Property of God? Always remain a must.
100% agreed. B"H.
By subordinate soul I describe the opposite of a "oneness" that connects man and God as equal or of the same essence, instead of how the concept is usually thought of, either "belonging" to the self or beloning to all creation.
I really like your thinking here. This is how I break it out. Two can be 'one' in three ways:
- In
- With
- Equal
However, there's a special case. What if the subject is a set of nesting russian dolls? They're simultaneously "In and With" each other, they're not equal, but there is correspondence of form and likeness. When looking at the very very smallest, it's easy to see it, "yes, that's part of the set. This little one came from this great big one." However if one looks at the great big one, its details and magnificence are far beyond anything, anything that can be found on the tiniest one.
The phenomenon above is a consequence of the
nested chain, the nearly infinite nested chain. The source and creation share some essential recognizable qualities to a degree. The creation has a spark of Godliness, the essence of God's vitality. It, the vitality, is simultaneously in and with ( the prefix bet in Hebrew ) all of creation.
This particular phenomenon, as a result of the nesting, is what so many great mystics of varying cultures throughout history observed and experienced in their practices and philosophical pursuits. But what they discovered was not that everything is God. They discovered a spark of divine vitality, Godliness, which is in, with, and 'one' of all that exists.
What these great thinkers and mystics also neglect is that the Godliness is being directed, lifted or lowered, ( technically expanded or contracted ). Not all divine vitality is the same. It's not all equal. And that's what I found most appealing about your comment. You recognized that two can be one but not equal. Disjuncted. Smart.
If we don't chat before evening, good Shabbos.