jñāna (conscious knowledge) has three characteristics: desire, activity, and experience. That which is unconscious has no desire, activity, or experience. That which has desire, activity, and experience must be accepted as a person, whether infinitesimal or colossal.

If I were unconscious, I would have no sense of experience, therefore I am conscious knowledge. Though I am jñāna (knowledge), I do not possess pūrṇa-jñāna (full knowledge), because if I were full knowledge, there would always be, within that, omniscience and omnipresence.

Full knowledge is not one, two, or three; it is “ekam evādvitiyam – one without a second.” If one accepts the existence of even an atom outside of the full whole, that damages the wholeness of the whole. Another name for pūrṇa (full) is asīma (infinite). To accept something outside of the infinite would make the infinite finite. Hence, the infinite is one and everything else is within it, encompassed by it, and subservient to it.

If I were infinite, then all things would exist within me, and I would be the controller. I am not the possessor of all power, nor am I all-pervading almighty consciousness. To define the Absolute, Western philosophers have said, “Absolute is for itself and by itself.” We, however, do not say “It, God”, but rather “He, God”—implying: “Absolute is for Himself and by Himself.”

Our cit-sattā (spiritual existence) is not a wholly independent spiritual existence. Our cit-sattā is dependent. I am the dependent consciousness that is a minute manifestation of the cit-śakti (transcendental potency) of the wholly independent full cit-sattā. I am aṇu-cetana (minute consciousness); the cause of me is pūrṇa-cetana (full consciousness). The cause of consciousness can never be inert or unconscious. The genesis of consciousness cannot be accepted as arising from the combination of two or more material elements, because it is not possible for an object to arise from that which does not contain it. “There is no fire in wood and, by friction, the fire manifests, so non-existence has become the cause of existence.” This sort of argument is meaningless, as it is only because there is fire within wood that it has become manifest. The latent became manifest, but non-existence did not become the cause of existence. Existence alone is the cause of existence. Likewise, only knowledge is the cause of knowledge, not ignorance.

In our spiritual existence, there are three bhāvas (modalities): bodha-bhāva (awareness), sattā-bhāva (existence), and ānanda-bhāva (bliss). That existence which is composed of eternal awareness and bliss is defined as the ātmā (soul). I am ātmā and He who is my cause is the topmost ātmā, or Paramātmā. The cause of a personality who has desire, activity, and experience cannot be anything other than a personality who has desire, activity, and experience—not the opposite sort of existence that is bereft of desire, activity, and experience. This is because the full personality that has desire, activity, and experience is Bhagavān.

To think that calling something a “vyakti (person)” has put it within the limits of length, width, and height, that it has become somehow curbed, is a notion born of ignorance. To see the inferiority of māyika-vyaktitva (illusory personality) and impose that onto the kāraṇa-vyaktitva (causal personality) is foolishness. Bhagavān is a person, but an infinite person. Though He is possessed of a form that is the object of the devotees’ prema, He pervades the all-pervading (as the vibhu of the vibhu) and, at the same time, is smaller than the most minute. He possesses inconceivable potency. This is the bhagavattā (Godhood) of Bhagavān. As He is devoid of all mundane variety (prākṛta-viśeṣa), He is nirviśeṣa (without variety). At the same time, because He has transcendental characteristics, He is saviśeṣa (possessed of unique characteristics).

yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante, yena jātāni jīvanti, yat prayantyabhisaṁviśanti, tad-jijñāsasva tadeva brahma (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1.1)

Brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham amṛtasy-āvyayasya ca | śāśvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikāntikasya ca (Gītā 14.27)

Previously, it was said “I am knowledge; there are three modalities in me—sattā-bhāva, bodha-bhāva, and kriya-bhāva (ānanda-bhāva).” Within the cause of me, within the bṛhat-cetana (vast consciousness), lies the bṛhat-sattā (vast existence), bṛhat-jñāna (vast knowledge), and bṛhat-ānanda (vast bliss). Though both are composed of saccidānanda (eternality, knowledge, and bliss), the jīva is characterized by aṇu- (minute) saccidānanda-ness arising from prakṛti¹ (Bhagavān’s energy), whereas Bhagavān is characterized by vibhu (all-pervading) saccidānanda-ness arising from His being the ultimate reality (vastu)². “I believe in the individuality of a jīva’s existence, but I do not accept Bhagavān’s individual personality”—there is no sense to this notion.

One unique speciality of Vedic culture is this: in the Vedas, the existence of consciousness or personality behind every object of this Earth has been accepted; this is something that is not seen in any other religious tradition on this Earth. Smug with the achievements of mundane science, modern rationalists fail to appreciate the rationality of these subtle Vedic conceptions and can engage in inimical critique. Because of the dullness of their intelligence, their qualification for subtle perceptions has gradually disappeared, leaving this sort of disaster inevitable. Surely, they believe that no one is as intelligent as them. In the Gītā-śāstra, Sri Krishna has said that parā-prakṛti (the superior energy) or cit-śakti (spiritual potency) has upheld the world. Aparā (inferior) or mundane energy has no capacity of its own to hold itself up. Everything in the world is sustained by consciousness and therefore protected; otherwise, it is not protected.

By gross vision, the Sun appears inert, but the Sun’s existence is sustained by consciousness; that sustaining consciousness is called Sūrya-devatā (the Sun god). Likewise, Varuṇa’s external form is water, but his identity is that of Varuṇa-deva. The wind’s external form is the flowing wind, but his identity is Pavana-deva. Gaṅgā’s external form is the flowing river waters, but her identity is Gaṅgā-devī. The external form of the ocean is a vast body of water, but behind it exists the spiritual personality of the ocean, which is why when Bhagavān Śrī Rāmacandra aimed His arrows at the ocean, it took a form and, utterly terrified, offered prayers to Śrī Rāmacandra with various articles of worship in hand. We find this sort of description in the authoritative scripture Śrī Rāmāyaṇa. Vālmīki Ṛṣi does not describe any modern sort of belief. Beyond the waters of the Gaṅgā is Gaṅgā-devī. This is why Gaṅgā is worshipped. Without there being someone to accept worship, worship is meaningless. The world is Bhagavān’s rūpa (form), but not His svarūpa (constitutional form, identity). The world is an expression of Bhagavān’s energy. In this sense, it is Bhagavān’s form. It would be a mistake to think all this is a hallucination.

A story from childhood comes to mind. During the rainy season, our mothers would all tell us to read the Bengali (Kṛtivāsī) Rāmāyaṇa, so that they could listen to Rāmāyaṇa. I was reading the account of Indrajita fighting on his chariot from behind the cover of clouds. At that moment, in that house, a young man who had recently arrived from Kolkata having passed his B.A. was styling his hair in front of the mirror and, upon hearing this tale from the Rāmāyaṇa, burst out laughing and said: “Āre! They were clearly smoking marijuana when they wrote all this. Chariots run on the ground. Do they ever run in the sky? The listeners are as foolish as the speakers and the writers.” Later, however, when the first vimāna (airplane) was invented, the very same young man was heard saying, with pride: “Yes, we too had this in our heritage—we had science.” “Bhūte paśyanti barbarāḥ – Fools see via the past.” Those who are fools understand once something has happened. In the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata and many other scriptures of ours, there is an abundance of references to vimānas. Throughout the cycle of time, certain sciences come into existence and then again disappear at times. In a changing world, this is how the succession of ages ensues.

What to say of intellectuals of other nations, once, while conversing with an esteemed scientist of our country, Dr. C.V. Raman, I became rather surprised. This was something that occurred quite a while ago. I was then a brahmacārī. In the name of a realistic perspective, even among scientists, there is profuse prejudice-tainted narrowmindedness. When, on behalf of the maṭha, I extended a request to Dr. Raman to accept the seat of chairman at a special function, then he said, “That which I cannot see, I do not believe in. Until something comes within the purview of my experience, I do not want to waste time on anything. If you can show me Bhagavān to my eyes, then I will give you time, otherwise not.”

In response to that, I said, “Does everything come within the realm of our experience? If I can’t see what is on the other side of a wall and I say there is nothing on the other side of the wall, then will this interpretation of mine be true? If, since I am not aware of whatever scientific truth you have realized, I say that I do not believe in it, will that be right?”

Then he said, “With the aid of instruments, I will see the objects outside the wall and show them to others. Whatever scientific truth I have experienced, I will show you people that. Then you will have to follow the same process (praṇālī) I used to experience it.”

Then I said, “Even instruments have a certain limit. Am I to not believe in that which does not come within the scope of one’s experience as gleaned by the aid of instruments? If I do not believe in such things, will that be right? You said that if you follow your process, you will convey the truth you realized. Can other sages not say this too? If we follow their process—if we adopt their sādhana-praṇālī, then they too will show us Paramātmā! It is not logical to say, ‘First share your realization, then I will endeavour in that regard.’”

That form (rūpa) which is adopted (graha) in a unique (viśeṣa) manner is called a vigraha. Līlāvatāras, Yugāvatāras, Manvantarāvatāras, Puruṣāvatāras, Guṇāvatāras, and Śaktyāveśāvatāras—in addition to these six main types of avatāras, Bhagavān mercifully incarnates as His worshipful (arcyā) śrī vigraha form in order to grant the living entities of the world His service. One who thinks such a merciful incarnation as the arcyā śrī murti is a mere stone is one bound for hell (“arccye viṣṇo śilādhīḥ * * * * ‘nārakī saḥ”—Padma Purāṇa). Though the sun rises in the dark, the sun is not called darkness. The sun is not a part of the darkness. Likewise, knowledge can appear in the midst of ignorance, but that does not mean that knowledge is a part of ignorance. An object wrought of mundane intelligence, a mundane mind, and by mundane senses is nothing but a putula (doll or figurine). Adherents of sanātana-dharma do not worship lumps of matter (putula). Persons unacquainted with śrī vigraha-tattva criticize the adherents of sanātana-dharma and call them idolators.

The meaning of the word bhaga is śakti (energy, power); the word vān means yukta (equipped with). That tattva which is equipped with śakti is called Bhagavān. Equipped with which śakti? Equipped with all the śakti that can be. In other words, the meaning of the word Bhagavān is sarva-śaktimān (omnipotent). We often refer to Bhagavān as sarva-śaktimān, but practically, we think of Him as having whatever potency our whim allots Him. Does Bhagavān only have whatever potency we give Him? Or does He possess all the potency we can and cannot conceive of? When we have referred to Bhagavān as sarva-śaktimān, then do we any longer retain the right to say He can do this and He can’t do that? “Karttum akarttum anyathā karttuṁ yaḥ samarthaḥ sa iśvaraḥ.” He who is sarva-śaktimān can bring all śakti wherever He wants, in any form He likes. If I say He cannot, I am disputing His omnipotence or infinitude. Surely just because I regard something to be Bhagavān does not make it Bhagavān, because Bhagavān is not my subordinate. However, if Bhagavān wishes, He can appear in any form to show mercy to the devotees.

“Premāñjanac-churita bhakti-vilocanena santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti.”

Śrī Bhagavān says:

yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmahyam
paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge

Gītā 4.7–8

In other words, whensoever there is a suppression of dharma and the rise of adharma, then Bhagavān appears, age after age, in order to deliver the saintly persons, destroy the wicked, and establish dharma. Bhagavān does not really need to appear just to establish dharma and subdue the wicked, because worthy personalities infused with His śakti can also accomplish those tasks. The main cause of Bhagavān’s appearance is the bhaktas. Just as the sorrow a wife feels in separation from her husband when he is away cannot be alleviated by any substitute, by any object or means, until Bhagavān incarnates, the separation pain of the devotees is not dispelled. It is solely to deliver the sadhus, or in other words, to dispel their pain of separation by giving them His darśana that Bhagavān comes to this world.

When the premika-bhaktas (devotees who have attained divine love for Bhagavān) become extremely overwhelmed by not being able to see Bhagavān, then Bhagavān, who is bhaktārtti-hara (the eradicator of the devotees’ distress), appears within their hearts. The bhaktas see Bhagavān’s svarūpa and gain supreme joy. If Bhagavān disappears once again, the bhaktas weep perpetually in separation and, out of eagerness to see the object of their prema, reveal outwardly the form of Bhagavān they have glimpsed internally. This externally manifest form is called a pratimā (representation). This pratimā or śrī murti has come and appeared via the avaroha-pantha (the path of descending grace), therefore it is śrī vigraha (the Lord’s worshipful form). Persons of low qualification initially see this śrī murti as inert (jaḍa-maya) and those of an intermediate qualification see it as a mental conjuration (mano-maya), while those of an exalted calibre behold it as a form of pure transcendence (cinmaya-svarūpa). In the prema-eyes of the premika-bhaktas, the perception is: “pratimā naha tumi sākṣāt vrajendra-nandana – You are not a representation; You are directly the son of the king of Vraja.”

Some may say, “I have seen that the murti was made from fire, clay and other such ingredients. How is that Bhagavān?” If we do not consider things in a somewhat subtle manner, we will not be able to grasp the concept. I will try to convey it via an example: Suppose a person is going from one place to another on a palanquin. This can be seen in two ways. Either the carriers are the doers and are transporting their passenger in their box or the passenger is the doer and has ascended the shoulders of the carriers. If the carriers are the doers, then the carried person becomes but a function of the carriers, something less than the carriers. If the carried person is the doer, the boss, then several servants are carrying a palanquin on the order of their boss and thinking of themselves as fulfilling their duties. Here, the carriers are but functions of the person being carried, subservient to said passenger, inferior to the passenger. Though from an outsider’s perspective the two look the same, they are, however, completely opposite. When the people of the world become the doers and fashion an object, then that is something less than them, an object wrought of earth, an idol. And when Bhagavān is the active agent and incarnates in this world, ascending the shoulders of His carriers, the guru, the priests, the officiates, fire, etc., and granting them the great fortune of service, then He is directly Bhagavān—not an idol. Bhagavān only manifests His form in the hearts of surrendered individuals.

nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyo,
na medhayā na bahunā śrutena
yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūṁ svām

Paramātmā-vastu (the substance of the Supreme Soul) is not accessible by intelligence or scholarship. Paramātmā reveals His self-manifest form before those who are surrendered. Probing and searching along the ascending path (āroha-pantha), the empiricists are ultimately bound to say Bhagavān is featureless and formless, because we cannot touch Him with any sort of challenging mood (āroha-pantha). Though Bhagavān Śrī Nṛsiṁhadeva manifested in a rather extraordinary way, from a pillar, Hiraṇyakaśipu could not understand Him to be Bhagavān. He thought Him to be some exotic creature and started to fight Him. However, Śrī Prahlāda had darśana of Bhagavān’s form, via bhakti, and began to offer hymns and prayers.

Hiraṇyakaśipu prayed to the creator, Brahmā, with the ambition of becoming the undefeated, ageless, immortal, and unchallenged sole sovereign [of the universe] and received a boon from him that he would not die at the hands of any being created by Brahmā in the present or future. However, Bhagavān maintained the promise of the boon Brahmā had bestowed and yet, by His omnipotence, manifested the form of Śrī Nṛsiṁha and killed Hiraṇyakaśipu. On the contrary, even though Hiraṇyakaśipu resorted to countless schemes to kill his son, Śrī Prahlāda, who was a devotee of Viṣṇu, he could not succeed at ending Prahlāda’s life. Śrī Bhagavān protected Prahlāda by the strength of His inconceivable potencies.

---

1 - Prakṛti-gata saccidānanda-mayatā
2 - Vastu-gata saccidānanda-mayatā