I don’t understand how a transcendent or an immanent god, being simple (that is partless and homogeneous), can generate diverse things and diverse elements which constitute things (for instance act and potency in thomism). Is not it more sensible and logical to hold that from the one comes only oneness?
If God is not homogeneous and partless, how can the parts be held together, if not by some external principle? And in that case, God is no longer the Absolute.
Hi Sâmkhya
This is the great question of “being” again. Unfortunately, to do justice to the question requires acceptance of concepts I don’t know if you’d agree with.
The first is the idea that the universe is material. In modern times the trend has been to say that it is spiritual and even that materiality is an illusion.
But fractions of the whole require materiality of a density in accordance with their unique “being”. Materiality begins on the level of aether and sometimes considered as “ether” where levels of material density are grouped together. At the level of Aether, it is beyond our comprehension yet the universe is filled with it. But these densities of materiality are the building blocks of the creations, fractions, or individualities that exist within the “Absolute”.
The other concept that must be underststood in relation to the creation of these "parts’ is the “Trinity.”
Every creation within the absolute is a blending of the three forces that exist as “one” in the Absolute." However, there is a way that the one opens to three and reblends again at different levels of quality within creation forming all the myriad of “parts” normal for each level of creation.
The parts are held together by “love”, the unifying force, but on a level completely incomprehensible for us. They divide through the force of “creation” which is similar but in a lower way, to how organic life divides into the sexes and reblends as a baby.
Trying to comprehend how the Absolute unity divides into creation without appreciating “ether”, God as simultaneously one and three, and without the sense of scale as expressed by Pythagoras’ Law of Octaves, seems impossible for me. Yet if someone can do it, I’d love to read it. Maybe my research is misguided.
Hi Nick_A,
I expect from you some arguments, universal in nature (that is, with less assumptions), supporting your views. It is not enough to have built a grand system. There are thousands of systems in the history, and they cannot be true at the same time.
S