Perhaps the truth is only personal to persons. If we imagine an alien race on another planet who were quite different from humans, then the personal gods of the eath might not have much appeal to them. Myself, these days, I tend to take the view that the personal forms are all subordinate to something totally inconcievable to the mind - call it impersonal if you like, but it doesn't really describe it adequately.
Either neither beyond both. This is another verbal trap spiraling into pointless debate that serves do nothing but mask the experience of divinity in the present.
The sun is the personal and its rays the impersonal. This debate had been going for ages till Chaitanya said "simultaneously one and different".
Good question. I say it matters only to the rational side of the mind. The intuitive can grasp things directly and such considerations don't apply. The thing is, the more you spend time debating 'is God personal or Impersonal', the more you engage and indulge the rational, which is in itself incapable of coming to any satisfactory solution. An idea of God is not actually God. Only experience of God can satisfy the whole being. As Eckhart said 'we must not be satisfied with the god we have thought of, for when the thought slips the mind, that god slips too',
Yeah... I agree it is more important to try and experience God...than talk try and figure out whether or not God is personal or impersonal. I think rather...that it is faith in something more...that you look for that something else and you seek it out. When you do this ...perhaps sometimes God appeals to your heart in a way that your personal experience needs to "see" Him. Our levels of understanding are all different...perhaps our experiences of God are all suited to that... as well as our individual karmas, Dharmas, samskars (not sure about this one) and all those other things that we need to work out in order to be liberated... Once we reach a certain point...then perhaps it no longer matters...because to say either is to limit... ?
