Although the purveyors of formless ideology argue their case on the strength of the Vedic Upanishad Shvetashvatara in which the following verse is found:
“tato yad utaratarm tad aroopam anaamayam ya etad vidur amritash te bhavanti athetare duhkam evapi yani”,
it is not a fact that the word ‘aroopam’ means formless. The actual understanding which is derived via the clear realization of those adjusted to hearing from authorities in the bona-fide channel of divine dispensation or ‘parampara’ maintains that the absolute entity is without material form, but not at all discounting His spiritual form of Transcendence viewed optimally with a heart transformed by the practice and cultivation of pure devotional service-bhakti, in which case the actual meaning of the full verse is revealed subsequently:
“In the material world Brahmaa, the primeval living entity within the universe, is understood to be the supreme amongst the demigods, human beings and lower animals. But beyond Brahmaa there is the Transcendence personified who has no material form and is free from all material circumstances. Anyone who can know Him also becomes transcendental, but those who do not know him surffer the miseries of the material world.”
Taking reference from the same Svetashvatara Upanishad we will find further substantiation of this very principal of Form and Beauty in the lines,
“vedaaham etam purusham mahaantam aaditya-varnam tamasah parasit tam eva vidvaan amrita ha bhavati naanyah panthaa vidyate ayanaaya yasmaat param naaparam asti kinchid yasmaanananeeyo na jyaayo ‘sti kinchit”,
which translate perfectly as “I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all dark material illusory conceptions. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and eath. There is no way for liberation other than knowledge of that Supreme Person.”
When someone says ‘to know him is to love him’ then the reverse may also be true, that is ‘to love him is to know him’. But logically how can love generally speaking manifest without specific knowledge of that person, although we cannot remove from our consciousness the idea that spontaneous love of a person or object, for that matter, can develop by mere sight, or as the saying goes,’love at first sight’. But either way, that is by sight or by knowledge, the fact that the Supreme Absolute is held in focus of the mind and senses grants freedom to the observer and contemplative. Either way of understanding still holds true to the personal conception of the Infinite. Not that the Infinite is impersonal and shows His personal side or feature, but that the Person of infinity includes within His very Self both personal and impersonal conceptions, although certainly in the ultimate consideration He is that Personality whose Personhood makes all things possible and for the savant, relishable. Thus, the Sanskrit word ‘rasa’ may be thus defined as relish. ‘Raso vai sah’ is the Vedantic axiom that ipso facto, presents us with a Entity Whose existence assumes relationships with all others in various degrees or relish. Although sweetness is a good descriptive of the same nonetheless there does exist a type of relish that precludes sweetness necessarily. Therefore, the word relish would be more substantive for our purposes.