Lord Kṛṣṇa expands Himself into countless Viṣṇu forms as His svāṁśa-vaibhava, and He manifests Himself by His vibhinnāṁśa-prakāśa as countless billions of jīvas. All the Viṣṇu expansions are in the category of the Supreme Lord, but the jīvas are not: they are the Lord's marginal potency. This marginal potency, comprising the eternal jīvas, is a manifestation of the Lord's superior, spiritual energy, or parā-śakti. The conclusion of the Bhagavad-gītā is that the jīva is, was, and always will be eternally a manifestation of the Lord's spiritual energy; he will never enter the category of the Supreme Lord or the Viṣṇu forms. This separated energy of Kṛṣṇa's, known as vibhinnāṁśa or jīva, is an infinitesimal part of the Supreme Lord, much like the minute sparks of a large conflagration.
The fraction can never become the whole or equal to the whole. Thus the Māyāvādīs' claim that the fraction can become the whole is mischievous, even nefarious. This is the Vedic verdict. After overcoming his conditioned state, the fractional jīva enters the spiritual sky and participates in the Supreme Lord's transcendental, eternally blissful pastimes. The jīva permanently engages in the Lord's service in one of the many spiritual mellows and enjoys divine ecstasy.
The scriptures have clearly indicated that the ecstasy of devotional service to the Supreme Lord is far superior to the bliss of impersonal liberation, brahmānanda. Indeed, the happiness of merging into the Lord's existence (sāyujya-mukti) is like a puddle of water in a calf's hoofprint compared with the ocean of bliss derived from devotional service. The devotee never prays for the jñānī's sāyujya-mukti, for it is an impossible proposition. By sāyujya-mukti the impersonalists mean relinquishing one's identity, or individuality. This is nothing less than spiritual suicide. In this regard, I reproduce Dr. Radhakrishnan's comment on the Bible:
The doctrine of the Incarnation agitated the Christian world a great deal. Arioes maintained that the Son is not the equal of the Father but created by Him. The view that they are not distinct but only different aspects of one Being is the theory of Sabellius. The former emphasized the distinctness of the Father and the Son and the latter their oneness. The view that finally prevailed was that the Father and the Son were equal and of the same substance; they were, however, distinct persons. ("Introductory Essay," p. 35).
These words vaguely describe the philosophy of "simultaneously one and different"; therefore we acknowledge it. Jesus, the son of God, is a jīva, a separated part of the Supreme Godhead. But the jīva is also spiritual, and hence Jesus is qualitatively the same as the Supreme Lord. But the son can never be equal to the Father in all respects; that is to say, the jīva is never on the same platform as the Supreme Lord. Also, all the jīvas are separate individuals. And just as each jīva is a unique personality, so God is also a unique personality, but the difference is that He is absolute. By describing the Lord as impersonal and formless, one loses sight of His perfect wholeness.