Personal God

Expressions researched:
"Personal God" |"personal feature of God"

SB Preface and Introduction

There is no difference of opinion about the personal feature of God as the controller because a controller cannot be impersonal.

SB Introduction:

The conception of God and the conception of Absolute Truth are not on the same level. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam hits on the target of the Absolute Truth. The conception of God indicates the controller, whereas the conception of the Absolute Truth indicates the summum bonum or the ultimate source of all energies. There is no difference of opinion about the personal feature of God as the controller because a controller cannot be impersonal. Of course modern government, especially democratic government, is impersonal to some extent, but ultimately the chief executive head is a person, and the impersonal feature of government is subordinate to the personal feature.

CC Adi-lila

Both groups are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither group agrees to accept the existence of a personal God.

CC Adi 7.114, Purport:

Why the daivī-māyā, or illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa, takes away the knowledge of the Māyāvādī philosophers is also explained in the Bhagavad-gīta by the use of the words āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ, which refer to a person who does not agree to the existence of the Lord. The Māyāvādīs, who are not in agreement with the existence of the Lord, can be classified in two groups, exemplified by the impersonalist Śaṅkarites of Vārāṇasī and the Buddhists of Saranātha. Both groups are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither group agrees to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless. Thus both the Buddhists and the Śaṅkarites are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32), or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 18.189, Translation:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “The Koran certainly establishes impersonalism, but at the end it refutes that impersonalism and establishes the personal God."

Renunciation Through Wisdom

After writing this and thus accepting the real purport of the Gītā, how can Dr. Radhakrishnan later state that Lord Kṛṣṇa's body and soul are different?

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.2:

Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, the founder and propagator of Māyāvāda philosophy, proved that the material world was an illusion—mithyā—and so he diligently pursued the path of austerity and renunciation, and he stressed it in his teachings. He did not waste valuable time trying to lord it over this illusory material world. But if he were to see the present condition of the philosophy he propounded, perhaps he would be ashamed. We have no doubt that Dr. Radhakrishnan was influenced by him; this is evident from his writings. Yet in his "Introductory Essay," page 25, he writes, "The emphasis of the Gītā is on the Supreme as the personal God who creates the perceptible world by His Nature (prakṛti). He resides within the heart of every being; He is the enjoyer and Lord of sacrifices. He stirs our heart to devotion and grants our prayers. He is the source and retainer of values. He enters into personal relations with us in worship and prayer."

After writing this and thus accepting the real purport of the Gītā, how can Dr. Radhakrishnan later state that Lord Kṛṣṇa's body and soul are different? Such an idea must be a result of his materialistic education. What a strange monism he propounds, in which the Absolute Truth, the nondual Supreme Being, is supposedly separate from His inner existence! Can Dr. Radhakrishnan explain these obvious flaws in his philosophy? When the Supreme Lord Himself is present in everyone's heart as the omniscient Supersoul, then who else can sit in His heart? In the Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself speaks about His transcendental qualities, making statements that Dr. Radhakrishnan, armed with his material erudition, has made but a feeble attempt to contradict. Through such foolishness Dr. Radhakrishnan has made a show of spreading education, but in fact he has preached untruth.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

When one comes to the understanding of personal God, there is ānanda.

Lecture on BG 1.23 -- London, July 19, 1973:

Others, the jñānīs and yogis and karmīs... Karmīs are, they are rascals. Jñānīs, they are partially perfect because they can understand the eternity portion of the Supreme Lord, brahma-jñāna. That is eternity portion. And Paramātmā-jñāna is the cid-aṁśa, knowledge or personally seeing God as the four-handed Viṣṇu. So that is also imperfect knowledge. That when He comes to know Bhagavān, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1), then there is perfect knowledge. Ānanda. Because when one comes to the understanding of personal God, there is ānanda. In other features, there is no ānanda. There is eternity, there is knowledge, but there is no ānanda. Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). That is the Vedānta-sūtra. One is by nature ānandamaya. We are searching after ānanda, bliss, but we do not know where to get bliss.

We believe in personal God," then the doctor answered that "Oh, we believe... The world believed seven hundred years before like that.

Lecture on BG 5.14-22 -- New York, August 28, 1966:

The material advancement of knowledge means we are becoming more and more illusioned. Illusioned. Just like today one of our students, he had been to some doctor for some business. He had some talks with him. So when the student said that "We believe in personal God," then the doctor answered that "Oh, we believe... The world believed seven hundred years before like that." Now people have advanced so far that they cannot believe in the Personality of Godhead. Now, people think, think that they have made very much advance in the material science. Well, actually, if we scrutinizingly study how much advancement they have made, then we can know that practically we have been more illusioned than we have made advancement.

Oh, there is no personal God. It is all impersonal or void.

Lecture on BG 6.6-12 -- Los Angeles, February 15, 1969:

Imagination, those who are in the modes of passion and ignorance, they are imagining the form of God. And when they are confused, they say, "Oh, there is no personal God. It is all impersonal or void." That is frustration. But actually, God has got form. Why not? The Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) the Supreme Absolute Truth is that from whom or from which everything emanates. Now we have got forms. so we have also must have been, not only we, there are different kinds of forms of the living entities.

God is everywhere. Therefore there is no personal God.

Lecture on BG 9.4 -- Melbourne, April 23, 1976:

There are different, I mean to say, ideas, and philosophical proposition. So this mayā tatam idam. But the pantheists, because the materialist think of limited... (coughs) They think that "God is everywhere. Therefore there is no personal God." No, that is foolish, foolishness. He is everywhere, it is explained here. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: "By Me..." Mayā means, "by me." "By Me, or by My energy, I am expanded everywhere." Mayā, this word, it is causative. Causative means I have caused. The example is... If you want to understand, the example is very simple. Just like as soon as the sun is risen, immediately the sunshine is expanded.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Our swamis, they are very rare. They are not ordinary, these so-called swamis and yogis because they know the personal feature of God.

Lecture on SB 2.9.4-8 -- Tokyo, April 23, 1972:

Therefore Bhagavad-gītā says bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). After many, many births of continued impersonal views, when he actually comes to the right platform of knowledge, he surrenders to Vāsudeva. Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ: (BG 7.19) "That mahātmā, that saintly person, is very rare." All the so-called swamis or yogis, they are all impersonalists. Therefore our swamis, they are very rare. They are not ordinary, these so-called swamis and yogis because they know the personal feature of God.

The faith in personal God is diminishing, percentage diminishing. That means people are becoming more and more foolish. That is natural. This is Kali-yuga.

Lecture on SB 3.25.9 -- Bombay, November 9, 1974:

The opinion was against them. So there must be leader. And that leader is a person. That leader cannot be an imperson. No. That is not possible. I think there was a news in the newspaper, Free Press Journal, that the faith in personal God is diminishing. That means they are becoming more foolish. The faith in personal God is diminishing, percentage diminishing. That means people are becoming more and more foolish. That is natural. This is Kali-yuga. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayo manda-bhāgyā hy upadrutāḥ (SB 1.1.10). The more this age of Kali will increase, people will diminish in their bodily strength, in their memory, in their mercifulness, in so many ways.

That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, that one who does not accept the personal God, he is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: mūḍha.

Lecture on SB 3.25.9 -- Bombay, November 9, 1974:

So because we are diminishing in everything, therefore our God consciousness is diminishing also. Therefore there are news word that "Personal God conception is diminishing." That is natural. Mūḍha. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, that one who does not accept the personal God, he is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: mūḍha.

Such kind of civilization is increasing, therefore in the paper we find that "Faith in personal God is decreasing." But God is person.

Lecture on SB 3.25.9 -- Bombay, November 9, 1974:

So this is not advancement of civilization. Because such kind of civilization is increasing, therefore in the paper we find that "Faith in personal God is decreasing." But God is person. Here it is said. What is that? Ya ādyaḥ bhagavān. Originally Bhagavān. Ādyaḥ means originally. There are three conceptions of Absolute Truth. What is that?

Because we are becoming animal, less than animal, therefore they are decreasing the personal God. This is the idea.

Lecture on SB 3.25.9 -- Bombay, November 9, 1974:

Why you have made a civilization to work hard like an ass for your eating? What is this civilization? If everyone is, without working, they're getting their food, then what is your advancement of civilization that you have to work like an ass to get your food? That is not advancement of civilization. Therefore, because we are becoming animal, less than animal, therefore they are decreasing the personal God. This is the idea.

First of all, try to see God, A-B-C-D; then you'll see the personal God. You'll see everywhere.

Lecture on SB 3.25.9 -- Bombay, November 9, 1974:

Why you cannot see God? And God says that "Try to see Me in this way. If you are so dull, then you try to see Me in this way." What? What is that easy way? Raso 'ham apsu kaunteya: (BG 7.8) "I am the taste of the water." And Kṛṣṇa says, "I am the taste of the water." So have you not tasted the water? You are drinking water. Who has not tasted? Everyone has seen God. Why he says that "I do not see God"? Raso 'ham apsu kaunteya prabhāsmi śaśi-sūryayoḥ. "I am the sunshine." Who has not seen the sunshine? Everyone has seen the sunshine. Why he says that "I have not seen God"? First of all, try to see God, A-B-C-D; then you'll see the personal God. You'll see everywhere.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

The less intelligent persons, they cannot think of personal God... Because they think that whenever there is question of personality, it is material body.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.152-154 -- New York, December 5, 1966:

Just like this hand, It is called part, and I am, as whole body, I am the whole. So we can understand part and whole. So therefore He is whole, and everything is His part. He is the aṁśī; He is the whole. Sarva-aṁśī. Kiśora-śekhara. This very word, kiśora-śekhara, "the supreme boy." The supreme boy. His feature is just like a fresh boy, but the supreme. Kiśora-śekhara cid-ānanda-deha, spiritual body. Just mark this description of Kṛṣṇa: cid-ānanda-deha. Cid-ānanda-deha means transcendental, spiritual body, not this body. Because the less intelligent persons, they cannot think of personal God... Because they think that whenever there is question of personality, it is material body. They cannot find out the shape of the spirit soul. It is so small that from material eyes, by material instrument, you cannot find out the shape of the soul. Therefore they conclude that there is no shape.

Philosophy Discussions

You think of Him as personal God or as localized or all-pervading, but God has got form. One has to think of the form of the God. That is easier.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Prabhupāda: Without any big, I mean to say, attempt for religious system, if one has got the idea that there is God, and even without seeing Him if he follows His instruction, always think of Him... Either you think of Him as personal God or as localized or all-pervading, but God has got form. One has to think of the form of the God. That is easier. And if God is accepted as impersonal, that is very troublesome. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyakta āsakta cetasām. Those who are impersonalist, for them to think of God becomes very difficult job. Who is God and what to think of, so the so-called meditation is very difficult.

Personal God means He is demanding, as Kṛṣṇa is demanding, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru:.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Hayagrīva: He says, "If you throw away His grace, He punishes you by behaving objectively toward you, and in that sense one may say that the world has not got a personal God in spite of all the proofs. But while dons and parsons," that is priests, "drivel on," talk on, "about the millions of truths about God's personality, the truth is that there are no longer the men living who could bear the pressure and weight of having a personal God." Because he feels that a personal God would make demands on man, and so therefore men reject the idea of a personal God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Personal God means He is demanding, as Kṛṣṇa is demanding, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Always think of Me, or offer Me worship, offer Me obeisances, and become My devotee. And give up all other engagement. Simply be engaged in My service." This is the demand of God, and if we carry out His demand, then we are perfect. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9). If you simply carry out the orders of God then you become qualified, fit for going back to home, back to Godhead. This is clearly stated.

Just like soul, at the present moment you have got a certain type of body, human body, but the soul has potentiality to have a spiritual body or a dog's body.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

Śyāmasundara: Today's philosopher is called Jacques Maritain, and he's a French..., contemporary French philosopher, very influential, and he's a religionist. He believes in a personal God.

Prabhupāda: Still living?

Śyāmasundara: Yes. His main philosophy is that existence and essence are both there; that existence is not possible without essence. He defines existence to be..., er, essence to be potential and existence to be the actual. So that a thing, and everything that we can perceive, has both existence and, in other words, potentiality and actuality. For instance, this cup has the potentiality to be something else, to be a piece of metal, but in its actual form it is like this. But it has potentiality to become something else. So he says these two things—the essence and the existence-exist simultaneously.

Prabhupāda: So we agree to this point. Just like soul, at the present moment you have got a certain type of body, human body, but the soul has potentiality to have a spiritual body or a dog's body. Both potentialities are there. So the essential is the soul, and the reality... It is not reality; temporary form in the material body. But the potentiality as the soul has its own spiritual body. When it is uncontaminated by the material contamination, he remains only reality without any so-called actuality or temporary form.

They have no other conception, because they cannot conceive personal God. So there is no love.

Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain:

You cannot love air or sky; you must find out a man or woman in the, under the sky. So therefore if you want to love God then you must accept God is a person; otherwise there is no question of love. Therefore for the Māyāvādī philosopher there is no question of love. They merge. They want sāyujya-mukti, to become one. They have no other conception, because they cannot conceive personal God. So there is no love. Therefore they manufacture an idea that in the material condition of life, you just imagine any form of God and love Him, and ultimately you become one. That is their philosophy.

That little child, how he can give up the idea of father?

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: ...and on Sigmund Freud, you discussed with Śyāmasundara Prabhu the sexual aspects, but not the theological aspects. Freud wrote two basic books on religion, Future of an Illusion, and there was a great deal in Leonardo da Vinci, A Study in Psycho-sexuality. He writes, "Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the intimate connection between the father complex and belief in God, has shown us that the personal God is psychologically nothing but an exalted father. Youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down." So he sees God as basically a father complex arising out of the need of help of the little child.

Prabhupāda: That little child, how he can give up the idea of father? And how Mr. Freud can give up the idea? Was he not born by a father?

Hayagrīva: He feels that...

Prabhupāda: He dropped from the sky? Huh? Did, did he?

Why they do not accept this personal God? If they have got any reason, if they have got any logic, any philosophy, here is Kṛṣṇa, perfect God.

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Prabhupāda: That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Person, Supreme God, by everyone, all authorities, past, present, future must be. So why they do not accept this personal God? If they have got any reason, if they have got any logic, any philosophy, here is Kṛṣṇa, perfect God. So He, according to Vedic scripture, He is complete, cent percent God. Other incarnation of God, they are not cent percent. It has been analyzed in our Nectar of Devotion. Up to Nārāyaṇa, ninety-four percent God, ah, ninety-six percent God.

So impersonal expansion of God is controlled by the personal God. This is like pantheism.

Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza:

Prabhupāda: So expansion is also God, but at the same time in expansion there is no God. "No God" means not in person. The expansion is imperson, but expansion is from the person. Just as a government, this is impersonal, but the governor is person. So government means under the control of the governor. So impersonal expansion of God is controlled by the personal God. This is like pantheism. And pantheism, so I think that because everything is God, that God has no personal existence.

Love is five kinds of love: śānta, dāsya, sākhya, vatsalya, mādhurya. The beginning of love is awe and adoration: "Oh, God is so great. God is everything."

Philosophy Discussion on Benedict Spinoza:

Hayagrīva: Spinoza's God is clearly not a personal God. Spinoza is an impersonalist, and his love for God is more intellectual or philosophical than theistic or religious. Being an impersonalist, Spinoza believed in the identity of the individual soul with God. This is not to say that he believed that the individual soul is infinite, but that it is not distinct from God. He writes, "Thus that love of the soul is a part of the infinite love with which God loves Himself." He sees the soul's intellectual love of God and God's love for the individual soul, which is within man, to be one and the same love.

Prabhupāda: Love is five kinds of love: śānta, dāsya, sākhya, vatsalya, mādhurya. The beginning of love is awe and adoration: "Oh, God is so great. God is everything." When he understands God's potency, unlimitedness, the soul adores Him. That adoration is also love. When that adoration is further advanced, then he serves God as master and servant.

The carpenter is rational, who has made the wood in the shape. So he says the nature is rational. Nature is dead matter. How it can be rational?

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Prabhupāda: How it becomes rational?

Hayagrīva: ...but he rejected a personal God concerned with morality.

Prabhupāda: That is his defect. The nature is dead body, matter. So how it can be rational? Just like this table is a dead wood. How it can be rational? That is nonsense. The carpenter is rational, who has made the wood in the shape. So he says the nature is rational. Nature is dead matter. How it can be rational? Therefore there is a rational being behind the nature. That is God. This, the wood, is dead. The wood, out of its own accord, cannot become a table. The carpenter is shaping the wood into table. That is rational. Therefore behind the dead nature, the rational being is God.

That means when you come to the personal God you see that everything is with reference to God. There is nothing independent.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Hayagrīva: This, he goes on to say, he says it doesn't belong, strictly belong, strictly belong to theism or pantheism. "The answer must be it is not strictly referable to either taken by itself, that in different respects it belongs to both, and that if a choice must be made, it is theistic," that is personal, "for God for us is..."

Prabhupāda: That, that means when you come to the personal God you see that everything is with reference to God. There is nothing independent. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaro. That is explained, that this viśvarūpa universe is Bhagavān, but it appears that it is different from Bhagavān to the less intelligent. So then there cannot exist anything without Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but those who have no sufficient knowledge, they think that "This is separate from God and God is separate from you."

1973 Conversations and Morning Walks

Neither of them agree to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny, clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless.

Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson -- September 5, 1973, Stockholm:

Prabhupāda: The Māyāvādīs, who are not in agreement with the existence of the Lord, can be classed in two groups, exemplified by the impersonalists Śaṅkarites of Vārāṇasī and the Buddhists of Saranātha. Both of them are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither of them agree to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny, clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless. Thus both of them are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32), or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence."

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

Kṛṣṇa is one. Advaitam acyutam. Infallible. Anādi, He has no cause.

Room Conversation with Prof. Regamay, Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Lausanne -- June 4, 1974, Geneva:

Prof. Regamay: Yādava Kṛṣṇa spoke with Arjuna...

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Prof. Regamay: It was the personal God Himself or it was an incarnation, this Kṛṣṇa which is in Bhagavad-gītā?

Prabhupāda: Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Kṛṣṇa is one. Advaitam acyutam. Infallible. Anādi, He has no cause. Ananta-rūpam. Ananta-rūpam. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣam (Bs. 5.33). He is the origin. Advaitam-acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca (Bs. 5.33). Still, He's just a fresh young boy. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi. So Govinda is the ādi-puruṣam. Aham ādir hi devānām.

Lord Jesus Christ, he was Vaiṣṇava. He directly gave you the idea of personal God. The personal God is the origin.

Room Conversation with Prof. Regamay, Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Lausanne -- June 4, 1974, Geneva:

Prof. Regamay: But I am struck that, for instance, for us in the West the idea of personal God is strongly rooted in our consciousness.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Lord Jesus Christ, he was Vaiṣṇava. He directly gave you the idea of personal God. The personal God is the origin. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). The... Just like, the same example: the sun god, the sun planet and sunshine, they are one. They are not different. But still, this is impersonal, that is localized, and within the sun globe, there is the sun god. So sun god is the origin of this light. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is the origin of everything. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvam (BG 10.8). That's the fact. But people with poor fund of knowledge they cannot understand it.

God is divine essence, just like you have volumes of milk and you churn it, then you get so much butter.

Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris:

Prabhupāda: The Yoga of Love. So he has many times repeated the word "Kṛṣṇa." That will benefit him.

Jyotirmayī: (French)

Mr. Sheni: (French)

Jyotirmayī: He said that in the Christian philosophy that the conception of God as the person, the personal God, and God as the divine essence. So he is asking...

Prabhupāda: God is person, then? What did he say?

Jyotirmayī: Then he said that so is it not that God, the person, this divine essence, is a superperson, an evolved person, and not exactly somebody impersonal. Like he said that in Śaṅkarācārya's philosophy there is the conception of tat. So is not this tat conception, this divine essence, this superperson...

Prabhupāda: Yes, He is divine essence. God is divine essence, just like you have volumes of milk and you churn it, then you get so much butter. So the butter is the essence of the milk. Similarly, the spirit is vast, all-pervading.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Common people will never come because they do not believe in the personal feature of God.

Morning Walk -- July 21, 1975, San Francisco:

Prabhupāda: Ah. Śraddhāvān, That is required. If he has no faith, then he remains in darkness.

Devotee (6): If we save the common people by giving them prasādam, how can we save the impersonalists?

Prabhupāda: That will come later on. (break) ...ists will not come. They will never come because they do not believe in the personal feature of God. Unless very hungry, he will not come because he does not believe in prasāda, does not believe in God.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

He says, brahmaṇo 'haṁ pratiṣṭhā: "Brahmajyoti is emanating from Me." Brahmajyoti, although impersonal, it is coming from Kṛṣṇa.

Morning Walk -- January 12, 1976, Bombay:

Indian man: Yes, that is the point. Everybody knows it.

Dr. Patel: Now, you see, impersonal and personal God, I am talking. I.... Perhaps you may not like. You know, the people.... You see, impersonal God is nothing but the emanation of God. As he said, the brahmajyoti, or what as he once gave me that example, that sun and its rays, if you put a sort of mirror, you see the same sun there through the rays. Don't you? In the same way, you may see God everywhere that way, but real God is sun. Like that, God is there, but His emanation is Brahman. Parabrahman is God; Brahman is jyoti.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Dr. Patel: Am I right?

Prabhupāda: Very good. Thank you very much.

Devotees: Jaya!

Dr. Patel: So you go to Brahman but not to Parabrahman. When you try to realize Parabrahman, that is personal God; Brahman is impersonal God. Right, sir?

Prabhupāda: And He says, brahmaṇo 'haṁ pratiṣṭhā: "Brahmajyoti is emanating from Me." Brahmajyoti, although impersonal, it is coming from Kṛṣṇa.

One who understands quickly and he forgets quickly. So Dr. Patel has understood slowly. So he'll never forget it.

Morning Walk -- January 12, 1976, Bombay:

Dr. Patel: And then you become his śiṣya, that's all, indirect śiṣya. For the last two year I have been only reading all the great writings of Vaiṣṇava saints and Vaiṣṇava ācāryas because I read a lot of Śaṅkarācārya and others, and even, even post—what do you call—Buddhist philosophy, different lines, half a dozen of them. When I read the Vaiṣṇavas' teaching I think that.... Personally, you see, there are so many children, but your own son, you say, "This is my son." The personal relationship, when established, takes you far ahead psychologically. Am I right, sir? That is how personal God...

Prabhupāda: And if you take care of your own son, nobody will criticize you that "Why are you taking care of your own son, not others? Nobody will.... That is natural. That is explained in the Bhagavad.... Samo 'haṁ sarva-bhūteṣu

(BG 9.29). He is equal to everyone. But one who is a devotee, "I take special care."

Dr. Patel: "He is in Me, and I am in him."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Dr. Patel: That is why all the great bhaktas, all the great, I mean, say, Narsi Meta(?) or Mirabai, they have worshiped personal God and merged in personal God in toto. Their, that what we call that ego is washed away by the sacred, I mean, this thing of God. Our impersonal philosophers are there, but they are not so well known. That is why he said that personal God and, I mean, worshiping personal God, you are immediately raised to that status from where you will be able to get jñāna.

Prabhupāda: (break) There was one teacher in my school, he used to say that "One who is slow to understand, he is slow to forget also."

Dr. Patel: Yes, that's a fact. It's really a fact.

Prabhupāda: And one who understands quickly and he forgets quickly. So Dr. Patel has understood slowly. So he'll never forget it.

Everything is there. Any one of them you take. That's good idea, but special conception of personal God, huh? What is that?

Room Conversation -- July 2, 1976, New Vrindaban:

Hari-śauri: Says, "Religion: 1. monastic condition, being a monk or a nun, enter into a monastic order; 2. practice of sacred rites; 3. one of the prevalent systems of faith and worship, i.e. Christian, Muhammadan, etc.; 4. human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience, effect of such recognition on conduct and mental attitude."

Prabhupāda: This is religion. Personal conception of God.

Hari-śauri: And then "5. action that one is bound to do."

Prabhupāda: Yes. Everything is there. Any one of them you take. That's good idea, but special conception of personal God, huh? What is that?

Hari-śauri: "Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience."

Prabhupāda: That's all, clear. What are the other items?

This is religion. So this religion is applicable to everyone, any human being.

Radio Interview -- July 27, 1976, London:

Hari-śauri: "...and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience, and effect of such recognition on the conduct of mental attitude."

Prabhupāda: This is religion. This is religion. So this religion is applicable to everyone, any human being. Why do you bring Christian or Hindu or Muslim, or...? Everyone has to accept that. That is real religion. And this is not religion, "We believe there is no soul of the animal." That is not religion. That is most unscientific. That is not religion.

Impersonal Brahman is resting on the personal God, exactly that illumination of light is resting on the bulb.

Letter to Sai Baba -- September 13, 1976, Vrndavana:

Prabhupāda: (dictating:) So one has to accept the statement of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, how He is originally the puruṣa or person. Impersonal Brahman is expansion of the rays of His personal body, exactly like the sunshine is expansion of the rays of the sun-god Vivasvān. Vivasvān is a person in the sunglobe and Kṛṣṇa is also a person who spoke the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā long, long years before He spoke the same to Arjuna. Imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam (BG 4.1). Therefore the conclusion is that originally God is always a person. Impersonal Brahman is emanation from the personal God. In other words, God, personal God is not from impersonal Brahman, but impersonal Brahman is from the personal God. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā as follows.

Pradyumna: Impersonal Brahman is an emanation of the personal God. It is not, it is not that the personal God is an emanation of...from... or it is that impersonal Brahman is an emanation. It is not that the personal God is an emanation of impersonal Brahman.

Prabhupāda: Impersonal Brahman is resting on the personal God, exactly that illumination of light is resting on the bulb. Not that the bulb is resting on the illuminated light.

1968 Correspondence

It is encouraging to me that you are going to France and will acquaint yourself with theistic philosopher's on a Personal God.

Letter to Janardana -- Los Angeles 19 December, 1968:

It is encouraging to me that you are going to France and will acquaint yourself with theistic philosopher's on a Personal God. Actually when one comes to realize the Personality of Godhead, only then is his theistic knowledge complete. We have discussed this point very elaborately in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is and your high intelligence will help you to present this idea before the learned scholars of France who are already inclined toward a Personality of Godhead. Please impress them logically and scientifically and it will be a great achievement for our mission. France is considered to have the most cultured people in Europe and if we can have some footing in France in the matter of Krishna Consciousness certainly this will be a great success. I am very glad that this subject matter is entrusted with you and I hope you will do it to your best capacity.

1970 Correspondence

According to the Vedic conception, religion is basically made by the Personal God as His laws.

Letter to Executive Senior Editor of Los Angeles Times -- Los Angeles 14 January, 1970:

Dr. J.F. Staal's statement that Krishna cult is a combination of Christian and Hindu religion—as if something manufactured by concoction—is not correct. If Christian, Mohammedan or Buddhist religions are personal that is quite welcome. But Krishna religion is personal from a time long, long ago when Christian, Mohammedan and Buddhist religions had not yet come into existence. According to the Vedic conception, religion is basically made by the Personal God as His laws. Religion cannot be manufactured by man or anyone superior to man. Religion is the law of God only.

In the Bhagavad-gita it is clearly said that the aim of Vedic way of searching out the Absolute Truth is to find out the Personal God.

Letter to Executive Senior Editor of Los Angeles Times -- Los Angeles 14 January, 1970:

But Krishna philosophy based on the authority of the Vedas is that originally the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His plenary expansion is present in everyone's heart in His localized aspect and the impersonal Brahman effulgence is the transcendental light and heat distributed everywhere. In the Bhagavad-gita it is clearly said that the aim of Vedic way of searching out the Absolute Truth is to find out the Personal God. If one is satisfied only with the other aspects of the Absolute Truth namely the Paramatma feature or the Brahma feature—such person is to be considered as one possessed of poor fund of knowledge. Recently we have published our "Isopanisad" a Vedic literature and in this small booklet we have thoroughly discussed this point.

Although there is no incongruity, still because we are preaching the personal feature of God, we shall not chant Hari Om.

Letter to Syamasundara -- Los Angeles 25 February, 1970:

Perhaps you have heard, and George has also heard, my song on this theme, "Hari Hari bifale janama gonainu . . ." So if George can compose a nice song in his own words, and sings, I am sure it will be an epoch making incident. There are many hundreds of thousands of such themes, and if he wants to introduce such songs propitious for pushing Krsna Consciousness movement, that will be very nice. The transcendental vibration OM is also authorized, but is specifically sung by the impersonalists. Although there is no incongruity, still because we are preaching the personal feature of God, we shall not chant Hari Om.

1971 Correspondence

Our preaching on the basis of Personal God is almost revolutionary in India also.

Letter to Gargamuni -- Gorakhpur 16 February, 1971:

Please accept my blessings. I am so glad to receive your letter dated 2nd February, 1971, although it was redirected from one place to another. At the present moment, I am staying in a big bungalow of Gita Press of Gorakhpur. Temporarily we have installed nice big Deities and people are coming here to the fullest extent of the hall. Our preaching on the basis of Personal God is almost revolutionary in India also. Last night somebody said that Aurobindo is greater than Krsna. So this is the world situation. Somebody is Krsna Himself, somebody is greater than Krsna, somebody says Krsna has no form, somebody says that Krsna is dead and so on. Our program is to offer vehement protest against all these nonsensical declarations. I am so glad to know that you are preaching alone assisted by a Brahmacari at Gainesville and it is very encouraging that you are introducing our philosophy in schools, colleges, etc. This should be our present program of work. If you can introduce our books in the schools and colleges and libraries and preach there about our philosophy, that will be a great success.