The only thing more impressive than an all-powerful being creating the universe, is the lack of an all-powerful being creating the universe. This is the concept offered, in a way sarcastically, by Douglas Gasking, a professor of philosophy in the late 20th century, to a group of friends and made popular by Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion in 2006. It posits that it would be a greater achievement for a ‘creator’ to create the universe if that creator had a disability. As, with all else being equal, it is a greater achievement for a pitcher who’s missing a hand (like Jim Abbott) to pitch a no-hitter in Major League Baseball than it would be for a pitcher not missing a hand. Taking this idea to its end, the greatest disability we can comprehend is non-existence. Therefore, the greatest being to create the universe must be one that does not exist.
Of course, there are many ways in which this ‘proof’ of the non-existence of God breaks down as it’s scrutinized. Yet all scrutiny pre-supposes one thing, that for something to be created, it had to be accomplished by a Being. We first, as an unconscious fundamental position, place God in the context of pure, perfect Being-ness. Even the mere utilization of the word God in the prior sentence comes with a sense of an image of a sacred object that exists that we can point to. An object that builds other objects. Even if, over time, we’ve pushed this object further and further out of the visible realm, we still imagine it (i.e. ‘Him’) existing somewhere. Even if we feel, like Anslem did, that God is greater than that can be conceived, theist and atheist alike still fall victim to what John Calvin describes as the idol factory of our minds.
Initially this perfect man-like image of God, like the one painted by Michelangelo reaching towards us on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, seems correct. For as men and women we, at first, comprehend creation as something built by someone or something and see no other way to create than with hands. Over time this is rightfully revealed as an idolatrous vision, one which we must destroy to move towards truth beyond our own phantasmic projections. However, if we can recognize our predisposition for creating images (idols) to represent God, then a step towards destruction, odd as it may sound, would be to begin down Gasking’s path and imagine that Being having a major bodily impairment, like an amputation for example. In this new image of God-with-amputation, the phantom limb would represent a part of God that belongs to God but does not exist, turning the pure, perfect image into an apparently broken one.
If we allow ourselves to do this, we find moving in the direction of this Disabled God would reveal something more fundamental about the nature of the universe than the pure Being-ness God: its fundamental inevitable interdependence of being and non-being (i.e. its inevitability in contradiction of non-duality). In other words, that which we call God must not be pure existence, for pure Being would exclude non-existence, and non-existence is essential for existence to be realized. An example in the physical world is the need for the ‘non-existent’ void of space to make physical ‘existing’ objects distinguishable from one another. In this sense, a ‘better’ representation of God would be one we’d consider disabled, for its non-existent component would be unavoidable. And the evident brokenness of this Disabled God would be a stronger representative to enkindle life. How is this?
EXPOSING THE EVER-PRESENT ABSENCE:
For a person born with a missing limb (i.e. a non-existent limb), that absence of limb has the potential to be the most impactful thing in that person’s life. Notice, this ‘missing’ limb is not missing in the sense that it can be found and returned as we understand most missing things. It is an ever-present absence, never to be returned. Blasé Pascal spoke of the absence of a beloved while a lover waits for them in a coffee shop. To the lover waiting, their beloved’s absence (non-existence) is a presence that can, in that moment, be everything to the lover. To everyone else, the beloved’s absence means nothing. This is how non-existence can create.
A physical absence (as in the case of the amputated limb) is harder to ignore than an emptiness inside. It’s harder to repress, harder to cover up. So, people with disabilities such as this draw attention to a deeper truth: that lack (emptiness, non-existence, void) is an essential component of our being. In fact, it is the driving force in our lives. No matter how ‘at peace’ we say we are, we don’t move without a desire to move, and we don’t desire unless we lack what we desire. In other words, life is not life without desire. And desire doesn’t exist without absence.
Desire has been given a bad rap in many Eastern circles; presented as the source of all suffering, that which is to be eradicated to achieve enlightenment. This is true. Desire is the source of all suffering. But it is also the source of all joy. The path of elimination of desire sends the Eastern student on an endless desire to exterminate desire, like a dog chasing its own tail. The fatal flaw is in the conscious or unconscious belief that there is, once again, an attainable pure Being-ness, an endless escape from the suffering. The Western student is tricked by essentially the same flaw, that enlightenment as pure Being-ness is attainable (albeit they would likely call enlightenment something different, like Heaven or the inbreaking of the Holy Spirit or the Canon). That said, both positions are considered noble by worldly standards in their intention to eliminate suffering and drive the world forward towards some perfect Being-ness.
But what if the pedestal of pure Being-ness as the pinnacle of self-actualization – as God – is flawed, given it forsakes the critical mixture of existence with non-existence. What if this is why this intention often fuels the very suffering it intends to eradicate. Once again, the Disabled God can provide a better perspective here; that brokenness is fundamental, and pure Being-ness is not. The alienation felt as the mixture of being and non-being is who we are. In this sense, the Disabled God, once again, provides a better representative for us to relate to and strive for; a being at peace in its brokenness. So, how is this state achieved?
ACHIEVING PEACE IN BROKENNESS:
Well, both Eastern and Western have a very critical characteristic in common that assists on this journey: that is of emptying. The one correction provided by the vision of the Disabled God is the intention of emptying.
What is often misplaced is the goal of emptying. The goal of emptying is not to hedonistically become one with perfect Being-ness, or to achieve some power over the void inside, or to achieve some fruit of our emptying which is always a ‘better’ Being-ness. It’s not to nihilistically become the void, it’s not to eradicate oneself in order to dominate oneself. It’s simply to approach non-existence as an existing being in order to embrace it, and by embracing it, to build a better relationship with it. This is the deep knowledge in the phrase “love your enemy.” Our greatest enemy is always inside, fighting non-existence. In bringing being and non-being together in their non-togetherness we become one with the divine as a Disabled God. In this sense, if we are cursed to be a victim of the idol factory of our minds, let its production yield a Broken God, for brokenness as our example of perfection is what enlivens our form in a more fulfilling way. Love follows this pattern. In this same way, true love knows its beloved, but never fully. It always comes equipped with a component of infinite unknowability, an ever-present absence.
THE DESTRUCTION OF IDOLS:
And what of taking this idea radically to its end? The Disabled God can act as a step on the path to freedom in the death of God. Taking the Disabled God to its end is a path to eliminating the idol all together. At that point God then becomes the midst of love itself, a love where there is no image the lover requires the beloved to live up to. So, strive to embrace the void fully. This is the meaning of enlightenment. This is the meaning of grace. This is faith. We are disarticulated beings, severed inside. But we don’t need to be fixed. We are disabled, as the ontological source of our being is disabled. Let us use our disability to come together, to see our uniting force in brokenness together.
Richard Turilli is the author of HOLOGRAM HEROES, Richard enjoys exploring the benefits of our universal trait of brokenness on one’s path to freedom.
