Reading Richard Kearney on Anatheism and ‘God who may be’ I find myself to be the perfect example of naiveté. I know nothing about the quarrels within the phenomenological family or the importation of theism into the pellucid waters of our immediate awareness.
Do we see clearly into the depths or are the refractive indices too baffling? The naive person has an advantage over the savants. His only difficulty is to stay in the present moment and not be distracted by shiny objects.
There is the natural or sahaj samadhi. I suppose it is the end or goal of the God that may be the God that is allowed to manifest in every moment. Every moment in this sense is your last. Is this the sense of eschatology that R.K. wishes to remind us of? Probably it is something else, a technical term.
You have to decide. Do I want this or not? If I allow this will I end up having lost all my friends and be bracketed with snake handlers by polite society?
Nearby is the domain of the Imaginal (Henry Corbin) the country of no place.
The place where Ludwig Feuerbach starts, the expansible consciousness, could be an entry into the core of Sanathana Dharma but not being aware of this he misses his exit and continues down the highway of materialism.
What is it that arises out of the immediacy of awareness? What is it that brings on the experience of connatural ity, that is founded on actual connaturality? Is it not perceptuality.
Exodus 3:13 – Evil is Going away from the being of God who is. Living in the not-being, draining reality.
Q: How does one approach the Being of God?
A: Through consciousness which is ‘pratibodha videtam’ known in every state
of awareness.
