The meaning of God and the freedom of religion

 

If a faith can be destroyed, it must be a faith in lies. A faith that is really a faith in truth is never afraid of being destroyed; it cannot because truth cannot be destroyed. Only lies are afraid of being broken, only lies need protection. Truth in itself is self-evident. So if you have some faith which is just a lie, it makes you secure.

freedom 

The meaning of God and the existence of God are issues of great importance in relation to the freedom of religion. For this simply discussion, it might be better to come to some understanding as to what we understand by the term “God” without applying etymology. Generally speaking we have: 

First meaning, according to Rev. Prof. Frederick Copleston: presume to mean – provisionally at least - a supreme personal being – distinct from the world and creator of the world, such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically.

The Christian God is a personal God. This does not mean that God is a human being, but that God has "personality" and the capability of both relationships with other personal beings. In his debate with Father Copleston, Bertrand Russell accepted this definition although his position is that of agnosticism. The keyword is “personal being”.

Second meaning, according to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or Osho: God is not a person, God is the totality of all that is. The whole creative energy of existence is God. God is not the creator; rather, God is the creative force, the very creation itself. 

For the New Age Movement (NAM), the second meaning of God is more appropriate. New Agers practice a non-judgmental attitude toward error and falsehood. They believe that everyone’s path is their own choosing and that it is all from God. So they could never say someone or something was wrong. Nature is indifferent to our values, and can only be understood by ignoring our notions of good and bad. Thus it is appropriate to assume that God is impersonal. The keyword is “creative force”.

Third meaning, when Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from Allah Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which reads: “In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone”. 

Is Allah personal or impersonal in Islam? Islamic description of Allah is unknowable and above comprehension, only adjectival words are allowed. It is considered blasphemous to "presume" that one can know Allah intimately or claim any sort of close, personal fellowship with him, thus it is safe to assume that Allah is impersonal. The keyword is “unknowable”.

Four questions are posed based on the principle of four-cornered negation in Indian Philosophy:

Is God personal?

Is God impersonal?

Is God both personal and impersonal?

Is God neither personal nor impersonal?

Sanjaya (6th. B. C.), the best known sceptic during his time would not only not say a definite “Yes” to any question, but would also not give a definite “No”. That is God cannot be directly expressed, but only as the negation of negation.  

In any religion, God cannot be both personal and impersonal because the former will be first and foremost, in order for God to be impersonal, God must be personal first. This is an a posteriori justification and it is very difficult to imagine God's eternalness if impersonal God came first. For God, the transition from impersonal to personal is meaningless, for example, humans are created from earth, humans are personal being but earth is not. Either personal God or impersonal God had created humans from earth. Humans are not God, but it is meaningful for personified humans to create impersonal objects such as cars, ships, computers etc. Then who created God? We leave this question as it leads to an infinite regression.

                              -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

The zero in the arithmetical series of numbers above is an indeterminate quantity and to say minus zero or plus zero makes no difference, but it is still a number. If it is not positive or negative, we cannot say it is both positive and negative because positive and negative are opposite and cannot be attributed to the same number. So if God is neither personal nor impersonal, the metaphysical conception of emptiness or nihilism came into play and thus God does not exist or God could possibly had been invented by humans.

The way science inquires and progresses is exactly the way of man's inner search to find the truth and becomes a lab unto himself. The Buddha could not find any God within himself or outside after searching to the very core of his being, thus Buddhists do not believe in God, instead they talk about Nirvana. Buddha's religion is based in an inner benediction, in an inner blessing – it has nothing to do with fear, especially of God. Buddha says that it is not because of fear that should you be moral, but because of understanding.

The coming of a super mind, a perfect being or messiah who will lead us into a long awaited era of universal peace, love and joy is being anticipated by all religion - the Hindu Avatar, the Al Mahdi of the Muslims, the Jewish Messiah, the Buddhist Maitreya, or the second coming of Christ. Are they all point to the same being that is soon to come or are they different? So which God, revelation or teaching is true, real or right? 

The most contentious issue is the formation of theocratic state which put the question of whether God is personal, impersonal or not existing untenable. With the formation and implementation of theocratic state by force, some adherents might reject religious pluralism which claims that all religions are equally true and equally good. They also accept that only their religion possesses the perfect and complete revelation.  This is the recipe for invitation to war when each side claimed to have the mandate from God and why freedom of religion is so important as Bertrand Russell asserts:

“When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force.”

Many unaltered verses in the Qu'ran did mention about fighting the infidels. The Qur’an certainly proclaims that when the time is appropriate, Muslims must use force or perhaps other subtle ways to convert the unbelievers to Islam and to punish or kill anyone who leaves Islam. According to the principle of abrogation, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is being abrogated by the later texts “Verses of the sword” to compel conversion of the infidel by armed violence which historically Islam's preferred method. At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity and Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam.

Realistical, authentical or ethical questions aside, the above paragraph is only comprehensible if God is personal, God's command is His personal command and not His will, intention or desire. Humans must believe that they are able to fly before working on building an aeroplane. A human who only will could never take to the sky or change the world. The emphasis is on why we want to believe before doing the correct things. Similarly, only personal God has the prerogative to choose a different mode to reveal the Qu'ran through Jibril as compared to how the Torah is revealed to Moses and the Bible by Jesus. Thus, it is also understandable and sensible when Pope Urban II orders the first Crusade to take back Christian lands from Muslim invaders since he is the representative of personal God on earth.

The essence of worship in Islam is the feeling of gratitude towards Allah. The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called a kafir or an infidel, which means one who denies the truth and also one who is ungrateful. This essence of worship is comprehensible only if God is personal and knowable as He is able to grant us our wishes, as only personal God can wills before any yields, otherwise it is similar to the worshiping the water, rock or tree believed to contain unknowable divine character of the natural world as practiced in paganism. 

Let's compare God to gravitational force to distinguish personal and impersonal God. Impersonal God can never grant us our wishes. Take for example, a man who worships gravitational force a million times, he will still die a million times if he jumped a million times from a hundred storey building without a parachute; unless a personal God commanded some angels to save him from crashing. So men do not pray and will not be grateful to all these existing forces but they have to do some study to understand them. These existing forces will not reveal its formula or theories to us by worshiping them but it is for us to use scientific approach and experiments to realize them.

But Islamic understanding is more on “textual and orthodox consensus” rather than philosophical construct as we see in the case of the short term success of the Mu'tazilite theology based on reason and rational thought. The adherents of the Mu'tazilite school are best known for their assertion that because of the perfect unity and eternal nature of Allah, the Qu'ran must therefore had been created, as it could not be co-eternal with God. This created two possibilities, on the one hand, distinguishing the Divine attributes (living, powerful, generous, speech) from the Divine essence (God's oneness) with the former subordinate to the latter and on the other end, those who were against the Mu'tazilite insisted that the attributes of God were real beings that eternally subsist in God. 

Ahmad ibn Hanbal is remembered as the exemplary defender of hadith, opposed the metaphorical interpretation of the Qu'ran and Sunna as they should be accepted as reality without engaging in any hermeneutical extension. Eschatological images (punishment in hell) are not metaphorical but real and anthropomorphic language (God's throne, hands, eyes) is simply to be accepted, “without asking how.” In the end the traditional-minded ulama emerged stronger and independent than ever and the Caliph Mutawwakil reversed course and embraced the viewpoint of the more traditional religious scholars. One faith and works problem is as such: Muslims should not but do perform the outward works identified with Islam without the inner conviction of faith, but was it also possible to have faith apart from works? The Mu'tazilites compromised and came close to the eventual “orthodox” solution to the problem of faith and works that arises.

Religion that affects people at three intertwined levels – personal, social and political - should be separated because the power of religion based political supremacy and the eventual risk of corruption over people's personal and social life had brought untold suffering throughout the history of mankind. Some religious people are motivated by their political interests first and find a religious rationale to suit the occasion; this is a danger to those who would like to live peacefully in a pluralistic world. Osho, who claims to teach religiousness and agrees that religion and politics should remain separate, has this to say about God, truth and spirituality:

The purpose of life is life itself. Life cannot be understood. You can live it – that is the only understanding there. If you understand what life is, you will never ask what God is. 

When I say this table exist, it is meaningful because the table can go out of existence: we can destroy it. But when I say God exists it is meaningless, because God cannot go out of existence and cannot be destroyed. Existence is meaningful only if nonexistence is possible. If nonexistence is impossible, existence is meaningless.

God is beyond both: matter and mind. You cannot know God unless you become God himself. If I say “I can know God without becoming God,” you are saying something impossible. Because of this, Christianity and Mohammedanism both think that to say that you can become God is sacrilegious, profane, irreligious; it doesn't show respect. The Mohammedan attitude about it has been so stubborn that it killed Mansur al-Hallaj and other Sufi mystics because they declared that they were God. Unless you enter him, and become one with him, how can you know him? You can just move around and around him. But whatsoever you come to know is just information that is gathered from without, it is not direct knowledge.

Reality cannot be known by the outer senses – the outer senses interpret reality as matter. Reality cannot be known through the inner senses – the inner senses interpret reality as mind. Reality can be known only when you have taken a jump into reality itself, without any mediators; when you have lost your mind and when you have lost your meditation also. 

The authentic religion does not teach you to worship. The authentic religion teaches you to discover your immortality, to discover the god within you. Death is defeated only by those who are ready to die any moment, to accept death without any reluctance.

Truth, by its very nature, cannot be organized. To organized truth, or to kill it, mean the same thing. The first thing an organized establishment do is to kill its own esoteric part, because the esoteric group is always a disturbance, a heresy. 

A  true religion will not require faith from you. A true religion will require experience. It will not ask you to drop your doubt, it will help you to sharpen your doubt so that you can inquire to the very end. The true religion will help you find your truth. Mohammed's truth is Mohammed's truth; it cannot be yours just by becoming a Mohammedan. 

Neither can the pope, the religious leaders convince anybody that for God's sake you have to kill. Strange … because God has created everybody. Whomsoever you are killings you are killing God's creation. If it is true that god created the world, then there should be no war – it is one family, there should be no nations. 

All wars are irreligious. Many more people have been killed in the name of religion than in any other name. It has nothing to do with religions, just the ego. Whatsoever is yours has to be the best in the world. Whatsoever is others' cannot be the best, cannot be allowed to be the best in the world.

There would be no good and no bad because goodness and badness are human distinctions, mental distinctions. If there were no human beings on earth, would there be any flower that was ugly or any flower that was beautiful? There would only be flowers flowering; the distinction would not be there. Existence exists with no beginning and no end, but with many changes.

Religions are against sex because that is the only way to make you unhappy, guilty, afraid. Once you are afraid, you can be manipulated. Remember this fundamental rule: make a person afraid if you want to dominate him. First make him afraid. If he is afraid, you can dominate him. If he is not afraid, why and how can you dominate him? There are two things which make people very much afraid – one is death and the other is sex.

Faith is blind in a different sense because it has its own way of seeing. It is not seeing through reason, it is seeing through the heart. Truth cannot be uttered, the moment you utter it, it becomes a lie. Truth cannot be said. The moment you say it, it is almost part of a dream now; no longer truth.

Religion can be an opium, so can communism – anything that gives hope for the future, in this world or in another world; anything that helps you to sacrifice your present for something that helps to feed your ego.

If a faith can be destroyed, it must be a faith in lies. A faith that is really a faith in truth is never afraid of being destroyed; it cannot because truth cannot be destroyed. Only lies are afraid of being broken, only lies need protection. Truth in itself is self-evident. So if you have some faith which is just a lie, it makes you secure.

Prayer does the same thing, and priests do the same thing – they make you more adjusted. Meditation is a science. It is not going to help you in adjustment, it is going to help you in transformation.

You cannot seek truth. You can find it, but you cannot seek it. The very seeking is the hindrance. All objects are worldly because “seeking” is the world. So you cannot seek anything non-worldly. The moment you seek, it becomes the world. If you seek God, your God is part of the world. You are the truth just here and now, it is not something to be achieved in the future. 

A child is pure because there is no mind. And the moment knowledge comes, division enters. You begin to divide between what is good and what is bad. You cannot create order on the world. When you try to create order you create disorder. Religion always divide you into two: the evil and the divine. If someone really follows them, he will come to conclude that the moment you destroy the devil, God is destroyed.

Whatsoever you know about “God” is through “tolds” - the parents, the society, the culture. It is your conditioning. And now you have got a concept about God and you are trying to understand that word. “God” is not a word. The word God is not God. The word is simply a word, in itself empty and meaningless. If you really want to know what God is, you will have to drop the word and drop the mind and move into no-mind. Love will bring you closer to it than thinking.

If you don't believe in any God, you may not be irreligious, because God is not basic to religion. Non ego is basic to religion. And even if you believe in God, with an egoist mind you are irreligious. With a non egoistic mind there is no need to believe in a God. You fall into the divine automatically.

Whenever you are silent, the ego is not. Whenever your mind is restless, the ego is there. That's why we cannot love, because with the ego, love is impossible. Love, meditation, God, they all require one thing – the ego must not be there. Jesus is right in saying that God is love, because both phenomena happen only when the ego is not. If you know love, there is no need to know God – you have known him already. 

As a result of  these “powerful” teachings like the one above by Osho, New Age practices have made their way into almost every area of different culture and religion, and leaders of monotheistic religion are very unhappy. They accused the New Age practices as satanic and quoted religious scriptures to justify their position, such as; in the original lie, Satan questions God's word and authority and claims that through the acquisition of secret or gnostic wisdom, man can be enlightened and can be like God. The most important contentious question/issue is whether man has the freedom and right to choose between Gnosticism (teaching that esoteric or divine knowledge could be gained directly by oneself) or  Scripturalism (strict compliance to the literal interpretation of the religious books presided by  intermediaries).   

In Sai Baba's example, there were video evidence that he performed magical tricks rather than miracles. Subsequently, his organized exoteric group would prevent people from bringing video camera into the ashram. In this case, the New Agers position  would be a non-judgmental and they see the magic tricks as a technique to draw people towards religiousness.  They also view that Prophet Muhammad uses the sword as a technique during his time, if he doesn't, he would probably had been killed by the sword of others. But if the freedom to choose and practice any religion is denied, don't be fooled by the notion that the New Agers would sit quietly, I believe they too can be “corrupted” to become merciless and probably become the most brutal and savage killers. Lest I forgot, this freedom includes the liberty to choose to become an atheist. 

Before it turns endless, I would like to end my “quoted from various sources” article with questions for my readers to ponder and seek answers:

Is Satan personal, impersonal, unknowable or better not to know?

If God is Almighty, why didn't He destroy all the Satan once and for all?

Did Buddhism influence early Christianity as researchers claimed to have found proof of the existence of manuscripts in India and Tibet that support the belief that Christ was in India during this time in his life? 

Is it true according to Prof. Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University that Islam does not prevent or kill anyone who leaves the Islamic faith however the killings had been confused with political treason?

Is Allah the same as the God of the Bible? From a scholarly Christian perspective, see here http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch3.html why Allah is not the same as the God of the Bible. 

Why Allah is the God who is to be served and in contrast Jesus is the God who came to serve?

How to understand the fact that we only have access to the will of Allah and the revelation is not a revelation of Allah, but the revelation of his will?

Why Christianity overemphasizing faith/love and forsaking the law and why Islam integrated both law and faith/love?

Is it true that the God of the Bible is love, whereas Allah's primary characteristic is power? 

Could it be possible that Allah's power leads to fatalism rather than obedience from the security for the believer?

Why there is a contrasting fact that the God of the Bible wants to be known in the context of His personal predestination while Allah does not want to be known? 

Why Jesus will descend in a Buddhist fashion, dressed in yellow robes with his head anointed according to the Hadith? Why not in white or black burqa?

Is it true according to Ibn Warraq in his book “Why I am not a Muslim” that the Islamic Allah is the end result of theological evolution and concoction from pagan pre-Islamic religious systems in the Middle east?

Is it true according to Ibn Warraq again, there were numerous words of foreign origin in the Qu'ran and the Arabs Arabicized them, for example the word “Koran” itself comes from the Syriac, and Prophet Muhammad evidently got it from Christian sources?