On God.
By: Pasang Dorjee
Tags: Pantheism, Atheism, God, Existentialism, Philosophy

Oh my, this is an entry that I have been looking forward to, while simultaneously dreading, for quite some time. A trite old question that dates back to the dawn of mankind itself perhaps: Does God exist? Over the years that I have had the privilege of accessing several resources that indulged this subject, the one thing that I have come to realize — and the premise on which this piece of writing will be structured around — is that the definition of God is highly subjective. And that it is too complex a subject to be quantified, and there is really no possible way of denying its existence, or even verifying it.

If one is to paint a black and white picture of God, which they are surely entitled to, then it inevitably fails to grasp the vast complexities of humans and the context in which we’re born in that moulds our individual and collective perception — and the notion that we have each built regarding the word ‘God’ itself. That isn’t to say that one’s personal definition of God is any less valid than the next person, but that it is equally important to consider how the subjectivity of it will allow everyone to assert their own interpretations. Failure to acknowledge that the definition of God varies from person to person, and in a collective space, perhaps from one religious belief system to another, is what has invariably led to bigotry and bloodshed throughout the course of history. However, for the sake of this entry alone, I will shoulder this feat of attempting to define God through my own (somewhat narrow) lens.

The paradox of trying to define God is that God is an entity that cannot be defined. If it even is an entity in the first place. Or whether the pronoun “it” is even the appropriate way to address this unknowable ‘thing’. Well there you go, what a bummer. My extensive period of existential crisis. which often led to episodes of nihilistic despair, and living on the supposition that perhaps God does not exist, eventually sort of forced me to find a way to cope — and accept that there can simply be no possible way to know whether God does exist or not. I guess one could be quick to label me as an “agnostic”, but well, that’s the thing about labels, even if they help make sense of the world, they ultimately box and negate people, which I do not condone. This coping mechanism would center around understanding that one has to accept there is only so much that language can do. The inherently indescribable nature of the universe and the utility of language to contend with this dilemma, is tantamount to drinking soup with a fork.

With that being said, I will not deny that my brain invariably oscillates between the idea of whether God exists or whether God does not exist. Drawing some inspiration from ancient wisdom such as Bhagavad Gita has also impelled me towards believing the existence of this unfathomable entity, although there lies this atheistic side of my brain would like to say otherwise (BIG FAT LOL). The whole book is centered around the idea of Krishna as the “Supreme Godhead” and that from “Him” emerges the entire cosmos. I wouldn’t be doing too much justice attempting to elaborate and accurately encapsulate the philosophy of the Gita, but the crux of the book is basically that we are an extension of this “eternal, unborn, unchanging, un-manifested” entity and THAT is our “true identity”. It delves into the dangers of being too absorbed in the material world, and the suffering that ensues when we become rigid with this identity (or Ego) that we assume.

One could argue that perhaps I am believing for the sake of believing it, and maybe that could be the case. However, my proclivity towards this book stems primarily from the question of the “self” that I often ponder upon. What is this “me” when I look in the mirror? How do I define “I”? When I turn inwards, I often find myself struggling to describe this “I”, and am inclined to conclude that there really is no “self”, because the “I” should be something that is, yes, changing, but also in a way perpetual, if it demands definition, right? How do you call it “YOU” when the thoughts, feelings, your bodily functions are transient processes that are merely doing their job of keeping you alive and functioning. Perhaps our inherent nature is this pendulum swinging between the facticity and transcendence of our very being.

I don’t mean for it to purposely sound abstract, because I know that it IS abstract. The point being that perhaps what we call God, and what the Gita is espousing is that we are an extension of this incomprehensible “thing”, and since we cannot grasp the definition of the “self” either, or that this “self” is not real but solely a fiction created by our minds — that is the reality behind “God” itself: that it really cannot be fathomed but it IS there. There have been several other western philosophers that have tried to contend with this subject, some even espousing unorthodox notions for the historical period in which they lived, even at expense of being persecuted by religious institutions/organized religions for blasphemy. But hey, anything for capital-letter TRUTH rather than relaxing in the comfort of certainties, right?

“Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with absolute truth.” — Simone de Beauvoir

I don’t wish to prattle on about the same subject endlessly. What I do want to conclude on is that each of us are just an aperture through which the entire cosmos comes alive, and we are all living this individual existence with no way of comprehending the full scope of how each of us perceives their reality. We have language to help us marginally communicate how we think and feel, and limitedly relate to this mystery of a world we find ourselves in. It still does not do justice to “define” the complexity of life in all of its terrifying aspects as well as beautiful and awe-inspiring colors. What we can do is perhaps sit back and humble ourselves against the face of the universe, realize the limits of language, and slightly loosen the dogmatic, inflexible nature of our beliefs — even if it necessitates living in the uncomfortable ambiguity of existence.