THE NATURE OF GOD IN DIFFERENT FAITHS
One
thing which puzzles all who believe in any religion is the nature of God and how this affects humanity. This is
especially so for me as I struggle with creating the new web site, Aesthetic Theology, and as I contemplate the new
scientific possibility that our Big Bang which brought this universe into existence is nothing more than one which
has arisen from another universe. Is nothing sacred?!
The world's religions divide into many categories
but for the sake of this article I want to look at the differences between the two main popular groupings - to
Western eyes that is! Statistics are virtually impossible to record, but according to Wikipedia the largest group
are the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) which account for some 3,600 million adherents. The
next largest are the umbrella group of 'Eastern' religions which, to me, share similarities and include Hinduism,
Buddhism and the Chinese religions, amounting to some 1,600+ million adherents.
GOD
IN NUMBER, IMPORTANCE AND INTERACTIVITY: THE QUESTIONS
There
are, for me, three questions. First, when looking at the Divine are we contemplating a singularity, a pantheon, or a
force? Second, is the creator God personal and interactive, or a remote absolute? Third and perhaps most important,
should religions be centred on God or humanity? Of course there are exceptions but broadly speaking I discern a
prime differences between the Abrahamic and the East. It is centred on one of perspective. Is religion God-centred,
or human-centred? Do we start with an idea, as in the Abrahamic, of some unknown external creator, try to deduce, or
indeed award it characteristics such as good, evil, creative, benevolent, dictatorial, just, wise etc., and then try
to pattern our behaviour on these concepts? Or do we start, as in the East, with humanity, stay on this level by
trying to work out an evolving pattern of good behaviour based on our own experiences and solutions to problems, and
then develop a concept of the deity which fits these patterns? In the former, God is the focus, always in control.
In the latter the human need to evolve from misery to enlightenment using tools at its disposal is paramount.
TRANSCENDENCE AND INTERACTIVITY
In the East (e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism), where there does
exist some belief in a form of transcendent creator, it often appears as an impersonal absolute, and so unknowable
as to not merit philosophical examination. Life and its adversities is trouble enough without clouding the issue in
determining the source of the problem! The Abrahamic group starts from an entirely different standpoint. A
transcendent creator, since it brought humanity into existence, stands central in their comprehension, since only an
understanding of this creator's qualities and purpose can lead to an understanding of what it is to be human and
what is the reason for existence. There is a greater sense in the Abrahamic of interaction between this unknowable
creator being and humanity, a greater personal involvement on both sides. True, Mysticism exists in both strands of
religion but in the Abrahamic there is the added 'complication' that through such a form of communication this
Creator entity is expected to react to the prayers and devotions of humanity (i.e. God is participating in and
directing human history), while in the East mysticism is an attempt to return to the source, i.e. God is there but
the movement is always from humanity to God). The result of this is that Hinduism, along with Buddhism and
Confucianism, is more a matter of personal discipline and practice (dharma) rather than belief.
HUMANITY THE FOCUS IN HINDUISM
The unique characteristic of the Hindu set of religions (which includes Buddhism, Jainism etc.) is that its
philosophers start the analysis of the human condition from a more earthly, concrete and logical question of "who
am I" and how do I better myself, rather than to start with the propositions about an abstract God. They feel
that when you invent a concept such as God, you then need first to define the abstract result and work your life
towards that (which is what the Abrahamic do). But when it is a discovery (as in the Eastern tradition), it should
follow known information one derives from dwelling on life to perceive the unknown things beyond (i.e. God). With
this comes the discovery. Consequently Hinduism does not invent God but discovers it. Further, Hindu scriptures
instead of defining the active way for adherents to follow, provides a variety of supporting material for the
individual to decide his or her own individual course in life. The Vedantic school of Hindu philosophy does,
however, have a notion of a supreme cosmic spirit called Brahman but this is the impersonal aspect of absolute
truth. Of course the Abrahamic mind's reaction to this as we did not so much discover God as God 'discovered'
us.
CONCEPT OF GOD ALMOST ABSENT FROM
BUDDHISM AND CONFUCIANISM
An absolute creator god is absent in
most forms of Buddhism, being regarded as a meaningless and unhelpful concept, though veneration of the Buddha and
other Buddhas and Devas (supernatural beings akin to Abrahamic angels?) does play a major role in all forms of
Buddhism, but (unlike angels) even these higher forms of life are subject to 'samsara' (the recycle of birth, life,
death). Indo-Tibetan Buddhism does, however, point to a belief in a transcendent ground of being and a process of
creation similar to neoplatonic Christianity (crudely - the creator God is One, the unknowable source from which all
that exists emanates; for humanity, on one level, the absence of good is the source of evil arising from human sin;
on another level the soul, the realm of discursive thought and activity, seeks a return to the source of this
emantion by contemplation and mysticism.) In Zen the Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku said "it has
certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the
followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savours so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not
always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience ... To define more exactly the
Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern
German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one and more than the totality of
existence." Equally Confucianism is also a philosophy of disciplined living rather than a religion, and
is often practised in combination with other beliefs. Where the Buddha taught self-enlightenment Confucius focused
on right relations with others. Overall I feel that the reason for such diversity is the Eastern concentration on
offering differing practical disciplines and paths of releasing the human condition from 'samsara' rather than
engaging in arguments about the unknown. As a consequence both Buddhism and Hinduism, for example, are so open in
this respect as to acknowledge Jesus as a great teacher, mystic and spiritual brother.
THE GOD-DOWN APPROACH OF ABRAHAMIC FAITHS
In the Western Abrahamic faiths, we have a top (i.e. God) down approach. In Genesis we read that God created
humanity in 'his' own image and this has set the tone for the next CA 3,500 years. Consequently, today these faiths
encounter a problem of epistemology. The primacy of belief in God's existence and in 'his' inter-active character
resolves its truth basically on a discussion as to whether or not a religious seeker can be certain that there is a
creator of this nature wishing the greatest good and that therefore his/her efforts to realize this greatest good
will not be a pointless struggle towards an unrealistic goal. And as a problem in morality, the question amounts to
a discussion of whether humanity itself is ultimately responsible for all the ills it encounters, or whether there
exists a superior being who inflicts displeasure whether humanity deserves it or not. In other words, destroy this
concept of an interactive personal creator god and you destroy the belief system which emanates from it. Not so easy
in the Eastern systems of belief where the quality of leading a good life is focused at the practical and individual
level.
THE EFFECTS OF CONCEPTS OF
ABRAHAMIC GOD ON HUMAN ACTIVITY
So, how do we navigate our way
through these seemingly divergent views? Is any discussion relevant? I think it is, if only because how human
history has evolved, and indeed continues to evolve. In the Abrahamic we face questions like, why does God allow
suffering; where was God in the Holocaust; why does God permit the destructive forces of tsunamis, earthquakes and
volcanoes; if Jesus died for the sins of the world to herald in the new age of peace why so many wars; does God
really reward belief with wealth and power; why did God create such a mess in the Middle East by promising all that
land to the Jews? And these are merely some of the practical questions! Theologically another minefield extends
before us, often a question of ownership. We may say there is one omnipotent God but Abrahamic religions tend to
claim ownership. If, for example, God established the original covenant with Abraham, which of the subsequent
expression of beliefs, Judaism, Christianity or Islam, is the one true faith; if Jesus established Christianity then
which of the many denominations represents the perfect expression, i.e. the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
as contained in the creeds; can global solutions be relevant in an age which favours individual rights? Because we
feel our particular religion, or denomination, is the true one, other religions tend to be diminished in our eyes,
and with them their adherents, who in some ways become less worthy of being treated as equals. Many of the middle
east problems, and indeed European, originally spring from these highly problematic questions. "We cannot know
God but our prophet is the official spokesman." "No he is not. Ours is the one". Thus is born the
inevitable competition when arguing about the unknowable and with this competition comes distrust and conflict, not
only within the Abrahamic group but spilling out into the rest of the world.
HOW
CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION AFFECT BELIEF SYSTEMS
It is the inability
either to answer, or, in our less than perfect world, to make accommodation and reconciliation about these problems
which is proving so troublesome to 21st century humanity. I also detect another problem - one of evolution, or the
lack of it. In the Eastern traditions, based as they are on the development of a human being, often through many
lifetimes, there is an overall constant sense of evolving into a better state or indeed another plane of existence.
As the history of the world and our physical environment changes so evolve the solutions to the human predicament.
This is not possible in the Abrahamic traditions. Everything was resolved centuries ago. No further solutions are
possible. There is the further complication in that these solutions have become tainted with a cultural overlay that
applied at the time of the original prophet, often involving the role of authority, the position of women, dress
codes, even land and relations with other ethnic groups.
THE VALUES
OF EACH SYSTEM
So does the Abrahamic group have nothing to
offer? Very much. The idea of one universal moral God which cares for creation, the message of developing a balance
of right relations first with this God and then with the rest of society, the concept of engaging with the infinite
spiritual dimension of the universe, the message of love and reconciliation, all are ideas contained within these
faiths. Nor must we forget, certainly within Christianity, the explosion of internationally valued art, architecture
and music which has evolved over the last 2 millennia. Where spirituality is faced with closed solutions (i.e.
salvation has occurred and there is nothing more to develop) there is a need to develop other forms of spiritual
activity, notably aesthetics to fill the vacuum, i.e. there may be nothing more we can do about salvation but that
leaves us free to develop ways of spiritually expressing it. I sometimes think that this is a true evolution of
spiritual humanity, occasioned not by dwelling on the human predicament but by being forced by our concept of an
interactive God to think outside ourselves onto a different plane both for solutions and for self expression. It is
an attempt to fulfil our destiny as aesthetic human beings by communicating and responding creatively with that God
who initiated creative or aesthetic communication through that original act of creation.
Simplistically I
am left to think that if one wanted practical advice on individual lifestyle development then the Eastern tradition
has greater experience and provides a greater depth of knowledge and advice. But if one was contemplating the values
of eternity and the full range of responses of what it is for humanity to have a spiritual dimension, including
especially the need to be spiritually creative, then, for me, the Abrahamic tradition has the edge. The difference,
for me, may have been put by that great French philosopher, Teilard de Chardin: 'We are not human beings having a
spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience'.
Sad it is that we will probably
never see these two great disciplines combine. On a personal note I place great value on the advice, particularly in
meditation, of the Eastern tradition. It is a vital component in my ability to survive the stress of everyday life.
Equally I value those art forms of the Abrahamic tradition, particularly architecture, music and art, which expand
and transport my consciousness/soul into another plane of existence, one of communion originated by humanity as a
response to the Divine. This, I feel, is a true demonstration of the Abrahamic concept of an humanity created by God
to hold back the forces of chaos by the only means possible, being creative in harmony with the universe and thus
with its creator.