In Eastern thought, the question “Why can’t we see God?” has often been answered through the concepts of lila and maya.
- Lila: God’s self-concealment; a cosmic game of hide-and-seek. On closer inspection, it implies that for an omnipotent God to allow the existence of things He cannot do, He must hide Himself from Himself. The reason for the existence of the universe, and for the essence being closed to us, lies here: a cosmic game of concealment.
- Maya: The stage that makes lila possible. The appearance that veils reality, Brahman. The material world—something that does not truly exist, yet appears as if it does.
Our problem is that an account in which lila (play) veils itself through maya is less widely accepted in the West. We will try to explain this by referring to geography, politics, and terminology.
The Chinese and Indian geographies that shaped Eastern thought are not as harsh as those of Europe and Mesopotamia. The problem of water was largely solved, and these regions were protected by natural boundaries.
As a result of relatively secure access to water and food, Chinese and Indian states were able to preserve their traditions over long periods of time.
By contrast, Europe—where modern philosophy took shape—developed under conditions of famine, political conflict, and existential threat. In such an environment, traditions like “philosophy” emerged in opposition to the playful and mythological language of the East. (Philosophy here is also a political stance against the aristocratic classes that monopolized myth.)
Political discontinuity and instability grounded in geography were reflected in language. In the West, instead of mythological discourse, a skeptical terminology oriented toward certain knowledge took shape.
While the concepts of lila and maya entered common discourse in the East, in the West they were rejected by different political interest groups through myth-breaking thinkers.
Counterclaims
In European and Islamic cultures, analogues of these two concepts do exist; however, due to geographical, political, and linguistic differences, they remain only partially similar and far less popular.
- Theatrum Mundi (The World as a Stage): A holistic stage metaphor in which being presents itself through roles, masks, and appearances. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, with its world of shadows, can be read in this light. The Islamic notion of Kenz-i Mahfî (the Hidden Treasure) likewise reflects a similar motif, based on the saying: “I was a hidden treasure; I wished to be known, so I created creation.”
- Phenomenon (Appearance): The way something appears to consciousness, the senses, or experience. It stands in contrast to the noumenon, the essence of being. In Islamic thought, the concepts of hijab (veil) and tajalli (manifestation) express a similar idea: being concealing itself or partially revealing itself. The notions of imagination (khayal) and multiplicity (kasrat) also show how extensively this veil metaphor is elaborated.
Refutation
Although concepts centered on “play” and “appearance” can be found in the West, they are severed from their Eastern meaning due to Western political theology and ontology.
Ceramic vs. Organic: In the West, the world is ceramic; God (the Potter) constructs the world (the pot) from the outside, as an object. There is an ontological gulf between creator and created. In the East, by contrast, the world is organic; God is the essence of nature itself, like the dance of the dancer. Everything is a manifestation of a single Subject.
Political Theology: In the West, the concept of God is constructed through the analogy of the “Ruler/King.” To claim that an absolute King created the universe “just for play” (lila) contradicts His seriousness and law-giving authority—that is, political theology itself.
The Limit of Theatrum Mundi: The Western metaphor of the “world as a stage” does not fully contain the notion of phenomenon; the stage is often merely a place of illusion or a temporary test. Because Western theology is excessively politicized and prioritizes political coherence, it cannot integrate the concept of play into its system. Philosophy, even when it employs similar notions, leaves the issue unresolved and suspended due to its skeptical method.
In the East, God is the one who “plays Himself”; in the West, He is the one who “rules and judges.” For this reason, we rarely encounter the unity of lila and maya in Western thought.
