God and Godliness

A person commenting on one of my previous post, rose this issue. For the purposes of this post, I will entertain as to whether it makes any sense to speak of “godliness” without having a “God.”

The question being posed (you can find the original comment on the post “Osho: Mystic or Moron”) was, “God is a noun. Godliness is a verb. Which is real?” In asking which one of these two is real, fist, the questioner lays down the premise that they cannot both be true. Second, the questioner posits a query based on truth, not of logic (the question, unless I am misinterpreting, is not whether it makes any sense to speak of God and/or Godliness, but whether God and/or Godliness is true).

My answer is that the term Godliness (as much in metaphysics as in the syntax of the word) is based on the term “God” in such manner that if “God” becomes non-existed, so would Godliness.

Why is this so? The principal reason for it is that an adjective, an accident of a thing, cannot exist without the object (i.e. the thing in itself). For example, you cannot have “red” in any proportion (if you are using an RGB monitor, for most colors there is a mixed proportion of red, green, and blue) without having something that is perfectly red. By the same logic, the only way in which you can have a spectrum in spiritual issues, is the acceptance that there must be something that is perfectly so. For example, if you say that the term “just” is appropriate for us to use and that it varies, i.e. that some people are more just than others, then you will have agree (in the philosophical dimension, even though very commonly this is disregarded in today’s world) that there is something that is perfectly and infinitely just. Otherwise, you will have a spectrum that has a definite end on one side (i.e. you cannot be more than [  ] just, which most people can see is silly). In addition, a thing that is perfectly just, necessarily has to exist, otherwise you are simply speculating.

That being said, in order to have a spectrum of Godliness, you have to have a being that is perfectly and infinitely Godly, which most theists would define as “God.” I say most, because, most notably, Plato would assign this property (which he would say is made up of more than one virtue) to the Forms, which, though eternal and perfect, are not alive in the same sense that you or I are.

Regardless of whether you take a personal, living, God as the end of your spectrum on Godliness or the Forms, you have to have something up there. This necessarily means that if Godliness is true, then you need an existing God, too. With that, a greater point about Osho. I would never assume to take up argument against a true Hindu or a true Buddhist, amongst other reasons because their religion argues for a break with the rational soul and for going above (they say) logic. To have a logical discussion with them is quite useless and, though spiritually enriching, pointless as far as logic is concerned. Nonetheless, I believe that is useful to argue against Osho’s premises, because he is not a Hindu or Buddhist mystic and sage, but simply (as I put it in my previous post about him) a moron who was out to get people’s money and who was convicted of tax evasion, so, in short, I bear him no love.

Advertisements

2 comments on “God and Godliness

  1. Thanks for this article!

  2. How do you judge a True Hindu or a True Buddhist if you yourself understand they they are not as bound to logical deductions as followers of Abrahamic religions?

    Your article doesn’t seem unbiased and coming from a man of philosophy, it seems to be coming out of the mouth of a person who is hell-bent to prove that someone is a moron, pretty childish in my opinion. Osho was not a missionary, he did not knock doors to convert people. People approached him on their own, and left his Ashram on their own. That doesn’t make him a cheat or a thug. Those who liked his philosophy approached him, those who did not stayed away. I don’t see why you whine sitting across the fence. I would rather call christian missionaries as greedy and selfish, because they are out to convert people out of self-righteous intentions and partly a personal craving to do good and go to heaven!

    Back to my question, how are you to judge who is a true Hindu or Buddhist? A better question would be ‘who’ are you to judge? Tell me again, do you use the scriptures as reference? Did you use Buddha or Krishna’s life as a model reference? I know it’s hard to contemplate that non-western religions are founded on different principles than Abrahamic ones. Do you know about Pakistani and Indian Sufism, Bhakti sects other than Hare Krishna, Charaka’s line of thought, Warkari tradition in western India? If you try to see into them, you will see how Hinduism has a myriad of forms, and there is not one true Hinduism, as is the case with Buddhism.

    Your argument, that since Osho differs you on one opinion he is a Moron, is hilarious. Thanks for the read though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s