From Chabad.org
I like this description. It fits my thought, which is often referred to as panentheistic. Thoughts?
The G-d Point
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Hi Wil —
Well I like the description, but I read this statement as concurring with Hebraic Monotheism which posits God as absolute transcending all natures — God is the cause of all matures, but those created natures are not God, nor are they divine — in the same way a painting can be recognisably the work of a given artist, but the painting is not the artist, even though it displays the artist's character.
As I understand pantheism, God is the universal nature of which all individual natures are a part (therefore the painting is God in its essence), and as I understand panentheism, God is both universal nature and something higher than universal nature (therefore both the artist and the painting are God). I don't think this statement is pantheistic or panentheistic.
As I understand monetheism, God is a not a created nature, and therefore anything that is created is not divine, although the work of, and showing the character of, the Divine.
God can however be immanently present 'in' a nature, in whatever mysterious manner He so chooses.
As the Old Testament says, God is a burning bush — but all bushes are not God. As the New Testament says, God is a man — but all men are not God.
That a particular bush is Divine means that the Divine Nature has attached itself to, and has become one with an instance of floral nature. That a particular man is Divine means that the Divine Nature has attached itself to, and has become one with, an instance human nature.
But there are two natures in the burning bush, rendering that particular bush a unique being, unlike all other bushes, and there are two natures in the man Jesus Christ, rendering Him a unique being, unlike all other men.
But the floral nature of the burning remains integral to ands thus wholly itself; the human nature of Christ remains integral to ands thus wholly itself. Neither flora nor humanity are deified in their natures, which remain unchanged.
God has assumed a given instance of nature (a bush, a man), but has not assimilated that instance of nature — the nature does not lose its own essential or individual integrity, there is still a bush, and there is still a man, without 'confusion', 'change', 'division' or 'separation' as Chalcedon affirms — the nature of God and the bush/man have not merged.
And I think this statement says just that.
Thomas
Well I like the description, but I read this statement as concurring with Hebraic Monotheism which posits God as absolute transcending all natures — God is the cause of all matures, but those created natures are not God, nor are they divine — in the same way a painting can be recognisably the work of a given artist, but the painting is not the artist, even though it displays the artist's character.
As I understand pantheism, God is the universal nature of which all individual natures are a part (therefore the painting is God in its essence), and as I understand panentheism, God is both universal nature and something higher than universal nature (therefore both the artist and the painting are God). I don't think this statement is pantheistic or panentheistic.
As I understand monetheism, God is a not a created nature, and therefore anything that is created is not divine, although the work of, and showing the character of, the Divine.
God can however be immanently present 'in' a nature, in whatever mysterious manner He so chooses.
As the Old Testament says, God is a burning bush — but all bushes are not God. As the New Testament says, God is a man — but all men are not God.
That a particular bush is Divine means that the Divine Nature has attached itself to, and has become one with an instance of floral nature. That a particular man is Divine means that the Divine Nature has attached itself to, and has become one with, an instance human nature.
But there are two natures in the burning bush, rendering that particular bush a unique being, unlike all other bushes, and there are two natures in the man Jesus Christ, rendering Him a unique being, unlike all other men.
But the floral nature of the burning remains integral to ands thus wholly itself; the human nature of Christ remains integral to ands thus wholly itself. Neither flora nor humanity are deified in their natures, which remain unchanged.
God has assumed a given instance of nature (a bush, a man), but has not assimilated that instance of nature — the nature does not lose its own essential or individual integrity, there is still a bush, and there is still a man, without 'confusion', 'change', 'division' or 'separation' as Chalcedon affirms — the nature of God and the bush/man have not merged.
And I think this statement says just that.
Thomas
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
chabad philosophy is often described as panentheistic. however, what they're not saying here is whether jews have a different "G!D point" than other people, which as far as i know is exactly what they think, although bearing in mind how much that upsets some people (unsurprising, really) they don't tend to flag it up.
i think one can analyse this as much as one likes, but it doesn't really help...
b'shalom
bananabrain
i think one can analyse this as much as one likes, but it doesn't really help...
b'shalom
bananabrain
Wil,
This is a more blatant panentheistic statement by Reb Kalonymus Kalman Shapira, a hasidic rebbe who died in the Holocaust. It's found in Conscious Community: A Guide to Inner Work which is a translation of Bnai Machshava Tova, on pages 51-52 where Reb Kalonymus insists on a person imprinting into their mind this thought:
"The whole world and everything in it is divine in origin and substance. It is not visible to my eyes, but God is the source of all reality; even I am full of God. The sand under my feet is an articulation of God. The whole world is utterly comprised of, and dependent on, God. Now I, of my own free will, have come to think of myself as a free and independent agent; I have exiled myself from the sense of the presence of God."
There are other times in hasidic texts were language is used that sounds more in line with a more hardline monotheistic view but that language is being used to represent different ideas than it might in a different text. In other places Reb Kalonymus uses that more traditional language even though he's stating ideas similar to the above.
However some flavor of what BB says of chabad philosophy tends to hold true for other hasidic thought too. For example in another text by the same author, A Student's Obligation (translation of Chovat HaTalmidim), at the beginning of Chapter 13 "Some Thoughts on Chasidism and How to Connect Torah to It" we find: "You have already been shown... that a Jewish person... is not material in his essence like an animal or wild beast, but is a spiritual creature, a heavenly being that God has placed on earth. Even his body is not like the body of other physical creatures; it is pure and refined, a body compatible with such an exalted soul."
For me, it's like any other text, including Torah, where I can find spiritual insight but also other things that are very culturally limited and backwards.
-- Dauer
This is a more blatant panentheistic statement by Reb Kalonymus Kalman Shapira, a hasidic rebbe who died in the Holocaust. It's found in Conscious Community: A Guide to Inner Work which is a translation of Bnai Machshava Tova, on pages 51-52 where Reb Kalonymus insists on a person imprinting into their mind this thought:
"The whole world and everything in it is divine in origin and substance. It is not visible to my eyes, but God is the source of all reality; even I am full of God. The sand under my feet is an articulation of God. The whole world is utterly comprised of, and dependent on, God. Now I, of my own free will, have come to think of myself as a free and independent agent; I have exiled myself from the sense of the presence of God."
There are other times in hasidic texts were language is used that sounds more in line with a more hardline monotheistic view but that language is being used to represent different ideas than it might in a different text. In other places Reb Kalonymus uses that more traditional language even though he's stating ideas similar to the above.
However some flavor of what BB says of chabad philosophy tends to hold true for other hasidic thought too. For example in another text by the same author, A Student's Obligation (translation of Chovat HaTalmidim), at the beginning of Chapter 13 "Some Thoughts on Chasidism and How to Connect Torah to It" we find: "You have already been shown... that a Jewish person... is not material in his essence like an animal or wild beast, but is a spiritual creature, a heavenly being that God has placed on earth. Even his body is not like the body of other physical creatures; it is pure and refined, a body compatible with such an exalted soul."
For me, it's like any other text, including Torah, where I can find spiritual insight but also other things that are very culturally limited and backwards.
-- Dauer
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
I feel and understand the dude.
Nice, although I wont call it panenthestic. In Sufi terms, God is the necessary being (wajib-ul-wujud) & absolute being (wujud-al-mutlaq), he owns existance. The rest (including humans) are possible beings (wujud-al-mumkinah), existing based upon lended being , manifesting borrowed attributes. The only really real wujud is God. Rest is a very precise & persistent hypothetical existence.
So unless one lacks labels, this isnt panenthetism, because panentheism needs some other to exist.
Try this one, from the one alone by Ibn Arabi
---------------
Here he calls hululya (God in man, incarnation, panentheism) a blasphemy.
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~makhdoom/onealone.html"He who knows himself, knows his Lord"
All praise and thanks to Allah, Almighty, the First with no other before Him. He is the only First, and there is no last but His Oneness. The end is with Him alone, and He is the End. He is all-existing : with Him there is no end. Neither is there nearness or farness; nor is there a will or wish, or time, or above, or below, or place; neither is there a universe. Allah is now as He was before. He is eternal. He is One without oneness and Alone without loneliness. He is not named with a name, for it is He whose name is "He," the self-named one. There is no name other than "He," and none other than He is named.
He is the First without anything before Him. He is the Last without anything after Him. He is visible in all that is seen. He is known, clearly, in all that is hidden. He is in all forms and images without any relation to any appearance. He is the secret and the appearance of the first letter announcing the beginning of existence. He is the presence of all the letters that belong to the First and all the letters that belong to the Last and is the presence in all the letters that are visible and all the letters that are hidden. Therefore, He is "the First" and "the Last" and "the Visible" and "the Hidden." He is the First and the Last and the Visible and the Hidden. All the letters that form the words, from the first to the last of realms seen or unseen, are without any relation to His Being and are without effect on His Being.
Do no fall into the blasphemous error of the sect called Hulluliyah, who believe that another soul, even another being, can be infused into them and that they may have God materially existing in them. Know that He is never in anything, nor is anything in Him. He is neither inside nor outside of anything. None can see Him, whether with the eyes of the head or with an inner eye; nor can any conceive Him through the senses, the mind, intelligence, knowledge, or imagination. Only He can see Himself; only He can conceive Himself. None can know Him; only He can know Himself. He sees Himself by Himself; He conceives Himself by Himself; He knows Himself by Himself. None other than He can see Him. None other than He can know Him. That which hides Him is His oneness. None but Himself can hide Him. The veil that hides Him is His own being. He hides His being with nothing other than His being the Only One; therefore, none other than He can see Him.
Neither a prophet whom He has sent to humanity, nor a saint, a perfect man, nor an angel close to Him can see Him, for they are not apart from Him. His prophets, His messengers, His perfect men, are none other than He, for He has sent Himself, from Himself, for Himself, without any other cause or means besides Himself. He sent His essence, from His essence, by His essence, to His essence. There is no difference between the One who sent and His messengers who were saint. The letters of His being are the being of His messengers. There is no other being than He. Neither does He become another; nor does His name become another's name; nor is there any other named by His name. That is why our Master, the Light of the Universe, the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him), said:
"I know my Lord by my Lord"
He also said:
"He who knows himself knows his Lord" By this it is meant that, surely, you are not you, and you - without being you - are He. He is not within you; nor are you in Him. He does not exclude you; nor are you excluded from Him. When you are addressed as you, do noth think that you exist, with an essence and qualities and attributes - for you never existed, nor do exist, nor will ever exist. You have not entered into Him, nor He into you. Without being, your essence is with Him and in Him. You were not; nor are you temporal. Without having any identity, you are Him and He is you. If you know yourself as nothing, then you truly know your Lord. Otherwise, you know Him not.
You cannot know your Lord by making yourself nothing. Many a wise man claims that in order to know one's Lord one must denude oneself of the signs of one's existence, efface one's identity, finally rid oneself of one's self. This is a mistake. How could a thing that does not exist try to get rid of its existence? For none of matter exists. How could a thing that is not, become nothing? A thing can only become nothing after it has been something. Therefore, if you know yourself without being, not trying to become nothing, you will know your Lord. If you think that to know Allah depends on your ridding yourself of yourself, then you are guilty of attributing partners to Him - the only unforgivable sin - because you are claiming that there is another existence besides Him, the All-Existent : that there is a you and a He. Our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "He who knows himself knows his Lord." He did not say, "He who eliminates himself knows his Lord."
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~makhdoom/onealone.html
Last edited:
views in Judaism. Something from outside, or something/experience from inside?
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
@ Farhan
Ibn Arabi himself does not seem far away from blasphemy in his words. In fact, the following are pretty much the definition of it:
His philosophy requires the acceptance of the following:
But there is another way to interpret reality, which guards the distinction between the Creator and his creation: The essence which God gave you, which animated you and drives you, is no longer part of God. The God of the Quran, holds the keys, and the deed to your existence. His identity, and yours is not the same. We exist as someone else.
Exalted is He above all that they associate with Him