Introduction
This essay is written with the intention of examining the practice of self-love from the Vedic point of view.
Recently, an old friend reached out to share their experiences with the practice of self-love. They described how certain meditative practices had helped them in their journey toward self-love. While we didn’t delve into the specific self-love gurus they were following, our friend encouraged us to consider exploring this practice ourselves. This conversation prompted us to reflect on the topic, and we appreciate the inspiration that led us to research and write this essay.
The Dual Nature of Self-Love
Self-love, described as “affection toward oneself” or “the consideration of one’s own happiness first before the happiness of others,” has historically been a double-edged sword.
Proponents of self-love deem loving oneself a fundamental human need, while downplaying and dismissing the more historically traditional understanding, which equates it with negative traits such as vanity, selfishness, and conceit. Terms like amour-propre, narcissism, and egotism often come to mind when discussing self-love, emphasizing a preoccupation with oneself that can be deemed excessive or socially undesirable.
Amour-Propre: Self-Love and External Validation
To understand the dual nature of self-love, we can explore historical concepts such as amour-propre, which highlight the potential dangers of self-centeredness when driven by external validation.
Amour-propre is a French term that translates to “self-love” or “self-esteem.” However, its connotation differs significantly from the contemporary understanding of self-love. In philosophical and literary contexts, particularly in the works of thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hegel, and Friedrich Nietzsche, amour-propre refers to a form of self-love that is influenced by the opinions and judgments of others.
It often implies a sense of pride or vanity that arises from one's social standing or external validation, making it a potentially negative trait when it leads to comparisons and competition with others. Thus, while it encompasses self-regard, amour-propre carries with it implications of egotism and a susceptibility to superficiality.
This perspective portrays self-love as a potentially perilous form of self-obsession that can foster isolation and neglect for the needs of others.
The Cautionary Tale of Narcissus
The dangers of such self-centeredness are vividly illustrated in the ancient legend of Narcissus, a beautiful young man in Greek mythology who became infatuated with his reflection in a pool of water. Unable to look away, he wasted away by the water's edge, consumed by his own image.
This cautionary tale underscores the peril of excessive self-absorption, turning self-love into an isolating and destructive force.
However, despite these negative connotations—prevalent in the cultural landscape since the Enlightenment era and even earlier in Europe—such thinking has transformed dramatically, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The Shift in Cultural Values: From Tradition to Modern Self-Love
The rise of moral relativism and postmodernist ideologies has altered societal values, giving rise to movements such as Pride parades, the Self-Respect Movement, Black Lives Matter, Wokeism, and contemporary feminism, all of which aim to redefine and celebrate self-love. However, these movements primarily base their self-love principles on external considerations like race, gender, sexual orientation, cultural differences, and even social standing.Over the past few decades, the philosophy of self-love has gained significant traction, with an increasing number of individuals embracing its tenets and a growing presence of self-love "gurus" emerging in the public sphere.
Philosophical Foundations of Modern Self-Love
Postmodernism and moral relativism have significantly influenced the philosophy of self-love by challenging long-held norms—norms that have been in place for thousands of years—and encouraging the dismissal of traditional beliefs. Instead, these ideologies promote a new set of rules that proponents claim lead to a more flexible understanding of identity, ethics, and personal well-being.
Postmodernism: The Fragmentation of Truth
Postmodernism challenges the notion of a singular, immutable truth, arguing instead that truth is shaped by a tapestry of diverse perspectives and experiences. Your truth holds equal merit to my truth.
This concept of fragmentation encourages individuals to redefine significant ideas—such as self-love—according to their own beliefs, often elevating personal narratives above well-established societal norms and traditions.
The foundational teachings of self-love pioneer Dr. Wayne Dyer, alongside contemporary messages from Eckhart Tolle and a host of other self-love gurus, emphasize the importance of your truth.
The premise is that even when one person's truth starkly contrasts with another's, it deserves equal consideration; no viewpoint is inherently superior or inferior. As for any absolute truth, postmodernism rejects its existence.
This principle extends to various applications, including cultural perspectives. To illustrate, postmodernist thought asserts that every culture holds equal worth. Thus, self-love advocates strive to avoid disparaging or ranking cultures against one another.
In this framework, cultures such as the Korowai tribe in southeastern Papua, recognized for their historical practice of cannibalism, and the Aghori sect in India, which upholds the consumption of human flesh, are deemed equally valid alongside Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions that strictly prohibit such actions.
Postmodernism insists that all cultures, regardless of their vastly different beliefs and practices, should be regarded as equally legitimate expressions of human identity.
“Self-love is about finding fulfilling and sustainable ways to live in alignment with your truth.” — Chrisie Inge (Famous self-love advocate)
Focus on Identity
Postmodern thought emphasizes what it describes as the fluidity of identity. In this context, self-love becomes less about conforming to societal expectations and more about accepting and even celebrating one’s self-perceived identity—regardless of how removed that identity may be from social norms.
For example, individuals who strongly identify with animals, such as cats or dogs, are referred to as having a therian identity or being part of the therianthrope community. These individuals adopt behaviors associated with their chosen animal identity.
Some create elaborate costumes with cat or dog heads, walk on all fours, and mimic animal behavior. Those identifying as dogs may raise their leg when urinating and communicate by barking instead of speaking in human language, while those identifying as cats may meow in response to conversation. In extreme cases, some who identify as cats even place litter boxes in their homes for the purpose of passing stool and urine.
This phenomenon reflects the broader postmodernist emphasis on self-definition, where personal identity is regarded as entirely subjective and self-determined, rather than bound by traditional classifications or biological reality.
“Self-love is a radical act of resistance against societal norms that seek to define who we are.” — Bell Hooks (Postmodern political thinker)
Deconstruction of Norms
Postmodernism casts a discerning gaze on long-held traditional values and norms, especially those related to self-worth and success. In this landscape, self-lovers consider themselves liberated from societal pressures that often conflate self-love with concepts of selfishness or narcissism. They claim freedom from long-established moral and ethical standards, advocating instead for the pursuit of personal happiness, even when it overshadows collective responsibility.
This shift prioritizes personal desires, ambitions, and identities over communal values, emphasizing self-expression above societal cohesion. Within this framework, self-loving behavior is justified as an act of self-affirmation, encouraging individuals to place their own fulfillment above social expectations. That being said, many self-love gurus assert that such concepts, when practiced correctly, can enhance communal bonds rather than detract from them—an assertion that cannot be substantiated.
Moral Relativism – Rejection of Absolute Morality
Moral relativism posits that moral values are not universal but rather shaped by cultural, societal, or individual contexts. It encourages a so-called personalized approach to self-love, where individuals can determine what it means to love and care for themselves without adhering to established moral guidelines.
With the belief that morality is relative, individuals are taught to establish their own ethical frameworks regarding self-love. Affirming personal needs and desires is seen as legitimate and important. Proponents of the ideology encourage individuals to create their own narrative through self-love.
"There is no absolute morality, and self-love means defining our own ethical boundaries based on what feels right for us."— Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fck*
“Loving ourselves through that process of owning our story is the bravest thing we will ever do.” — Tara Brach (Famous self-love proponent)
Emphasis on Inclusion and Diversity:
Moral relativism insists on the acceptance of a broad spectrum of perspectives and experiences, a principle that closely aligns with the ideals of contemporary self-love advocates. These proponents highlight the significance of inclusivity, insisting on the acceptance of the various paths and lifestyles individuals traverse on their journey to self-love.
Indeed, these concepts have become so widely embraced in many countries that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have evolved into foundational policies. This shift has led to the exclusion of traditional merit-based promotion systems, prioritizing equity considerations over conventional measures of merit. In this new system, one's gender, skin color, and other external bodily designations are considered the primary attributes for promotion.
"To achieve equality, we must recognize that traditional metrics of merit may perpetuate existing imbalances and must evolve." – Michelle Obama, wife of Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States.
In summary, postmodernism and moral relativism have played crucial roles in reshaping the discourse surrounding self-love.
Self-Love as a Business Model
The practice of 'self-love' has transformed into a lucrative industry, showcasing a diverse array of teachers who offer various programs that promise participants they can learn to love themselves, ultimately leading to happiness and success in life. These instructors often present courses that claim to unveil universal principles, asserting that the key to love itself lies in the ability to love oneself.
Abundance of Life Promises
A prevalent theme in this industry is the idea of accessing "the abundance of life through self-love." They make enticing promises, suggesting that by enrolling in their programs—many of which require substantial financial investment—participants can cultivate their own mastery of self-love and reap its associated benefits. Some courses even provide certification for individuals aspiring to become educators in this field.
The Appeal of Becoming a Self-Love Guru
Not only could one reap the abundance of life, but one could also become a big guru. Notably, several of the more prominent figures in this realm have achieved considerable fame, amassed large followings, and enjoyed significant financial rewards. Many courses imply that participants, too, can attain such success.
Self-Love as the Ultimate Goal?
The general consensus among self-love gurus promotes the idea that the purpose of life is to love oneself because, by doing so, self-centered love will extend and be the source of benefit for others and society as well. They often argue that self-love is foundational to personal happiness, fulfillment, and overall well-being. According to their teachings, loving oneself enables individuals to build healthier relationships, pursue their passions, and achieve success in various aspects of life. This perspective typically suggests that by prioritizing self-love, individuals can unlock their potential and lead more meaningful lives.
Defining the Self: The Core Question of Self-Love
If the purpose of life is to love oneself, then naturally, the first thing that must be understood is what the self is. This has been an inquiry since time immemorial by all seekers of enlightenment. Who am I? This inquiry raises a critical question: What is the nature of a person? How do self-love gurus conceive of the self, and do their interpretations align with those of revered spiritual authorities? The understanding of the self serves as a foundational cornerstone for the principles of self-love, influencing the articulation and practice of these teachings. Consequently, it is essential to assess whether self-love gurus possess a clear and accurate understanding of the self. In Vedic philosophy, the validity of any knowledge is contingent upon a solid foundation; if that foundation is flawed, the entire structure collapses. For instance, if one begins an equation with a faulty premise, such as 1 + 1 = 3, every subsequent calculation will be inherently incorrect. Similarly, if the understanding of the self is misguided, the principles of self-love will be built upon a shaky foundation, rendering them unreliable and potentially detrimental, even dangerous.
Self-Love Gurus' Conception of the Self
After thorough investigations, we have come to understand that self-love gurus assert that the self is fundamentally a spiritual being.
Louise Hay: “I am a spiritual being having a human experience. I am not just a human being.”
Deepak Chopra: “The soul is the essence of who you are, the spiritual being that transcends time and space.”
Brene Brown: “We are all wired for connection, and true self-acceptance involves embracing our spiritual nature.”
Gabrielle Bernstein: “When we realize we are divine beings having a human experience, we can embody self-love in every aspect of our lives.”
Danielle LaPorte: “You are a spiritual being at your core, and self-love is the journey of recognizing that divine essence within you.”
Eckhart Tolle: “Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have. Make the Now the primary focus of your life, and connect with the spiritual being within.”
Iyanla Vanzant: “When you discover the spiritual essence of who you are, self-love becomes a natural part of your journey.”
The Vedas concur that the real self is a spiritual substance.
However, proponents of self-love define the self as encompassing not only consciousness, the spiritual element, but also thoughts, feelings, experiences, and one’s sense of identity. They suggest that these components work together to form an integrated understanding of who a person truly is. This perspective diverges from the teachings of the great saints and sages who compiled the Vedic knowledge.
While self-love proponents acknowledge the Vedic understanding that the self is a spiritual entity, they fail to grasp its true nature. They mistakenly conflate subtle material elements, such as thoughts and emotions, with the self, failing to recognize the fundamental distinction between matter and spirit. In contrast, Vedic authorities unanimously assert that these attributes—thoughts, feelings, and even one’s sense of identity—are byproducts of the material mind, not intrinsic aspects of the self. The foundational ABC principle of Vedic wisdom is that we are not the body, nor any aspect of it, gross or subtle. Unfortunately, this essential truth eludes them. By misidentifying material energy as part of the self, self-love philosophy rests upon a faulty premise, undermining its credibility from the outset.
Bhagavad Gītā: The Supreme Authority on the Self
The Bhagavad Gita, known as "The Song of God," is the most authoritative source of knowledge regarding the identification and understanding of what the self, soul, or individual unit of consciousness is. Within its text, the conclusion is that the self/soul is a passenger on the machine of the material body, emphasizing that the material body is not the true self, nor is any part of it, including the subtle material elements like mind, intelligence, and ego, what to speak of feelings or thoughts. In the Gita, the master of all yoga, Lord Shree Krishna explains in detail the different energies in His creation, citing that the material elements both gross and subtle are His inferior energy, whereas the self is His superior eternal energy.
Jñāna-Vijñāna Yoga: The Vedic Process of Self-Realization
In Chapter 7 of the Bhagavad Gita, titled "Jñāna-Vijñāna Yoga," Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the source of all Vedic knowledge, elaborates on the different energies of the universe, material and spiritual. In this chapter, Krishna clarifies the distinction between the living entity, the soul, or the individual unit of consciousness, and matter.
Jagad Guru Swami B. G. Narasingha Maharaja comments on the 7th chapter of Bhagavad Gita as follows:
“This chapter of Bhagavad-gītā is entitled Jñāna-Vijñāna Yoga. Jñāna means knowledge of self as distinguished from non-self, or knowledge that the self is not the body. Vijñāna means realised knowledge or realisation of one’s intrinsic relationship with Kṛṣṇa.
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam also mentions jñāna and vijñāna as follows:
jñānaṁ parama guhyaṁ me yad vijñāna-samanvitamsa-rahasyaṁ tad aṅgaṁ ca gṛhāṇa gaditaṁ mayā
Knowledge (jñāna) about Kṛṣṇa as described in the Vedic literatures is very confidential, and it has to be realised in conjunction with the secrets of devotion. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.9.31)”
One Must Learn About the Self From the Tattva-Darśī
The secret to achieving vijñāna—the profound realization of the divine nature of God and His energies—lies in learning this science from a bona fide guru who has attained a deep understanding of Vedic knowledge. It is important to recognize that such a genuine representative of the Absolute Truth has also received this wisdom through a line of transmission, parampara, from their own guru. Not that someone can decide for himself what truth is. If your truth is not in line with the great Vedic authorities, the wise recommend rejection of such concocted ideas. According to the great saints, there are indeed absolute truths. Therefore, all seekers of enlightenment must reject postmodern and moral relativistic ideas which stand in stark contrast to the teachings of Vedic authorities and the Supreme Lord Shree Krishna, the origin of the Veda.
तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया ।
उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥३४॥
tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ
“Just try to understand this knowledge by approaching a self-realised person who has seen the truth. Make submissive inquiry and render service unto him. The tattva-darśī, the seer of the truth, will instruct you and give you initiation into this sacred path.” Bhagavad Gita 4.34
The Tattva-Darśī Speaks
Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja in his purport to the above verse states: “…The Lord is the original spiritual master, and a person in the disciplic succession can convey the message of the Lord as it is to his disciple. No one can be spiritually realized by manufacturing his own process, as is the fashion of the foolish pretenders….”
Self-love gurus fall into the category of foolish pretenders. Since its onset, these foolish pretenders have concocted an array of methods for the sale of the self-love idea rooted in impersonal ideas concerning the self and God.
Krishna, the master of Yoga, clearly defines the difference between matter, the self, and God. His scientific elaboration is unparalleled in the universe. Any doctrine contrary to His is rejected by the sincere seekers of truth. There can be no compromise with those bereft of vijñāna, realized knowledge.
Krishna’s Authority Over False Self-Realization
भूमिरापोऽनलो वायु: खं मनो बुद्धिरेव च ।
अहङ्कार इतीयं मे भिन्ना प्रकृतिरष्टधा ॥ ४ ॥
bhūmir āpo ’nalo vāyuḥkhaṁ mano buddhir eva ca
ahaṅkāra itīyaṁ mebhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā
“Earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intelligence and false ego – these are the eight different elements that constitute My material (inferior) nature.” Bhagavad Gita 7-4
अपरेयमितस्त्वन्यां प्रकृतिं विद्धि मे पराम् ।
जीवभूतां महाबाहो ययेदं धार्यते जगत् ॥ ५ ॥
apareyam itas tv anyāṁprakṛtiṁ viddhi me parām
jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāhoyayedaṁ dhāryate jagat
“Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.” Bhagavad Gita 7-5
In Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja’s purport to the above two verses, he says:
“Here it is clearly mentioned that living entities belong to the superior nature (or energy) of the Supreme Lord. The inferior energy is matter manifested in different elements, namely earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego. Both forms of material nature, namely gross (earth, etc.) and subtle (mind, etc.), are products of the inferior energy."
The Body as a Chariot: A Vedic Perspective on the Self
Arjuna's chariot serves as a powerful metaphor for the body. In this analogy, the five horses symbolize the five senses: tongue, eyes, ears, nose, and skin. The reins represent the mind, which acts as the guiding instrument for the chariot. The driver is the intelligence, and the passenger is the atma, or self, representing the individual unit of consciousness. This portrayal highlights the intricate relationship between the senses, mind, intellect, and the essence of the self.
This profound analogy illustrates the roles of each layer of the subtle and gross body. Just as the chariot carries the passenger (Arjuna), the material body acts as the vehicle for the atma or self. The presence of the charioteer, representing the intellect, is essential for guiding the chariot. The battleground is the object of the senses, while the five horses denote the five powerful senses, which can only be controlled through the reins of the mind. The mind holds a superior position over the senses, and above the mind is the intellect, the charioteer that skillfully grips the reins, directing the journey of the chariot.
The atma teamed with intellect drives the body and instructs the mind to control the senses. If the intellect is weak and unable to control the mind, then the senses will run wild like untamed horses.
चञ्चलं हि मन: कृष्ण प्रमाथि बलवद्दृढम् ।
तस्याहं निग्रहं मन्ये वायोरिव सुदुष्करम् ॥ ३४ ॥
cañcalaṁ hi manaḥ kṛṣṇa pramāthi balavad dṛḍham
tasyāhaṁ nigrahaṁ manyevāyor iva su-duṣkaram
“The mind is erratic, easily disturbed, turbulent, obstinate and very strong, O Kṛṣṇa, I think to control it is as difficult as controlling the wind.” Bhagavad gita. 6.34
In this connection, Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja has said: “Intelligence is supposed to direct the mind, but the mind is so strong and obstinate that it often overcomes even one's own intelligence. Such a strong mind is supposed to be controlled by the practice of yoga, but such practice is never practical for a worldly person like Arjuna. And what can we say of modern man? The simile used here is appropriate: one cannot capture the blowing wind. And it is even more difficult to capture the turbulent mind. The easiest way to control the mind, as suggested by Lord Caitanya, (The Golden Volcano of Pure Love), is chanting "Hare Krsna," (hare krsna, hare krsna, krsna krsna, hare hare, hare rama, hare rama, rama rama, hare hare) the great mantra for deliverance, in all humility. The method prescribed is sa vai manah krsna-padaravindayoh: one must engage one's mind fully in Krsna. Only then will there remain no other engagements to agitate the mind.”
बन्धुरात्मात्मनस्तस्य येनात्मैवात्मना जितः।
अनात्मनस्तु शत्रुत्वे वर्तेतात्मैव शत्रुवत्॥
bandhur ātmātmanas tasyayenātmaivātmanā
jitaḥanātmanas tu śatrutvevartetātmaiva śatru-vat
“For one who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends. But for one who has failed to do so, the mind remains the greatest enemy.” Bhagavad-gītā 6.6
Yoga Means to Control the Mind and Senses
This profound truth underscores the vital importance of mastering the mind, for only when the mind is brought under control can one perceive the guidance of the Paramātmā, the Superself, who patiently awaits the jīva’s awakening to its eternal identity and relationship with Kṛṣṇa.
The Atma/Jiva/Self and The Paramatma
Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, in his Bhagavad-gītā purports, states:
The soul or Atma sits besides the super-soul or Parmatma who is an expansion of Krishna himself. The super-soul is the divinity within that acts as the witness to all our endeavors, thoughts and prayers and our eternal best friend that gifts us with intuition and guidance. Krishna in the form of super-soul is within the heart, sitting patiently until the day that the soul breaks through the layers of the gross and subtle body and realizes his true self, remembering his eternal relationship with Lord Krishna.
Two Birds on the Same Tree
The Vedas, particularly the Mundaka Upaniṣad and the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, beautifully illustrate the relationship between the ātma/self and the Supersoul using the metaphor of two friendly birds sitting in the same tree. One of these birds represents the ātma/self, which is consumed with enjoying the fruits of the tree. The other bird embodies Krishna in His Paramātmā feature, who is simply observing His friend without getting involved.
When the ātma forgets this divine relationship, it ends up hopping from one tree to another, or from one body to another, in an a seemingly endless cycle of birth and death. The jīva soul struggles intensely while clinging to the material tree. Yet, when the ātma recognizes the other bird as the supreme spiritual master—just as Arjuna did by surrendering to Krishna for guidance—it can instantly break free from all lamentation.
This idea is echoed in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, which highlight that although the eating bird is caught up in anxiety and sorrow over enjoying the tree's fruits, it can find liberation by turning towards the witnessing bird, acknowledging the Lord as master and friend.
With Arjuna now focused on his eternal friend, Krishna, he is grasping the meaning of Krishna’s instruction on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra. Through this connection, he begins to understand the supreme glories of the Lord, allowing him to break free from his illusions."
The Flawed Premises of Self-Love Gurus
Self-love gurus fundamentally miss the mark when it comes to understanding key spiritual concepts. Their descriptions of the self—what we know as the ātma or the spiritual entity or individual unit of consciousness—are often vague and conveyed in an impersonal manner. By rejecting the absolute truth that God is a personal being, they veer off course. Even when they try to delve deeper, their explanations are still entrenched in impersonalism, neglecting to acknowledge the eternal individuality of the ātma and the supremacy of the Paramātmā/Superself.
Occasionally, they will reference Eastern philosophy, but their interpretations are steeped in the Māyāvāda school of thought. We will discuss this later in the essay.
The gravest mistake made by these gurus is their failure to recognize the Paramātmā aspect of the Supreme Lord, who sits alongside the individual unit of consciousness within the chariot of the material body. They erroneously elevate the individual ātma not as the servant but as the master, falsely claiming their own consciousness as the ultimate reality.
Dr. Wayne Dyer, one of the pioneers of the self-love philosophy in the West, states:
“We are not our bodies, or our careers. Who we are is DIVINE LOVE, and that is INFINITE.”
Deepak Chopra in (The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, says):
“You are God in human form. You are the Divine having a human experience, and when you begin to understand this, you will see that everything is a manifestation of that Divine energy.”
In other words, both Dyer and Chopra are saying we are God. God, Lord Krishna, is the embodiment of Divine Love. According to Dyer and Chopra, we are Krishna. Although they may not say it directly, this is what they are implying.
Both Dr. Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra had Indian Māyāvādī teachers, which shaped their perspectives on spirituality and their teachings in the self-love arena.
Although not all self-love gurus claim lineage from India, they are all influenced by Māyāvāda philosophy, even if they do not realize it. In fact, many have no clue when they spout rhetoric like, "It's all one”, where that slogan has roots.
To discern how Māyāvāda philosophy is subtly woven into the teachings of self-love gurus and many within the self-help sphere, it is essential to first grasp the nature of the Divine and how it stands in stark contrast to the tenets espoused by Māyāvādī teachers.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, reveals Himself in three distinct aspects: Brahman realization, Paramātmā realization, and ultimately, Bhagavān realization, from which the preceding two emanate. Bhagavān is the complete and original feature of the Divine, embodying the fullness of transcendental reality, while Brahman and Paramātmā are partial manifestations rooted in His infinite existence. Understanding this gradation is key to identifying the limitations of Māyāvāda teachings, which deny the supreme individuality of the Lord.Brahman – the impersonal, all-pervading aspect of the Supreme. This is the formless, omnipresent aspect of God that is realized through meditation, severe austerity, and knowledge. This Brahman is often depicted as the halo or aura of Krishna, also referred to as the ocean of light or brahmajyoti. Brahman is the aspect those who follow Advaita Vedanta Māyāvāda philosophy focus on.Paramātmā – the Superself, or the localized aspect of God, resides within the heart of every living being and permeates every atom of existence. This aspect of God serves as the overseer of the material world’s functioning and acts as the silent witness to all thoughts and actions of the individual jiva. The realization of Paramātmā, or the Superself, is often attained through deep yogic practices, including meditation, yoga, and intense austerities, which help uncover this divine presence within.Bhagavān –The personal aspect of God is endowed with all qualities and attributes, including form, personality, and pastimes. The highest realization of God is as Bhagavān—the Supreme Person, specifically Kṛṣṇa. It is in this form that devotees engage in a loving, personal relationship through bhakti-yoga. The Brahman and Paramātmā aspects originate from the personal form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Notably, while the realization of these two aspects is extremely difficult, Bhagavān realization in this age comes very easily simply by chanting the Holy Names of the Lord following the instructions of a bonafide guru.
This threefold realization of God is often described as advaya-jñāna-tattva—the threefold aspect of the Divine perceived differently according to one’s level of spiritual advancement.
Those who focus on the formless, featureless, and all-pervading Brahman are called ‘impersonalists’ and seek to merge with it, negating individuality and personal relationships with God.
Those who recognize the personality and qualities of God are called personalists. Those who realize Paramātmā acknowledge God’s personal aspect within the core of their heart and as a universal divine substance pervading all things but have not yet reached the realization of Bhagavān, the supreme and fully personal aspect of God, who engages in loving relationships with His devotees.
Thus, Paramātmā is a personal aspect of God, but from the Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective, it is not the fullest personal realization, which is only attained through a personal relationship with Bhagavān Shree Kṛṣṇa.
While Paramātmā realization is personal, it is still considered an intermediate stage on the path to fully realizing the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Bhagavān). It is a deeper realization than impersonal Brahman realization, which focuses on the Lord’s impersonal, all-pervading aspect but lacks recognition of His transcendental form, qualities, and activities.
The Two Categories of Impersonalist
Mayavadis are the first branch of impersonalists and have concluded they are God, that we are all God.
“When I say I am God, I am saying every human being is God – and not only human being, every being is God. To be is to be God, there is no other way.” Rajnesh/Osho - Popular Mayavadi Guru
Thus, they are offenders to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Such rascals sometimes even take the title of ‘Bhagavān’ and delude their followers into thinking their guru is God. They conclude that Maya, the illusory energy of the Supreme, is more powerful than God Himself, having overcome Him.
We Forgot We Are God?????
Many within the ranks of the Māyāvādīs assert that we are God but have somehow forgotten our divine nature and are now lost in the world of illusion, suffering birth, death, old age, and disease perpetually. According to their philosophy, our suffering will persist until we “realize” we are God. They argue that the only difference between ordinary people and the so-called realized godmen saints is that the saints have awakened to their godhood, while the rest of us must endure suffering until we come to the same understanding.
Interestingly, this philosophy conveniently places the “realized” gurus in a position where those of us still “ignorant” of our godhood are expected to serve, give money to, and worship them as if they are God Himself. The entire concept is so absurdly ridiculous that anyone using a modicum of critical thinking should be able to see right through it!!
These ideas represent the pinnacle of narcissism, vanity, and conceit! Just think about the implications of such a mindset. In fact, in recent history, one of these so-called gurus in India achieved national fame as a living saint—not only in his home country but around the world. At the time of his death, his net worth was estimated in the billions of dollars. Yet, behind the scenes, this rascal was engaged in acts of pedophilia with the children of some of his followers. And as insane as it sounds, many of his followers excused his actions, reasoning that it was acceptable because he was “God.”
This is the path the self-lovers are paving. They not only support lifestyles that were once denounced as debauched but now actively glorify them. Their justification? “If it feels good, do it!” and “If it’s ‘your truth,’ embrace it!” More troubling still, popular movements influenced by this brand of narcissism have gone further, demanding not just tolerance but full acceptance of their distorted tenets. They take pride in their so-called progressive ideas, reveling in what was once recognized as shameful behavior.
“Their end is destruction, their god is their belly and body, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.” Phillipians 3.19
In some countries, speaking the truth about this devolution in consciousness has now become a criminal act. Hate speech laws are wielded as tools to silence dissent, landing many in trouble with the law for simply speaking honestly. As a result, many pious individuals find themselves persecuted for holding onto basic moral values.
The idea that each of us is actually God but has somehow forgotten our true identity and fallen under the influence of ignorance/Maya makes literally no sense. Think about it—how can the Supreme Being, who is supposed to be beyond all limitations, become caught in the laws of material nature? How can God be bound by birth and death? If this is the case, then what kind of God are we talking about?
What’s even more absurd is the idea that God needs to meditate and struggle to overcome ignorance in order to remember who He is. If God is truly Supreme, how could He be lost in ignorance to begin with? By definition, God is the one who knows all and remembers all. To suggest that the Supreme Lord must strive to find Himself through meditation is to diminish Him to something far less than what He truly is.
This “I am God” philosophy has been spread far and wide by various teachers and swamis, some openly and some more subtly. The problem with this impersonalist teaching is that it’s misleading and dangerous. It leads people to believe in an idea that denies the actual nature of the Supreme Being and the eternal individuality of the self.
In truth, the belief that we are all God is not just flawed; it’s spiritually detrimental. It diverts people from understanding the true relationship between the self and the Supreme Lord, where the soul is the eternal servant and the Supreme Lord is the eternal master. Such a false understanding of God disqualifies the believer from attaining the highest reward of yoga—love for the Supreme Person, the All Beautiful Lord Shree Krishna. Thus, the self-lovers are self-cheaters.
Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu says:
“The Māyāvāda philosophy is so degraded that it has taken the insignificant living entities to be the Lord, the Supreme Truth, thus covering the glory and supremacy of the Absolute Truth with monism.”Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 7.120
māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa
"If one hears the commentary of the Māyāvādīs, his spiritual life is ruined.” CC Madya 6.169
Non Envious Impersonalists
Brahmānandīs are the second category of impersonalists who focus on the realization of Brahman, the impersonal, all-pervading aspect of the Supreme Reality. These yogis are partially realized souls who have understood Kṛṣṇa’s impersonal feature but do not mistakenly conclude that they are identical to it. Unlike Māyāvādīs, they are not envious of the Supreme Lord. Their ultimate goal is to merge into the brahmajyoti, the effulgence of the Absolute, and to experience the bliss (ānanda) derived from this realization.
Although they are impersonalists, they remain in a state of awe regarding their perception of Brahman rather than falsely identifying themselves as God. However, their realization is incomplete, as they have yet to perceive Kṛṣṇa in His full transcendental form, composed of sat-chit-ānanda (eternity, knowledge, and bliss). While they do attain liberation (mokṣa) from material existence, they have not yet comprehended the Supreme Lord in His highest, most personal feature.
One may ask, “How do we know that Bhagavan realization is at the apex of enlightenment?” The answer is that in the course of history countless Brahman and Paramatma realized yogis have progressed, being attracted by the all-beautiful Supreme Personality of Godhead. Once that attraction manifests, the practitioner realizes that service to Krishna—bhakti yoga—surpasses all, and such a successful yogi never returns to his previous practice.
The Four Kumāras: A Testament to Bhakti’s Supremacy
A striking example of this truth can be seen in the transformation of the Four Kumāras—Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanātana, and Sanat-kumāra.
The four Kumāras are renowned as eternal sages, created directly from the mind of Lord Brahma, the empowered creator of this universe. They were among the first beings in the universe, appearing eternally youthful and childlike in their forms. Despite their youthful appearance, they were highly advanced spiritually and completely detached from the material world. They dedicated themselves to the pursuit of jñāna-yoga.
Jñāna yoga is the path of spiritual realization through self-inquiry, intellectual discernment, and meditation. It aims to understand the eternal self beyond the material body and mind, culminating in the realization of the impersonal Brahman. Practitioners of Jñāna yoga led lives of deep austerity, meditation, and study, focusing on understanding the nature of reality and transcending the material dualities.
Initially, the four Kumāras followed the path of impersonalism, seeing the formless Brahman as the ultimate truth. However, their realization took a dramatic turn when they encountered the Supreme Lord in His personal form. This moment is vividly described in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (3.15.43):
“When the breeze carrying the aroma of tulasī leaves from the toes of the lotus feet of the Personality of Godhead entered the nostrils of those sages [the Kumāras], they experienced a change both in body and mind, even though they were attached to the impersonal Brahman having realized it.”
Their previous focus on the impersonal Brahman dissolved as they realized the incomparable beauty, mercy, and qualities of the Lord in His personal form. They abandoned their impersonalist view and embraced bhakti, offering their heartfelt devotion to Lord Viṣṇu-Krishna.
This transformation demonstrates that while merging with Brahman might grant liberation, it is incomplete. True spiritual fulfillment comes only through bhakti—the personal loving service of the Lord. Even exalted souls like the Four Kumāras, who had attained Brahman realization, found their hearts fully satisfied only in devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
This realization aligns with Arjuna’s declaration in the Bhagavad-gītā (10.12-13):
“Arjuna said: You (Kṛṣṇa) are the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme refuge, and the most pure. You are the eternal Supreme Person, the most effulgent, the original divinity, unborn and all-pervading. All the sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala, and Vyāsa have stated this, just as You have declared this unto me.”
The story of the Four Kumāras serves as a profound reminder that the ultimate goal of spiritual life is not mere liberation or impersonal realization but the cultivation of a personal, loving relationship with Kṛṣṇa, the source of all bliss, the Supreme Reality. Their journey demonstrates that even the most elevated impersonalists can attain the highest perfection through bhakti.
This stands in stark contrast to the modern fixation on self-love as a means to acquire “the abundance of life,” reducing spiritual aspirations to material wealth, fame, or even peace of mind—superficial goals that fall far short of true spiritual fulfillment.
Throughout history, there is no record of a paramahamsa, one who has fully realized the goal of bhakti, ever returning to a previous spiritual path. This serves as a powerful pramāṇa—a testament to the truth—that bhakti-yoga surpasses all other paths in its depth, fulfillment, and ultimate realization of the Supreme.
ব্রহ্মানন্দ হৈতে পূর্ণানন্দ লীলারস ।
ব্রহ্মজ্ঞানী আকর্ষিয়া করে আত্মবশ ॥ ১৩৭ ॥
brahmānanda haite pūrṇānanda līlā-rasa
brahma-jñānī ākarṣiyā kare ātma-vaśa
“The mellows of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes, which are full of bliss, attract the jñānī from the pleasure of Brahman realization and conquer him.” Caitanya Caritāmṛta. Madhya 17.137
brahmānando bhaved eṣacet parārdha-guṇī-kṛtaḥ
naiti bhakti-sukhāmbhodheḥ paramāṇu-tulām api
"If brahmānanda, the transcendental bliss derived from understanding impersonal Brahman, were multiplied a million times, such a quantity of brahmānanda could not compare with even an atomic portion of the pleasure relished in pure devotional service.” Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.1.38)
Suffice it to say, the great saint, Bhakta Prahlāda Mahārāja perfectly captures the essence of spiritual realization when he compares the bliss of Brahman realization—and indeed all other forms of happiness—to the boundless ānanda, spiritual bliss, found in loving service to Kṛṣṇa, bhakti-yoga:
“ My dear Lord, O master of the universe, since I have directly seen You, my transcendental bliss has taken the shape of a great ocean. Being situated in that ocean, I now realize all other so-called happiness, including even brahmānanda, to be like the water contained in the hoofprint of a calf.’ ” (Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya. 14.36/ Caitanya Caritāmṛta. Antya 3.197)
The Historical Roots of Māyāvāda: Shankaracharya’s Influence
Prior to the birth of Shankaracharya, the chief proponent of the Māyāvāda school of thought, India had been influenced by the teachings of Lord Buddha. The actual date of the Buddha’s birth is unknown, but according to some authorities, he was born in the fifth century B.C. in a small province in Bihar, on the border of Nepal and India.
He made His advent at a time when the Vedas were being misused by unscrupulous Vedic priests, leading to the unnecessary slaughter of animals and an emphasis on petitioning the demigods for heavenly rewards. Buddha, an incarnation of Krishna, seeing this discrepancy, advocated for ahimsa (nonviolence) and dismissed the idea of reaping pleasures for the future through acts of sacrifice and penance. Seeing the misuse of the Vedas, He rejected them, teaching His disciples to simply follow Him. He taught the Four Noble Truths:
Dukkha: The world is inherently a place of suffering.
Samudaya: Suffering is caused by our material attachments and cravings.
Samudaya: The truth of suffering is tanhā or desire that leads to attachment. This craving arises from ignorance.
Nirodha: Suffering can be ended by relinquishing desires.
Magga: The path to this cessation is through following the Eightfold Path, which includes Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. Through these practices, one can attain Nirvana, the state of nothingness.
“Seeing the atrocities (rampant animal slaughter) that were the norm at the time, and the petitioning of demigods with a view to enjoy heavenly delights, the Buddha reasoned that if this was the people’s understanding of the Vedas, then this particular class of people would do better to put the Vedas aside. Buddha actually preached a portion of the Vedic principles in a manner suitable for the time. In this way, we see that while appearing as an atheist, he cleverly set the stage for the development of future theistic thought.” (Jagad Guru Swami Narasingha-‘The Evolution of Theism.’)
Although Buddha’s influences dominated India for hundreds of years, due to social conditioning and its long connection to the Veda and Vedic culture, it could not hold up forever. Hence the appearance of Shankaracharya, who introduced Māyāvāda philosophy in the 8th century CE. Shankaracharya revitalized interest in Advaita Vedanta, emphasizing the non-duality of the self and Brahman, which reestablished the authority of the Vedas and age-old Indian Vedic traditions. It can be said that Shankaracharya brought back the Vedas.
“During the eighth century A.D., when Shankaracharya appeared in India, the authority of the Vedas, which guide humanity toward progressive immortality, had been greatly minimized by the prevailing influence of Buddhist thought. At the time, most of India’s philosophers, in pursuance of the teaching of Buddha’s Shunyavada philosophy of negative existence or Prakriti-nirvana, had renounced the Vedic conception of Ishvara (the Absolute Truth) and jiva (the eternal spark of the same). Under the patronage of powerful emperors like Ashoka, Buddhism had spread throughout the length and breadth of India. By dint of his vast learning and his ability to defeat opposing philosophies in philosophical debate, Shankaracharya, however, was able to reestablish the prestige of the Vedic literatures such as the Upanishads and the Vedanta.
Wherever Shankaracharya traveled in India, he was victorious, and opposing philosophies bowed. Shankaracharya established his doctrine, Advaita Vedanta (non-dualistic Vedanta), by reconciling the philosophy of the Buddhists. He agreed with the Buddhist concept that corporal existence is unreal or asat—but he disagreed with their conception of prakriti-nirvana. Shankaracharya presented Brahman, spiritual substance, as a positive alternative to the illusory plane of matter. His philosophy in a nutshell is contained in the verse ‘brahma satyam jagan-mithya’—Brahman or spirit is truth, whereas jagat or the material world is false. In other words, Shankaracharya’s philosophy was a compromise between theism and atheism.
It is said that Shankaracharya, according to the necessity of time, place, and circumstance, took the position between theism and atheism because the wholesale conversion of Buddhists to the path of full-fledged theism would not have been possible.
Professors of philosophy in India refer to a verse from the Padma Purana that reveals the hidden identity of Shankaracharya:
mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devikalau brahmana-murtina
‘The Māyāvāda philosophy,’ Shiva informed his wife Parvati, ‘is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the Kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy.’
Shankaracharya is thus widely accepted as an incarnation of Shiva.”
(Jagad Guru Swami Narasingha Maharaja-‘The Evolution of Theism')
It is a fact Shankaracharya tricked his followers by playing the role of an impersonalist bringing back the Veda and setting the stage for future theistic blossoming to hail in the coming of the most recent Avatar of the Divine Sri Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, The Golden Volcano of Pure Love. In reality, he worshipped Govinda/Krishna, rebuking his own followers for adopting his impersonalist ideas before retaining his seat in the upper realms of this universe as Lord Shiva, the servant of Krishna.
bhaja govindam, by Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya -
भजगोविन्दं भजगोविन्दं गोविन्दं भज मूढमते ।
bhaja-govindaṁ bhaja-govindaṁ govindaṁ bhaja mūḍhamate
Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, worship Govinda, O fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.Other than chanting the Lord's names, there isno other way to cross the life's ocean.
তাঁহার নাহিক দোষ, ঈশ্বর–আজ্ঞা পাঞা ।
গৌণার্থ করিল মুখ্য অর্থ আচ্ছাদিয়া ॥ ১১০ ॥
tāṅhāra nāhika doṣa, īśvara-ājñā pāñā
gauṇārtha karila mukhya artha ācchādiyā
“Śaṅkarācārya is not at fault, for it is under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that he has covered the real purport of the Vedas.”Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 7.110
Two Impersonalist Philosophies: Māyāvāda and Śūnyavāda
It is imperative for those treading the path of bhakti-yoga to recognize the fundamental error in both Śūnyavāda and Māyāvāda ideologies. The Buddhist doctrine of śūnyatā claims that ultimate reality is void—an existence stripped of intrinsic substance, where all distinctions dissolve into nothingness. Māyāvāda, as taught by Śaṅkarācārya, asserts that the individual self (jīva) is Brahman and that liberation is the realization of absolute oneness, wherein individuality is seen as an illusion.
Though these two schools appear distinct, they are, in essence, different sides of the same impersonalist misconception. Whether one claims "I am nothing" (śūnyatā) or "I am everything" (ahaṁ brahmāsmi), both positions erase the individual identity of the jīva as an eternal conscious being. Such philosophies reduce existence to either a void or an undifferentiated mass, denying the personal nature of the Supreme Lord. In the revealed scriptures, the true nature of the jīva is established beyond doubt:
Eternal Individuality
The eternal individuality of the jīva, whose intrinsic purpose is to serve Śrī Kṛṣṇa perpetually, is a cornerstone of the Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. This truth, upheld by the exalted ācāryas in the lineage of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī—the Rūpanuga ācārya appointed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, the latest avatāra of the Absolute Reality—remains at the heart of the teachings of these great souls. Though eternal and unchanging, this truth is occasionally obscured by the rise of adharma—erroneous interpretations and misconceptions about the Absolute Truth.
At the confluence of Dvāpara Yuga and Kali Yuga, on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra, Lord Śrī Krishna imparted explicit instructions to His friend and disciple Arjuna. These teachings, recorded in the Bhagavad-gītā, established the dharma suitable for the age of Kali and unequivocally affirmed the intrinsic individuality of the jīva, the individual unit of consciousness. Through this divine discourse, Lord Krishna illuminated the eternal nature of the jīva, its distinction from the material body and mind, intelligence, and ego, and its inseparable relationship with the Supreme.
न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः ।
न चैव नभविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥ १२ ॥
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁna tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥsarve vayam ataḥ param
“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.” Bhagavad Gita 2.12
Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami further elaborates on this verse:
“The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna, and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned and in their liberated states. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord’s eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. The Māyāvādī theory that upon achieving moksha (liberation) the individual jīva merges into the impersonal Brahman and loses its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally.”
The Illusion of Merging into Brahman
Māyāvāda philosophers sometimes use the analogy of a green bird entering a forest to illustrate the merging of the individual unit of consciousness into Brahman. From a distance, it appears as though the bird has merged into the greenery of the forest, losing its individuality. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the bird retains its distinct identity and exists within the forest among other entities.
Similarly, the individual unit of consciousness never truly merges into Brahman. Instead, it identifies with the Brahman effulgence (brahmajyoti) and mistakenly concludes that it has become Brahman. This misconception arises due to the jīva’s limited intelligence and propensity for error. Unlike the Supreme Soul, the jīva is subject to four fundamental defects. Among these, the following two are particularly responsible for the erroneous belief that one has become Brahman:Bhrama (the tendency to make mistakes): The jīva often mistakes one thing for another, demonstrating the unreliability of its judgment.Pramāda (illusion or inattentiveness): Due to material conditioning, the conditioned jīva perceives reality incorrectly.
Beyond Brahman: The Transcendental Destination of the Bhakta
In contrast, Kṛṣṇa devotees (bhaktas) transcend Brahman realization. They pierce through the ocean of light, the brahmajyoti, and enter the spiritual Vaikuntha plane above it. There, they engage eternally in loving devotional service (bhakti) to Kṛṣṇa, experiencing the ultimate fulfillment of the jīva acting on its inherent nature as an individual unit of consciousness serving and engaging in pastimes with the Supreme Unit of Consciousness, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
All You Need is Love
Those who become stuck in Brahman realization—lacking pure love for the Lord—are unable to cross the effulgence and ascend to the higher realm of Vaikuntha. They cannot pierce the brahmajyoti and enter the higher plane because they lack love for the Lord. Love is the ticket. Therefore, they fall back into the material plane, as the experience of Brahman cannot satisfy the jīva’s inherent longing for dynamic, loving relationships. Upon returning to the material world, the jīva resumes its search for love. In reality, the jīva is forced out of Brahman due to its inborn nature to love.
Sat Chit Ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakur Knows
In Chapter 7 of Jaiva Dharma, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the pioneer in spreading the teachings of the Veda worldwide, explains that pure devotional service (bhakti yoga) is the only path through which a living entity can attain the highest perfection of life. This type of service is eternal and can be performed only by a person who has attained liberation from material consciousness. At the core of this teaching is the living entity’s constitutional position: as an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. Rather than aspiring for impersonal liberation or merging with the Supreme, the ātma’s true perfection is in maintaining its individuality and engaging in eternal service to Kṛṣṇa.
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura emphasizes that the living entity’s eternal pure nature, its very essence, is to serve Kṛṣṇa. The living entity, the self, is an eternal serving unit of consciousness. The goal is not to merge into the impersonal aspect of God or become zero, thereby losing one’s individuality. The living entity retains individuality eternally and performs devotional service, which leads to liberation from the bondage of material existence.
Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu states:
jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya—kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’
“The living entity’s constitutional position is to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa.”(Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 20.108)
This explicitly implies the eternal individuality of the self.
“tava nija-jana-koṭir na kṣayaṁ yāti tatra”
“The number of your [Kṛṣṇa’s] devotees is countless, yet none of them ever lose their individual identity.”(Jīva Gosvāmī, Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta, 2.6.173)
“The living entity, being different from the Supreme Lord, is an eternal individual. He is a distinct, atomic particle of the Supreme Lord, never merging with Him.”(Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī: Paramātmā Sandarbha, Anuccheda 39)
“The living entities are infinitesimal spiritual particles, distinct from the Supreme Lord. Even in the state of liberation, they never lose their individuality.”(Sārārtha-darśinī commentary by Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura on Bhagavad-gītā, 2.12)
Why True Love Cannot Exist in Isolation
The notion that love can exist as an isolated, self-contained practice fundamentally fails to align with self-evident truths. Love, by its very nature, requires the presence of two or more individuals; it is a relational dynamic, a reciprocal exchange that cannot manifest in isolation. As the saying goes, "It takes two to tango." This underscores the limitations of self-love as a philosophical or spiritual ideal, revealing its inherent inadequacy to fulfill the deeper spiritual needs of the individual unit of consciousness.
The highest form of love is directed toward Krishna the original embodiment of love. He is love personified. The Vedas emphasize that the true nature of the self is as an eternal servant and lover of Kṛṣṇa, and it is in this loving relationship that ultimate fulfillment and eternal happiness can be found. The pursuit of self-love, which often promotes self-absorption and material goals, falls short of this spiritual ideal, leaving its practitioners perpetually unfulfilled.
True love and joy can only be realized when the individual jīva engages in the eternal exchange of love with the Supreme Lord, transcending the illusions of self-centered ideologies and aligning with the eternal truths of bhakti yoga.
The Final Verdict: Self-Love vs. True Love
This essay has critically examined the modern concept of self-love, tracing its ideological roots in postmodernism and moral relativism while contrasting it with the Vedic understanding of the self. Contemporary self-love philosophies prioritize personal happiness over collective responsibility and spiritual truth, redefining self-worth through subjective narratives rather than absolute principles.
One of the fundamental flaws in self-love ideology is its misidentification of the self as being rooted in material and subtle elements—such as thoughts, emotions, and identity—rather than recognizing the self as an eternal spiritual entity, distinct from both gross and subtle matter. This misidentification aligns with Māyāvāda philosophy, which negates the individuality of the jīva and denies the personal nature of the Supreme Lord. However, the jīva is eternally distinct from the Supreme Being, and true fulfillment can never be found in self-absorption or impersonal notions of merging with Brahman or becoming zero.
Through the lens of Vedic wisdom, it becomes evident that love, by its very nature, requires a relationship. The highest and most fulfilling form of love is the jīva’s eternal loving service (bhakti) to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Unlike the incomplete and often self-serving interpretations of self-love, bhakti is the eternal function of the soul, wherein the jīva finds the highest joy, ananda, in reciprocating love with the Supreme Beloved.
Those who become absorbed in Brahman realization yet lack pure love for Kṛṣṇa are unable to transcend the brahmajyoti and enter the higher realm of Vaikuṇṭha. Love is the essential key, the passport to transcendence. Without it, even those who attain Brahman realization eventually fall back into the material world, compelled by their inherent nature as individual units of consciousness seeking loving exchanges.In contrast to self-love, which is ultimately self-referential and limited, the path of bhakti-yoga leads to the supreme fulfillment of the jīva’s innate longing for love and devotion. It is in this eternal service to Śrī Kṛṣṇa that the jīva realizes its true identity and purpose.
Thus, the pursuit of self-love, when divorced from its ultimate spiritual purpose, is a path that leads to perpetual dissatisfaction. True love and eternal happiness can only be found in the relationship between the jīva and Kṛṣṇa the best friend of all, the original embodiment of love.
OM TAT SAT
