BG Chap 12 - The fallacies of "two forms of Brahman"

The Vedānta-sūtras reject the idea of a Brahman having two forms with the words gati-sāmānyāt: only one conception of Brahman is taught. (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.10) This one Brahman is to be known by the Vedas: yayā tad akṣaraṁ adhigamyate: the indestructible, the akṣara is attained by that knowledge. (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.5) Thus, it is not anirdeśyam, indescribable by the Vedas, as interpreted by the impersonalists.

Statements such as “words cannot describe it” (quoted above) would apply to all aspects of Brahman, and thus there is no reason to assume two Brahmans, one of which, with form, can be approached by the senses. The Brahman without qualities cannot be observed anywhere, because it is impossible to prove the existence of a nirguṇa object- since the word nirguṇa (without quality) has no power to denote anything. It is, consequently, a useless term. And we must accept that all scriptures are meant to describe that Brahman. The word kūṭa cannot mean “false world” here because kūṭa-stha is defined in the dictionary as that object which remains always in one state. The world is also not false but real according to the śrutis.

Since the śrutis testify that the form of the supreme Brahman, full of knowledge and bliss, is Kṛṣṇa who drinks the milk from the breast of Yaśodā, the concoction of an akṣaram devoid of qualities situated within the body of Kṛṣṇa must be considered a result of blind faith (it has no basis in proper reasoning or scriptural proof). Therefore, it is rejected.