Faith has no arguments for or against. So really, those who have given arguments for God’s existence I call irreligious because arguments have nothing to do with religion. There have been many known thinkers all over the world, particularly in the West, who have tried to prove that God exists. I call them irreligious – because if you can prove God’s existence, then the intellect becomes superior to God’s existence. Then it is proved through the intellect, and whatsoever is proved through intellect can be disproved by the same intellect. So those who try to prove, really they are the persons who give challenge to others to disprove.
Atheists exist because there are argumentative theists. When you say, “Because of this God exists,” then you are giving a challenge to someone, to someone’s intellect, who can say, “This reasoning is false.” And arguments can be given for and against, ad infinitum; they never reach to any conclusion. Really religious persons have not argued about God: they have lived. They have lived in the way in which one should live if God is. You cannot see God, but you can see a divine person. You can see a person who is living God. That is the only proof. But that proof is not for the intellect. That proof is not intellectual at all. That proof is absolutely beyond intellect – it reaches directly to your heart; you feel it.
Whenever you see a Ramakrishna or a Ramana, whenever you see a person like Jesus, it is not the intellect which comes to conclude that this man is divine. You feel it first. Your heart starts vibrating in a new dimension; you feel a new perfume of being. But this is feeling; you cannot prove it.
Intellect can prove or disprove, but it can never give you faith. Even when it proves, it proves only itself; nothing else is proved. If you can prove the existence of God, you have not proved the existence of God; you have simply proved that you are a very intellectual being, that is all. You have proved that you have a very keen intellect, you have proved your own ego, nothing else. And intellect is the most subtle food for the ego. Because of it you feel that you know, you feel that you can prove, you feel that you can disprove, you feel to be the center. Then even God depends on you: if you prove him, then he is; if you say no, then he is no more. He is secondary. Remember, for intellect everything is secondary and intellect is primary. Everything else becomes number two; intellect remains number one.
Faith says that this supremacy of intellect should be thrown away. Only then can the total being assert itself. And then being is primary and intellect becomes secondary. Then existence is primary; then intellect is just a part. Intellect is dictatorial; faith is democratic because faith gives expression to your whole being. Intellect is only one part trying to be supreme.
When you do as the Upanishad says and you do not deny, then the intellect disappears. If you do not deny, you will not have the intellect there at all. The no is needed. That is the foothold. Without the no the intellect cannot stand. So the question, “What to do about intellect?” really doesn’t arise. Do not deny anything and there will be no intellect to be worried about.
The second question: