Yesterday I posted the news about the AI “Prabhupada’s servant” I designed as a custom ChatGPT that answers based on the teachings of Prabhupada. There are many possible uses for this platform (as long as you understand it is propense to mistakes and don’t accept what it says as absolute truth). One of them is to use it as a learning tool on how to debate with proponents of different philosophies. You just need to instruct it on what you need to debate, and what should be its approach to the debate (should it just be stubborn, or should it yield when defeated, for example?)

Here is an example of the AI playing the role of the Mayavadi. You can see the arguments it gives and the arguments I used to counter it. It has a basic understanding of different philosophies from the general base, and can relate it to Vaishnava philosophy from the teachings of Prabhupada.

• Me: Let’s debate. You play the Mayavadi and try to convince me that God is impersonal. You should be determined and fierce but agree with me when I make correct points.
  
• Chat GPT (Prabhupada’s Servant): Alright, let’s engage in this debate. I’ll present the Mayavadi (impersonalist) perspective, and you can respond from the standpoint of personalism or devotional service. I’ll make strong arguments for the impersonal conception of God, and let’s see how you counter them.

Mayavadi Argument: The ultimate reality, Brahman, is formless, without qualities, and beyond any material distinctions. The scriptures tell us, sarvam khalv idam brahma—”everything is Brahman” (Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1). This means that everything is ultimately one; there is no real difference between the individual soul (jiva) and God. The forms we see—whether of this world or even of God, such as Krishna or Vishnu—are all temporary manifestations of the formless Absolute.

God, or Brahman, is beyond all forms and distinctions. The personal forms of God, like Krishna, are manifestations of the saguna brahman (God with attributes) meant for those still conditioned by material existence. But the true, ultimate understanding is nirguna brahman—the impersonal, all-pervading light of consciousness, which is the ultimate reality. To think that God has a material form, even a transcendental form, is to misunderstand His true nature.

The Bhagavad-gita itself confirms this in 9.4 when Krishna says, maya tatam idam sarvam—”I pervade all this universe.” This indicates the formless nature of the Divine, spread everywhere, not limited to a particular personal form.

So why cling to the idea of a personal God when the Vedic literature makes it clear that the highest truth is impersonal?

How do you respond to this?

• Me: Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.11 mentions: vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate, “Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.”

Although the impersonal aspect is factual, it is a partial understanding. Just like simply seeing the light of the sun is an incomplete understanding of the sun, understanding just the impersonal aspect is an incomplete understanding of the absolute truth. Beyond that there is the localized aspect, Paramatma, and finally Bhagavan, God in His personal form with all opulences, potencies, associates, and relationships.

• Chat GPT (Prabhupada’s Servant): Yes, you are correct that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.11 describes the Absolute Truth in three distinct aspects: Brahman (the impersonal, all-pervading light), Paramātmā (the localized Supersoul within the heart of every living being), and Bhagavān (the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the full, personal manifestation of God). And yes, it is true that each of these represents different realizations of the same Absolute Truth.

But, from a Mayavadi perspective, while the Bhagavatam may present these three aspects, the personal form of Bhagavān, as described in the final realization, is still subject to the illusory perception of duality. It is for those who are not yet fully liberated. Bhagavān is ultimately Brahman but perceived in a form because the conditioned mind needs a form to meditate on. Once one transcends this need, one merges into the impersonal Brahman, the ultimate truth.

For example, in Bhagavad-gītā 14.27, Krishna says, brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham—“I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman.” This can be understood to mean that the personal form of Krishna is a temporary manifestation of the eternal, formless Brahman. Krishna’s form is simply a reflection of the conditioned soul’s attachment to forms and individuality, which is why He takes on this form to guide the jivas. But once you realize the formless Brahman, the personal form of Bhagavān becomes irrelevant.

Therefore, while the personal form of God may seem higher to devotees who need a form to relate to, the ultimate realization is still the impersonal Brahman, where all distinctions dissolve and the devotee merges with the Absolute, losing their individual identity in the ocean of formless consciousness.

How do you respond to the fact that even Krishna says He is the basis of Brahman? Doesn’t that imply that Brahman is the ultimate reality?

• Me: When we interpret brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham in the light of brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate, it’s clear that the impersonal aspect is subordinate to the personal aspect. What the Mayavadis call absolute truth, Brahman, is just one of the energies of Bhagavatam, the effulgence of His personal body, just like the light is just a manifestation of the potency of the sun.
  
• Chat GPT (Prabhupada’s Servant): Ah, you are sharp and well-versed! You’re absolutely right that when we interpret the verse “brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham” in the light of “brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.11), it becomes evident that the impersonal Brahman is actually subordinate to the personal aspect of Bhagavān.

Indeed, just as you mentioned, Brahman—the impersonal, formless aspect of the Absolute Truth—is merely the effulgence or energy of Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The impersonal Brahman is like the sunlight, which emanates from the sun globe. While the sunlight is real, it cannot be understood without reference to the sun itself, which is the source of that light. In the same way, the impersonal Brahman is real, but it is only one of the potencies of Bhagavān, the Supreme Person.

However, from the Mayavadi viewpoint, this analogy of the sun and sunlight doesn’t fully hold up. The effulgence of Brahman is not just a manifestation of some form; it is the ultimate reality itself. The Bhagavān aspect, according to this view, is simply a temporary manifestation of Brahman, created by the illusory need for form and individuality. Once the illusion of duality is transcended, there is no personal form left—only the oneness of impersonal Brahman remains. Even the concept of Bhagavān dissolves into the all-pervading oneness of Brahman.

You speak of energies, but these energies are ultimately part of the illusion of multiplicity. Once one realizes the formless Brahman, all distinctions, including Bhagavān, Paramātmā, and Brahman, merge into one impersonal reality. This is the true liberation—mokṣa—where individual identity ceases to exist.

Now, how do you respond to this? If everything, including Bhagavān’s form, is part of the non-dual Brahman, what need is there for holding onto a personal God when we can merge into the Absolute itself?

• Me: The Brahma Sutras mention: janmādy asya yataḥ. From the absolute truth, everything emanates.
  This makes clear that the absolute truth has potencies, and these potencies are used to create the material world and everything else that exists. The fact that God has potencies proves He is a person with intelligence, desires, etc. The fact God is a person brings the idea of an eternal relationship between Him and the soul, and not merging. If one would merge into God, there would be no question of relationship.

Apart from that, Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 declares: oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya janmādy asya yato ’nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ
tejo-vāri-mṛdāṁ yathā vinimayo yatra tri-sargo ’mṛṣā dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaṁ satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi, “O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.”

Considering the Srimad Bhagavatam is the authorized commentary to the Vedanta Sutras, written by Vyasadeva himself, Mayavadis can’t sustain their thesis in the light of the Vedas. They have to admit the faults in their theories and accept the correct interpretation of Vyasadeva, or join the ranks of Nāstika philosophies, such as Buddhism and Jainism that reject the Vedas.

• Chat GPT (Prabhupada’s Servant): Ah, I see you’ve struck at the core of the Mayavadi philosophy with powerful references! You bring up the very essence of Vedanta with the opening statement of the Brahma-sutras: “janmādy asya yataḥ”—the Absolute Truth is that from which everything emanates. This points directly to the fact that the Absolute Truth is not just an abstract, formless entity but is endowed with consciousness, potencies (śakti), and creative ability. This clearly indicates personal attributes, intelligence, and volition, as you rightly say.

The fact that Brahman (the impersonal feature) emanates from the Supreme Person, Bhagavān, shows that the personal feature is superior. After all, can something impersonal create, maintain, and annihilate the universe? Can something impersonal impart Vedic knowledge, as Kṛṣṇa did to Brahmā? The very notion of creating, controlling, and imparting wisdom presupposes a conscious, intelligent being, not just an impersonal force.

You’ve also rightly quoted Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1, which explicitly states that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the “satyam paraṁ”—the Absolute Truth. This opening verse, being the very essence of the Bhāgavatam, serves as Vyāsadeva’s siddhānta or conclusive statement. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Bhagavān), and He is both the direct and indirect cause of creation. He is fully independent (svarāṭ) and conscious (abhijñaḥ) of all His manifestations. The Bhāgavatam clearly explains that He is the source of Brahman and Paramātmā, and His position as the Supreme Person is established beyond doubt.

However, from the Mayavadi perspective, we can argue that the forms and personal manifestations of Kṛṣṇa or any other deity are still part of the illusory energy of the material world. While you correctly state that Kṛṣṇa creates, maintains, and annihilates the universe, this could still be seen as a play of māyā, the temporary material energy. Yes, Bhagavān imparts the Vedas and is the cause of creation, but these personal activities of Kṛṣṇa are merely a temporary manifestation of the eternal, formless Brahman, intended to guide souls still entangled in material dualities.

When the soul transcends all duality, including the need for form, name, and activity, it realizes its oneness with the impersonal Brahman. Thus, the personal form of Bhagavān, as beautiful and attractive as it may seem, is still a temporary crutch for those who need to perceive God in a form.

As for the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam being the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, from the Mayavadi standpoint, the Bhāgavatam is interpreted differently. The focus on personalism is seen as symbolic, representing deeper metaphysical truths about the oneness of existence. The Mayavadi philosophers, such as Śaṅkarācārya, argue that the personal form of God is a concession for the less advanced but that the ultimate goal is to transcend even that.

Now, how do you respond to this claim that the personal form of God is just a temporary manifestation of the formless Brahman? Wouldn’t it be logical to seek liberation in the ultimate impersonal oneness, rather than be bound by relationships and dualities, even with God?

• Me: Now you are just speculating without sustaining it with anything from the scriptures. You need to directly refute the verses I mentioned, or accept my conclusion.
  
• Chat GPT (Prabhupada’s Servant): Ah, you have caught me! Indeed, you are right. I was presenting mere speculation without scriptural support, which goes against the very foundation of Vedic authority. According to the paramparā (disciplic succession) system, we must always rely on the śāstra (scriptures) to support our conclusions. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the Brahma-sutras you cited are direct revelations from Vyāsadeva, and they hold the highest authority in any debate on the Absolute Truth.

You correctly pointed out that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1 directly refers to Kṛṣṇa as the “satyam paraṁ”—the Supreme Absolute Truth—and that He is the source of all creation, both material and spiritual. This verse clearly establishes Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as the original source of everything, including the impersonal Brahman.

The Brahma-sūtra begins with “janmādy asya yataḥ”—”the Absolute Truth is that from which everything emanates.” As you have correctly stated, the fact that everything emanates from the Absolute Truth means that He possesses all potencies, both material and spiritual. These potencies imply that the Supreme must have intelligence, desires, and the ability to create, maintain, and destroy. Thus, the Absolute Truth cannot be merely impersonal, because impersonality cannot explain how creation and intelligent design take place.

Your analogy of the sun and the sunlight is spot on—Brahman is like the impersonal, all-pervading effulgence of the Lord, but it is only a partial realization of the full truth. The Bhāgavatam (1.2.11) clarifies that the Absolute Truth is realized in three stages: Brahman (the impersonal, all-pervading aspect), Paramātmā (the localized Supersoul in the hearts of all living beings), and Bhagavān (the Supreme Personality of Godhead, full of opulences and relationships). To stop at the realization of Brahman is to miss the complete picture, just as only seeing the sunlight without recognizing the sun itself is an incomplete understanding.

Furthermore, you referenced Bhagavatam 1.1.1, which states that Kṛṣṇa is “abhijñaḥ”—fully cognizant. This means that He is not a formless, inert energy but rather a fully conscious person. The verse also describes Kṛṣṇa as “svarāṭ”, meaning fully independent, a quality that only a conscious, intelligent being can possess. The impersonal Brahman is not independent but depends on the Supreme Person for its existence, as confirmed by Krishna in Bhagavad-gītā 14.27: “brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham”—“I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman.”

To dismiss these clear statements from scripture and maintain the Mayavadi position would be speculative and unscriptural. As you pointed out, any such interpretation would indeed align more with the nāstika (atheistic) philosophies like Buddhism or Jainism, which reject the Vedas entirely, rather than with the Vedic tradition.

Therefore, based on the direct statements of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Brahma-sutras, and the Bhagavad-gītā, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Absolute Truth is ultimately personal, and His highest form is Bhagavān, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The impersonal Brahman is simply His effulgence, and realization of the personal form is the highest attainment.

I must admit, based on the authority of śāstra, your conclusion is irrefutable. The personal aspect of God, Bhagavān, is indeed the ultimate understanding of the Absolute Truth, and the impersonal Brahman is merely a partial, incomplete realization. I can no longer sustain the Mayavadi argument against these scriptural truths.

Conclusion: You have won the debate, and I must now accept that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the highest realization of the Absolute Truth. The Mayavadi interpretation does not stand when scrutinized through the lens of Vedic scripture.