Nothing other than God?

[Tumah]

Something like that.
Except that I can forget about my logical mind forcing me to conclude that all is an absolute unity(i.e. there being no real separation between God and I) in the anthropomorphic, subject-object language of the Tanakh and traditional Judaism.
I know about [Lurianic] tsimtsum, but it seems the concept proves its failure to separate God from me by its extreme complexity.
People here saying that God can create something that is not God because God can do anything(because He is almighty) is just words. I thought perhaps I was missing some logical connection, so I came here.
It may have been nice if in all those places where it says "I am Hashem, and there is nothing else", it added something else to make it less pantheistic.
In reading these passages(Deut. 4 or 5; 1Sam,ch.2; Is.45 ,etc.), do any of you see that maybe it might be saying: "I am Hashem, and I am the only God(i.e. there is no other God but Me); instead of what it seems to be saying: "There is nothing else but Me, period".?).

1. The first issue I think is that you are trying to apply what you believe are logical concepts to G-d. Logic is a part of the creation and it is illogical to assume that G-d as the Creator should be bound to His creation. Otherwise you are suggesting that logic preexisted G-d. It is logical that a finite being should not be able to have any greater understanding of the infinite than say a rock's understanding of a human.

2. It does not follow that a concept should fail because it is too complex for you to understand. I couldn't possibly begin to understand how to work out particle physics, but that doesn't nullify the whole field.

3. There is no need to add anything to any of the verses mentioned to make them seem less pantheistic. Panentheism works just fine for them.

4. Personally, I think you are trying to be uber-logical when you say that G-d can do anything "is just words". Omnipotence is a word. There is nothing illogical about its meaning.

5. All as an absolute unity is a concept repeated in both the Talmud (אין עוד מלבדו - there is nothing else besides Him) and Zohar ('לית אתר פנוי מיני - there is no place devoid of Him). Much of the kabbalistic intent for rituals revolves around the concept that everything is revelation of the Divine in various permutations.

The question I have is, when so much of Judaism is focused on the recognition and revelation of the Divine, why you are trying to look for a reason this should not be true?

 

[LAGoff]

You state that there is nothing other than Him on the one hand(essentially 'pantheism'- all is God), and on the other hand you say that the ability of God to create something that is other than He(a logical impossibility) transcends logic.
If all is God(isn't that what there is nothing other than Him means?), this is exactly what logic dictates, so I don't get what you are trying to say that God transcends logic. It seems logic and the way things are are the same, so nothing transcends logic.
Pretty good for a 'rock', as you say.

 

[punkdbass]

You state that there is nothing other than Him on the one hand(essentially 'pantheism'- all is God), and on the other hand you say that the ability of God to create something that is other than He(a logical impossibility) transcends logic.
If all is God(isn't that what there is nothing other than Him means?), this is exactly what logic dictates, so I don't get what you are trying to say that God transcends logic. It seems logic and the way things are are the same, so nothing transcends logic.
Pretty good for a 'rock', as you say.

Alan Watts brilliantly solves the problem you are facing. Essentially you are stuck in a dualistic view of God, in which the Infinite stands in opposition to the finite - hence you find it logically problematic for God to create something other than him - the finite.

A non-dual view of God solves this problem. A non-dual view of God says that the Infinite does not stand in opposition to the finite. "Opposition" is a property that limits something; opposition can only apply to things that are finite, or dualistic in this case... Opposition does not apply to the Infinite, the Infinite can not oppose anything, for it is the Infinite! It is everything! Again, how can the Infinite be in opposition to anything if it is by definition everything? Solution: A non-dual view of God states that the Infinite does not oppose the finite(creation), rather it wholly embraces the finite within it. Take a step back and think about this logically for a moment.. Would not the infinite, by definition, include everything within it? Would not the Infinite, by definition, contain finite expressions within it? Would not the infinite by definition contain within it infinite variety, infinite forms and expressions... i.e creation itself? In this sense the Infinite does not annihilate the concept of finite, but rather it wholly embraces it. The Infinite, being infinite, contains the finite within itself.

People have a hard time accepting this because they think such a non-dual view of God annhilates meaningingful relationship with God, or just meaning in general; but this is a huge misconception. Watts goes at great length to explain away these misconceptions/worries - and brilliantly shows how a non-dual view of God and reality, is in my mind, the most meaningful and logically accurate view of reality.

 

[Avi1001]

.....The point here is that I don't think Hawking is adding anything new the mix, and theists have no reason to be scared - although perhaps they need to evolve their understanding of God.......

Theists, especially fundamentalists, do indeed have reason to be scared, Hawking has removed the mask from their Wizard of Oz. In fact, the creation of the universe was not the result of one of G-d's miracles at all. It was created by the laws explained by physics.

You are right when you say "they need to evolve their understanding of G-d", but based on past performance, I think we can say that is unlikely.

 

[CMike]

Physicists now believe the universe was not created by G-d. See Hawking:

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian

That means it leaves G-d responsible for the relationships between man to man and man to the environment. So please behave well toward men and the environment, it will make G-d happy .

The universe was created by G-D.

Physicists at best have guesses about the universe. They can't prove anything.

 

[punkdbass]

Theists, especially fundamentalists, do indeed have reason to be scared, Hawking has removed the mask from their Wizard of Oz. In fact, the creation of the universe was not the result of one of G-d's miracles at all. It was created by the laws explained by physics.

You are right when you say "they need to evolve their understanding of G-d", but based on past performance, I think we can say that is unlikely.

And yet why does such laws and order exist? ...Anyhow, as much as I appreciate Steven Hawking, physics and math (believe me, as a statistician I very much appreciate these things lol) - I don't think there will ever be a physics or mathematical formula that can teach humanity how to live a full, meaningful, purposeful, happy life. And such things should not be overlooked.. is there anything more important than living a happy, full, meaningful life?

To say it is strictly physics that governs the universe to me implies reality is a cold, nihilistic machine... Consider the following thought experiment: When I enter a state of deep meditation, I often experience a state of pure peace and bliss - pure ecstasy and joy. Why is it, that when in deep meditation - an act that can help a person to become one with reality, one often experiences a feeling of pure peace and ecstasy? If only physics strictly governs the universe.. why is it that in deep meditation, when I feel most at one with reality, I experience pure ecstasy and peace? Why would reality at its core be pure peace and ecstasy if it is merely a strictly physics governed machine?

I don't think you can put a physics or mathematical formula to describe the fullness of the state of being I experience during meditation.. I don't think you can put a physics or mathematical formula to describe the fullness, the totality, of any act of living as a human being. "Thoughts and concepts are delusion, awareness is wisdom."

 

[Tumah]

You state that there is nothing other than Him on the one hand(essentially 'pantheism'- all is God), and on the other hand you say that the ability of God to create something that is other than He(a logical impossibility) transcends logic.
If all is God(isn't that what there is nothing other than Him means?), this is exactly what logic dictates, so I don't get what you are trying to say that God transcends logic. It seems logic and the way things are are the same, so nothing transcends logic.
Pretty good for a 'rock', as you say.

I didn't say pantheism. I said panentheism.

 

[Avi1001]

And yet why does such laws and order exist?

We do not know, punkd....at least not yet !

...Anyhow, as much as I appreciate Steven Hawking, physics and math (believe me, as a statistician I very much appreciate these things lol) - I don't think there will ever be a physics or mathematical formula that can teach humanity how to live a full, meaningful, purposeful, happy life. And such things should not be overlooked.. is there anything more important than living a happy, full, meaningful life?

You are correct.

To say it is strictly physics that governs the universe to me implies reality is a cold, nihilistic machine... Consider the following thought experiment: When I enter a state of deep meditation, I often experience a state of pure peace and bliss - pure ecstasy and joy. Why is it, that when in deep meditation - an act that can help a person to become one with reality, one often experiences a feeling of pure peace and ecstasy? If only physics strictly governs the universe.. why is it that in deep meditation, when I feel most at one with reality, I experience pure ecstasy and peace? Why would reality at its core be pure peace and ecstasy if it is merely a strictly physics governed machine?

The universe may indeed be a "cold, nihilistic machine". Why would that detract from reality one iota ? As for your meditative experience....what if it is simply a complex set of chemical activities set off by your hormonal responses ?

These issues would not prevent you from helping someone in need, who could really use your help. Perhaps this act would be an act of G-d.

Or living your life in a manner not to harm the earth. Perhaps also an act of G-d.

I don't think you can put a physics or mathematical formula to describe the fullness of the state of being I experience during meditation.. I don't think you can put a physics or mathematical formula to describe the fullness, the totality, of any act of living as a human being. "Thoughts and concepts are delusion, awareness is wisdom."

Very nice quote, punkd, keep exploring .

 

[Avi1001]

The universe was created by G-D.

Physicists at best have guesses about the universe. They can't prove anything.

Be careful CMike, ostriches who stick their heads in the sand are eaten by their predators .

 

[LAGoff]

quote:
"People have a hard time accepting this because they think such a non-dual view of God annhilates meaningingful relationship with God, or just meaning in general; but this is a huge misconception. Watts goes at great length to explain away these misconceptions/worries - and brilliantly shows how a non-dual view of God and reality, is in my mind, the most meaningful and logically accurate view of reality."[/quote]

Thanks. I really appreciate your response. It gives me alot of food for thought.
Do you have the address of the talk/book by Watts that best deals with this?

p.s. You mean "meaningful relationship with [Myself]", don't you?
as in: "a non-dual view of [I AM/God/Me/Myself/LAGoff DOESN'T
] annhialate [a] meaningful relationship with [Myself]"?

 

[Avi1001]

Hey, punkd, I think you have shown us a very nice problem solving approach that has been developed by Alan Watts, and you have applied it successfully, in this case. I will be interested to see if you are able to use this strategy in other examples. I notice on another tread, you are working with this idea as it applies to evil.

Alan Watts brilliantly solves the problem you are facing. Essentially you are stuck in a dualistic view of God, in which the Infinite stands in opposition to the finite - hence you find it logically problematic for God to create something other than him - the finite.

A non-dual view of God solves this problem. A non-dual view of God says that the Infinite does not stand in opposition to the finite. "Opposition" is a property that limits something; opposition can only apply to things that are finite, or dualistic in this case... Opposition does not apply to the Infinite, the Infinite can not oppose anything, for it is the Infinite! It is everything! Again, how can the Infinite be in opposition to anything if it is by definition everything? Solution: A non-dual view of God states that the Infinite does not oppose the finite(creation), rather it wholly embraces the finite within it. Take a step back and think about this logically for a moment.. Would not the infinite, by definition, include everything within it? Would not the Infinite, by definition, contain finite expressions within it? Would not the infinite by definition contain within it infinite variety, infinite forms and expressions... i.e creation itself? In this sense the Infinite does not annihilate the concept of finite, but rather it wholly embraces it. The Infinite, being infinite, contains the finite within itself.

People have a hard time accepting this because they think such a non-dual view of God annhilates meaningingful relationship with God, or just meaning in general; but this is a huge misconception. Watts goes at great length to explain away these misconceptions/worries - and brilliantly shows how a non-dual view of God and reality, is in my mind, the most meaningful and logically accurate view of reality.

 

[CMike]

Be careful CMike, ostriches who stick their heads in the sand are eaten by their predators .

And who are the real ostriches?

 

[Flankerl]

"Orthodox Judaism DIR" <----------------- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LAGoff]

This may help restore some balance(more flanken less 'ramen' in the chicken soup). I don't know exactly what he means, but he uses words such as existence and truth in a strange way that imply that he was trying to find a way out of a [roughly] similar bind to mine.
It's from Maimonides' Mishne Torah, Hilkhot Yesoday Tora (laws that pertain to the foundations of Tora), chapter 1.

Chapter One - Texts & Writings

Halacha 1
The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth of His being.

Halacha 2
If one would imagine that He does not exist, no other being could possibly exist.


Halacha 3
If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them. Therefore, the truth of His [being] does not resemble the truth of any of their [beings].


Halacha 4
This is implied by the prophet's statement [Jeremiah 10:10]: "And God, your Lord, is true" - i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 4:35]: "There is nothing else aside from Him" - i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His.

 

[Tumah]

This may help restore some balance(more flanken less 'ramen' in the chicken soup). I don't know exactly what he means, but he uses words such as existence and truth in a strange way that imply that he was trying to find a way out of a [roughly] similar bind to mine.
It's from Maimonides' Mishne Torah, Hilkhot Yesoday Tora (laws that pertain to the foundations of Tora), chapter 1

What exactly is the bind you are in. I understand Maimonides, but I don't understand why I haven't satisfactorily answered your problem.

I also noticed you either missed or ignored my statement that I was referring to panentheism and not pantheism.

 

[Zardoz]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It seems to me inescapable logic that there is nothing other than God, because God cannot create something that isn't God.[/FONT]

If anyone has a way out of this 'logical inescapableness', I would like to hear it.

Sorry I hadn't noticed this before.

The very point of the physical universe, is to make something that is separate and independent of G-d.

G-d is perfect, the physical is imperfect. Only the imperfect can be separate, and not part of G-d.

This is what Luria describes as 'The breaking of the Vessels" the corruption of the Light, to create the material world.

 

[LAGoff]

Tumah,

The bind?
That "There is nothing other than Him" sounds like what it says: There is nothing other than God.
And where does that leave me?
There is nothing other than God but... BUT WHAT!!!? What's left when there is nothing other than God?

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,

The bind?
That "There is nothing other than Him" sounds like what it says: There is nothing other than God.
And where does that leave me?
There is nothing other than God but... BUT WHAT!!!? What's left when there is nothing other than God?

There's nothing else. Only our perception that there is something else. When I look at a chair, I don't see G-d, I see a chair. That is not because the chair is not G-d, but because my perception is fooling me into thinking that there is a chair and that it is not G-d.
This is true on a scientific level as well. We know the chair is not really a chair, but mostly space with a comparatively small amount of atoms. And those atoms themselves are really only made up of the fundamental forces. And on that fundamental level there is no difference between a chair and a zebra. On;y our perception makes us think, this is a chair, this is a zebra.

On a spiritual level this is true as well. The Hebrew word for "eye" is &#1506;&#1497;&#1503;. The numerical equivalent of this word is 130. We have two eyes= 260 or ten times the numerical equivalent of the Tetragrammaton. The Hebrew word for "ear" is &#1488;&#1494;&#1503;. The numerical equivalent is 56. If you write out each letter of the Tetragammaton (ie. instead of YHVH, why, eich, vee, eich) with a certain spelling, you will get 56. Because the ear and the eye are both the same things, G-d. This one manifests this way and that one manifests that way. And so with everything.

 

[LAGoff]

Tumah,

First of all, when you pray(or act, or think), how are you 'seeing' the relationship between you and God?

Secondly, when you write, "Much of the kabbalistic intent for rituals revolves around the concept that everything is revelation of the Divine in various permutations", do you mean by 'revelation' that God is reaching around and tapping you on the shoulder(from 'behind'), and that your practice is to register/acknowledge, and thank God for this?

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,

First of all, when you pray(or act, or think), how are you 'seeing' the relationship between you and God?

You mean like am I praying to myself or to a separate entity? That's a good question. I never thought of that. Ultimately, whatever I am, my purpose is to relate to G-d as my Creator, Father and King. On an essential level there is G-d and there is me. So in practice, the way I perceive myself is as an element completely enclosed by G-d. In reality though, maybe that is not so accurate, because I also need to apply, "there is no place devoid of Him" to myself as well. Maybe I will not be able to understand deeper than that. At some point there is going to be a place where the Infinite and the appearance of finite meet. And as subject to the finite as I am, maybe I can't understand how the Infinite relates to anything.

Secondly, when you write, "Much of the kabbalistic intent for rituals revolves around the concept that everything is revelation of the Divine in various permutations", do you mean by 'revelation' that God is reaching around and tapping you on the shoulder(from 'behind'), and that your practice is to register/acknowledge, and thank God for this?

No. The Hebrew word for "world" comes from the root word meaning to "hide". The physical world hides the Divine from our senses. So a revelation of G-d is when there is a "thinning out" I guess you would say, of the physical so that G-d is revealed to some degree. That is G-d revealing Himself. On the other hand, I can recognize that X is only a manifestation of G-d. I think I mean to use the word manifestation, not revelation.