=1 "Is God?"

From Auroville Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
White arrow left.png 
Equals1 new man open.png
  White arrow right.png

Is God?

Western theologians still talk about God as if he were an object of knowledge, something to be proven, a thing, whether in the universe or outside it. But Tat Brahman, as everybody in the East knows, is a state of consciousness. You may approach it by religious exercises, by song and prayer, by pious meditation, but once you get there you are in another state of awareness than that ordinary ignorance which discusses things.

This statement has been repeated over and over and over by those who know, but you will never read it in a western theological journal. It has also been said that the ecstasy of oneness, of knowledge and of bliss which some people call God is the most important experience to be gained in this life, that there is nothing comparable to it and nothing worthwhile so long as we have not attained it. This, too, western theologians very carefully avoid discussing.

It is true that they have stopped discussing whether or not this ‘state’ has a beard, but the notion of God as separate from his creation is still considered necessary as a great maintainer of the status quo: “He has created it thus”.

Now that we have started to live in an evolutionary universe, this conservative prop is becoming more and more outmoded. That god is dead.

If a western theologian thinks himself better than a pagan, or that pagans need him to teach them the truth, he doesn’t yet know the mysteries. When he speaks about primitive religion he doesn’t know how primitive his own is. He doesn’t know how much his brother shaman or his brother witch doctor in Africa could teach him about the oneness of things and of being. Libraries have been written about whether a certain Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. The only important point, that Christ is a state of consciousness, as much alive today as 2,000 years ago, has been largely overlooked. Christ is something you have to become. But you will not become it so long as you discuss the historical physical existence of a person, a question which is quite irrelevant to becoming a Christian. In the space age it should be obvious to these theologians that Jesus of Nazareth can mean nothing to an inhabitant of another solar system, but the possibility of being Christ, the son of God, can mean all. It should be evident also by now, after 2,000 years of talk and religious wars, that the world could get along without theories of the nature of God and of Christ. Then there remains only that important proposition, to be your own way of life, your own truth. Perhaps now we can understand Bonhoeffer’s paradox: “With him we can live without God”.

As long as we see things which we think are not God, we will be asking anxiously for a sign of his activity. The trouble with theologians is that they want to explain the paradox of this universe by the paradoxes of a universe beyond. The physicist is more careful. He simply states the paradoxes - of light waves or of matter - and renounces explanation. Love and oneness are a paradox in the multiplicity of this universe, but the old man and his sinful children are not an explanation. There is no solution to the paradox of God and the universe so long as we are a paradox to ourselves.