ABOUT GOD - Being - Beginnings - Commonalities

About God

By Giorgio Piacenza

The first known reference of the word “God” dates to the 4^th 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” (1^st person of the Christian Trinity)/is “Pure Beauty” in Platonic thinking (“He” can only be known subjectively, beyond words)/is the 1^st 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” (2^nd 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 3^rd 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.