I just came across some videos on You Tube that include discussions on God: some say "God does not exist", and some say, "F*** you! Of course God exists!" Now, what I have to say about all this is simple and short:
I think the reason we have all these "arguments" about the [non]existence of God in the west is because western tradition is more inclined to objectivity and reasoning (in contrast to the eastern tradition of subjectivity and intuition). Westerners are very fond of arguing about the nature of things, and as established from the tradition of ancient Greek philosophers, a search for "truth" has been predominant in western philosophy. It is interesting to notice that in most eastern traditions, in contrast, this search is mostly focused on "love" rather than "truth". For most eastern philosophers, God is already beyond question, but the quality of methods through which one can attain His love is what they try to find an answer for.
The great persian poet and philosopher, Molavi, also known in the western world as Rumi, clarifies the futility of questioning God's [non]existence in one single line of poetry which can be roughly translated as:
"The effort for finding God is like the effort for finding the sun in a desert by the aid of a candle's light."
Also, he compares the reasoning methods human-beings may use in order to argue about the [non]existence of God, the nature of "truth" or the boundaries of universe, to the way a fish may understand the ocean: As long as the fish is living in the ocean, it cannot have a picture of the reality of the ocean, where it is located, how big it is, or where are its shores, therefore, the fish cannot question the [non]existence of the ocean, the quality of its existence, or its boundaries. (Perhaps we will understand God better after we get out of the limitations of the material world we are floating in -- after death.)
Something I finally like to say to the people who are trapped in the irrelevant question of God's [non]existence:
We cannot prove nor deny God's [non]existence before proving or denying our own [non]existence. I see us as the perception of God materialized. If God decides to stop perceiving us, we will not exist to question God's [non]existence. Hard to grasp, but will be easier to understand if we stop seeing a disparity between God and us. There is no disparity, there is just unity, and not even "unity" in the nice peaceful Christian sense, or Muslim sense, or Buddhist sense, or any other religious sense - "unity" in the utmost reasonable sense possible, unity NOT between God and us, but rather, between God and God, which is us.
I think the reason we have all these "arguments" about the [non]existence of God in the west is because western tradition is more inclined to objectivity and reasoning (in contrast to the eastern tradition of subjectivity and intuition). Westerners are very fond of arguing about the nature of things, and as established from the tradition of ancient Greek philosophers, a search for "truth" has been predominant in western philosophy. It is interesting to notice that in most eastern traditions, in contrast, this search is mostly focused on "love" rather than "truth". For most eastern philosophers, God is already beyond question, but the quality of methods through which one can attain His love is what they try to find an answer for.
The great persian poet and philosopher, Molavi, also known in the western world as Rumi, clarifies the futility of questioning God's [non]existence in one single line of poetry which can be roughly translated as:
"The effort for finding God is like the effort for finding the sun in a desert by the aid of a candle's light."
Also, he compares the reasoning methods human-beings may use in order to argue about the [non]existence of God, the nature of "truth" or the boundaries of universe, to the way a fish may understand the ocean: As long as the fish is living in the ocean, it cannot have a picture of the reality of the ocean, where it is located, how big it is, or where are its shores, therefore, the fish cannot question the [non]existence of the ocean, the quality of its existence, or its boundaries. (Perhaps we will understand God better after we get out of the limitations of the material world we are floating in -- after death.)
Something I finally like to say to the people who are trapped in the irrelevant question of God's [non]existence:
We cannot prove nor deny God's [non]existence before proving or denying our own [non]existence. I see us as the perception of God materialized. If God decides to stop perceiving us, we will not exist to question God's [non]existence. Hard to grasp, but will be easier to understand if we stop seeing a disparity between God and us. There is no disparity, there is just unity, and not even "unity" in the nice peaceful Christian sense, or Muslim sense, or Buddhist sense, or any other religious sense - "unity" in the utmost reasonable sense possible, unity NOT between God and us, but rather, between God and God, which is us.
One line from this Shiite prayer which I like: "God, do not forget us, not even for one moment, even if we forget You."
No comments:
Post a Comment