About God
By Giorgio Piacenza
The first known reference of the word “God” dates
to the 4th Century Codex Argentus, segments of the Bible written in
Gothic for the Goths who were converting to Christianity. “God” is a word with
an Indo-European root probably referring to the idea of “libation” and of “invoking”
a spiritual presence. Although this word has been associated with popular anthropomorphic
images such as that of a strong, bearded elderly man (like the one painted by
Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel), the deeper philosophical and theological
approaches are more abstract and necessary to understand in order to find of
there are integrative commonalities among various “axial” religions.
I think that the experiential intuition about
“God,” either as describable and anthropomorphized, as rationally and
metaphysically understood or, simply, as contemplatively experienced beyond any
attempt at description, needs to be seriously considered for the creation of a
new meta theoretical model. At least in a non-dual sense, the metaphorically describable
but ultimately indescribable experience of “God” found in various mystical
traditions seems to coincide. The details and emphasis given thereafter may not
coincide for various cultural and cognitive contextual needs and reasons but
their deeper, esoteric or, otherwise, ‘principial’
sense (borrowing a term from
Fritjoff Schuon) may coincide.
Each religion also seems to exoterically
emphasize an aspect of “God” or a way or “path” to relate with “Him;” a way
that is unique but which by lack of consciousness typically becomes excessively-excluding
of other such ways. Nevertheless, I think that “God” can actually take the form
of any concept that relates with a conceivable, profoundly felt, ultimate sense
and that “He-She-It-Source” can appear as the Ultimate, Sovereign Spirit
Person, the Ultimate Universal Mind, as the Great Mystery/Great Spirit
coordinating all other spirits and Nature/Cosmos, even if ultimately indescribable.
God can participate and remain aloof. God can
be the Only Self and Reality or the “non- describable” Mind or early Buddhism
(which wasn’t nihilist as is often misunderstood). He can also be known as the
“original Buddha Nature” or as the
Buddha’s potential “essence” (the potential for an awakened, imperishable mind)
called “Tathagathagarbha” in latter
Buddhism. Furthermore, I think that “God” can be known with form and intuited without
it, as the words “Saguna Brahman” and “Nirguna Brahman” represent.
I think that (in relative terms) God can be
known as a “He,” an “It” or a “She.” I also think that “God” can best be known,
or, rather, soul-wise, intimately related with as an experience of “Universal
Love.” An integrative approach should review and attempt to find commonalities
underlying these and all other necessary views about “God” in order to get a
more accurate and scientifically useful theoretical idea on how that which is
contrasted to “God” (let’s call it Nature, Creation, Manifestation, contingent
reality, Maya) comes to be. The principles of this relativity (deriving in what
we call physical or natural laws) should have an origin in the common Ground of
the Ultimate.
Moreover, I suggest that to understand how
relative existence “comes to be,” we should dwell into the commonalities that
have been widely (perhaps universally) experienced regarding the interface
between what is commonly called the “Absolute” and the “Relative and
Contingent.” Thus we should probably consider a series of inter-culturally
coinciding “trinitarian ideas” about “God,” that is, ideas about how “God’s
nature,” “God with form” or “God with qualities” initially appears or is
disclosed to human experience. It seems that these ideas derive from a basic
common intuition about how Nature is organized and/or corresponds to what could
metaphysically and theologically be called “divine principles.” For instance, we
have the platonic trinity of Beauty, Good and Truth and, as Ken Wilber points
out in “The Three Eyes of Knowledge” and in “Integral spirituality” these
coincide with the main pronouns we use to name and describe persons and objects
and with how Integral Theory’s quadrants can also be described.
We could say that God as Pure Beauty
informs our ‘hearts’, our sentiment, a sentiment closest to our First Person experience, the most
intimate aspect of our subjective, inscrutable life. Then, God as the Supreme Good
informs both our heartfelt and our rationally understood (and gradually more
inclusive) Second Person (the I-Thou generating the shared, communal ‘we’),
ethical, relational, experiential extensions towards all living beings existing
in communion or relation with each other and with their Divine Source.
Additionally, God as Pure Being, most likely to inform us as
a Third Person Experience, rational-objective
“It,” informs our reason as the Source of the fundamental rational-intuitive
appreciation that that which is is; an intuition which –in my view- originates
the recognition of the, so called, “Principle
of Identity” or “Law of Identity”
which is basic for classic and modern logic.
I think that several civilizations and
theologies (besides Christianity) have coincided in affirming a three-in-one
origin of contingent order. While there’s only One Ultimate Source, the nexus
between the Absolute and the contingent may be represented by three distinct
ontological expressions. In part, these “trinities” correspond like this:
1.The Christian “Father” (1st person
of the Christian Trinity)/is “Pure Beauty” in Platonic thinking (“He” can only
be known subjectively, beyond words)/is the 1st pronoun/is “Chid” or
“Consciousness” in the Vedanta formula for “God” with qualities/is “Shiva,” the
consciousness-representing male pole in the “Shiva-Shakti” creative duality/is
“Ain” (in mystical Kabbhala, “God’s veil” as the “no” or that which is
ultimately indescribable). Amongst creation’s hierarchical realms possessing
exteriorities, the ‘Causal’ Realm is its direct symbolic reflection. In the
quadrants of Integral Theory it is the Upper Left, Individual-Subjective
Quadrant.
2. The Christian “Son” (2nd person
of the Christian Trinity)/is “The Truth” in Platonic thinking (“He” is the
“Logos” and the “Word” or the objectifying-defining principle at the root of
understanding, the principle needed to create, manifest or actualize any
possibility)/is the third main pronoun as “it”/is “Sat” or “Being” in the
Vedanta formula for “God” with qualities/is the organizing masculine principle
in the Shiva-Shakti creative polarity/is “Ain Soph” (in mystical Kabbhala,
“God’s veil” as “The Unending,” before manifestation but through which He
manifests). Amongst creation’s hierarchical realms possessing exteriorities,
the ‘Subtle’ Realm is its direct symbolic reflection. In the quadrants of
Integral Theory it is the Upper Right and Lower Right, or Individual-Objective
and Collective-Objective quadrants.
3. The Christian “Holy Spirit” (“She” is 3rd
person of the Christian Trinity and is the Love between the Father and the Son
and also the “Paraclete,” a passive Greek word meaning “advocate,” “helper,” or
“comforter” which also refers to “God’s” relational aspect maintaining all
beings connected with their Source)/is “The Good” in Platonic thinking (as in
the “common good,” inspirer of collectively meaningful, shared rules and
ethics)/is the second main pronoun as “you” which implies a “we”/is “Ananda” or
“bliss,” the expression of Love in the Vedanta formula for “God” with qualities/is
the active feminine energy organized by the masculine consciousness-related
“Shiva” in the “Shiva-Shakti” creative polarity/is “Ain Soph Aur” (in mystical
Kabbhala, “God’s veil” as His Infinite Radiance or Light through which all
worlds are created and sustained even while “God” had to retract most of it to
allow a ‘hollow space’ for contingent beings to occupy). Amongst creation’s
hierarchical realms possessing exteriorities, the ‘Gross” Realm is its direct
symbolic reflection. In the quadrants of Integral Theory it is the Lower Left
or Collective-Subjective quadrant.
But, does “God” really exist? Trying to expound
on what I consider as St. Anselm of
Canterbury’s “rational and trans-rational revelation,” I’ll restate that if
“God” is necessarily conceived as the Ultimate Supreme Being or as that which cannot
be conceived as less than infinite and perfect, then, because of
this very conception, because it is possible, by necessity and according to
reason, “He-She-It-We-Source” (“God” in short for convenience) must exist. God
must exist whether considered as personal or as impersonal, as actual or as
potential, in fact subsuming those Aristotelian, philosophical distinctions.
This is because, without God actually existing in His own right (even if we
conceive God as potentially existing), He wouldn’t be infinite and perfect. In
other words, “God” wouldn’t even be conceivable as infinite and perfect if it
didn’t exist. It is not a matter of saying that we are pretending that something
exists because we define, imagine or conceive it (like a blue flying horse that
smokes Cuban cigars travels back in time and conquers the universe the ultimate
technology). The concept of “God” would be a “special case” as only God can be simultaneously
defined and recognized since it would be impossible to think of the utmost
perfect superlative without His existence.
God would be the only referent for which its
conception necessarily refers to a true, or rather, an ‘actual’ existent beyond
the limits of conceptual contingency. “God” is not defined into existence
because He is not a comparable ‘thing’ whose definition might or might not stand
for its actual reality. In fact, “God” would be the origin of the capacity to
define a ‘thing’ as such and, thus, unlike a contingent ‘thing’; its
self-reference would remain logically adequate. “God” -thus understood- is
Absolute Being, the Source of self-reference, standing at once (or as “The One”
as Plotinus might have said) outside and inside of that self-reference; thus escaping
solipsism.
Let’s think of “God” not as a capricious being
or as a concept needed to control large swaths of people during some stages of
cultural development. Let’s not think of “God” as an anthropocentric myth
needed to explain what science has still been unable to explain about our
experience of “reality.” Rather, let’s think of “God” in a more philosophical
manner as “ultimate being.” St.
Anselm would probably affirm that “God is that against whom nothing greater can
be conceived.” Because the mind understands that ‘perfection’ cannot be
surpassed, this superlative and absolute greatness understood as ‘perfection’
must at the very least exist. As mentioned, it wouldn’t even be possible to
conceive of an inexistent ‘perfection’ because perfection would lack nothing.
Thus, as St. Anselm tried to teach, it’s
impossible to think of perfection without necessarily thinking that that
perfection must first of all exist. In other words, the very thought of ‘perfection’
wouldn’t even be possible and, since
the thought is possible and intuited-experienced as such, therein lies the rational
proof. But it would apply only to the idea of perfection necessarily related to
God. Differently said, the existence of ‘perfection’
is contained in the idea of perfection otherwise the idea wouldn’t be possible.
Thus, being-reality (ontology) and idea-knowing
(epistemology) coincide in God understood as perfection. And for finite minds experiencing
limits as participants in contingency, God would be Absolute and - in relation
to God – that organized, multi-level, contingent nature or “cosmos” would be
relative. But, on the other hand, if we consider that only contingent nature or
cosmos exists, for us God would be a relative, contingent figment. But in
truth, all that exists actually and potentially would be of God, in God, the
only True Being and the multi-level cosmos would be only appear to be relative
and contingent but be an expression within the Source.
God as Duality
Although ultimately-speaking we cannot describe
God, at the limits of thought we can validly assert that, for God (the
self-referent origin or Source of apparent contingent being) what is is, either potentially or
actually, even when we think in relative, comparative terms. Thus, (knowing
that we are thinking dualistically) we can split this pure “isness,” into that
which is Absolutely Actual in relation with that which is Absolutely Potential,
Passive or Dependent. Thus, also in relation to the Thomist creative polarity
having in one extreme Absolute Actuality, Pure Agency and formless Spirit in
contrast with the lowest dependency or potentia as Matter, God can be conceived
panentheistically (not pantheistically),
both as participating in this polar duality under the guise of appearance
in the pole of dependency and also as the absolute and actual, transcendent
pole.
The Pure Being represented by the purely
‘actual’ polarity is not limited by any form or matter but form and matter
requires this ‘Pure Being’to sustain its apparent, dependent being because it
is the potential to be which, in an ultimate sense, in order to “be,” it must
be an appearance held within the “Mind” of God beyond the duality. In this way,
perhaps, Plotinian emanationism (heavily related with the idea of God’s ‘many
mansions,’ or the ‘planes of existence’ of mystical-esoteric schools in the
East and the West, the “Multiverse,” the “Omniverse,” the ‘world’ in a
metaphoric sense) and the Catholic creationist emphasis (that God as Spirit
creates by His power and Will out of nothing and remains as Spirit unaffected
by limiting forms and matter) can be found rationally compatible, if not, at
least companionable.
As an appearance, the world doesn’t
limit God. It is real, but only relatively so, from a divine standpoint. All
contingent being of that appearance would be sustained within God’s Being by
His Will, rather than by necessity. Without a will God would lack and not be
free or complete unto itself. Thus, God’s infinite abundance would not force ‘Him’
to create. This Will creates/generates/sustains the worlds or cosmos (with all
their levels and aspects) which emanates in (interactive) hierarchical stages
of increasing substance and form overflowing from God’s Infinite Light
Substance (which should not be confused with His inscrutable “Ousia” or Essence). This Light is the “Splendor” or “Shekhina” and the “Aur”
in the “Ain Soph Aur” formula of
mystical Judaism and is also known as the (Energeia),
or the uncreated (but creating) “energies
of God” more specifically recognized in Greek orthodox Christianity. These
would be energies that - within creation/emanation - also allow for many
degrees of conscious participation with that Source we are calling “God.”
Looking for deeper compatible meanings, under
ideas structured like this, perhaps the essential differences between important
creation accounts (such as the Catholic, Kabbhala and Vedanta) can be better
understood as stemming from One Knowledge. For instance, in principle I see no
fundamental difference between the “Ousia,” the “inscrutable Essence” and the
“Great Mystery” of the Plains Indians, or similar Islamic, Buddhist and Vedantin,
Non Dual approximations. Moreover, the metaphysical loci of the various
doctrinal emphases given by major world religions (not exactly the seemingly
incompatible and misunderstood exoteric doctrinal facades) could be understood
as mutually inclusive, supplementary and complementary.
From an abstract and integrative perspective
grounded in the Non-Dual, for the relative to exist as relative it would be
fine of we thought of it as coming into existence “out of nothing” (without a
pre-existing substance to give form) or if we thought of it as it had always
existed. God as ever existent would have originated within His Being that which
seems to be relative and therefore – by virtue of being within the eternal or
outside of time – it can also be affirmed that it always existed. Also, the concept
of an inscrutable essence or God’s “ousia” found in abstract Christian theologies
would be compatible with the ultimate concept found in the Jonang Tradition, a
Buddhist school that was suppressed for several centuries. All can be said to
be empty except – in the limits of thought - the essence. And wouldn’t this
essence be the “Parabrahm” or “Nirguna Brahman,” only differently emphasized?
And with the emphasis of absolute freedom of Will wouldn’t the ultimate mystical
references to Allah and to God coincide? And isn’t the “Ain” in the Ain Soph
Aur trilogy in Kabbalah the same essence which may or may not be conceptually defined
as “essence?”
In freedom, this “essence” or “Ultimate Perfect
Being” or simply “God” would have created the contingent from outside time by
imagining the radical impossibility of “non-being.”
It would have been an “impossibility” since nothing can exist or have being apart
from what is being itself...God. But with the Source’s imagination of the illusion of non-being, polarity and the
relation between being and illusory non-being would be intrinsically sustained
within the “Mind of God.” This would give rise to what is and what is not in
relative terms and, to the free (but ultimately self-limiting) choice to live
under the denial of one’s own essential being acquiring energies, deceiving and
enslaving in “service-to-self.”
Regarding the simultaneity of “creation-manifestation-emanation,”
nothing external to this relationship contained within the only existent (God)
would be necessary in order to exteriorize contingency or the “cosmos.” Thus,
based on one emphasis, the cosmos would have a beginning and, based on another
emphasis, it would not have a beginning.
Being is one and illusory non-being (the
illusory contradiction contained as a possibility within God) appears as an
addition, as a “second” or a “two” or “an other.” Thus (from a finite,
contingent perspective), in this illusion we have the origin of unity or singularity
and the origin of duality, plurality or multiplicity. We also have that which
is self-sufficient and that which is exterior to this self-sufficiency. Thus, four
“dimensions of existence” (also in agreement with the origins of the “quadrants”
found in Integral Theory): The singular or “undivided,” the “plural” or “collective,”
the “interior” (or that which is contained unto itself) and the “exterior”
which, in combination, give rise to the four main epistemological and simultaneously
ontological “quadrants” or “areas” of expression, of experience and method
through which being-consciousness under the guise of contingent reality
expresses itself, knows itself and finds ways to disclose itself as a
multiplicity ultimately rooted in Non-Duality…God.
