|
|
| נשלח ב-2/11/2005 14:50 |
 |
| |
A quotation that I heard today:
"I don't believe in God, but the reality I believe in is God"
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-27/11/2005 09:37 |
|
| |
Tzuriel,
יחיד ואין יחידות כמוהו sounds to me much more to be saying that there is nothing, no existence other than God. Which means that there is no separate entity besides God.
The Zohar is not only talking about the Soul as חלק אלוהי ממעל it means every particle of existence is all God, לית אתר פנוי מיניה
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-27/11/2005 10:23 |
|
| |
Tzuriel, Sachliel, and maybe I need here Michoel and Gavriel,
Please tell me if I'm right in what follows,
It's very strange to me how people want to characterize God with Consciousness, Intelligence and Will, while I am very much convinced that all these terms are really inaccurate and not really existing even in us humans.
CONSCIOUSNESS,
As I tried to say above, starting on the fourth post of this Eshkol, that there is really no such thing as Consciousness. And that there is no separation between Awareness and the thing you are being aware of. So that when we say 'Aware' we are essentially talking about the fact of existence of this thing here.
INTELLIGENCE,
It's the same story here,
What to we mean by intelligent? Is a computer intelligent? Surely you wouldn't say that an Abacus is intelligent, now what about a very fast abacus, would you call that intelligent? So what is added when we talk about Humans, where does it all of a sudden start being real intelligence? Remember, my whole awareness is just phenomena (existents) in a certain form, just as the abacus is only phenomena positioned in a certain form.
WILL, or Desire/Want,
Here too I think that even by us humans will is really nothing more that my way of seeing and identifying existence see here for my in depth analysis;
http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=1614149
I posted tenth on the page.
So there's no consciousness in humans, no intelligence, and no will. i.e. when you dissect the meaning of the these terms you find that ultimately there is just one thing only 'existence' and it's formation. Actually it seems that Kabbalah very much agrees to the above position.
So how do we ascribe these non entities to God?
 |
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-27/11/2005 19:45 |
|
| |
Dear Ani,
I think that the quotation I brought at the top of the page (and I agree also with the following quotation brought by Linkz.) says it all (in other words; we seem to be saying the same thing).
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-27/11/2005 22:50 |
|
| |
Sachliel,
So in the end there is no such thing as 'belief' in God, the only thing we believe in is Existence in it's fromation as it is, and well for that I would surely say that 'seeing is believing' for we are only affirming what we see.
My question is what is going on with all the people constantly claiming that belief in God is irrational blah blah blah, are they in complete error due to their not understanding what is meant (by them) when saying 'God'?
And is there no necessity at all with the concept of Emunah?
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-28/11/2005 03:54 |
|
| |
Benedict,
You write that you were taught in Yeshiva that God is not 'definable' and that it's only his/its actions we are talking about.
Are you saying that we are not at all interested in giving any kind of characterization on the Deity, [emphasis on the word 'any'] the only relevance is the action that's happening. So can we simply talk about the system of happening rather than the It that is purportedly making it happen? We really don't have much of a choice according to your yeshiva Rebbes for we can't fathom something unfathomable let alone talk about it/the/blank.
Can one say with a straight face that they believe in God while at the same time saying that there is no possibility in even having the slightest notion of what God means?
How about someone saying 'you know, I strongly believe something about this person here', What is it you believe, I ask of this guy, 'I don't have the slightest idea, I just believe something about this person but I don't know what', hmm sure you right just keep calm and let the thing take effect.
On worshipping God;
Even after one understands that the concept of time and space the way we use it is not really accurate, it's really just a way of structuring our awareness. Or even when we talk about a thing existing it's really only about our relation to it, i.e. nothing exists as of in itself. You still are ok with using the terms that are the most comfortable and simple for everyday use.
We can say that one should let the flow of existence guide him (it does so regardless, but by realizing it we stop conflicting with existence) or we can use the metaphor of saying 'obey the word of God'.
Sure if one is literate and intelligent enough to understand this most abstract concept, then that is how he should relate to it. But for your average Joe it would be much more sensible to use a metaphor and say 'the power of universe, or the power behind the whole of existence, [as if there is a 'power' separate from the universe itself which is an oxymoron right there for universe includes everything there is] 'commands' you to do X.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-28/11/2005 08:04 |
|
| |
Ani,
Where is Benedict's writing that you are referring to?
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-28/11/2005 23:58 |
|
| |
Ani,
You wrote:
Can one say with a straight face that they believe in God while at the same time saying that there is no possibility in even having the slightest notion of what God means?
I agree with you, I was just saying what I learned in Yeshivah and what would be the most likely response over here would be
you also wrote regarding worshipping God:
We can say that one should let the flow of existence guide him (it does so regardless, but by realizing it we stop conflicting with existence) or we can use the metaphor of saying 'obey the word of God'..
So you understand God as a metaphor for Existence, is that correct? That's one way to look at it, I guess. But my real question was do you understand that as the Jewish way of understanding God or is it just how you personally look at it? When I read Tanach that is not my impression of how the founders of the religion understood it or how it was commonly understood by Jewish people. It would be dishonest, i think, to go back and say that the prophets of Israel understood God as Existence without will or consciousness. Therefore, with respect for them I do not try to reinterpret their words based on what my understanding is. I will also not try to create Judaism in my own image by changing it from what the founders intended.
By the way, what do you mean by 'realizing it we stop conflicting with existence'? How does one conflict with existence?
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-29/11/2005 00:59 |
|
| |
Dear Spinoza,
So you agree with me about not understanding God etc. hmm, actually I didn't want you to agree, oh well.
For if there is no way of really talking coherently about God, my question becomes all the more urgent, namely how in God's name are we even discussing the proofs or disproof of God when we don't even know what it is we are trying to prove.
It would be like the man mentioned above, who believes in something but he doesn't know what, and now he's trying to prove his belief.
It's imperative to somehow have an answer to this question otherwise the whole concept of theism or atheism is an exercise in absurdity. Do you agree?
On your point that the idea of God as Existence is not the way the Prophets explained God, let me please ask you this;
Is the God you learned in Yeshiva really that much closer to the God of the Bible?
The God of the Bible seems to be a God that has hands, and feet, gets angry and is full of regrets, Oh yes, He talks to himself a lot too. He has to go down to the city of Sodom to take a closer look at what's happening. I can go on and on, but I think you get my drift.
All of the above is very far away from what we understand God in Yeshiva today.
So do you think that if one wants to be 'Torah true' (why do I hate this word) then anthropomorphism is his lot?
Also please note that the Prophets called God Hoveh which means Is, [everything that is]
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-29/11/2005 01:34 |
|
| |
Spinoza,
you asked me about who fights existence.
Everybody, except those who have reached the ultimate goal.
In simple terms we fight the facts constantly and the people who have 'made peace with their lot' are the happiest.
Does "this is not happeing to me", or I can't face everyone after what happened to me yesterday" , ring a bell?
It's all about hiding or fighting reality (absurdly enough)
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-29/11/2005 03:18 |
|
| |
Dear Ani,
As I am prevented now to concentrate and write in length, I will copy a hebrew notice of our friend Veto, which I hope will contribute.
I still don't understand how you responded to Benedict when he haden't written yet!
דברי ווטו:
בדעת הווה ישנן שתי בחינות [עס רעדט זיך ממש קאבאליש]; א. בחינת סור מרע, ב. בחינת עשה טוב, היינו:
א. סור מרע: כמבואר במילון שהמלה הווה [יקוק] באה להוריד את כל הקליפות שלנו הבאות מטעויות המחוזקות מעוצמות הרושם הראשון, ההרגל והחברה, בין הדבוקות במחשבה ובין הדבוקות במעשה עד שדתיותנו [בין אם זו דת משה רבינו, דת משה בן מיימון או דת משה מנדלסון] הפכה לכפייתית.
אך בזה לא די ואדרבה ישנה סכנה ליהפך לשפינוזיסט במובן המגונה [בלי להיכנס אם הגינוי מתאים לשפינוזה עצמו] ולראות את ההויה כמחולקת בין "אני" בעל השכל לבין השאר שגם אם הוא נפלא מאד, הוא טמבל בלי שכל ובלי כוונה. על זה טענו רבים [בפורום ובכתבים מודרניים וגם קדומים] שפשוט לקחו את המציאות והדביקו לה שם "הווה" [יקוק]. [לרוב, השם אלוקים אך לולא שהכוונה להווה, זה לא היה נורא ואכהמ"ל.] לכן יש צורך בבחינה ב'.
ב. עשה טוב: בבחינה זו באה הדגשת האחדות "הווה אחד". [גם חוסר הטוב הוא קליפה אחת גדולה ואיני זוכר מה שמה; אולי נוגה?]
כאן מה שדרוש הוא התרגול לרכז את המבט תמיד יותר ויותר לחזות שכל המודעות מרוכזת סה"כ בכמה עקרונות כמו "אחדות ושוני", "עצם ועוצמה", "מיוצג ומייצג" ואולי עוד כמה. העיקר בזה הוא ביטול ההפרדה בין "אני והו" או כלשון הספה"ק "ביטול היש". חיים באחדות שכזו מושגים בין על ידי תרגול מחשבתי עד כדי תחושה שאין בעצם "אני והו" ושכל "שכלי הנפלא" כולו הווה אחד [אף ללא "קיום אובייקטיבי חיצוני"] ובין על ידי תרגול מעשי ש"כל דמסני לך לחברך [פירש"י זה {גם} הקב"ה] לא תעביד" עד כדי דרגה קיצונית לחוש לכבוד הזולת וטובו.
זה נשמע פרדוקסלי שביטול האני תלוי בביטול דמיון ישות חיצונית, אך הדיוק בקו הדק הוא המציל מעב"ז. [זה מזכיר מה שפירשו בס"פ יתרו על "לא תעשון איתי אלוהי כסף...." שאף שינוי קט בכלי הקודש שכולם לשם הא-ל, פוגם במטרתם.]
כאן מונחת הדת ש"במקום שאתה מוצא גדלותה שם אתה מוצא קטנותה". היינו שמחד, אל לנו לוותר על השעון המעורר היקר שהיא הדת המעוררת בעיקר על כך שאין האדם אלא חלק הווה. זו הגדלות שבחינוכנו החרדי. אך מאידך "שם אתה מוצא קטנותה". בניפוח הכביכול "קיום אובייקטיבי חיצוני" של הא-ל הפרידו את האדם ממנו, כך שכל הדיבורים היפים על "ביטול היש" החסידי והענווה המוסרניקית הינם דברים מזוייפים כי כל שהאדם נפרד אינו מתבטל [כמבואר בסוגיות ביטול ברוב ובשישים]. כך שכל "מצוה" שאנו מקיימים מתוך תחושת ההכתבה של אליל חיצוני זה מתחזקת ההפרדה ונמצא שהדת כורתת את הענף עליה היא יושבת. [יש לדון למעשה אם מותר להתפלל ללא שהות שעה אחת לעשותה למדיטציה ולא לשיח אישיויות נפרדות. עכ"פ שלא כהערה שבאשכול סמוך, יש ויש הרבה נפ"מ מעשיות בכל יום מלבד ההתכוונות הכללית.]
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-29/11/2005 03:28 |
|
| |
Dearest Sachliel,
I'm sorry I didn't answer you right away where Benedict wrote his point.
It's over here
http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_godolhador_archive.html
the one posted on November 25 titled 'the difference between God an Aliens' go to the comments and it's more to the end of the comments.
I didn't answer before because I didn't knnow you really are that interested and it's not so simple to explain where it is, more so to actually find it. But now it's all yours 
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 29/11/2005 3:38:27
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-29/11/2005 03:33 |
|
| |
By the way,
Everything I say (maybe even what I will ever say) on religion and surely about God/Existence/Hove, or about objectivity in ethics, in short my whole Weltanshuang is all from my Rebbes Veto and Yehosef (in that order)
Yet as the cliche goes "the mistakes are my own"
So thank you Veto and Yehosef wherever you are.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-29/11/2005 04:04 |
|
| |
Ani, My pertinence was mainly because I thought that something was wrong with my computer missing the notice you were referring to!
|
|
|
|
|
