In the first part of this series, we explored polymorphic monotheism—one God appearing in uncountably many forms—and how Gauḍīya Vedānta, far from being a sectarian silo, is intrinsically saragrahī: essence-seeking, cross-pollinating, and nourished by other paths. The canon itself models this generosity, honoring many devotional moods without erasing their distinct flavors. With that foundation of principled openness, we can now face a famously thorny frontier: the relation between the personal and the impersonal faces of the one nondual Absolute.
A common mistake today is to think that only Advaita Vedānta is a nondual tradition (advaita literally meaning “nondual”), while reducing every other Vedāntic school to the “dualistic” type. Yet for any Vedāntic lineage to be what it claims to be, it must necessarily present some form of nonduality. The difference lies in emphasis and nuance. Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta represents what could be called radical nondualism, while other Vedāntic schools present various forms of nuanced nondualism.
By radical nondualism we mean the view that, ultimately, only undifferentiated Brahman exists. There is no individual soul, no enduring loving interaction between soul and God, no actual world of matter—only impersonal Brahman. By contrast, nuanced nondualists affirm that nothing exists separate from a divine common center, but this nonduality is expressed in terms of relationship. We are not isolated units but intrinsically connected. Our unity with the Divine is celebrated through loving union rather than undifferentiated consciousness.
In fact, unlike other traditions, in bhakti both the practice and the goal are the same: loving relationship itself. What begins as devotion matures only into more devotion. Such convergence of practice and goal represents perhaps the most complete form of nonduality.
In the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition, the nonduality of reality is famously depicted in one of the most important statements of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (1.2.11), a verse so central that Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī dedicates the first three volumes of his Ṣaṭ-sandarbha to its explanation:
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā, or Bhagavān.
First, this single verse defines reality as advaya-jñāna—nondual consciousness. Importantly, Gauḍīyas do not interpret “nondual” in the radical Advaitic sense of everything dissolving into an indistinguishable oneness. Nonduality here is not the denial of difference, but its grounding in unity: everything exists in God, and God exists in everything. Kṛṣṇa himself captures this panentheistic spirit in the Bhagavad-gītā (6.30):
One who sees me everywhere and everything in me never loses sight of me—and I never lose sight of him.
Just as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa begins with this definition of reality as nondual consciousness, it closes with the same affirmation. The text declares in one of its last verses that “indeed, the entire subject of the Bhāgavata is nondual reality.”[1] Thus, the whole work is framed—beginning, middle, and end—within this vision of nondual yet relational reality.
Yet, the verse cited above (1.2.11) not only defines the Absolute as “nondual consciousness” but immediately distinguishes how this one indivisible reality reveals itself in three modalities: Brahman, the impersonal feature of the Divine; Paramātmā, the indwelling Oversoul present in every heart and atom; and Bhagavān, the personal Absolute with whom loving relationship is eternally possible. These are not three separate entities, but three perspectives on one and the same Absolute. A similar affirmation appears in the middle of the Bhāgavata (6.9.36):
The Absolute Truth is pure consciousness, the highest goal to be attained. Though One, it is spoken of in three ways: as Brahman by the jñānīs, as Paramātmā by the yogīs, and as Bhagavān by the devotees.
For Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, their “cup of tea” is a radically personal, loving connection with the Sweet Absolute. This is why I often describe this theology as Radical Personalism.[2] Yet this does not mean that radical personalists deny impersonalism altogether. What they deny is radical impersonalism—the reductionist claim that swallows everything into Brahman and refuses the Infinite the freedom to be truly infinite. For Gauḍīyas, the Infinite must include not only the impersonal but also the personal, the relational, and the playful.
Yet, an important warning must be given at this juncture. As I tried to develop in the chapter on “Nondual Thinking” in my book Radical Personalism, it is precisely because Gauḍīya theology affirms polymorphic monotheism—one God in uncountable forms—that it must also keep a strong nondual center in view. Without such a center, plurality could easily slide into mere polytheism. The very logic of nonduality safeguards Gauḍīya plurality, ensuring that multiplicity does not devolve into fragmentation. The unlimited Supreme reconciles saguṇa (God with attributes) and nirguṇa (God without any attributes) without contradiction—precisely the nondual vision that grounds unity amidst diversity.
This harmonizing vision is captured succinctly in the Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta (2.2.179):
All the apparent contradictions—such as his having qualities and being without qualities—enter into God. Because of his great opulence, the Absolute is understood in this way, and thus the distinction between the two is established.
For Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, therefore, to conceive of the Absolute as merely impersonal—beyond all thought, speech, or quality—is philosophically incoherent. Language itself betrays the claim: the very act of saying that Brahman is “unthinkable” or “inexpressible” already says something about Brahman. To deny qualities absolutely is to attribute at least the quality of being “without qualities.” Even etymology undermines radical reductionism: the word Brahman comes from the Sanskrit root bṛhm (“to expand, to grow”), Brahman thus literally meaning “that which grows and makes others grow.” Growth itself is a quality. How, then, can Brahman be limited to ultimately exist without any quality? In Gauḍīya understanding, nirguṇa means devoid of material qualities, not devoid of qualities altogether. Alternatively, nirguṇa can refer to an attributeless dimension of the Absolute, yet one which does not cancel God’s eternal attributes.
The Upaniṣads themselves illustrate this balance, oscillating between apophatic negations and affirmative descriptions of the Absolute. For instance, the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.3.15) describes Brahman as aśabdam, asparśam, arūpam—without sound, touch, or form. Similarly, the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.10) calls it acakṣuṣkam, aśrotram, avāk, amanaḥ—without eyes, ears, speech, or mind. Yet other texts present a more kataphatic definition: the Gopāla Tāpanī Upaniṣad speaks of Brahman as vijñāna-ghana (concentrated knowledge) and ānanda-ghana (concentrated bliss). The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (7.14.4) goes even further, describing the Absolute as sarva-karma, sarva-kāmaḥ, sarva-gandhaḥ, sarva-rasaḥ—possessing all action, all desires, all fragrances, all tastes. Taken together, the Upaniṣads themselves invite us into a vision where both the personal and impersonal coexist in paradoxical harmony.
Thus, while Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism is unmistakably a devotional school centered on Bhagavān, it does not dismiss the impersonal dimension of the Absolute. This distinguishes it from certain other Vaiṣṇava teachers—such as Madhva, and to a large extent Rāmānuja[3]—that refuse to acknowledge impersonal Brahman as an eternal possibility. Such schools accept only Bhagavān as real and eternal, while Brahman is reduced to an illusion or temporary stage. But this, Gauḍīyas argue, is merely the reverse form of the reductionism seen in radical nondualism. In both extremes, one’s preferred expression of the Divine is absolutized and all others dismissed. True nonduality, for Gauḍīyas, must hold both poles—personal and impersonal—where the Absolute is simultaneously personal and impersonal, one and different, immanent and transcendent, intimate and expansive.
Therefore, considering what we have seen so far, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism agrees that Brahman is a genuine possibility in eternity. Though not the preference of a Gauḍīya devotee, scripture has no problem affirming impersonal realization as a legitimate attainment. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa repeatedly mentions ekatva or sāyujya (undifferentiated oneness) as one of the five types of mukti.[4] Likewise, the Bhagavad-gītā clearly states that “those who have realized Brahman, attain Brahman”[5] and that such Brahman “is flawless.”[6] In other words, both scripture and tradition confirm that the attainment of Brahman is an eternal reality, even if it is not the ultimate ideal for everyone. Contemporary Gauḍīya teacher A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda affirms this possibility and summarizes this inclusive position thus:
The one Supreme Personality of Godhead reveals himself to different thinkers as the Supreme Person or impersonal Brahman or Paramātmā. Impersonalists merge into the impersonal Brahman.[7]
Not only is impersonal liberation acknowledged in Gauḍīya Vedānta—it is described in detail in its primary scriptures. For example, Kapiladeva, in the Third Canto of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (3.28), carefully elaborates the process of attaining sāyujya-mukti. This underscores that even within the Gauḍīya canon, impersonal liberation is affirmed as a valid spiritual path. And while the Bhāgavata’s main speaker, Śukadeva Gosvāmī, and its principal listener, King Parīkṣit, both embody devotion to Kṛṣṇa, the larger audience of sages included seekers of many paths. This explains why Śukadeva at times presents teachings on jñāna and Brahman-realization alongside bhakti, recognizing that the Bhāgavata must also speak to those oriented toward impersonal attainment.[8] That said, the overarching focus of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa remains clear: its deepest message is Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, even while it accommodates and dignifies the variety of ways in which souls approach the Infinite.
At the same time, it is important to clarify that while Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas accept that the soul can merge into a non-differentiated experience of Brahman and remain there eternally, this does not mean that the ātman[9] loses its individuality in those cases. Rather, the individuality of the soul remains intact, though unrecognized, due to deep identification with the formless Brahman. The eternal distinction between self and God is safeguarded in Kṛṣṇa’s emphatic declaration in the Bhagavad-gītā (2.12):
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
And again (15.7):
[Kṛṣṇa says] The eternal living being is an integrated part of me alone.
These two verses clearly establish the permanence of individuality, both for the soul and for Bhagavān. Therefore, according to Gauḍīyas, even in Brahman-realization that individuality is not destroyed but eclipsed by the overwhelming absorption in oneness.
Despite this acknowledgment, it is equally true that many Gauḍīya teachers have spoken with strong words against impersonalism. At first glance, this may seem contradictory. How can one affirm Brahman as an eternal possibility, while simultaneously condemning impersonalism?
The answer lies in distinguishing between impersonal attainment and radical nondualism. Strong words are not aimed at the experience of Brahman itself, but at the radical claim that bhakti, Bhagavān, and the loving exchanges of devotees are mere illusion. What Gauḍīyas oppose is the dismissal of love as unreal, a view that strikes at the very heart of our theology.
At this point, a common question arises: what about scriptural statements that seem to indicate that one who attains brahma-sāyujya (also known as ekatva or kaivalya in some Vaiṣṇava traditions) may fall from that realization, suggesting it is not eternal? A famous verse often cited is Bhāgavata Purāṇa (10.2.32):
O lotus-eyed Lord, others who consider themselves as liberated but who are devoid of devotion to you are of impure intelligence. Although they elevate themselves to an exalted position through great austerity, they fall down from that place if they disregard your lotus feet.
On the surface, this verse seems to suggest a fall from Brahman. But Gauḍīya commentators clarify that the verse refers not to genuine Brahman-realized souls, but to those who “consider themselves liberated” (vimukta-māninaḥ) but who disregard bhakti. Such practitioners may have attained jīvan-mukti (liberation in life) through austerity and knowledge, but they have not yet attained utkrānta-mukti (final liberation after death). If such people actively offend bhakti or deny Bhagavān (indicated in the above verse by the words anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ), then they are bound to fall.
This nuanced understanding is confirmed by revered Vaiṣṇava commentators such as Śrīdhara Svāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura. Thus, the “fall” is not from genuine Brahman-realization, but from a pretended or incomplete liberation that offends Bhagavān or bhakti.
In this light, “offending Bhagavān or bhakti” simply means dismissing them as not ultimately real—as radical nondualism usually does. From the Gauḍīya perspective, such denial closes the door to ultimate liberation. But those who acknowledge the personal Absolute—even if they do not actively embrace him—may still attain Brahman as their eternal destination.
While a strict reading of Śaṅkara’s writings (his commentaries on the prasthāna-trayī: the Bhagavad-gītā, Vedānta-sūtra, and Upaniṣads) indeed indicates that apart from undifferentiated Brahman nothing else is ultimately real, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas—while strongly opposing such reductionism—nonetheless seek to understand Śaṅkara in a more nuanced and generous light.
But before moving further in that direction, let us consider one of many examples from Śaṅkara’s own writings, where his radical nondualism is most clearly exposed. In his commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.14, Śaṅkara speaks about Īśvara (a name that refers to the personal conception of God) as follows:
Īśvara’s rulership, omniscience, and omnipotence are dependent on the limiting adjuncts (upādhis) conjured up by ignorance. But from the ultimate standpoint, such terms as the ruler, the ruled, omniscience, etc. cannot be used with regard to the ātman in its true nature after the removal of all limiting adjuncts through knowledge.
Technical details aside, what Śaṅkara is essentially saying here is that once ignorance (avidyā) is removed, all distinctions between us and God—such as ruler and ruled, powerful and powerless, knower and known—collapse, because the true self (ātman) is nothing but Brahman itself. In this radical nondualism, even the personal features of Īśvara are provisional, tied to ignorance, and ultimately dissolved into the undifferentiated oneness of Brahman.
While this stance stands in stark contrast to Gauḍīya Vedānta, Gauḍīya teachers have often sought not simply to refute Śaṅkara’s position but to place it within a broader, more generous framework. This begins with the very founder of the Gauḍīya lineage, Śrī Caitanya. While strongly objecting to Śaṅkara’s words that reduce all to Brahman, Śrī Caitanya nonetheless did not condemn Śaṅkara himself. In his famous conversation with Sarvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya—after “pointing out hundreds of faults” in Śaṅkara’s commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra—Śrī Caitanya surprisingly concluded:
Actually, there is no fault on the part of Śaṅkara. He simply carried out the order of Īśvara.[10]
To substantiate this, he cited two verses from the Padma Purāṇa, where Bhagavān addresses Śiva, and Śiva in turn addresses Pārvatī:
[Bhagavān to Śiva:] “By scriptures of your own making, turn people away from me, and conceal me, so that creation may continue one cycle after another.”[11]
[Śiva to Pārvatī:] “Māyāvāda [radical nondualism] is a false scripture that is actually disguised Buddhism. O Devī, I shall take the form of a brāhmaṇa and teach this scripture in Kali-yuga.”[12]
For Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, the meaning of “disguised Buddhism” here is not to vilify Śaṅkara, but to explain his divine mission. After the Buddha had openly rejected the Vedas for reasons of his own—as Buddha himself is seen by Gauḍīyas as a manifestation of the Divine—the culture needed to be reconnected to Vedic authority. Śaṅkara accomplished this by reintroducing the Vedas into the mainstream, though emphasizing primarily their impersonal side. From a Gauḍīya lens, this restored Vedic authority but offered only half of the full revelation: the nirguṇa side without the balancing saguna. That one-sidedness, Gauḍīyas argue, is what later Vaiṣṇava traditions came to complement.
Seeing Śaṅkara as an empowered form of Śiva, as the above verses confirm, Gauḍīyas also recall that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa itself describes Śiva as the highest Vaiṣṇava.[13] Thus, Śaṅkara’s teaching of impersonalism is not seen as his ultimate identity or intention, but as a role he played within divine providence. Gauḍīya teachers connect this with the devotional side often associated with Śaṅkara and reflected in later compositions attributed to him—most famously the Bhaja Govindam. In this hymn, Śaṅkara exhorts renunciants and seekers to abandon dry speculation and surrender to Govinda with heartfelt devotion. For Gauḍīyas, this is Śaṅkara/Śiva revealing his true devotional essence, even while his formal mission was to propagate radical nondualism.
To some, this may sound like Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are imposing their own theological narrative onto Śaṅkara, “domesticating” him into their framework. And indeed, one could argue that this is a form of sectarian reinterpretation. Yet, within Gauḍīya Vedānta, this is not presented as an arbitrary imposition but as a proposal that is scripturally grounded and theologically coherent: the Padma Purāṇa, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and the devotional hymns attributed to Śaṅkara himself are all woven together to make sense of his role in a way that both acknowledges his importance and situates his radical nondualism in a larger divine economy.
Thus, rather than seeing Śaṅkara as a misguided philosopher or a dangerous reductionist, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas interpret—and revere—him as a servant of the Divine, executing a necessary mission within a larger unfolding plan. They may strongly reject radical nondualism as incomplete, but they extend generosity toward its herald, recognizing him as Śiva himself, the greatest of all Vaiṣṇavas. In this way, Gauḍīyas manage to hold together critique and appreciation, disagreement and reverence—an attitude that reflects the very heart of their philosophy: acintya-bhedābheda, the inconceivable harmony of unity and difference.
(to be continued)
Endnotes:
[1] Bhāgavata Purāṇa 12.13.12.
[2] For more on this, see Swami Padmanabha, Radical Personalism.
[3] Although Rāmānuja’s own writings leave some ambiguity about whether kaivalya (impersonal self-realization) is eternal or temporary, later Śrī Vaiṣṇava schools diverged on the issue: the Tenkalai hold it to be an eternal but inferior form of liberation, while the Vadakalai regard it as temporary and not genuine liberation.
[4] Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29.13. See also Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.3.18 and 2.6.266.
[5] Bhagavad-gītā 8.8.
[6] Bhagavad-gītā 8.11.
[7] Commentary on Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.32.26. For similar statements, see his commentaries to Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29.14 and Bhagavad-gītā 4.30.
[8] For examples of this, see Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.28 and 12.5.
[9] In Gauḍīya Vedānta, the term ātman is generally synonymous with the soul or pure self, while terms such as jīva refer more specifically to the embodied self. Whatever the term employed, Gauḍīya Vedānta affirms the eternal individual existence of the soul—whether called ātman or jīva.
[10] Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.6.180.
[11] Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 62.31. Quoted in Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.6.181.
[12] Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 25.7. Quoted in Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.6.182.
[13] Bhāgavata Purāṇa 12.13.16.
