Is the Absolute Truth like water that appears liquid to the impersonalists and solid to the personalists?

Some spiritual teachers give the example that how we perceive the Absolute Truth depends on our consciousness. Just as the same water appears liquid at one temperature and solid at another temperature, so the Absolute Truth appears impersonal at one level of consciousness and personal at another level. Is this a correct understanding?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
thank you is the absolute truth like water that appears liquid to the impersonalists and solid as having formed the personalists some spiritual teachers say that our perception of the absolute truth depends on our consciousness and absolute truth is actually one and they reconcile the impersonal and personal by saying that just as water appears liquid at one temperature and solid at another temperature similarly the absolute truth appears formless at one level of consciousness and it appears as having formed at another level of consciousness and in this way there is actually no contradiction between the personal and impersonal conceptions so is this a correct example and a correct understanding of the example answer first of all there are three major issues with this particular example first is there is a there is a logical problem with the example and the analogy then there is a pre-existing bias in the analogy and third is there is a complete lack of scriptural basis for this analogy so lets look at these that there is a logical problem with the analogy, what is the logical problem it mixes up two things first is if you look at water the example that is given in this case it is water that is changing, water is sometimes solid and water is sometimes liquid so in the example which is given what is changing is the water but in actuality what is the inference what is changing is the observer they are saying that water is sometimes solid and sometimes liquid but what they are saying here is that for some people among the personalists or who are at a particular level of consciousness then the absolute truth appears personal and for the personalists sorry for the impersonalists it appears impersonal and for the personalists it appears personal so now what is changing here among the impersonalists and personalists the difference is in consciousness so in the example the difference is in the object and in the principle that they are talking about the difference is in the in the original people only so in any observation there is a subject and there is the object so there has to be in analogy there has to be consistency so if we have to compare object we should compare with the object if we have to compare subject we should compare with the subject so in the example in the analogy the object is water and the subject is the person observing the water so the water is changing it is solid or it is liquid but if we go back to the original principle that has been talked about the what they are saying is here the personalists and the impersonalists so what is changing in the original principle is the subject not the object they can’t talk about the object changing because it is a universal principle that is understood in the Vedic spiritual circles that the absolute truth is is unchangeable is immutable so Krishna talks about this repeatedly in the Bhagavad Gita and the absolute truth’s nature doesn’t change so there is this logical problem over here and that is why it is an inappropriate example what is changing is it the object that is changing or is it the subject that is changing in the analogy the object is changing in the inference which is drawn from it the subject is changing and that is an error and again this example was given by some spiritual teachers to try to reconcile personal and impersonal conceptions and they say in this way both personal and impersonal are true but if you look at it seriously critically if you look at the example water its natural state is liquid and in an unnatural state when its temperature is changed then it becomes solid so like that the analogy is given in such a way that the natural state of the absolute truth is impersonal and in some specific cases the absolute truth is to be considered personal so that way basically there is subtle bias within the analogy and that bias is to elevate the impersonal as higher and the personal as lower and ultimately the idea is if water is left to its natural state then there will be no water only solid it will be liquid only so like that if there were no observer at all to perceive the absolute truth and the absolute truth would not be personal it would be impersonal only so this is a bias example it is example which pretends to reconcile the impersonal and personal but it does so simply by pushing the impersonal on the head of the personal while giving a pretense of shaking hands actually it is pushing down the personal conception and then most importantly we have to understand is there any scriptural basis for this not at all scriptures don’t talk about anywhere of some the absolute truth being like a personal absolute truth being like a glacier or iceberg which is temporary and the supreme president becomes the manifest after that if you look at the Bhagavad Gita time and time again Krishna talks in the Bhagavad Gita how he is the absolute truth he is the supreme manifest of the absolute truth and he is the supreme eternally in 7.7 he says there is no truth higher than me so this is a direct contradiction with the idea that impersonal is higher than the personal then Krishna says in 7.24 that those who think that the personal has manifested from the impersonal they are foolish he says that those who think that I was impersonal before and now I have become personal they are foolish Krishna says the same thing in 9.11 he says those who think that my form is temporary and immaterial just external covering that I assume they are foolish time and time again Krishna is repeatedly asserting that the highest manifestation of the absolute truth is personal and if you want to look at it further Krishna says in 14.28 7 he says I support the Brahman I am the supporter of the Brahman 15.19 also he says help to be the absolute truth so Krishna is telling is he saying that one level you can perceive impersonal one level you can perceive personal he says one who is beyond all illusion free from all misconceptions, not at all a fool or how does this person know me Kurushottama this person is Kurushottama the supreme person he understands me to be the supreme person such a person one who understands me to be the supreme person is and what is the further characteristic of such a person that person is such a person knows everything so Krishna is not saying that one who sees the personal is at one level of consciousness and at that level one is unable to see the impersonal Krishna is saying one who knows the personal absolute truth one who knows him as Kurushottama is Sarvaveda such a person knows everything and what does such a person do Sarvabhavajitam Sarvabhavena Bhaveta such a person wholeheartedly worships him so the impersonal says that actually when one’s consciousness is too much conditioned by devotion then one sees the absolute truth as personal but when one’s consciousness is filled with Jnana one sees it as impersonal so when consciousness affected by bhakti sees the absolute truth as personal and consciousness affected by Jnana sees the absolute truth as impersonal but Krishna is saying that here after Jnana is attained, after one becomes Sarvaveda then what happens Sarvabhavena Bhajati after that bhakti becomes wholeheartedly so that means it is not that Jnana is one level of perception and bhakti is another level of perception rather bhakti comes after Jnana that means that bhakti offers a higher level of perception and Jnana offers a lower level of perception why because our intellect is limited and by our intellectual capacity we cannot perceive the complete absolute truth so it is only by the mercy of the absolute truth that we can perceive the absolute truth and that mercy is given when the absolute truth is appropriate submission and devotion so we see repeatedly in the scriptures also when the devatas go and pray that they are not praying that oh you who are formless please take a form and save us they are praying that there is absolute truth and please help us, they are praying to Vishnu so the idea that there is some impersonal which becomes personal this is not supported by scripture and the very idea of impersonal becoming personal itself it militates against the idea of understanding the absolute truth is immutable, is unchangeable so the correct understanding is that the personal and the impersonal exist simultaneously it is not that the personal and impersonal are two different states of the absolute truth water at one state is salt and water at another state is liquid it is not that the absolute truth at one state is personal and another state is impersonal the absolute truth is simultaneously personal and impersonal just like the sun has a particular form and the sunlight distributes and dissipates everywhere similarly the absolute truth as Bhagavan is personal and as the Brahmajyoti is the all pervading impersonally so the true reconciliation of impersonalism and personalism is offered by Shaitanya Mahaprabhu in his teachings of Vachint Bheda where he describes not that the personal and impersonal are just two different states either of the absolute truth or of the observer but rather they are two features of the same absolute truth they are not states states means it exists at this state or that state like water exists at solid or liquid no, they are features and both are simultaneously present and Bhagavad Gita is very clear that the personal absolute truth is higher manifestation why higher? because at the level of realization of impersonal manifestation one has realized only the sat aspect of the absolute truth only that the absolute truth is eternal but when one realizes the personal aspect of the absolute truth one has realized the sat, chit and ananda, all three aspects of the absolute truth and that’s why that is the complete understanding of the absolute truth so anybody can give any analogy or example to prove any truth truth in double quotes so if you want to get a clear understanding we have to examine these examples which may seem very opinionated we have to examine them more critically and this example fails from the point of view of having a logical flaw logical inconsistency in subject and object it fails from the point of view of having a no seeming to reconcile but giving a higher level to the impersonal aspect and lastly it contradicts, it not only has no scriptural basis but it contradicts the scriptural teachings and that’s why we should not be taken in by such examples Thank you