If Tulsi das was a devotee, why did he want to merge in impersonal brahman?

From Govinda Madhava P

i heard voice clip givan by you “Srila Prabhupad position on tulsidas goswami” But my one dout remain unsolved. ” Tulsidas want to merge into impersonal bramhan?”. Ram and Laxman gave darshan to Tulsidas in prayag ghat.

please please answer yes or no with some discription if required.

please dont neglact . i can not practice KC without understanding this fact.

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you. Question from Rohindra Madhavrani.
If Tulsidas was a devotee, then why did he want to merge into impersonal Brahman? Answer, we shouldn’t assume that Brahman necessarily means impersonal Brahman. The scriptures often use terms interchangeably and only when we see the context can we understand what the term means. Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan are all terms used to refer to the absolute truth and while referring to the absolute truth, many terms can be used.
Among them, which refers to which feature of the absolute truth is never certain. What we should focus on is to understand the implication of a particular term is understand the whole context of what is being talked about. The Vaishnav Prabhupada has explained in his books, generally speaking, the word Brahman refers to Brahmajyoti but it doesn’t always have to refer to like that.
For example, quoting extensively from the Upanishads and the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita as well as the Vedanta Sutra, the Vedanta Research Foundation, the Madhava Sampradaya Scholars, they have produced a whole book that is titled as Brahman is Vishnu and they give various references which very clearly establish that Brahman actually refers to Vishnu. It doesn’t refer to anything else. So, the point here is that we need to recognize if we look at the life of at the overall works of Tulsidas, he has expressed extraordinary devotion to Lord Ram and he has also desired, he has also created legacy by which many, many generations of people have been intensely devoted to Lord Ram.
So, this sort of Bhakti is possible only when there is the understanding of the absolute truth in a personal aspect. So, when even if we find some verses in his writing, some of his Dohas which we seem to say that it’s merging into impersonal Brahman, we have to understand that actually the words don’t necessarily have to mean that, even merging doesn’t necessarily have to mean merging in a sense of entering into oneness. So, of course, at that time when Tulsidas was there, there was a whole Sampradaya, not exactly among the four Sampradayas, but as a whole group of devotees who sort of mixed personal and impersonal conceptions.
For example, Sridhar Swami was a great Vaishnava, but he officially belonged to an impersonal Sampradaya. And on the other hand, Madhusudana Saraswati started off as a Vaishnava, but then eventually he wrote impersonal commentaries and yet even in his impersonal commentaries he says, he write that I don’t believe in any truth higher than Krishna. That’s why what the exact position of a particular scholar or teacher or saint is, we can’t understand isolation from the overall works of that saint.
So, in this particular context, I would say the references which seem to say that Tulsidas wanted to merge into Brahman, we will have to look at their context properly and then we will be able to see how actually they are not referring to merging into an impersonal voidness, but rather they are referring to a oneness of love, where our devotee doesn’t want anything apart from devotion to God and absorb one’s life and thoughts in God. So, that’s what the broad meaning is. And if you have further questions on this, I can connect you with some devotees who are especially scholarly Tulsidas Ramayan and then we can discuss further, but unless it is essential, it is important for us to recognize that we cannot know the heart of anyone and through the words also unless we study the entire body of the words and also that we understand what those words mean in their context, we will not be able to find out exactly what it means.
So, rather than assuming that a particular set of words mean a particular thing, for example, saying that Tulsidas wanted to merge in Brahman, assuming it that way, it is better for us to give the benefit of doubt in this case and recognize that we can’t know the absolute meaning, but if you look at the overall work, it is very clear that there is intense devotion in that work and that has been what his defining identity, defining characteristic has been and that has been his defining legacy also. So, we don’t have to become obsessed by some statements which seem to indicate merger. Rather, if you look at the broader context of his works of the meaning of the terms and the time from which he emerged, then we can understand why because of that particular time, certain statements might have been made which seem to convey certain things, but they don’t necessarily mean the same thing that they would mean now when we read them.
Thank you.