By Ajit Krishna Dasa
The claim that God is hidden from sincere seekers has become a central objection to theism in contemporary philosophy of religion. The argument suggests that if a perfectly loving God exists, He would ensure that all non-resistant individuals are aware of Him. The absence of such awareness is thus presented as evidence against God’s existence. Yet this objection presupposes a form of spiritual neutrality that the Vaiṣṇava tradition does not accept. According to Vaiṣṇava Vedānta, God is not absent—He is actively resisted. His apparent “hiddenness” is not a flaw in His nature, but a function of His personalism, His respect for the soul’s autonomy, and the moral and ontological conditions necessary for real relationship.
Furthermore, the world is created in such a way that God’s presence is not merely a hypothesis to be inferred but the very ground of intelligibility, meaning, and moral reasoning. Denial of God is not the result of insufficient evidence, but of suppressed recognition. The soul does not lack reasons to accept the existence of God; it lacks the willingness to respond to them rightly. God has revealed Himself—but He does not override the soul’s freedom. The burden does not lie on God to prove Himself on human terms, but on the soul to purify its vision and admit what is already manifest.
The Ontology of Our Relationship With God
In the Vaiṣṇava tradition, God is not an impersonal abstraction nor a distant cause, but the supreme person—Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa—who desires loving relationships with His parts and parcels, the jīvas. His self-disclosure is governed not by mechanical obligation, but by reciprocity. As He affirms in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.11): ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham—“All of them—as they surrender unto Me—I reward accordingly. ”
God does not subject Himself to empirical scrutiny as if He were a passive object. He is a supremely independent person (svarāṭ) who reveals Himself in response to sincere longing. Just as two persons cannot be compelled into intimacy through force, the divine-human relationship cannot be dictated by demand or proof. Divine love must be freely chosen, not coerced.
Were God to make His existence undeniable through overwhelming display, belief would cease to be an act of freedom and love would no longer be voluntary. But in truth, He has already revealed Himself abundantly—in the order of creation, in scripture, in the heart of every living being, and in the saintly persons who carry His message. What He does not do is override the soul’s freedom to deny or ignore this revelation. Thus, the relationship is preserved in its integrity, and the fault lies not with God for hiding, but with the jīva for turning away.
The Conditioned Soul and the Suppression of the Obvious
The argument from hiddenness rests on the assumption that atheists are epistemically neutral—that is, that they are willing to believe in God if only the evidence were sufficient. But Vaiṣṇava metaphysics holds that the jīva, by turning away from God, enters a state of delusion in which it interprets God’s presence as absence, and substitutes illusion for reality.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.2.37 explains this condition clearly:
“Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called māyā. Therefore, an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord, under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master.”
This turning away from God is not merely an intellectual failure or the result of insufficient evidence. It begins with a willful suppression of truth—a conscious choice to turn away from the Supreme Lord—which then leads to forgetfulness. In the Vaiṣṇava view, the soul (jīva) is constitutionally the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, but by misusing its minute independence, it chooses separation. That choice invites the covering influence of māyā, which causes the soul to forget its true identity and misidentify with the material body. As Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.37) explains, this state of forgetfulness leads to fear and delusion. In such a condition, even the self-evident becomes deniable, and God’s presence—though constant and near—is dismissed, misinterpreted, or ignored.
To borrow a classical Vaiṣṇava analogy: just as the sun appears hidden to a blind man, God appears hidden to one whose vision is covered by illusion. The fault lies not in the sun, but in the inability to see. Similarly, the soul under the influence of māyā misreads the reality of God not because God is absent, but because He is not welcome.
Divine Hiddenness as Necessary for Love
A common assumption in hiddenness arguments is that a loving God would reveal Himself universally and unmistakably. But this reflects a misunderstanding of both love and personhood. Love must be chosen. God does not aim to induce belief through irresistible demonstration, but to draw forth trust through grace and guidance.
Indeed, even among God’s most exalted devotees, He sometimes conceals Himself—not to punish or confuse, but to deepen their longing and intensify their love. This is the devotional theology of vipralambha, or divine separation, in which concealment is not absence, but a higher mode of presence. From the Vaiṣṇava standpoint, this kind of divine hiddenness is not a contradiction of love, but its intensification.
Moreover, even in His concealment, God leaves enough light for those who want to see. But He also leaves enough apparent ambiguity for those who want to delude themselves. This balance preserves human freedom. Those who are sincere will follow the clues to their source. Those who are resistant will reinterpret those clues according to their own desires.
False Neutrality and the Rejection of Knowledge
Another presupposition behind the divine hiddenness argument is that the individual is in a position to fairly evaluate evidence. But as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 12.8.48 reveals, this is far from true:
“A materialist, his intelligence perverted by the action of his deceptive senses, cannot recognize You at all, although You are always present within his own senses and heart and also among the objects of his perception. Yet even though one’s understanding has been covered by Your illusory potency, if one obtains Vedic knowledge from You, the supreme spiritual master of all, he can directly understand You.”
Here, the issue is not divine silence, but perceptual distortion. The Lord is within and without—He pervades consciousness and creation—but the soul chooses to read His presence as absence. This is not mere ignorance; it is a form of resistance. God has already disclosed Himself in ways that are sufficient for faith, relationship, and transformation, but He does not compel acknowledgment. The soul remains free—free to seek, and free to suppress.
Thus, the atheist cannot claim that God’s existence is unknowable due to a lack of evidence. He can only suppress the evidence and claim it does not exist. That suppression is not accidental; it is volitional. The act of denial is not passive disbelief but active reinterpretation of what is already manifest.
The Silence of God, or the Deafness of the Soul?
From the standpoint of Vaiṣṇava theology, the so-called problem of divine hiddenness is not a problem for theism—it is a revelation of the soul’s problem. The world is not silent about God; it proclaims Him in every atom. The soul is not abandoned; it is lovingly accompanied by the Lord within the heart. The evidence is not missing; it is denied. The burden lies not on God to force acknowledgment, but on the soul to awaken from its self-deception.
As the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (6.23) affirms:
“Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master is all the import of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed.”
And as Śrīla Prabhupāda so plainly taught:
“Kṛṣṇa is not to be understood by challenge, but by service. He reserves the right of not being exposed to the mundane eyes.” (Teachings of Lord Kapila, Ch. 2)
In truth, God is not hidden. He is resisted. He is not far. He is near—waiting for the soul to turn. He has revealed Himself, but He will not remove our freedom to reject Him. The light is already shining. The question is whether we choose to open our eyes.
Ajit Krishna Dasa 
Leave a comment