Why are personalists better than impersonalists? What is the destination of impersonalist?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
so the question is that among the two kinds of transcendentalists personalists and impersonalists are personalists better and what is the destination of the impersonalists is that also part of your question so yes Krishna does say that when Arjuna asks this question in 12.1 evam satata-yugta ye bhakta-stham paripasate ye japa-yaksheram ye bhakta-tesham ke yoga-vittamaham so among those who worship the impersonal and the personal who are better mayyam eshyaman hoye mam vitya-yukta-upasate shraddhaya-pariyo-petas teme-yuktatamohamata in 12.2 Krishna answers that those who worship me in my personal form Krishna says me, he means me that is Krishna those who worship him and subliminally Krishna is Shraddhaya Parayodhya, with what kind of faith? Transcendental faith. Krishna talks about material faith in the 17th chapter, faith in goodness, passion, endurance and based on that faith different people may get attracted to different forms. But Krishna’s form is transcendental and those who understand the transcendental form of Krishna and worship him with transcendental faith, they are the most intimately united.
Why? Because they have understood God in his highest manifestation. So those who consider God to be impersonal, their conception of the spiritual is reactionary. Their conception of spiritual is largely based on matter.
They think matter is temporary, matter is entangling, therefore go beyond matter. Matter has form, therefore go beyond form. So they don’t conceive of positive spiritual reality.
They conceive of spiritual reality only in terms of the negation of the material, not in terms of revelation of the spiritual. Just like if say I have got, suppose I have got arthritis in my body and then if say I have got arthritis in my hands, legs, so whatever movement I do, it causes me pain. And then if I decide I will just, if only I could just give up all motion, then I will be free from pain.
I mean it’s true. If I could become free from motion, I will become free from pain. But after becoming free from pain, I will want to do motion.
Isn’t it? So here the cause of pain has been misdiagnosed. The cause of pain is not motion. The cause of pain is disease, arthritis.
So if I understand that cause and treat that, then I will be able to be cured and be able to act in a way that doesn’t cause any pain, but can help me to do constructive things and bring joy to me. So similarly, so when people’s conception of painlessness is largely a reaction to pain, oh motion causes pain, give up motion. Like that, oh form causes entanglement, give up forms.
So then their conception of spiritual as formless is reactionary based on not a positive revelation of the spiritual, but on a negative rejection of the material. And if just becoming motionless is not possible, how long can you do it? That’s why Krishna said immediately, 1.5, that Klesho Devarastesh. Those who conceive of this absolute truth as impersonal, their progress is very difficult.
It’s filled with klesho. Shri Krishna used the word klesho twice over there to emphasize that point. So in contrast, so understanding that the attraction to form is not the problem, attraction to material form is the problem.
Those who understand that and they redirect their attraction towards the personal form of Krishna, they actually become liberated, joyful, easily. So the impersonalist, their destination will depend on their conception of the spiritual, their conception of Krishna. If they just think, okay, there’s absolute truth which is impersonal, and I want to attain that.
And they try to regulate their senses, they try to live a sattva guni life. Krishna describes them in the Bhagavad Gita, I said 12.3 and 4. He says that, They try to control their senses, they try to be equipoised towards all living beings, and then they try to attain Krishna. Such people will eventually attain him.
He says, Bahunam janmanamanute, after many lifetimes, they’ll attain him. Because gradually, they will attain Krishna, not as Krishna as Bhagwan, Krishna as his impersonal manifestation as Brahman. So this is those who reject currency and simply try to live on without any currency.
You can live in some ways. But there are others. These are impersonalists who are called as Brahmavadis.
And there are another category of impersonalists who are Mayavadis. And they not only consider the absolute truth to be impersonal, but they reject the form of the absolute truth as illusory. This is offensive.
Why? Because there is a one spiritual teacher, spiritual in double course. So he says, you can take whichever form you want and meditate on the form. And concentrate and concentrate and concentrate on that form.
And when will you know that you have attained Samadhi? When by the power of your concentration, the form on which you are concentrating, crumbles into power. Then you will go beyond form to the formless and then you have attained Samadhi. So now unfortunately, or predictably you could say, many followers, they take a form and when they are in a closed room, they just beat the form down.
They say just crumble into power, now I have attained Samadhi. This is very unfortunate. So those who offend Krishna’s form, they are very unfortunate.
And their destination is also correspondingly unfortunate. And many people in India, very few are actually inveterate Mayavadis. That is those who are offensive to Krishna’s form.
Many people are actually impersonalists in the sense of being Brahmavadis. There is some light into which we have to merge. Devotees have no urge to merge.
They long to love and serve. And so depending on, we cannot brand anybody who talks about an impersonal conception as a Mayavadi and say that they are doomed. That is incorrect.
But we also have to be cautious that we get a correct understanding and try to share that understanding about the absolute truth, about Krishna’s form with everyone. Thank you.