Acharya Prashant addresses a questioner's dilemma regarding the apparent conflict between the Upanishadic concept of a formless Brahman and the Bhakti path's personification of God. He begins by making a crucial distinction: Brahman is not God. This is a popular misconception. The objective of all spirituality is Truth-realization, not God-attainment. These are two very different goals. To believe in God, one must first believe in oneself, the ego, as the entity that will attain God. God-attainment can only occur when there is a belief in the egoistic self. In contrast, Truth-realization involves the dissolution of the ego, which means seeing oneself as fictitious, unnecessary, and invalid. The speaker then probes the questioner's sources, clarifying that while she mentions the Bhagavad Gita, her ideas about devotion seem to come from the Bhagwatam, a Purana. He argues that if Shri Krishna is considered ultimate, one should listen to his direct words in the Bhagavad Gita rather than stories about him from other texts. He explains that the very purpose of the Gita is to help one realize they are not a person, thereby alleviating suffering. The belief that one is a person is a fundamental illusion. Therefore, to personify Krishna is to turn the Truth into a myth, which is a form of disrespect. It is the ego's stubbornness that refuses to rise to the level of Krishna and instead drags Krishna down to its own level through imagination. Acharya Prashant further elaborates that 'person' (vyakti) is a technical term. The common understanding of a person comes from the social grapevine, but the Gita defines it differently. Without understanding the Gita's definition of a person, one cannot grasp the implications of personification. He states that a person is a myth, and if one personifies Krishna, they turn Krishna into a myth. This is not love or respect. The entire modern cult of devotion, which relies on romantic imagination and storytelling, is a product of the ego. The ego wants security and continuity, so it clings to its suffering and its identity as a person. To facilitate this, it creates an imaginary, personal God. When Krishna is at the center, one does not chase imaginations. The speaker advises the questioner to go to the Bhagavad Gita, the direct word of Krishna, which is sufficient to settle the debate. Without the light of the Gita, one will misinterpret all the Puranic stories.