10. THE NATURE OF THE SUPREME BEING
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 17:57 — admin
MICHAEL: I've been considering the content of our recent discussions. I'm able to understand that regarding the identity of the living being, the Vaishnava philosophy makes more sense than the Mayavadi philosophy. I see little logic in Shankara's attempt to equate the identity of the individual souls and the Supreme Soul. Nevertheless, I am still not convinced that the Supreme Lord is a person. Isn't it possible to put forward an impersonal conception of God without asserting that the individual souls are equal to Him?
TEACHER: Not without placing severe limitations on your definition of God. Any concept of God as an impersonal force necessarily places restrictions on Him, and is therefore an imperfect concept.
MICHAEL: It would seem to me that the opposite would be true. In other words, it seems that declaring God to be a person places severe restrictions on Him and not vice versa. For example, when comparing the individual soul with the Supreme Soul, you declared that God is all-pervading. I can understand how an impersonal force can be all-pervading, but how is this possible for a person?
A fake guru wants his followers to believe that he is God Himself—that's why he tries to impress them with his mystic powers. If the disciple of a phony guru were to express doubts about his guru's lordship, the guru would surely be angered. So how did Brahma react when Narada asked the questions, “Under whose protection are you standing? And under whom are you working? What is your real position?” And how did he react when Narada asked, “Yet we are moved to wonder about the existence of someone more powerful than you when we think of your great austerities in perfect discipline”? In response, Brahmaji was not angry. In fact, he was extremely pleased.10. THE NATURE OF THE SUPREME BEING
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
MICHAEL: I've been considering the content of our recent discussions. I'm able to understand that regarding the identity of the living being, the Vaishnava philosophy makes more sense than the Mayavadi philosophy. I see little logic in Shankara's attempt to equate the identity of the individual souls and the Supreme Soul. Nevertheless, I am still not convinced that the Supreme Lord is a person. Isn't it possible to put forward an impersonal conception of God without asserting that the individual souls are equal to Him?
TEACHER: Not without placing severe limitations on your definition of God. Any concept of God as an impersonal force necessarily places restrictions on Him, and is therefore an imperfect concept.
MICHAEL: It would seem to me that the opposite would be true. In other words, it seems that declaring God to be a person places severe restrictions on Him and not vice versa. For example, when comparing the individual soul with the Supreme Soul, you declared that God is all-pervading. I can understand how an impersonal force can be all-pervading, but how is this possible for a person?