People on the spiritual path know that God loves all beings, and they know as well what would happen if all beings loved God. Spiritual practitioners also know what happens when a practitioner falls in love. However, they may not know what happens when God falls in love.

Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan are well known Vedantic terms referring to the Absolute—terms that are often considered synonymous. However, while Gaudiya Vaishnavas agree that Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan are different names for the Absolute, they emphasize that the three are, at the same time, not synonymous. They are God’s effulgence, his manifestation as the oversoul of the world, and his form for lila in the world beyond, respectively. The Gaudiyas further contend that the former two manifestations arise from the latter.

Setting sacred literature and the logic for adherence to its conclusions aside, is there any other logic that supports the notion of a concrete Absolute of unlimited form? While the highest form of divine revelation must be free from sectarianism and thus represent the greatest generality, it must also possess the greatest wealth of positive content.

We yearn for unity, but we also yearn for diversity. So if we move from one polar opposite to the other, is this uncommon knowledge? To deny diversity in the name of unity is a shallow idea of unity. In musical terminology, we see harmony. What is harmony? Is it one note? No, it is many notes. The more notes that are harmonized, the better. It is one song, but it is full of many notes. So, systems of thought, like Adwaita Vedanta, say that relative to this one note, you and I, we are all that thing and that’s the end of the story. Jiva Gosvami says, that’s true, we are that, but there’s a whole lot more to the story. And this more makes for a truth that is inherently beautiful, a truth that we can live in and easily embrace.