Brahman is the absolute reality. It has everything in it. It is uncreated and personless and usually described in the neuter. "Knowing" is not an attribute of Brahman, but in its essence. As a result, it appears that Hindus do not directly worship Brahman and that Brahman itself does not "understand". Paratma is the soul of Brahman. It appears that peoples' souls, their atman are also part of Paratma. But still, Paratma is not a person either, under the definitions, I think. Bhagavan (or Bhagavata?) is the adored one and Ishvara is the Lord. These are terms for the supreme God in Hinduism, the personhood of Brahman. 1. If Brahman is the absolute reality with everything in it, does that mean that God/Ishvara is seen as the person of this absolute reality, such that everything that exists is fully part of his person? That is, it's not just that God exists as a distinct being and pervades nature and the physical elements, but that those elements are actually composing God Himself, like matter makes up a human body? Likewise, if human persons are part of the absolute reality, does that mean that human persons are also by definition fully part of God's "person"? Is this a more direct version of panentheism than normal, and does it differ from Abrahamic concepts of God? 2. Wouldn't saying that God is this supreme being, the person of God, mean that the various deities like Krishna, Vishnu and Trimurti are not purely equal to the full definition of God Himself and indistinguishable from Him, since the various deities have instead different aspects, whereas God Himself would include all aspects and persons? If Krishna or Vishnu had a battle with another god, it seems that they are distinguishable beings, whereas the personification of Brahman would instead full compose each of those beings.