Divinity

Theology

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

In what aspect of one’s life is theology of significance? To what extent would one like to know more, to view the future through the prism of a liberating paradigm to not waste precious time while chasing fantastical premises, to not be mis-takingly-led by what one thinks salvation or enlightenment is (about)? True theology inquiries into the elimination of indirection, that mediating vectoring, which selectively and on purpose points one’s intelligence away from the center of one’s being purely as “is.” Justified theology, by gently pulling our consciousness toward harmony, wants to gain us the steady equilibrium in tranquility, by enabling the perfect inclusive disposition of mutuality in order to coincide the mundane relative and  the divine Unrelative aspects of life.

What is the nature of reconciling theology that would concretely brighten my this‑time‑around‑life that strives to gain freedom to track God’s Will? Is controlling my destiny within my reach, having evolved as a member of human type with conscious abilities to self-abstract? Self‑awareness by knowing who I am ontologically can deliver the empowering implements to breech the high walls of institutional religious bondage whilst grasping for incarcerating irrational aboutness[1] Would one be better off living a spiritual authentic life when it does not rely on aboutness? What if one can realize the plot of this life’s story and move past the difference between “about God” and “God OwnSelf?” Between “God’s existence” as a falsity and “God’s isness” as the indisputable Truth?

I am sorry to say: Authenticity is so absent from lives of persons who cannot see beyond the bounds of corporeal reality set by physical birth and death, even while everyone is grounded on a beginning without time. Authenticity ought to make one feel the terrain of no‑birth so one would perpetually appreciate the no‑death of God Presence. Divine Truth is universally valid and in play holistically that imbues the variants of particularity, manifesting as you and me. We should expect theology to dispel the secrecy beneath the divine Ground shared by be‑ing.

[1] (The Unrelative Truth, Güralp, 2016), 231

Refining the theosophical language

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

The effort to refine the theosophical language creates a unique opportunity for exploring how transcendence is possible to fully appreciate spirituality and the role of religion. Spoken refinement in the book “The Unrelative Truth” comes in the form of corrections and extensions while relying on introduced new words such as unrelative, instanding and metaverse.

The book is very unique in its approach by taking a path without disregarding the very rich and colorful past of human religiosity. In fact it draws on them to unite religious understanding at each one’s apex for the much needed unity/togetherness in our world that is of much short supply these days. The rampant extremism and harmful kinds of false fundamentalism signal the spiritual demise in the arena of inter‑ and inra‑faith relationships in need of urgent correction and consilience.

The book explores refining in three directions. The present for the individual’s theological understanding is shown to be perennially grounded on the revelations of the past (through diverse means offered by religious and wisdom traditions), while the future awaits for the individual’s chosen way of living a pious life if it entails the right kind of ownership that is mutually inclusive for every encounter with the world. The personal journey on a psychic map of all presences for an individual creates a new approach to augmenting religious life.

“Living‑religion” should be made the key to spirituality supported by a healthy psychology tracked by a tool such as the featured one in the book: the Compass of Ownership. Immediate interpretation of one’s spiritual involvement through owning and being own‑ed becomes the proper medium for self‑learning while positively encouraging solitary venture on a path with self‑direction toward salvation (“Know Thyself”) for liberating one’s core Reality for the sake of enlightenment (“kurtuluş”).

In the words of Hz. Yunus Emre “The one Me with me, is inner than me” (“Bir Ben vardır bende benden içeri”) becomes the destination for oneness. Oneness state on the Compass is marked as the highest attainment sought by contemplative meditation. How to arrive here—within—becomes the story of our spiritual travels. The book specifically expounds on the origin of religions and claims it to be this religious experience of “Me” within “me.”

God “is.”

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

God neither exists nor does not exist. God is. God’s Nature (divinity) is ingrained in the “God is” sentence which, at first sight, appears incomplete. Can one claim “God is” is a minor blunder in speech, just like “God exists” is?

“God is” is the proper expression in the spirit of what theologian Paul Tillich (1886–1965) said according to English philosopher of religion John Hick’s (1922–2012) reference: “Thus the question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer—whether negative or affirmative—implicitly denies the nature of God.”[1] The ramification of realizing the esoteric significance of the “God is” sentence will allow one to take a mystical journey to a spiritual locale where knowing God’s Truth is the ultimate prize.

This “knowing” provides the key to the door leading to deeper metaphysical chambers of religion’s space, where the Truth of God‑is‑ness awaits our selfless consciousness. The Truth identified as “isness” is the nature for God Reality. Innate to God’s Selfhood, “aseity,”[2] oneness will be explained by the unrelativity of God’s isness. To benefit us on the road to knowing God Reality, the Truth gives meaning to true religion that is based on religious experience realitizing unrelativity.

[1] (Hick The Existence of God 1964), 2

[2] Ibid., 81

An invalid question: “Does God exist?”

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

One of the reasons I was led to write The Unrelative Truth is to bring lucidity to the point still being wavered on—the topic of God’s existence. God existing, or God not existing, brings to mind what an oxymoron is and does. It provides me with a comparable sensation similar to when encountering the words “square circle,” as in the term “squaring a circle.” I know there are square things, and circles are round, but how those words are seen fit for each other creates a quandary. On what ground can I justify the idea of a “square circle” except when explaining an oxymoron?

A book which addresses the “existence of God”—The God Delusion[1]—is a good example of how confused contexts can get in the way of a rational mind, giving rise to justifications for atheism. In essence, while chasing after an invalid premise, the book itself becomes an oxymoron—there is defect and flaw in thought that pushes aside the context of actuality, causing a delusional understanding of God Reality. Huston Smith[2] comments on the “literal” reading of scriptures and how such a practice could be deemed delusional—as would be a lie if taken at face value.

Taking the holy writings at face value, without going deeper and further metaphysically, is a universal problem for religious understanding. The notion of existence mistakenly applied to God is such a derivative of the prevalent literality problem.

To begin with, my humble position on the main “Does God exist?” investigation is that we are asking an invalid question. Therefore, a yes or a no answer is not warranted. At a minimum, even the fact that the question can be posed as if it has religious relevance or scientific significance demonstrates perplexity. It is a reflection of confusion, as Francis Bacon (1561–1626) identified[3], on how we have managed to mix up our contexts of discourse belonging to different worlds of experience.

[1] (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion 2008)

[2] (Huston Smith, The Soul of Christianity 2005), 25

[3] (Edward O. Wilson, Consilience  1998), 9