Since Dr. Radhakrishnan implies that the impersonal Brahman alone possesses such transcendental qualities as being inexhaustible, imperishable, and unborn, we must turn to the Gītā for a proper reply. In truth, all the divine expansions of the nondual Supreme Being are endowed with these same superexcellent qualities. As Arjuna declares in the Bhagavad-gītā (11.18),
- tvam akṣaraṁ paramaṁ veditavyaṁ
- tvam asya viśvasya paraṁ nidhānam
- tvam avyayaḥ śāśvata-dharma-goptā
- sanātanas tvaṁ puruṣo mato me
You are the supreme primeval objective. You are the ultimate resting place of all this universe. You are inexhaustible, and You are the oldest. You are the maintainer of the eternal religion, the Personality of Godhead. This is my opinion.
We should understand that those passages in the Gītā which describe Para-brahman as akṣara ("indestructible") are references to Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Controller Godhead. Not once is Lord Kṛṣṇa equated with the kṣara, the conditioned jīvas. Not only big philosophers like Dr. Radhakrishnan, but even mighty demigods like Lord Brahmā and Lord Indra are in the category of kṣara. The Lord maintains the entire cosmic manifestation merely by His separated energy. Just as fire, though situated in one place, spreads its light and heat in all directions, so the unborn Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, while maintaining His full personality, eternality, and imperishability, expands Himself into countless Viṣṇu forms, jīvas, and internal and external potencies. Expanding Himself in this way never diminishes or in any way affects His status as the Absolute Whole. As the Īśopaniṣad, Invocation declares, pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate:
Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
The Lord is the eternal Supreme Person, and therefore His name, form, qualities, pastimes, and so on are all eternal. The Sanskrit word puruṣa means "enjoyer." An enjoyer can never be a formless, impersonal, impotent being. Certainly Lord Kṛṣṇa is without material qualities, yet He is the enjoyer and possessor of all spiritual qualities.
In the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna glorifies Lord Kṛṣṇa as akṣara, Para-brahman, and ādi-deva (the original Personality of Godhead). Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that the term akṣara, "inexhaustible," is synonymous with the word avyaya, "without deterioration." Therefore why does he conclude that Lord Kṛṣṇa and His body are different? This we fail to understand. On page 275, Dr. Radhakrishnan admits that Arjuna says Lord Kṛṣṇa is Para-brahman, Bhagavān, the Absolute Truth. In the same book and on the same page he writes something quite incoherent and fictitious and attributes it to Arjuna: "Arjuna states that the Supreme (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) is both Brahman and Īśvara, Absolute and God." If Dr. Radhakrishnan possesses such a sketchy and incorrect perception of the Gītā that he thinks Bhagavān is different from Brahman then how can he claim to have read the Gītā? He argues that Bhagavān and Supersoul Kṛṣṇa are products of māyā, while Brahman is not! Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī has severely criticized such speculative philosophy. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta he writes, "Not knowing that Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān are all features of Kṛṣṇa, foolish scholars speculate in various ways."