Personal or Impersonal God

A question came this morning:

"I wanted your thoughts on the following issue, which someone has raised with me:"

"I am personally grappling with the apparent gulf between this neutral essence or power, which is a quiet witness who never intervenes, and the idea of a loving personal God who hears prayers and responds in kind."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<           <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 

First of all, I personally do not see any gulf between the two. 

Let's look at both the theories and their apparent difference.

                 Impersonal, Niraakar, abstract God :

As I understand, The Vedanta, Gurubani and of course the Nirankari philosophy, not only believes and supports, but explains thru the Gyana the philosophy of Niraakar and Nirgun Brahm which is 'Impersonal God '. 

Gurubani says : "Roop na rang na rekh kichh, Trai gun te Prabh bhinn, " God has neither any form or shape, nor any of the three qualities" 

That means neither anger nor compassion or kindness. In other words, Supreme God is a silent witness.

The complete Nirankari philosophy is outlined in the first shabad of Avtar Bani;

 "Roop rang te Rekhon nyaare, Tainu Lakh Pranam " (Salutation to the Formless God)

Bhagvad Gita says :   "Nadattey kasya chit Paapam,

                                      nachaiv sukritam Vibhuh"
Meaning "God neither punishes anyone for their sins nor rewards for their good deeds." 

          He is just a quiet witness. 

It also indirectly implies that we have freedom of choice and we are responsible of our actions as well, and that no one intervenes in any way.  

This is the view of a Brahm Gyani and a Nirankari who believes in the formless Niraakar and Nirguna God. 

The only problem with this belief is that most of us can understand this intellectually, but practically it is extremely difficult to follow. 
We cannot always feel, in reality, that " I am a part of Almighty God and in control"
We can not really see every situation, good or bad, as 'illusion'.
We can not always detach ourselves from everything by saying that “I am not a body and nothing of this world affects me".

 Most of us, most of the times, feel that we are more or less helpless and we need someone to pray to, who will listen to us, fulfill our desires and take care of us when we need. 
So, instead of impersonal God, most of us like the idea of believing in a personal God.

The Vedanta, besides teaching about the abstract Impersonal God, also explains its three forms, namely:

1.  Nirgun Brahm :  Niraakar and Nirguna 

      (Formless with no attributes)  A silent witness.

2.  Ishwar or ParamAtma:     Niraakar but Sagun Brahm : 

      Formless God with qualities such as compassion, love and 

      kindness.

3.  Bhagvaan :        Sakaar and Sagun : 

    God in physical form with above mentioned qualities such as 

    Gurus or Avtaars. 

First would be considered Impersonal God while 2nd and 3rd would be the 'Personal God'

 Personal God can be  "Niraakar " or 'Sakaar ' 

Are they different ?  No. 
Do we have to choose one?  No. 

In reality, all three are same in different forms. It depends on how we look at it. 

Goswami Tulasi Das says;

“Agunahi Sagunahi nahin kachhu Bhedaa”

“Jo gun Rahit, Sagun soi kaise

 Jal, Hima, Upal Bilag nahin jaise”

Meaning: There is no difference between Nirgun Brahm and Sakaar Brahm.

   How could that be? Just as water, ice and steam are not different. They are  simply different forms of the same.”

Which belief is good for us? Depends on who we are and which level we are at.

Dr. Radhakrishnan divides the humanity in 3 categories.

1. Intellectual

2. Emotional

3. Action oriented

The first two would be relative here;

    Intellectual or Gyani & Emotional Bhakta.

For the first ones, who have the knowledge and control over 'self ' the path of Nirgun and Niraakaar Brahm is fine. But the Bhaktas who are emotional, may not be able to accept and handle the idea of an Impersonal God who is not going to do anything for them. So the second or third path might be better for them.

  "However one worships, 'He' accepts his devotion."

                                                              (Bhagvad Gita 4:11)

In the end, it all comes down to the acceptance and surrendering. 

A Gyani will say   "It happened the way it happened because of my Karma. God is simply the witness".

A Bhakta will say “It happened because God wanted it to happen this way."

If it happened in his favor:" He gave it to me because I prayed" 

If not in favor: "I prayed but He did not give it to me because, for whatever reason, He did not want it." 

A Gyani will say "There is no need to pray”.

“Bin boleyaan sab kichh jaanadaa, Kis aage keechai Ardaas”

                                                               (Gurubani)

A Gyaani thinks “Whatever is going to happen, will happen according to my Karma", and he accepts it.

Bhakta  finds satisfaction in praying and accepts the outcome as "His will "

Unlike a worldly person who will complain and get frustrated or angry, the Gyani and the Bhakta, both will maintain their peace by accepting everything, thru their own respective belief. 

I cannot say which would be the right belief for someone else. It depends on each individual's intellectual and mental- emotional state. 

Lord Krishna says in Gita " Teshaam Gyani Nitya yukta, EkBhaktir Vishishyate" 

“The 'Gyani Bhakta ' is my favorite one” (combination of both)

Nirankari Mission is teaching exactly the same.... Bhakti thru Gyana. 

Regards,

‘Rajan Sachdeva’