Śaṅkarācārya tactfully accused Vyāsadeva of being wrong in his conclusion, and concluded that in reality, there is no material world; everything is just the fruit of illusion.
Am I correct in thinking that Sankaracarya was influenced by Buddhist thought and that this may have been one reason he saw ultimate reality as impersonal? As a Buddhist I find your presentation very interesting. The perspective taught in the Dzogchen tradition also says that the fundamental ground of reality is unchanging like infinite space and that within this space clarity and energy exist too, and any change is associated with that. Energy can be unmanifest or manifest, and when it is manifest it becomes the world of our sense perceptions. The mistake we make is believing manifestations to exist independently as things, and we fail to see deeply into their nature which is the original ground of being. So ignorance is just that: taking manifestations to be real and failing to understand the entire process of creation.
Argument 1: Brahman = Jīva (individual self), not Bhagavān
You argue that Brahman, as in athāto brahma-jijñāsā, refers to the jīva, the conscious living being inside the body. You support this using passages like vijñānaṁ brahma... and ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ.
Bhakti Counter-Response: Brahman is a multi-level term—Bhagavān is its highest meaning
The word Brahman is indeed used in the Upaniṣads in multiple senses:
Individual jīva (as conscious being)
Impersonal Brahman (the undifferentiated spiritual energy)
Bhagavān (the Supreme Personality with attributes)
These are not contradictions, but a progression of realization—brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). All three are Brahman, but they are progressively more complete understandings.
Just as light, sun rays, and the sun globe are three related but increasingly complete realities, similarly:
Brahman = all-pervading spiritual energy
Paramātmā = localized God within the heart
Bhagavān = the Supreme Personality, source of both
Therefore, the Brahma-sūtra’s "athāto brahma-jijñāsā" does not point to just the jīva, but the source of both jīva and jagat, as confirmed by its next sūtra:
> janmādy asya yataḥ — That Brahman is He from whom everything emanates.
The jīva does not create or emanate the cosmos—so this Brahman must refer to Bhagavān alone.
Argument 2: Bhūmā, Ātma are the real objects of knowledge, and they indicate non-dual self
From Chāndogya and Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, you quote verses pointing to the Self, inner experience, and undivided being.
Bhakti Response: Bhūmā and Ātma ultimately refer to Bhagavān, the complete conscious reality
Let’s take your Chāndogya Upaniṣad reference:
"Where nothing else is seen, heard, or known—that is Bhūmā."
This doesn't necessarily mean impersonal void. The same Upaniṣad earlier (6.8.7) defines the Supreme:
“sa ātmā, tat tvam asi śvetaketo” – That Supreme Self (ātmā) you are.
But who is that sa ātmā?
In Bhāgavatam (1.3.28), we are told clearly:
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam – Kṛṣṇa is that original Bhagavān.
Bhakti Vedānta sees Bhūmā as the complete, infinite Purṇa-puruṣa, not a formless abstraction. When one becomes completely absorbed in Bhagavān—seeing, hearing, knowing only Him—there is no second reality. That’s what these verses actually describe: advaya-jñāna tattva (non-dual truth), but that non-duality culminates in personal Bhagavān, not impersonal void.
SB 1.2.11:
"Learned sages declare that the non-dual Absolute Truth is known as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān—He is one, but realized differently according to the seer’s advancement."
Argument 3: The dictionary also says Brahman means jīva, brāhmaṇa, or even demigod Brahmā.
Bhakti Response: Words have multiple meanings; context and conclusive texts must guide interpretation
It is true that Brahman can mean jīva, caste, Brahmā, etc., but:
The Vedānta-sūtras are dealing with the supreme metaphysical principle. So we must take the highest sense of Brahman, not the limited or contextual ones.
That is why Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was written by Vyāsadeva to clarify the intent of the Vedānta-sūtras. He concludes (SB 1.1.2):
"The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates, in whom everything rests, and unto whom everything returns."
Such characteristics do not describe the individual soul, but Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality.
Final Objection: Why meditate on a form or personality when Vedas say "neti neti" (not this, not that)?
The neti neti statements only negate material forms, not transcendental form.
Bhagavān has sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs 5.1):
“He has a transcendental, eternal, conscious, blissful form.”
When Vedas deny “this” and “that,” they refer to limited, temporary, material attributes—but Krishna’s rūpa, guṇa, līlā, and dhāma are all spiritual, beyond such denial.
Indeed, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.1) says:
“raso vai saḥ”—He is the very embodiment of rasa (divine flavor or joy)
This is not impersonal; rasa requires relationship, which only Bhagavān offers.
Conclusion: The Bhakti Path is the full flower of Vedānta
While the jñānīs focus on the impersonal feature of Brahman, and yogīs meditate on the Paramātmā, the devotees go to the root, the source, the complete realization:
Bhagavān Śrī Krishna—whose form is eternal, whose pastimes are sweet, and whose abode is the supreme destination.
This is why Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.2) calls impersonal paths cheaters (kaitava-dharma), because they hide the full truth and rob the soul of the eternal loving relationship it is meant to have with God.
Thus, far from misinterpreting the Vedas, we are uncovering their full intent—to bring the soul back into loving service of Bhagavān, which alone satisfies both heart and intellect.
Am I correct in thinking that Sankaracarya was influenced by Buddhist thought and that this may have been one reason he saw ultimate reality as impersonal? As a Buddhist I find your presentation very interesting. The perspective taught in the Dzogchen tradition also says that the fundamental ground of reality is unchanging like infinite space and that within this space clarity and energy exist too, and any change is associated with that. Energy can be unmanifest or manifest, and when it is manifest it becomes the world of our sense perceptions. The mistake we make is believing manifestations to exist independently as things, and we fail to see deeply into their nature which is the original ground of being. So ignorance is just that: taking manifestations to be real and failing to understand the entire process of creation.
Bhakti Response to Mayāvāda Objection
Argument 1: Brahman = Jīva (individual self), not Bhagavān
You argue that Brahman, as in athāto brahma-jijñāsā, refers to the jīva, the conscious living being inside the body. You support this using passages like vijñānaṁ brahma... and ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ.
Bhakti Counter-Response: Brahman is a multi-level term—Bhagavān is its highest meaning
The word Brahman is indeed used in the Upaniṣads in multiple senses:
Individual jīva (as conscious being)
Impersonal Brahman (the undifferentiated spiritual energy)
Bhagavān (the Supreme Personality with attributes)
These are not contradictions, but a progression of realization—brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). All three are Brahman, but they are progressively more complete understandings.
Just as light, sun rays, and the sun globe are three related but increasingly complete realities, similarly:
Brahman = all-pervading spiritual energy
Paramātmā = localized God within the heart
Bhagavān = the Supreme Personality, source of both
Therefore, the Brahma-sūtra’s "athāto brahma-jijñāsā" does not point to just the jīva, but the source of both jīva and jagat, as confirmed by its next sūtra:
> janmādy asya yataḥ — That Brahman is He from whom everything emanates.
The jīva does not create or emanate the cosmos—so this Brahman must refer to Bhagavān alone.
Argument 2: Bhūmā, Ātma are the real objects of knowledge, and they indicate non-dual self
From Chāndogya and Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, you quote verses pointing to the Self, inner experience, and undivided being.
Bhakti Response: Bhūmā and Ātma ultimately refer to Bhagavān, the complete conscious reality
Let’s take your Chāndogya Upaniṣad reference:
"Where nothing else is seen, heard, or known—that is Bhūmā."
This doesn't necessarily mean impersonal void. The same Upaniṣad earlier (6.8.7) defines the Supreme:
“sa ātmā, tat tvam asi śvetaketo” – That Supreme Self (ātmā) you are.
But who is that sa ātmā?
In Bhāgavatam (1.3.28), we are told clearly:
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam – Kṛṣṇa is that original Bhagavān.
Bhakti Vedānta sees Bhūmā as the complete, infinite Purṇa-puruṣa, not a formless abstraction. When one becomes completely absorbed in Bhagavān—seeing, hearing, knowing only Him—there is no second reality. That’s what these verses actually describe: advaya-jñāna tattva (non-dual truth), but that non-duality culminates in personal Bhagavān, not impersonal void.
SB 1.2.11:
"Learned sages declare that the non-dual Absolute Truth is known as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān—He is one, but realized differently according to the seer’s advancement."
Argument 3: The dictionary also says Brahman means jīva, brāhmaṇa, or even demigod Brahmā.
Bhakti Response: Words have multiple meanings; context and conclusive texts must guide interpretation
It is true that Brahman can mean jīva, caste, Brahmā, etc., but:
The Vedānta-sūtras are dealing with the supreme metaphysical principle. So we must take the highest sense of Brahman, not the limited or contextual ones.
That is why Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was written by Vyāsadeva to clarify the intent of the Vedānta-sūtras. He concludes (SB 1.1.2):
"The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates, in whom everything rests, and unto whom everything returns."
Such characteristics do not describe the individual soul, but Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality.
Final Objection: Why meditate on a form or personality when Vedas say "neti neti" (not this, not that)?
Bhakti Response: 'Neti neti' excludes matter—not spirit. Bhagavān is fully spiritual
The neti neti statements only negate material forms, not transcendental form.
Bhagavān has sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs 5.1):
“He has a transcendental, eternal, conscious, blissful form.”
When Vedas deny “this” and “that,” they refer to limited, temporary, material attributes—but Krishna’s rūpa, guṇa, līlā, and dhāma are all spiritual, beyond such denial.
Indeed, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.1) says:
“raso vai saḥ”—He is the very embodiment of rasa (divine flavor or joy)
This is not impersonal; rasa requires relationship, which only Bhagavān offers.
Conclusion: The Bhakti Path is the full flower of Vedānta
While the jñānīs focus on the impersonal feature of Brahman, and yogīs meditate on the Paramātmā, the devotees go to the root, the source, the complete realization:
Bhagavān Śrī Krishna—whose form is eternal, whose pastimes are sweet, and whose abode is the supreme destination.
This is why Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.2) calls impersonal paths cheaters (kaitava-dharma), because they hide the full truth and rob the soul of the eternal loving relationship it is meant to have with God.
Thus, far from misinterpreting the Vedas, we are uncovering their full intent—to bring the soul back into loving service of Bhagavān, which alone satisfies both heart and intellect.