A well-known Tamil scholar once remarked, “Nature is God,” noting that many do not understand this concept. Reflecting on this during my morning walk, I recognized a perspective that many who believe in a personal God inherently understand: that God transcends nature and, as a person, can uniquely reciprocate a relationship. Though this idea is familiar, I wanted to record my reflections.
One can see reflections of God in nature, but to equate nature itself with God misses an essential aspect of personhood. In Saiva Siddhanta, Non-apprehension (Anupalabdhi) provides a way to understand this1: knowledge can arise from what is absent. For example, although nature can reveal God’s glory—either as creation or an emanation (as seen in panentheism)—it does not reciprocate in a personal way. This absence of direct, reciprocal engagement highlights the need for a personal God who can, unlike an impersonal force, respond to us intimately.
Thirumular discusses the idea of “Love as God” in his work:
Here’s an English translation and summary for Thirumular’s verse:
“Those who say that love and Siva are two do not understand;
They do not know that love itself is Siva.
Once they realize that love is indeed Siva,
They remain merged in that love as Siva.”2
Some interpret this to mean that “Love is God.” However, while God is love, this does not mean love, as an attribute, is God itself. Just as nature cannot wholly embody God, love, too, is an aspect of God’s nature rather than the full personhood of God. This distinction is important, as saying “God is love” is fundamentally different from equating love itself with God. God encompasses love and is expressed through it, yet He also transcends it.
Consider this through human relationships. A pet, like a dog, may show affection or companionship. However, it is limited in reciprocating human emotions fully or understanding our deeper needs. Similarly, while nature can inspire awe or peace, it lacks the capacity to engage in a dynamic, personal relationship. It cannot respond with the conscious reciprocity that, as Muktiveda portrays, only a personal divine entity can.
This absence of reciprocation in nature (non-apprehension) thus serves as evidence, or pramana, for the distinct nature of a personal God. In a society where God’s presence influences values and interactions, the persistence of discussions about God, even among those who reject divine personhood, further suggests an underlying truth to the divine.
In summary, the knowledge we gain from what nature lacks in personal reciprocation supports the necessity of God as a conscious, loving entity. It underscores why concepts like “God is Love” do not simply personify nature or abstract virtues but point to a divine person capable of true, mutual engagement.
Gurukulam, 14-1-2024
Notes
1 “While the three primary types of evidence commonly recognized—pratyaksha (perception), anumana (inference), and sruti (scriptural testimony)—are widely acknowledged, the Siva Jana Siddhiyar presents a broader set of ten evidences. One of these includes the knowledge gained through recognizing the absence of something, or through the process of negation.”
1. Perception (Pratyaksha) – Direct sensory experience or empirical observation.
2. Inference (Anumana) – Logical deduction based on observed phenomena.
3. Analogy (Upamana) – Understanding based on similarity to known entities.
4. Verbal Testimony (Sabda) – Knowledge obtained through authoritative scriptures or the words of wise teachers.
5. Presumption (Arthapatti) – Deductive reasoning where assumptions fill gaps in observation.
6. Non-apprehension (Anupalabdhi) – Knowledge through the absence of something or through recognizing negation.
7. Tradition (Aitihya) – Relying on knowledge passed down by cultural or spiritual tradition.
8. Intuition (Samvadi) – Gaining knowledge through direct, mystical insight or inner experience.
9. Comparison (Tarka) – Comparative reasoning to discern subtleties or underlying principles.
10. Revelation (Agama) – Spiritual truths revealed through divine or sacred texts in Saiva Siddhanta, such as Agamas.
For more on this see: V. A. Devasenapathi, Saiva Siddhanta, Chennai, University of Madras, 1974.
2 “அன்பு சிவமிரண் டென்ப ரறிவிலார்
அன்பே சிவமாவ தாரு மறிகிலார்
அன்பே சிவமா தாரு மறிந்தபின்
அன்பே சிவமாய அமர்ந்திருந்தாரே”— அ. மாணிக்கம், திருமந்திரம், மூலமும் தெளிவுரையும், சென்னை, வர்தமான் பதிப்பகம், ௨003, ஆறாம்பதிப்பு, 270,, ப. 165 [A. Manikkam, Thirumandiram, Original and commentary; Vardaman publishers, Chennai, 2003, 6thimpression, song 270, p. 165
Leave a Reply