Is God a Person, a Presence, or Both?

Understanding Personalism and Impersonalism in Yoga Philosophy

Dharma Foundations: The Things Most Yoga Students Were Never Taught

When someone says they believe in God, what exactly do they mean? Do they imagine a Divine Being who knows them, loves them, and hears their prayers? Do they understand God as an infinite consciousness permeating all existence? Do they experience the Divine as something beyond name, form, personality, and description? Or perhaps they believe the Divine can be all of these things.

If you've spent time in modern yoga communities, you've probably encountered very different answers.

One teacher speaks about universal consciousness. Another chants the names of Kṛṣṇa. Another describes God as the infinite intelligence behind creation. Another teaches that the deepest Self is identical with ultimate reality.

These differences aren't simply matters of personal preference. They reflect some of the most profound philosophical conversations within the traditions of yoga. And at the heart of those conversations is a deceptively simple question:

Is ultimate reality personal, impersonal, or somehow both?

Two Ways of Understanding the Divine

Before we explore the Sanskrit terminology and philosophical schools, let's make this distinction a little easier to understand.

Impersonalism, broadly speaking, understands ultimate reality as something beyond individual personhood.

Think of an infinite consciousness, a divine intelligence, or an all-pervading spiritual reality that exists throughout creation but is not understood as a person with an individual personality, name, or form. You may have heard people describe this as universal consciousness, divine energy, or the Oneness of everything. This is one reason we often hear statements in modern spiritual communities like:

“We are all one.” Or even: “We are all God.”

In certain non-dual philosophies, these expressions point toward the understanding that our deepest spiritual nature is not separate from ultimate reality. Of course, calling Brahman an “energy” is a modern simplification, not a precise description of Advaita Vedānta. But it can help us begin to understand what people mean when they speak about an impersonal Divine.

Personalism, on the other hand, understands the Divine as a supreme conscious Being possessing identity, qualities, and the capacity for relationship.

In many devotional traditions, God has eternal names, spiritual forms, qualities, and activities. The Divine may also be understood as manifesting through various forms, expansions, or incarnations—known in many Vaiṣṇava traditions as avatāras.

And here's where things become particularly interesting.

Understanding God as personal does not necessarily mean denying that divine energy or presence permeates all existence.

In many bhakti traditions, the Supreme Divine Person is understood as the source of an all-pervading spiritual reality. The Divine is both transcendent and immanent—beyond creation, yet present throughout it. From this perspective, the impersonal presence of the Divine and the personal nature of God are not necessarily contradictory. They may be understood as different aspects of the same ultimate reality. But how might we begin to understand that?

Let me share an analogy.

The Donut Shop: One Reality, Different Experiences

Imagine a bakery that makes fresh donuts every morning.

Across the street is a prison. Inside, a prisoner notices something wonderful. A sweet aroma drifts through the window. They can smell it. They know something is there. They can experience its presence, even though they cannot see where it comes from. They don't know that there's a bakery across the street. They don't know what a donut looks like. They certainly haven't met the baker. But the aroma is real.

They are experiencing something genuine, even though their understanding of its source is limited.

Now imagine another person driving past the bakery. They smell the same sweet aroma. But they can also see the storefront. They notice the sign. They see rows of freshly made donuts displayed in the window. Their understanding is different. They recognize that the aroma comes from something with a particular form, name, and source. But, important to note,  they are not “tasting” the source/aroma.

Now imagine a third person walking along the sidewalk.

They smell the aroma. They see the bakery. But unlike the other two, they can walk through the door. They can see the donuts up close. They can touch them. Taste them. And perhaps even meet the baker who made them. 

All three people are encountering something connected to the same reality. But their experiences are not identical. And neither is their understanding.

The difference is not necessarily in what exists, but in what each person is able to perceive, experience, and comprehend.

This analogy offers a way of approaching an important teaching within certain bhakti traditions. The all-pervading presence of the Divine may be genuinely experienced without the practitioner necessarily recognizing or relating to the Divine as a personal Being. It really depends on our position and perspectives. 

Within Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava theology, for example, Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān are understood as related realizations of one ultimate reality, with Bhagavān—the Supreme Personal Divine—understood as its fullest realization.

The analogy isn't a proof that all philosophical schools ultimately agree. In fact, some would strongly disagree with its conclusion.

But it helps us understand why certain traditions teach that the Divine can be experienced as an all-pervading spiritual reality and also known through personal relationships.

And this brings us to the deeper philosophical conversation.

What Do We Actually Mean by God?

Before exploring personalism and impersonalism further, we need to understand that the Sanskrit traditions use several important terms that aren't interchangeable.

Brahman refers to ultimate reality—the infinite foundation of existence explored particularly within the Upaniṣads and Vedānta.

Īśvara commonly refers to the Lord or supreme governing principle, although its meaning differs among philosophical schools. It can also refer to as your particular FORM or Name of divinity that you connect with, this is often called Īśhta Devata. 

Bhagavān is a designation for the Supreme Lord, particularly within devotional traditions that understand the Divine as possessing infinite spiritual qualities.

These words point toward related theological questions, but different traditions interpret them differently.

And that matters. Because when two yoga teachers use the word God, they may be speaking about fundamentally different understandings of reality. And I think this is why new students, sincere seekers new to yogic studies often get confused or overwhelmed as they start to experience ideas and philosophies that seem contradictory. (I am writing this article for those seekers specifically) 

The Impersonal Understanding of Ultimate Reality

Within Advaita Vedānta, especially as articulated by Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, ultimate reality is understood as nirguṇa Brahman.

Nirguṇa is often translated as “without qualities.” But this requires some care. It doesn't simply mean that Brahman is an empty void or an unconscious energy. Rather, in Advaita, ultimate reality transcends the limiting attributes and distinctions through which we ordinarily understand the world.

Brahman is not one object among other objects. It is not a being existing somewhere within the universe. It is the non-dual Reality upon which all experience depends. And the deepest Self : Ātman, is ultimately not different from Brahman. This gives rise to one of the great teachings of the Upaniṣads:

Tat tvam asi — “That thou art.”

The spiritual journey, from this perspective, involves recognizing our true nature beyond mistaken identification with body, mind, and individuality.

But here's an important distinction: Advaita also acknowledges Īśvara, the Lord, and devotional practices within the realm of ordinary religious experience. It isn't simply a philosophy that dismisses God or devotion. It offers a particular understanding of their relationship to Ultimate non-dual Reality.

The Personal Understanding of the Divine

Other Vedāntic traditions understand ultimate reality as inherently personal. But personal does not mean merely humanlike. It doesn't mean God is a larger version of a human being with all our limitations, emotional instability, and imperfections. It isn't simply anthropomorphizing.   

In traditions such as Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita, the Divine is understood as possessing Infinite knowledge, power, goodness, and other auspicious qualities. 

For Rāmānuja, Brahman is the supreme personal Lord, Nārāyaṇa, and individual souls exist in real, inseparable dependence upon the Divine.

For Madhva, Viṣṇu is the supreme independent reality, eternally distinct from individual souls.

Within Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, Kṛṣṇa is understood as the supreme personal reality, and loving devotion is central to spiritual fulfillment.

In these traditions, divine personality is not necessarily a limitation to transcend. It can be understood as the fullest expression of Ultimate Reality. And that creates space for something extraordinary:

Relationship. Love. Devotion. Prayer. Service. Surrender. The individual soul does not simply seek to recognize its identity with an impersonal absolute. It seeks loving communion with the Divine.

What About Form and Formlessness?

This brings us to another important distinction: Saguṇa and nirguṇa.

Saguṇa means “with qualities.”

Nirguṇa means “without qualities.”

These terms are often presented in modern yoga as though they simply mean God with a physical form versus God without a physical form.

But their philosophical meanings are more nuanced. Advaita distinguishes between Brahman understood through attributes and Brahman beyond all limiting qualifications. Other Vedāntic traditions interpret these terms differently. For example, some devotional theologians understand nirguṇa to mean freedom from material qualities, not an absence of divine spiritual attributes.

So even when traditions use the same Sanskrit word, they may not mean exactly the same thing.

This is one reason studying philosophy within its historical and theological context is so important.

“I Am That” Versus “I Am Yours”

Perhaps one of the most accessible ways to understand the distinction is through two statements.

“I am That.” And “I am Yours.”

The first points toward the non-dual recognition emphasized in Advaita: the deepest Self is not ultimately separate from Brahman. The second expresses a devotional relationship in which the individual soul belongs to the Divine.

One emphasizes ultimate identity. The other emphasizes loving relationship.

Neither statement captures every nuance of the traditions it represents, but the contrast helps illuminate why these philosophies are not simply different ways of saying the same thing. 

And it also helps explain why spiritual practices can look so different, seem contradictory, and even be overwhelming and confusing in the seekers pursuit to understand, learn, and commit to a practice. 

How Our Understanding of God Shapes Our Practice

Consider two sincere practitioners.

One sits quietly in meditation, contemplating the nature of awareness. They ask: Who is the one experiencing these thoughts? They practice discernment, releasing identification with the changing mind.

Another practitioner sits before an image of Kṛṣṇa, chanting the Divine Names. Their practice is not primarily an attempt to dissolve individuality. It is an expression of love. They pray. They offer. They remember. They cultivate relationship.

Both practices can be deeply transformative. But they may rest upon very different philosophical understandings.

And neither should automatically be presented as the only authentic expression of yoga.

Do We Have to Choose?

When students first encounter these distinctions, they often want to know which understanding is correct.

It's a worthwhile question. But not one you should waste too much time or energy on, its really about choosing which one is the right one, the correct one, for you!

These many yogic traditions developed sophisticated arguments and commentaries precisely because their teachers believed truth mattered, and many of them have and still do, take a stand for which truth is THE Truth. Some traditions and teachers believe it is all true and co-exists simultaneously, its not as simple as one or the other. Again, this is why it can feel so confusing and overwhelming for the sincere seeker new to the studies of yoga (and by new I mean even in your first 5 years of study) 

But meaningful study doesn't require us to declare allegiance before we've begun learning. And we shouldn't be so quick to declare which truth is our truth. We should listen carefully. Study the texts. Understand the reasoning. Learn from teachers within the traditions themselves. And also recognize and remember that genuine disagreement need not become disrespect.

Perhaps the first responsibility of a sincere student isn't to defend a position. Perhaps it is to understand what each tradition is actually teaching. And then to figure out which teaching is most appropriate, aligned, resonant, and meaningful to you and where you are on your path. 

I personally was raised in a western religious practice that God was a person with particular qualities. Then I turned to Zen Buddhism, which does not involve a concept of God at all ( I really needed that for where I was on my journey as I broke away from the church and my religious upbringing). Then I eventually found myself studying yoga, and learning Advaita Vedanta, Non Dualism, which was very helpful and meaningful at the time, as much as I really enjoyed the simplicity and non-dogmatic approach that zen buddhism offered, I still had a genuine desire to understand Divinity, Source, Creator…. Advaita Vedanta, was the perfect next step for me, full of imagery, qualities and personalities, that helped me understand all the many facets of The Divine, Creator, Source. And eventually I realized I had a deep longing to feel connected to The Divine in a way that felt like an interpersonal relationship, which led me to explore Dvaita Vedanta, and the traditions, philosophies and practices of Bhakti, devotion toward and with a personal form of divinity.

So wherever you are on your journey, listen to your desire to know and understand the divine in a way that is palatable for you, and trust that your journey will unfold just as you are ready and in need for more. Do not be in a rush, and don't be so quick to decide what is the absolute truth. And, it is never your job to tell someone else what they should believe about the absolute truth, let them be on their own path of discovery. 

A Closing Reflection

Some seekers approach the Divine through silence. Others through sacred names. Some seek the realization of non-dual consciousness. Others seek eternal loving relationship. And some traditions understand transcendence and divine personality as inseparable dimensions of the same ultimate reality.

These aren't merely different spiritual moods. They are different philosophical visions. And each invites us to consider something deeply personal:

When I turn toward the Divine, what, or whom, am I turning toward?

Perhaps understanding that question more clearly can transform not only what we believe, but how we pray, meditate, serve, love, and live.

Journal Reflection

• When I use the word God, what do I actually mean?
• Do I experience the Divine primarily as consciousness, presence, person, or mystery?
• How has my understanding of the Divine influenced my spiritual practice?
• Can I respectfully explore a theological perspective different from my own?
• Am I seeking to recognize what I ultimately am, deepen a relationship with the Divine, or understand something I haven't yet found words for?

Coming next: Ātman and the Nature of the Self — Who Am I Beyond My Body, Mind, and Identity?