Many greatest theologians and philosophofers have tried to prove the existence of God. Though they did their utmost to utilize rhetoric, they after all concluded that God exists and he must have created universe just because no one could explain the origin of universe and our lives. I would like to point out the limitation of our thinking, which some of the greatest philosophofers have perceived. Whatever languages we think in, we need to think with/by words. But they belong to the third dimensional universe on the earth, while God exists in a higher dimension and he is beyond our thought. Therefore we cannot catch the existence of God by our thought.
We have terrestrial globes and flat maps to show the surface of the earth. A glove is a sphere, and a map is plane. There are various kinds of maps such as Mercator's projection, Lambert conformal projection, azimuthal equidistant projection, and so on. Some of them are circle, others are rectangle or another form.
Each of these projection has its merits and demerits. Some of them have accurate area but have inaccurate direction. Some of them have accurate direction and distance from the center of a map but have inaccurate outline. It is impossible to show the surface of the earth on a plane map perfectly, because the earth is a sphere. We cannot draw the third dimensional earth on a second dimensional map.
Some of readers may remind that Euclidean 'axiom of parallels'(parallel lines never intersect) holds good only in Euclidean space but does not hold good in Non-Euclidean space. Einstein showed in his theory of relativity that Non-Euclidean space is more reasonable for the explanation of the nature of time and space where we live in than Euclidean space.
Similarly, No matter how much words we use to tell about God's love, we cannot express it perfectly, because it belongs to the higher dimensions of God's realm and the words we use belong to the third dimension on the earth. We cannot express truth, love, enlightenment and happiness by words for the same reason. We often say 'love is passion, love is affection, love is power, love is blind, love is real'. No matter how we explain 'Love', those words are not effective nor enough to explain love itself. Then we must say 'love is all'. The words 'love is all' tell us that no words describe love perfectly.
What is the nature of love? Even though we cannot explain love by words, we love someone, we must have loved someone and must have been loved by someone. Even though we cannot describe God, we can perceive the existence of God. Even though we cannot express feeling of anger and sadness by words, we sometimes get angry and feel sad. We cannot tell what these feelings essentially are. Words are words and 'love' is 'love'. I think that we human being have had various kind of philosophies, literatures, thoughts, arts in history because we have something which we cannot express by words but feel in our mind and heart. The existence of God cannot be expressed by words. Therefore there is room for the existence of religious faith. It is the door to the higher dimensions. As far as we have faith, even if we cannot explain God by words, we are aware of the presence of God by our soul. With faith, the door to the higher dimensions is now opened in front of you.
Various kinds of cultures, customs, morals and ethics have risen in human history and they have ruled each society in each period. Those morals contained universal rules(codes) and non-universal rules. The previous generation contended with the new rising generations for new custom and morals, so that traditional rules was replaced by new ones in process of time. We could not have a yardstick to distinguish universal rules from non-universal ones. and therefore many arguments about morals have often been advanced. Universal rule or non-universal rule, it is the matter that a rule originates from the higher divine dimension or not.
For example, everyone would agree that the traffic rules are administrative technical expedient rules which belong to this third dimensional world on the earth, and agree that God would not make a rule that cars must keep the right or left. On the other hand, the rules such as 'Thou shalt not kill.(Do not kill.)', 'Thou shalt not steal.(Do not steal.)' have been universal rules, which have been valid in any times and any places.
Kant's 'Golden rule' was one of the universal rule and it might be valid enough for people who lived in a small community, and now it is still valid so that we should learn and practice it, but it may not be valid enough for modern people who are active in worldwide. Cultural differences often cause conflicts between ethnic groups here and there, because they cannot find universal rationality in other customs though each custom has the reason for existing for ethnic group.
God does not answer all the questions about rules which we should observe in our daily life such as traffic rules. If we miss this point we are trapped in fundamentalism.
It seems to me that modern ethicians and philosophers tend to remove metaphysics from epistemology to approach logic such as 'logical positivism'. But to exclude metaphysics from epistemology is a suicidal act for ethics and philosophy, which means abandoning their own mission. It is very difficult for us to distinguish the universal code which originates from the divine dimension from other rules which belong to the third dimensional world. Therefore relativists and absolutists have argued since Plato or before. But if ethicians and philosophers remove metaphysics, they will never know the universal code which originate from the higher divine dimension.
Philosophers should tackle metaphysics because this world and the other world influences each other.
Many people would agree that teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni or Jesus Christ are divine. Everyone knows the beauty of nature, the brilliance of diamond, the mother's love to her children, the comfortableness of a gentle breeze. Unfortunately, there must be good thing and bad thing, virtue and vice, right and wrong, fair and unfair, meaningful and meaningless, in this world. We should judge and distinguish them carefully.
I cannot help but say that knowledge is barren if it interferes with a well-educated person to distinguish between good and bad. The mission of all sciences is to contribute for human happiness. Then modern learned men/women should present us a standard of value judgement. Do not be afraid to evaluate.
And I see all our search for knowledge is vain,
And this burns my heart with bitter pain.
(from GOETHE FAUST)
In my twenties when I was possessed with study, I read these words in 'FAUST' to find that they were exactly true. I studied very eagerly but knowledge could not save me. Knowledge made me proud but did not make me wiser nor happier. Knowledge itself is not enough to make us happy. Intelligence does not mean happiness at every moment, because happiness is concerned with not your head but with your heart. Although many men/women know this point, they do not know what mind they should have nor how to control their mind.
It is not in the outer world but in the inner world where we should quest for happiness and truth. We should examine whether our subconscious minds love unhappiness and embrace it. We should make it clear what minds rule our daily life, because happiness is nowhere but in our daily life.
To be happy or not to be. First it depends on whether we surely want to be happy or not. Second, it depends on whether we know true happiness for us or not. Third, whether we know what to do in order to be happy. And forth, whether we are actually making effort to be happy.
We will become what we think to be. Then, we should be sure that we want to be happy. Let us have confidence in ourselves and cultivate our mind. Think positively and keep evil spirits away to avoid bad influence. Keep our minds pure to receive Buddha's light. We are Buddha's children. He lights us up and gives us hope. He is always with us.
Unended part IUnended part III
Unended Quest