56: Bhakti Causes Bhakti

CHAPTER 12, TEXT 20: Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are very, very dear to Me.

Arjuna asked which is better - "one who is engaged in the path of impersonal Brahman or one who is engaged in the personal service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead" - and Lord Krishna replies here without a shadow of a doubt that devotional service is the best of all processes of spiritual realization (Purport, 12.20).

But even though personally serving Lord Krishna with devotion is the process recommended here as the highest, most direct path to loving God, the process is also somewhat shrouded in mystery.  

A great Vaishnava saint and scholar, Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur, makes this point in his commentary on a famous verse in the Srimad Bhagavatam that describes bhakti as causeless. He writes, "Here the work ahaituki, causeless, means that devotional service has no material cause (hetu)" (Madhurya Kadambini, 3).  

It's not possible to simply serve God and then after a preordained amount of time love would flood my heart. This would make love a business exchange, a kind of calculation on the grocery store receipt - 3 prayers, 5 fasts, 10 times giving in charity = love of God. 

Loving devotion, or bhakti, has no material cause. I could engage in these processes of prayer, fasts, and giving in charity for a million years and still not experience love of God, because bhakti is not dependent upon my material endeavors. 

So. The million dollar question: 

If I can't endeavor for bhakti, how do I get it?

???

Association with a pure devotee. 

Srila Prabhupad writes that this kind of association is essential to the cultivation of bhakti within the heart. In fact, Prabhupad emphasizes the essential nature of association by saying that "as long as one does not have the chance to associate with a pure devotee, the impersonal conception may be beneficial." How interesting! Krishna has just emphasized to Arjuna that bhakti yoga, without a doubt, is the best and highest path for spiritual realization, but here Prabhupad is saying that if one does not have the association of a devotee, the path of jnana (knowledge, meditation) yoga is beneficial. 

This means that associating with a devotee is a necessity for cultivating bhakti.  

But if one does not have that association, then this process of jnana yoga is your second best bet. 

Jnana yoga involves working without fruitive result, meditating and cultivating knowledge to understand spirit and matter (Purport, 12.20). These activities are all confirmed by Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur as referring to "bhakti in the material mode of goodness (sattviki-bhakti) which acts as a limb of the system of jnana" (Madhurya Kadambini, 5). Being in the mode of goodness in our devotion is a great stepping stone to elevating our souls. Sattviki bhakti may never take us to our ultimate destination of love of God, but it opens the heart up to receive the love when it does come. That is why Prabhupad says that this process of jnana may be "necessary as long as one is not in the association of a pure devotee" (Purport, 12.20). 

So how come association is so essential to cultivating love in our hearts? The answer lies within a devotee's mercy. 

One may say that when or how a devotee gives mercy is dependent upon situations, so this is a material cause. But "Without the devotee having bhakti, there is no possibility of him giving mercy to others. Bhakti causes the devotee's mercy which causes bhakti in another person. 

"Bhakti causes bhakti."

This is why we cannot huff and puff away at our prayers and fasts and charities, expecting love of God to sprout in our hearts on its accord from all of these endeavors. Bhakti can only be given by one who possesses bhakti, someone with love and mercy in his/her heart. 

So either I engage in jnana yoga for lifetime upon lifetime, or I can seek out the association of pure devotees in order to take the highest, direct path to Krishna. The choice is mine, the choice is yours. 

Full purport  here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/12/20/

54: A Convenient, Joyful Process

CHAPTER 12, TEXT 5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

This verse of the Gita underscores the fact that one who tries to understand God in His impersonal feature is duhkham - he is miserable. 

Meditating in silence and stillness on nothing / formless light / power is actually miserable. 

A key word of this verse is deha-vadbhih, which means "those who are embodied." To try and meditate upon a formless light when we ourselves are embodied is almost impossible. 

According to the Gita, we are all an eternal spirit soul, but we are housed within a material body. When the body dies, the eternal soul moves on to another body; "The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial." The soul has been traversing from body to body to body in a neverending ferris wheel in the cycle of samsara, the cycle of birth and death in this world. Thus "it is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body." This shows that theoretical understanding does not go very far. Since I am housed within a material body, naturally I identify with this body, no matter how much philosophy I read and agree with. 

I tend to believe that this body IS me. 

I can't see my soul. But I can see and feel and touch my body, so my body must be who "I" am. Prabhupad emphasizes that it is difficult for us to even understand theoretically that we are not the body - indeed, I understand somewhat theoretically that I am not the body, but that theory is hard to apply in practical, everyday life. I am typing these words with my fingers, I am seeing through these eyes, I am willing my body to move. 

I mean, the willing and the moving of my body is so seamless that I must be my body, right? 

And everyone else's body must be them, right?

Bhakti yoga does not demand that one should stubbornly refuse all connection to the body. In fact, there is the understanding that we all have an eternal form, a svarupa, in the spiritual world. 

What's more, God also has an eternal form, but he is also represented in an embodied form in this material world. Prabhupad writes, "The bhakti-yogī accepts the Deity of Kṛṣṇa as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind, which can thus be applied." This is so beautiful. God is meeting us where we're at; He knows that since we have been embodied since time immemorial, we're going to identify with our bodies and identify others as their bodies. 

Including God! 

We're going to believe that God in His material body IS Him. 

So presto - God gives us deity worship in order to apply our bodily conception of life. Through deity worship, we may all approach God easily and joyfully. By "[God's] incarnation as arcā-vigraha He can accept the services of the devotee, just to make it convenient for the man in conditioned life." Amazing  how Prabhupad uses the word "convenient" here. Not only is this process joyful, it is convenient. Deity worship is not meant to be miserable, like meditating on an impersonal void. In fact, for "the personalist, without any risk, trouble or difficulty, [he] approaches the Supreme Personality directly." So although this verses emphasizes the misery of attempting impersonal meditation, within the purport Prabhupad offers a solution that is simple, convenient, and direct. 

Personally, I find that when I visit the deity form of the Lord within a temple, my heart opens like a flower and love flows in my heart. I can bow down with my body, I can dance with my body, I can drink in God's form with my eyes. 

Way more accessible than sitting in silent and, well, miserable meditation. (Hey, Krishna Himself says it's miserable!) 

I'm an embodied soul, what can I say? I tend to believe that others are their bodies, including God. Ever since I was a little girl, when I would gaze up at the deity form of God, I simply understood, "This is God. God is looking at me." This process is so easy even a child can exchange love with God. This is bhakti yoga. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/12/5/

53: Krishna at Face Value

CHAPTER 11, TEXT 51: When Arjuna thus saw Kṛṣṇa in His original form, he said: O Janārdana, seeing this humanlike form, so very beautiful, I am now composed in mind, and I am restored to my original nature.

The Gita has been studied for thousands of years. Scholars often recognize certain philosophical points in the Gita as truths and laws of nature, such as the law of karma, the eternality of the soul, the modes of material nature, and much more (https://www.ancient.eu/Bhagavad_Gita/). Krishna's words are taken at face value, no metaphorical bending or interpretation required.  

But when it comes to Krishna's statements that fools deride him when he descends in human form (9.11) or that one should worship Him with love and devotion by meditating on His form (9.22), Krishna's words suddenly are not taken at face value. They're seen as metaphorical.  

Many scholars take one of two standpoints: 1) Either Krishna is seen as an ordinary human being who gave some great wisdom to his friend on a battlefield, or 2) this battle at Kurukshetra never actually took place - the whole Bhagavad-gita is interpreted as a metaphor for the soul's battle for goodness and truth. 

There's a third possibility, though: 3) The battle of Kurukshetra took place, Krishna is God in human form conversing with his dear friend, instructing him how to live in this world and become a loving devotee. Bhaktivedanta Swami's commentary on the Bhagavad-gita is aptly entitled As It Is. 

Take everything Krishna says at face value. As it is. No metaphorical mind-bending.

If He says that there's a law of karma, there's a law of karma. 

If He says that there are three modes of material nature, there are three modes of material nature. 

If Krishna displays the universal, cosmic form, a form that only God can display, then that is Krishna's power and Krishna is God. 

If Krishna is described in His original form as having two hands and being very beautiful, then His original form has two hands and He is very beautiful. 

Prabhupad writes, "Here the words mānuṣaṁ rūpam clearly indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be originally two-handed." This is clear. There is no need for a twisted interpretation to this verse and these statements. 

If Krishna's other statements of profound philosophical truths are so often taken at face value, why not these statements that He is the Supreme Controller, the Supreme Source of All, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead who comes in the form of a human to exchange love with His devotees? Although Krishna may look ordinary, He is not. Prabhupad argues this point, "If Kṛṣṇa is like an ordinary human being, then how is it possible for Him to show the universal form and again to show the four-handed Nārāyaṇa form?" Krishna has already shown and stated that He has displayed His universal form as well as his Narayan form - this is certainly not something an ordinary human being can do. So then the only other option is to see all of Krishna's words as metaphor. That option seems to be a little bit like cherry-picking the verses and ideas that are comfortable and leaving the rest as vaguely "metaphorical." 

After experiencing the terrifying universal form, Arjuna is now satisfied and at peace in his heart to behold his dear friend, Krishna, in his original two-armed form. This form is beautiful, a form that Arjuna can look in the eyes, a form that he can see with his ordinary eyes. 

Two seemingly opposing possibilities - that Krishna is in a human form and Krishna is all-powerful God - are reconciled once we just take Krishna's words at face value, As They Are. 

Prabhupad concludes his commentary on this verse by emphasizing that "the original verses of Bhagavad-gītā are as clear as the sun; they do not require lamplight from foolish commentators." 

I often feel like one of those foolish commentators as I do this Gita Project, trying to shed lamplight upon the brilliance of the sun of Krishna's and Prabhupads' words. That said, I just want to be as loyal and true to their words as possible, and if by God's grace I can accomplish this, then I am content to be a little lamp basking in the radiance of the sun of Krishna's teachings which illuminate the world. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/11/51/

43: The Devotee of His Devotee

CHAPTER 9, TEXT 29: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.

A few years ago, I decided to take on an unpaid internship at a school in New York City because I simply wanted to be there. Eventually, I built such a warm and supportive relationship with the teachers that I was asked to step in for a long-term substitute position, and eventually as a full-time teacher. 

For both positions, I was still required to go through the full interview process. Other applicants were interviewed, so we were all given a fair chance at the position.

In fact, other applicants were sometimes even more qualified than me - they had more training, more experience, etc. I remember sitting in my chair outside of the principal's office and seeing these interviewees come in and thinking to myself, "This is nuts. I'm a total newb at teaching, these people look so qualified."

But I was given the job. 

Both times, there was never a question in the principal's mind that she wanted to give the job to me. 

Why? 

There's only one reason. 

We had a relationship. Not only the principal and me, but I also had relationship with almost every teacher at the school, along many of the students. Those relationships took precedence over everything else, from degrees to years of experience. 

This verse of the Gita, 9.29, addresses this seeming contradiction in spiritual life between God's fairness and His special treatment. Srila Prabhupad addresses this contradiction within the very first sentence of his purport: "One may question here that if Kṛṣṇa is equal to everyone and no one is His special friend, then why does He take a special interest in the devotees who are always engaged in His transcendental service?" Indeed, one could argue that true impartiality means that even if there is any kind of a relationship, decisions will be made only upon the laws and objective qualifications. We take great pains in this world to make sure judges and jurors are neutral, and that they are not swayed by personal relationships. 

That is also an aspect of God, which he addresses in this verse: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. God IS the neutral judge, meting out punishment and reward through the machinations of material nature. 

But that judge in the courtroom - she or he also goes home, right? That judge may have a family. A husband or a wife. A child. Friends. That judge is not only a judge - that judge is a person. At home, that judge is partial to his wife and his child and his friends. He exchanges love with each person in a unique, special way. 

Similarly, God is a person. He is not only the supreme judge and maintainer of  the universe. Krishna is a person whose heart opens to the person whose heart opens to Him. As Srila Prabhbupad says, "[T]his is not discrimination; it is natural." Indeed, for a judge to be partial to his wife or child is not discrimination - it is  natural! Similarly, God is a person who is partial to those He has a loving relationship with. 

Of course, the presupposition here is that God is a person. Prabhupad writes, "If a reciprocal relationship is not present between the devotee and the Lord, then there is no personalist philosophy. In the impersonal philosophy there is no reciprocation between the Supreme and the living entity, but in the personalist philosophy there is." 

The impersonalist philosophy would say that God is an all-powerful force of light that maintains the universe, brilliant like the sun. There's no reciprocation with the sun. The sun simply exists and shines upon all in utter impartiality. 

The personalist philosophy would say that God is a conscious person who has feelings and a heart. This person is inclined to give attention and affection to those who give attention and affection to Him, as any person is.  

The wondrous thing about this verse is that Krishna validates both the impersonalist and personalist approach! He is the impartial sun AND the partial person. He is equal to all AND a friend. Both are needed, both are aspects of God. 

Ultimately, though, a loving relationship is emphasized. And how beautiful that God is partial to His devotees - in this way he so tenderly cares for those who express some faith and love in Him, and try to serve Him in any small way. In fact, God reciprocates so beautifully to the point of serving his devotees. Prabhupad writes, "The Supreme Lord becomes the devotee of His devotees." Note the phrasing of this sentence, and that Prabhupad uses the title of "The Supreme Lord" to emphasize that wonder of God Himself becoming a devotee of His devotee. In this way, God is not just partial to His devotee because He likes being served and likes all the attention for Himself. No. Krishna - The Supreme Lord - reciprocates and takes great joy in serving and loving His devotees with all of His heart. 

Full purport: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9/29/

40: gigantic, miniscule, and... medium-sized?

CHAPTER 9, TEXT 11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

In a few days, the results will come in for who is voted in to office as the next President of the United States. The President will have control over so many aspects of the United States, which is widely considered as one of the most powerful countries in the world. 

And if the United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world, then the  President is one of the most powerful men on earth. 

Still, the President is controlled by others - the people in the Senate, Congress, and other checks and balances in the United States government; it is not set up to be a dictatorship or a monarchy.

So the most powerful man on earth is still controlled by others. 

Think about it - our sphere of influence is so very, very small. Sometimes we climb the  "corporate" ladder to gain power and influence, or we claw our way to fame to be more widely known, or we pursue some other outlandish goal so that we may expand that tiny sphere of influence. We want to affect other people.  

Prabhupad writes in the purport to this verse that, "Each of [us] is a controller, but one is controlled by another." There is no escaping that the President is not only controlled by the Senate and Congress, but he's also controlled by his own bodily urges - to eat, to sleep, to evacuate, and more. The President is controlled by the movements of the sun - the span of a day - and  he is controlled by the weather - if it's raining, he must wear a raincoat. The president cannot control natural disasters like raging wildfires or cataclysmic floods. 

Prabhupad continues to write in this verse: "In the Brahma-saṁhitā it is said that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme controller." This means that Krishna controls all the machinations of this world and all of the universes in creation. 

For someone like me, who has so little control over when even I need to use the bathroom, the concept of one person controlling the universe is, frankly, preposterous. 

Still, let us return to the role of the President of the United States. He's considered one of the most powerful men on earth for a reason. He can suggest new laws, grant pardons, recognize foreign countries, act as a Commander-in-Chief during a war, and more (truman.gov). These are all capacities to affect the world on a much bigger scale than I ever have and ever will. 

And still, the president is one man. A person. 

In this verse, Krishna - who is a man - tells his friend Arjuna that "fools deride me when I descend in human form." In the impersonalist philosophical school, this conversation between Krishna and Arjuna is allegorical, and the battle of Kurukshetra never actually took place. It's all simply an analogy to represent the battle of consciousness. 

This particular verse, though, often confounds impersonalist philosophers. 

Krishna is emphasizing that yes, He is in a human form, and yes, fools deride Him in that form, that it's not possible for him to be the transcendental controller of all the universes if he's human. Prabhupad writes, "The biggest and the minutest are beyond [the impersonalists'] conception, so they cannot imagine that a form like that of a human being can simultaneously control the infinite and the minute." Although we have telescopes and microscopes to catch glimpses of the biggest and minutest, our capacity is so very limited. We cannot even conceive that one person could possibly control such a magnitude. 

In connection to this, another analogy comes to mind. 

The airport. 

Waiting for my plane at the airport. 

How many times have I gazed out of airport lobby windows to marvel at the gigantic planes wheeling in and out of the sky? Yet within that gigantic machine is one tiny man - the pilot - who controls the entire massive piece of metal and technology. What's more, he holds the lives of hundreds of people within his hands. 

One man. 

It doesn't matter how big that man is. He doesn't need to be as big as the plane, or even especially tall or impressive. That man controls the airplane. We understand that it's the intelligence of the human in the pilot's seat who is flying that airplane.

Similarly, God comes in human form. He's bigger than the biggest and smaller than the smallest, but he's also medium-sized. Why not? If He's God, why CAN'T he come in any size He wants, including human sized? That human form can simultaneously control all the machinations of the universes, just like a pilot controlling a gigantic plane. 

With this analogy, we can understand that God doesn't need to be as big as the universe or small as the atoms to control either one. He doesn't need to be invisible or in some alien form. 

He's simply God - the pilot - and He's in control. 

Most important of all, if God can come in medium size, in human form, then we can actually worship Him and love Him. It's hard to repose our love in a blazing universe or in a miniscule atom or an invisible force. But if God can come in the form of a beautiful, charming youth who plays the flute, someone I can look in the eyes, then this is where I may rest the love of my heart and soul. Krishna has such a loving friendship with Arjuna precisely because He has come in a human form. 

Ultimately, this human form of Krishna is what is worshiped in the temple as a sacred statue, or a murti. In this murti, we may worship God to our heart's content, in a form and size that we can actually connect to. Prabhupad writes, "There are also many impersonalists who deride temple worship. They say that since God is everywhere, why should one restrict himself to temple worship? But if God is everywhere, is He not in the temple or in the Deity?" Maybe God chooses to "restrict" himself by manifesting himself in the temple; he does so in order to exchange love with his devotees. 

In conclusion, the matter of who is in control is hotly debated. If we look at even the most  powerful man on earth, we can see that his scope of control is actually very limited. There is always someone controlling another in this world, including the President of the United States. 

But there is someone who controls everything and everyone, and that someone does not need to be a giant or microscopic amoeba. The Supreme Controller can manifest in a medium-sized form -  human - in order to exchange love with His devotees.   

https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9/11/

37: Conceiving the Inconceivable

CHAPTER 8, TEXT 9: One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is always a person. He is luminous like the sun, and He is transcendental, beyond this material nature.

The name for God in Islam is "Allah," which means "The Great One." In Islam, God is never depicted with a form or in any way that could be construed as a material interpretation, for God is beyond our material conception.  

In this verse of the Gita, this understanding is confirmed - God is beyond material conception. At the same time, God is also stated as a person who has a form (rupam). The fact that God is beyond material conception while also having a form is inconceivable - acintya. After all, isn't the fact that one has a form MAKE one conceivable?? Prabhupad writes, "The word acintya (“inconceivable”) is very significant in this connection. God’s energy is beyond our conception, beyond our thinking jurisdiction, and is therefore called inconceivable (acintya)." I appreciate Prabhupad's phrase here, our "thinking jurisdiction," because we all have a kind of arena from which we can think and conceive. After all, human beings have been inquiring about and questioning God since the beginning of our existence. Healthy exploration, questioning, and even doubt is all a sign of intelligence on the spiritual path. At the same time, it is also a sign of intelligence to realize that there are some things that are beyond our understanding, beyond our "thinking jurisdiction." 

Indeed, Prabhupad continues to say that "We cannot comprehend even this material world, which is insignificant compared to the spiritual world – so how can we comprehend what is beyond? Acintya means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is inconceivable." Even this material world is such a mystery. Although much can be puzzled out, and the sciences are dedicated to understanding how this material world functions, still, we may understand how a thing functions but not why. 

For example, we now understand how a rainbow is created, with the reflection of light upon suspended water droplets in the air. But we do not know why rainbows are created. What is the purpose of a rainbow?

That is something that logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch.  

My sense is that scientists can conclude that there is no God because they see that there is no mystery to the mathematical laws that govern the universe; they can conceive of and wrap their minds around things that previously seemed so mysterious, like a rainbow, or lightning, or the human heart. Thus there is no "mysterious God" controlling all.  

Or, scientists can conclude that there must be a God because the laws and calculations that govern the universe are so wondrous, so inconceivable that there must be a higher intelligence at work. They reason that all the laws are actually in service of a higher and more mysterious purpose and person. Aristotle once wrote that "Mathematics is the alphabet in which God has written the universe," which means that behind all miracles is an architect who plays by the mathematical rules he has created.

What's more, there is a purpose - a why - behind every aspect of creation.   

Possessing a higher intelligence means accepting that there is a higher intelligence at work. 

This is not blind following, but an understanding that there are some things that are simply beyond my conception. After all, God is the Great One, He cannot be conceived of with an ordinary mind and an ordinary intelligence. 

If He was, then how Great would He be? 

And yet, if we are to actually love God in a practical way, then He must have a form. Prabhupad writes, "One cannot meditate on something impersonal or void. That is very difficult. The process of thinking of Kṛṣṇa, however, is very easy and is factually stated herein. First of all, the Lord is puruṣa, a person – we think of the person Rāma and the person Kṛṣṇa." Just like we meditate on the people we love, this is the same for God. Although it's an aspect of God, meditating on an inconceivable void can be very difficult in terms of cultivating love. Meditating on the face of the Lord actually awakens love in the heart. And it's so easy, as Prabhupad states.  

Yes, God is The Great One - Allah - who I imagine to be this brilliant and wondrous God who is luminous like the sun (aditya-varnam) as described in this verse. 

God is not limited, though, to only being inconceivable. 

If God is unlimited, then he can also be perceived, even with our limited eyes and senses. So yes, He is The Great One, and He is also the Beautiful One with Skin as Dark as a Raincloud - Shyamasundar. 

Personally, I visit Krishna temples and love to absorb myself in the beauty of Krishna's form in His sacred deity. His form touches my heart and soul, giving rise to a kind of unique and beautiful affection, adoration, and a desire to serve.

In this way, God becomes real and luminous like the sun within my own heart. 

Full purport by Bhaktivedanta Swami here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/8/9

33: Cultivating the Connection

CHAPTER 7, TEXT 8: O son of Kuntī, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable oṁ in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.

From personal experience, a broken heart from betrayed love is probably the most excruciating pain I've ever endured.

Also from personal experience, a whole heart to give and receive love with another human being is probably the most joy I've ever known.

Love is pain.

Love is joy.

See the problem here??

We all want love, but love could be our downfall OR our salvation. So what is love?

Love, at its core, is an exchange between two people. Brene Brown, a Ph.D. researcher on shame and connection, writes, "Love is not something we give or get; it is something that we nurture and grow, a connection that can only be cultivated between two people..."  (https://brenebrown.com/definitions/). This means that love is not an object to be given or an object to give away. And if love cannot be given or taken away, then that must mean that love eternally resides within the heart of each and every one of us. Essentially, love is a connection that is either cultivated or neglected.

Bhakti is the love that exists between God (Bhagavan) and the spirit soul (bhakta) - that love is not given to us, nor can it be given away. The propensity to love and serve God is intrinsic to our very nature. Bhakti is either dormant (and neglected) or active. What's more, "We cultivate love when we allow our most vulnerable and powerful selves to be seen and known" (Brene Brown, https://brenebrown.com/definitions/). Bhagavan in His most sweet and vulnerable form is when he goes by the personal name of Krishna. (An equivalent would be like calling President Obama by his first name, Barack.)

Calling God by His "first name" - Krishna - is very intimate. By saying the name Krishna, we are invoking God's most vulnerable and powerful self, and Krishna is allowing Himself to be seen and known.

So what does this all have to do with this Chapter 7, Verse 8 of the Bhagavad-gita?? What does being hardwired to love, being scared to love, and using God's personal name have to do with Krishna sharing that He is, say, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras?

Prabhupad writes, "Because the impersonalists are very much afraid of addressing the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa by His innumerable names, they prefer to vibrate the transcendental sound oṁ-kāra." The key word in this sentence is "afraid." The very reason why people become impersonalists and refute the existence of a personal God who has a form and a name is because they're afraid... of love.

We all know how painful love can be, and so impersonalists have simply chosen to not cultivate that connection of love with God the person. After all, a broken heart on the scale of loving God could be cataclysmic!

Still, there's a secret: "But [the impersonalists] do not realize that oṁ-kāra is the sound representation of Kṛṣṇa."

There's no escape ;)

Krishna says in this verse that He is the om-kara, so for those who are afraid to connect to God in a loving relationship, He still makes Himself accessible through an impersonal sound. Prabhupad writes, "The Supreme Lord can be preliminarily perceived by His different energies, and in this way He is realized impersonally." When loving God seems too far away, too scary, too impossible, then we can start here, in this preliminary way: experiencing His energies. They're all representations of Krishna Himself that we can experience right now, in this moment.

A glass of New York City tap water (which is famous for being drawn from natural springs) sits on my desk; I just took a sip. That clean taste is Krishna.

The morning sunlight shines with brilliance upon light brown bricks of the apartment building outside my window. That light is Krishna.

Sitting here at my desk, I just vibrated the syllable om. That syllable is Krishna.

Right now I can hear the clock tick. That sound vibrating through ether is Krishna.

I move my fingers across this keyboard and look upon this screen. The ability to do so is Krishna.

Right here, right now, I can experience God, if only I have the vision. No need to fear any kind of personal relationship or connection that could end in a broken heart, because maybe - if I'm honest - I'm scared and a little intimidated to really love God. So Krishna says here: Just experience the original and purest lights, sounds, smells, tastes, and movements of this world and You will know me.  

In this way, Krishna is allowing His most powerful self to be known through these energies. Maybe He's not so vulnerable - like using his personal name of Krishna - but that's okay. In this way, Krishna is emphasizing that all pathways to experiencing, knowing, and loving God are valid. Prabhupad points out, "Practically speaking, there is no conflict between personalism and impersonalism. One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction." In this way, the spiritual journey is meant to be understandable and accessible to all.

Right now.

Right here.

Bhakti is meant to be cultivated through the simple medium of appreciation. Just appreciating the glass of water, the sunlight, and sound, our heart grows and softens. We begin to understand that God is not vaulted off in some inaccessible cloud in the sky looking down on us. He is infused within every moment and every movement of our lives, if we only have the vision to see.

"When we focus on our gratitude, the tide of disappointment goes out and the tide of love rushes in."
Kristin Armstrong

Full purport by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/7/8/