Clarification on my use of the word 'Impersonalists'.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Just a small clarification on my use of the word 'impersonalists'. An 'impersonalist' by the nature of his advancement in sadhana is naturally engaged in the welfare work of all living entities. This is what Lord Krishna describes when He says 'sarva-bhuta-hite ratah'. Thus an impersonalist is actually a very rare and great soul, one out of thousands, according to the Gita:

 

manusyanam sahasresu

kascid yatati siddhaye

 

"Out of many thousands of men, hardly one tries for perfection."

 

One does not become an 'impersonalist' simply be denying the existence of the Lord's form, just as one does not become a devotee simply by accepting the Lord's form. Only through true practice of sadhana, culminating in 'sarva-bhuta-hite ratah', welfare work to all living entities, does one actually become an impersonalist. When I see such great saints, I immediately fall to the ground like a stick, out of respect for their austerities and dedication.

 

Others, who also reject the Lord's spiritual form but who do not practice the disciplines of sadhana, are more aptly described as arm chair philosophers. They quote from Bhagavad Gita in between the commercial breaks of Kaun Banega Crore Pati to describe how everything is ultimately illusion.