No. You either have spinoza’s god or nothing. You can’t have additional gods all oer the place.
IT (Spinoza’s God) is everything.
Spinoza’s concept of God and the Brahman of Hindu philosophy share significant similarities, even though they arise from different cultural and philosophical traditions. Both are infinite, impersonal, and the source of all.
Spinoza rejects the idea of a transcendent God who exists apart from the world. Instead, everything is God, and all things are modes (expressions) of the one infinite substance. In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman alone is real, and the world is an illusion (maya). The individual self (atman) is ultimately one with Brahman, much like Spinoza’s idea that finite beings are mere expressions of the divine.
Spinoza’s God does not think, plan, or intervene in history. It operates through natural laws, and everything follows necessarily from its nature. Brahman, especially in its nirguna (formless) aspect, is not a personal deity but pure being, consciousness, and bliss (sat-chit-ananda).
For Spinoza, the highest good is intellectual love of God, meaning understanding the necessity of all things and aligning with nature. In Advaita Vedanta, liberation (moksha) comes from realizing that one’s self (atman) is Brahman—breaking free from illusion and suffering.
The key difference is that Spinoza’s God is strictly deterministic—everything happens by necessity. Conversely, Brahman, while also unchanging and absolute, allows for illusion (maya), which makes room for human experience and liberation.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that the Genesis narrative has indeed inspired countless interpretations and remains a living text, rich with meaning. My re-telling aims to explore its symbolism through a transformative lens—one that integrates metaphysical insights with scientific principles like fractal scaling and the Universal Conscious Particle (UCP). While it might diverge from a literal or traditional reading, this approach seeks to unlock new layers of understanding, tying the ancient themes of knowledge and growth to modern explorations of universal coherence. I’m curious—do you see value in connecting these archaic metaphors to contemporary frameworks, or do you prefer the literary genius of the original on its own terms?
I don’t see the Eden myth in terms of an either/or dilemma but rather a both/and matrix. Eve is the mother of the living per Genesis 3:20. She is Wisdom (Hebrew Chokmah חָכְמָה, Greek Sophia) who according to the Psalms is there at the beginning of time. She’s a transgressive gift-giving deity like Prometheus. She is seduced by the Uroboros the primal life force. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is dualistic experience.
But the reader really never has the story on its own terms. You’re always interacting with it, bringing your own point of view,your own preconceptions, your own context.
Yahweh as the I AM is the archetype of Consciousness Itself. His curse is the curse of ignorance which puts us on the circuitous journey of human history. “We’ve got to get back to the garden” as Joni Mitchell sang so we can partake of the Tree of Life at the center which symbolizes non-dual consciousness.
1 Like
But for either of them to be true the other cannot be, by defintion.
They are not “the source of all” they are more than that. They are all that is.
Clearly ,then, by your own words S’s god is not “the source”.
So you are equating “free will” with illusion? Is that an accurate or valid conclusion?
And would you agree, that is trying to define “god” you are guilty of bringing about a dualism between reality and “god”? , given my two observations in which you posit IT as a source?
Before Spinoza the phrase deus sive natura was used by Christian neoplatonist Scotus Erigena. It doesn’t imply that God is identical with nature but rather that he is identical with the natura naturans the creative ground of all natural objects. He is not saying that God is everything, he is saying that God is the substance of everything and that there is no substantial independence or freedom in anything finite.
Okay, that is a fine but important difference.
Here a seeker describes his encounter with Sophia/Gaia/Eve:
Everything is but revelation; there can only be re-velation. But revelation comes from the Spirit, and there is no knowledge of the Spirit.
It will soon be dusk, but for now the clouds are still clear, the pines are not yet darkened, for the lake brightens them into transparency. And everything is green with a green richer than pulling all the organ stops in recital. It must be heard seated, very close to the Earth, arms crossed, eyes closed, pretending to sleep.
For it is not necessary to strut about like a conqueror and want to give a name to things, to everything; it is they who will tell you who they are, if you listen, yielding like a lover; for suddenly for you, in the untroubled peace of this forest of the North, the Earth has come to Thou, visible as an Angel that would perhaps be a woman, and in this apparition, this greatly green and thronging solitude, yes, the Angel too is robed in green, the green of dusk, of silence and of truth. Then there is in you all the sweetness that is present in the surrender to an embrace that triumphs over you…
…[A]t each moment where you read in truth as now what is there before you, where you hear the Angel, and the Earth and Woman, then you receive Everything, Everything, in your absolute poverty…
… you are the poor one, you are man; and he is God, and you cannot know God, or the Angel, or the Earth, or Woman. You must be encountered, taken, known, that they may speak, otherwise you are alone…
Theology by the Lakeside In Christian Jambet, Ed., Henry Corbin, Cahier de l’Herne, no. 39. Consacré à Henry Corbin, 62-3.
Excerpt translated by T. Cheetham.
The conflict between the children of obedience and the children of disobedience is found in Cain and Abel, where Abel brings the offering that signifies salvation which lies outside of himself and Cain says “No, the works of my hands should satisfy deity”. Hence God’s rejection of Cain’s offering.
There is no statement in the Bible that the eating of meat is a sin, but there is no doubt that God wanted to lead his people away from flesh meat. If you take the story of The Exodus he put them on a diet which excluded the flesh of animals but they craved it so God gave into that craving and then he removed it again and they craved it again and this time the reaction was a little bit more drastic and it came to the point that while the flesh was still between their teeth God sent a leaness into the soul in other words their leaness into the soul means a loss of discernment between what is right and what is wrong we know that from a purely health perspective the eating of flesh meat and animal protein is detrimental to health and it leads to many debilitating diseases and the original diet as we saw it in the Garden of Eden is the best diet for humanity, “I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree with fruit in it that shall be yours for food” and when sin came into the world and climate started changing and trees didnt bear once a month anymore he added the plants of the field the vegetables so fruits grains nuts seeds vegetables is all that man requires to live a healthy life.
Eating meat is epic and super healthy. Assuming you are choosing quality meats. Don’t eat McDonalds shit and you will be fine. Spiritually there is nothing wrong with this either. Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life.
You can eat formerly living flesh or you can eat formerly living plants. In the end all you comsume is formerly living life. And cows and chickens and pigs cannot be argued to benefit the world or possess their own self-value on any par or portion as compared to their positive and really healthful value to humans as food. That is either God or natural selection saying that.
And yeah, seeds and grains and vegetable and all that are also good. A proper diet requires all of the above. And especially, clean water.
There are exceptions though.
Ceremonially Clean and Unclean Animals
The issue of clean and unclean is not a Jewish issue in fact this already existed before the flood.
In Leviticus 11
It lists the foods that are safe to eat of all the land animals, of all the marine animals of birds and insects.
“Of the small animals that scurry along the ground, these are unclean for you: the mole rat, the rat, large lizards of all kinds, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the common lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon".
and no smoking 
1 Like
If we go by the context of the story in the Torah, shouldn’t we all be eating a kosher diet?
Bro, people will eat anything to survive. Lizards and bugs and rats and all.
and each other…
That is also true.
Have you ever consider that ‘revelation’ is an allegory for ‘re-evaluation’?
That’s cute. Assuming your project is theological, if you want to be understood, you’ll have to define your terms. On what do you base your assertions? What criteria, what verification do you have? Answering those questions would be to approach what you’re doing epistemologically.
Ignorance never served the cat Felix.