Download TODAY`S WORLD MEDIATING GOD An Indian/Asian Perspective

TODAY’S WORLD MEDIATING GOD
An Indian/Asian Perspective
From an Indian/Asian perspective the title itself may seem problematic, if not
properly understood. It refers, obviously, to Mateo Ricci’s project. He brought into China
clocks and models of the solar system in motion. He could argue that just as the clock had a
clock maker, the solar system must have a creator. The suggestion then may that we too
could use the modern world, with its science and technology, to point to God. The problem is
that such a simple argument is no longer accepted today. Recently the news papers reported
that a popular modern scientist, Stephen Hawkin, declared that the expanding universe does
not need a creator. In any case, a creationist approach which speaks of God creating a world
outside Godself as an object may not be welcome in India/Asia. The world is not out there
pointing to a Creator outside itself. However, it is not my intention to offer here an alternate
proof for God’s existence. I wish rather to suggest that we should look for an alternate
paradigm.
I think that such an alternate paradigm is offered to us by Ignatius of Loyola in his
Spiritual Exercises. Though he adopts a creationist perspective at the beginning of the
Exercises in the Principle and Foundation, at the end, in the Contemplation to Obtain Love,
the approach changes to “finding God in all things and all things in God”. God is not outside
the world as its Creator but in the world as the Animator and Indweller – the Antaryamin, to
use an Indian term. God is not perceived through rational argument but by a personal
experience of a relationship of dependence. Relating to God we relate in and through God to
the whole universe. The Advaita or non-duality of Hinduism, the Tao of the Chinese
tradition and the “inter-being” based on inter-dependence of the Buddhists will find such an
experience of the Absolute interesting. The world is not God or divine in a pantheistic sense.
God is not out there in a creationist perspective either. The Absolute indwells and yet
transcends the universe so that the Absolute and the world are “not-two” – Advaita. This is
not the moment to get into the metaphysics of this vision. I would like rather to reflect on
the consequence of this vision to spirituality.
We say that the world today is secularized. The differentiation between religion and
other social institutions like the state is certainly welcome. The use of religion as a political
tool is the cause of violence in the name of religion all across the world. The secularization
of the world from this point of view is welcome. Another kind of secularization denies God.
The vision of the world as an automatic machine can do without a Prime-mover. This is what
scientists like Stephen Hawkin do. The best way of countering this is precisely to experience
God in the world, not as a cause, but as a presence, as the Spirit. The world then becomes the
manifestation or expression of God’s love. It actualizes and embodies a relationship. It is
assymetrical in the sense that the world depends on God, but not God on the world. But it is
real. When the scientists and the philosophers of the European Enlightenment suggested a
dichotomy between the sacred and the secular, the Church too seems to have embraced it. It
begins focusing on the sacred sphere, setting up a structure of beliefs and sacramental rituals.
1
It relates to the secular world as it were from the outside, trying to the sanctify it. The Clergy
control the sacred, leaving the secular world to the (lay) People.
I think that what we need today is to secularize the sacred. We have to find God in
the world, in nature, in people, in living relationships. God is more authentically encountered
in sharing food with the hungry people than in the ritual celebration of the Eucharist. Life
can be celebrated symbolically in the sacrament. If there is no real sharing in life the
sacrament will be without meaning. Ignatius says that God loves us and gives Godself in
creation and we have to respond to God by giving ourselves and all that we have. I suggest
that we have to do this precisely in and through the other(s). Jesus says: “Just as you did it to
one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”(Mt 25:40) The
others and creation make God real and present to us in the context of a human relationship.
This is how we find God in all things and all things in God. Ignatian spirituality therefore
helps us to secularize the sacred. I think that such an approach will also find sympathetic
echoes in the Confucian tradition which is centred on relationships in community and in
Taoism in which we relate to the Absolute in creation.
The modern world is moving away from a situation in which an individual was
identified simply as a member of a community. Today there is a growing importance to the
individual and his/her dignity and rights. While the social dimension should not be neglected
this emphasis on the individual is welcome. The Indian (Asian) tradition also has focused on
the individual. Social rituals are there. But ultimately, spiritual pursuits like concentration
and meditation are for the individual. From this point of view we find Ignatius very modern.
In the monasteries prayer was, by preference, communitarian. The Spiritual Exercises is for
the individual encountering God. The director is warned not to interfere in the intimate and
free relationship between God (the creator) and the individual. Discernment is the task of an
individual. Ignatius does not talk about the Church or its ministers in the Exercises, except in
the appendix where he gives some rules about thinking with the Church. These rules govern
one’s behaviour in the ecclesial community. They do not seem part of the discernment that
concerns one’s way of life. The Exercises are therefore very modern in such a focus on the
individual person and his/her freedom. The social, religious and sacramental structures are
indeed important. We know the central place that the Eucharist had in the life of Ignatius.
We are also aware of the role of the Pope in choosing the missions of the Society of Jesus.
But the individual is not simply an ecclesial person. S/he does not surrender his/her freedom
and responsibility to any social or religious structures. The relation between the individual
person and the Absolute is sacred and inviolable. It does not need any symbols and
structures, though these can lead to and manifest the experience. Such a perspective is not
only modern, but also Indian (Asian)
We are living in a world of conflicts between peoples for various reasons. The other
is seen as an enemy. To move towards peace and harmony we have to recognize, respect and
accept the other. As a basis for this Buddhism suggests the experience of “dependent coarising” or “inter-being”, as it is termed by some modern Buddhist masters. The Confucian
tradition speaks of building community through a five-fold relationship. The Hindus propose
an advaitic vision. The Mahayana Buddhists will say, “Nirvana is samsara”. Nirvana is
2
achieved, not in isolation, but in harmony with everything. This gives rise to the practice of
compassion. The ideal of the Bodhisattva suggests that one cannot be free and fulfilled unless
all beings share in this fullness. This is also the dharma ideal of the Mahabharata in
Hinduism. Ignatian spirituality can interact with these perspectives with its vision of the
Kingdom of God as a community, further sharpened by the experience of God in all things, in
which God becomes the principle of integration and harmony. This is the vision of Jesus
when he says: “That they may all be one, as you Father are in me and I in you”. (Jn 17:21)
This will have to be completed by the Pauline vision of creation itself yearning to share in
the freedom of the children of God. (cf. Rom 8:21)
So we come back to the vision with which we started: The secular becomes the
sacred. We experience God in the world. We can then speak, in Raimon Panikkar’s phrase,
of cosmothenadric communion.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
3