Jan 27, 2023
Jan 27, 2023
by Kedar Joshi
More by : Kedar Joshi
|I have just posted the comment below to the article 'Slumdog Philosopher...' by Raam Gokhale, which deals with the existence of God as you understand it:|
>The fundamental error about the concept of God in any reference to God is that of someone who exists. God does not exist, to the relief of atheists - however, God is
Existence. I use the capital form, because unlike Hindu philosophy, which equates existence with God, God is distinct from created existence. In saying God is Existence, I imply God is the form of existence itself, and cannot be therefore referred to as someone who exists.
An example of the distinction between existence and something that is said to exist, as God is wrongly said to exist, is provided by any existing thing. When we say a tree exists we take for granted the context of its existence, the soil, air, atmospheric pressure, gravity, light, heat, that are integral to its existence, as well as its communication with the context in terms of its inter-action. This form of existence is a direct analogy with the Existence that is God, where context, form, and the communication between the two constitute the one Existence of God.<
I will add here, that existence as we know it is proof of the Divine Existence, or proof of God. Let me explain. When you say, God exists, it is assumed God is in a context of his existence, like a tree is in its context. But this is impossible, since at the level of God's existence, nothing else, least of all a context that holds God in existence can exist. Therefore God is his own context of existence. But existence implies form, in God that which is contextually generated or begotten from all eternity, which is divine; the inter-action or affection between context and form in the one Existence of God is the Spirit. Thus in the Divine Trinity is the Existence that is God.