Thursday, March 15, 2007

Where did the Creator come from?

Who knows? Who cares? The author of the Vedas didnt seem to think it was an important question.

At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was its wrapping? Where?
In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable and deep?
There was no death then,
nor yet deathlessness; of night or day
there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath,
by its own impulse. Other than that was nothing else at all.
Darkness was there, all wrapped
around by darkness, and all was Water
indiscriminate. Then that which was hidden by the Void,
that One, emerging, stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.

In the beginning Love arose, which was the primal germ
cell of the mind. The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.

A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?
Bearers of seed there were and mighty
forces, thrust from below and forward move above.

Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?
Even the gods came after its emergence.

Then who can tell from whence it came to be
That out of which creation has arisen, whether it held
it firm or it did not,

He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows or maybe He does not!

RIG VEDA 10.129 translated by Raimon Pannikar.


The nature of God is something for philosophers. It's an occupation that is almost futile in that whatever characteristic or attribute they give to God would invariably be wrong. What is 'omniscient'? What is 'omnipotent'? These are just concepts we made up. God is most certainly beyond anything we can attach an attribute to. One? Trinity? These are all meaningless. Does God exist? What is 'exist'? Existing is something for us. We have no reason to conclude that the word even applies to God.

I said the occupation is almost futile. Wanting to know God certainly has its benefits especially if one seeks communion. But to examine this as a purely intellectual exercise is counterproductive as the nature of God is not apprehended intellectually.

We also must not discount the entertainment value of speculating about the nature of God with friends over beer. At the very least it prevents you from talking about Kris Aquino.

4 comments:

grifter said...

i'm sure it does stretch the entertainment value and quality time between friends to talk about the Creator AND Kris Aquino.

Jawaharlal Al-Zawahiri said...

hehe. i beg to disagree. it's worth all the effort to plumb the depths of whoever God is, to know him more in whatever disguise he comes in.

Jego said...

I suppose youre right. Even as an intellectual exercise. But you have to accept that no matter how skillful your arguments are about the true nature of God, you most probably are wrong. :-D

Jawaharlal Al-Zawahiri said...

haha. well... i hope God wouldn't mind the feeble attempt, as long as it's not illogical