Is there any actual difference between Brahman Paramatma and Bhagavan, or is it just a matter of perception?

From Divyangi Lalita M

I was with the understanding that Brahman and Paramatma are limited and can only exhibit sat and sat-cit features respectively. From the lecture, I understood that they are the same absolute truth and there is difference only in the way it is perceived by the practitioner, can you please explain further.

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you. Question from Divyanka Lalita Mataji. Is there any actual difference between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagwan? Or, is it a matter of just perception? In the explanation of the Isopanishad, you have mentioned that earlier I was with the understanding that Brahman and Paramatma are limited and can only exhibit Sat and Satchit features respectively.
From the lecture, I understood that they are the same absolute truth. And, there is a difference only in the way it is perceived by the practitioner. Can you please explain further? Answer is the difference or non-difference between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagwan is a matter of Achint Bheda Veda.
It is inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference. So, at one level, we have to understand the oneness first. So, we can give the example of there is a gulab jamun.
Then, first of all, when we perceive the gulab jamun, say by smell, the aroma comes around. Then, we excite, oh, it looks so succulent, so attractive. And, then we taste it.
So, the gulab jamun itself has all the attributes at all the times. It has fragrance, it has shape, it has taste. But, when a person is distant, the person, what does he perceive? The person perceives it only as a, only perceives the fragrance.
So, Srila Prabhupada gave the example of a mountain which is far away. You only see the contours. And, then we may see some more sort of flora, fauna over there.
Then, later on, we see the people over there. So, now, in all the cases, the mountain remains the same. But, as we move closer and closer, then we see different features which are not visible earlier.
So, like that, the absolute truth, when it is seen from a distance, only the aspect of the absolute truth is perceived. So, that aspect is perceived means that one understands that beyond this, beyond this temporary material world, there is some eternal reality. So, that is the Brahman realization.
Then there is the Paramatma realization where one perceives the Sat and the Chit aspect. And, then the Bhagwan realization where one perceives Sat, Chit and Ananda. Chit means one perceives that the absolute truth is conscious and is going to observe, is going to oversee the world and is a witness and a judge.
So, that conscious aspect is there, but still the loving reciprocation aspect is not yet talked about over there. That is understood in the Bhagwan realization. Now, if we look at the mountain example, Srila Prabhupada, the mountain remains the same.
So, it’s just only the distance of the observer which creates different perceptions. Now, we often feel that Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagwan are different because we often think of them in terms of locations. We think of Brahman as present everywhere.
We think of Paramatma as present in the heart and Bhagwan as present in the spiritual world. Then we think, okay, these are three different things. Not exactly.
They are all actually one. It’s the same absolute truth. We understand that Krishna is not like an ordinary human being who has to be present only at one place.
He is in the spiritual world. But at the same time, He is also in the heart. And there are many places where the Lord in the heart is referred to directly as Krishna.
Brahmaji doesn’t refer to the Paramatma as Paramatma. He says, He is Shyama Sundar. So, for a devotee, the Lord is revealing Himself fully and the Lord doesn’t see the super soul, four-handed Vishnu.
He sees Shyama Sundar over there in the heart. What this essentially means is that these three aspects are not different. It’s the same one absolute truth.
At the same time, we also see that there are devotees who express strong distaste for impersonal liberation. We have Vishwanath Chakravarth in this Vrajdham Mahima Amrit. He says that actually the prick of a thorn in Rindavan is greater than Brahmananda.
That has greater happiness. Prick we consider painful, but he considers that ecstatic and greater than Brahmananda, which is considered to be the greatest of the pleasures that normally non-devotional spiritualists aspire for. And even more strongly, Prabhudana Saraswati says, He says that Brahman, actually going to Brahman, getting liberated, that Kaivalya is like Narak.
What does this mean? If attaining Brahman is non-different from Bhagwan, then why would somebody say that going to Brahman is like hell? We are here to understand that both the Acharyas are talking about the understanding of Brahman, which is divorced from Bhagwan. So when we talk about Brahmananda or when we’re talking about Kaivalya, in this context, the Acharyas are referring to the concept of impersonal liberation, where there is no understanding of the personal absolute and there’s no opportunity to serve the personal absolute. So there is very little joy in it.
And for a devotee, because it deprives the devotee of the much greater joy of devotion, the devotee considers it to be flesh. So in that sense, there is a difference with respect to the way the devotees look at it. So when somebody considers, conceives Brahmananda or Brahman feature or liberation, which is divorced from the ecstasy of service, then the devotee doesn’t want it.
Bhagavatam also says, Kapiladeva says that the various concepts of liberation, Even if a devotee is offered this, they don’t take it, if they are not given it with the opportunity for serving. So what the devotees consider as the essential liberation, supreme liberation is service, because that enables them to reciprocate love with the personal absolute truth, who manifests in full the Satchitananda features. So now Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan, all Satchitananda.
But when one is at the level of Brahman realization, one has realized only the Brahman aspect. And when one has only realized the Brahman aspect, for somebody who has tasted the sweetness of the Bhagavan aspect, to stay only at the Brahman aspect is unpalatable. In fact, it can be so horrible as to be compared to hell also.
So we shouldn’t just think of these three aspects of the absolute truth in terms of their locations. One is everywhere, one is here, one is there. We have to understand that the same absolute truth and they are just manifested in different features.
And that’s why, That non-dual absolute truth is known as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. So it’s the one absolute truth that is manifested. So we shouldn’t let ourselves become offensive towards Brahman.
It is Bhagavan itself. There is no difference between Brahman and Bhagavan, as far as the fact that they are the same one absolute truth is concerned. But when one divorces Brahman from Bhagavan, and one thinks Brahman itself is the highest truth, then that is undesirable conception.
So as devotees, we shouldn’t minimize Brahman. We shouldn’t think that Brahman itself is something low level or something like that. Yes, a devotee may consider Brahmananda to be low level.
Of course, for us, it’s very high level. We have to give up Mithyananda right now. We have to give up the happiness of sense gratification right now.
But the point is Brahman, there are many places where the absolute truth is directly referred to as Brahman. Krishna uses the word, Arjuna uses the word Param Brahma for Krishna. They are also using the word Brahma itself.
And so many places, the absolute truth is referred to in a generic way by the term Brahma. Athato Brahma Jijnatha. Now enquire about spirit in general.
And Brahma here actually doesn’t just refer to spirit. The answer to that Brahma is Janmadyasyataha. That is the source of everything.
That means he is referring to the absolute truth over there. So the word Brahma is referred generally to the absolute truth, specifically when it refers to one feature of the absolute truth, that is Brahman, the impersonal aspect. That aspect is also an aspect of God.
And it’s his own feature which is manifested. The three are non-different. But for those who have incomplete realization, only that feature is manifested.
And that level of realization is considered inferior. It is not that that level of absolute truth, it is not that that feature of absolute truth is something different from the one absolute truth. That is Krishna.
They are just different features of Krishna and they are non-different. Although there will be difference in the realization of the seekers and there is a difference, not there may be, there is a difference between the realization of the seekers and there is a difference in the approach of devotees to these aspects when they are considered separate from Bhagawan. But actually there is no separation.
They are the same one absolute truth.