Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:30 pm**

I figured this should be done here, rather than continue it in the Tank.

Fist and Faith wrote:
DukkhaWaynhim wrote:2) God made humanity is His image
I've never understood this one. In what way are we in God's image? Adam and Eve heard God walking through the Garden of Eden, and they hid. They heard God walking. God is humanoid, and made us humanoid.

I'm sure every Christian will disagree with that, though. So in what way are we in God's image?

To this, I'd add that most versions of Christianity believe we did not know right and wrong when we were created, only gaining that attribute after eating the apple. So we weren't created in God's image physically, nor in matters of thought and understanding.

But even though this all started because of DW's comments after listening to an OC podcast, lots of you might have ideas about how we're created in God's image. Or Goddess' image. Or whatever you believe. (That is, if you believe we are created in any creator's image.) I'm just curious about it. In what way are we in God's image?

rusmeister wrote:This is actually a good question.

Sometimes I get lucky.

rusmeister wrote:Here is a good answer:
www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=15

I don't see the answer. "Created in the image and likeness of God" seems to require specifics of some sort, and I don't see them. I assume I'm just not understanding, so maybe you can explain. It looks like it's says we're in God's image because we have dominion over all that God created. I don't think of that as an "image and likeness" attribute, but is that the answer?

Having no limits to our growth is also mentioned a few times. We can "become by divine grace all that God Himself is by nature." But we aren't already all that God is. We are not infinite in any way. Also, if God is infinite in all ways, God has no potential for growth. So it isn't the potential for growth in which we're in God's image.

Or is it this: "If God Himself is love, mercy, compassion and care in all things, so must His creatures, made to be like Him, also be the same." This seems pretty good. But if we are created in God's image, and the angels are not, then the angels are not loving, merciful, and compassionate? I'd be surprised to learn that.

Really, I'm not arguing any of this. I'm just curious about the answer, and wondering if I'm understanding any of it so far.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:19 pm**

Gosh, I wanted to thank Krazy Kat's post, and it was deleted...

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:58 pm**

rusmeister wrote:Gosh, I wanted to thank Krazy Kat's post, and it was deleted...

Why would you thank unorthodoxy? Or do you mean that you thank me for deleting it?

I found it too difficult to articulate what I meant by man being created in the image of animals, who were on Earth before us. Darwin said it better than I could.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:25 pm**

I don't think we were created in God's image. And not just because I'm Pagan.

If God and/or the gods/goddesses exist at all, it's in some state of pure energy/Spirit. Judeo-Christian tradition calls that spark within us "the soul". But in any case, it's the thing the transcends time and space, the thing that unites us in the grand web of creation. It's the part of us that was Universal before we were born, and the part of us that returns to the Universe after we die.

In that sense, yes, we were created in God's image. But it's more than that: We are part of God. Have always been, and will always be.

Hope that helps, Fist.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:26 pm**

Mystical Judaism's view is that we are created in G-d's image as spiritual beings, with our physical forms also being linked through their configuration to the ten sefirot, the kabbalistic Tree of Life.

This article broaches the topic in a more detailed way than I fully understand.

Kabbalah Online wrote:Natural Soul

Classical kabbala identifies four levels of the soul - called Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama and Neshama L'neshama. Nefesh is the animating principle of the physical body and the senses; ruach is the force vitalizing the emotions; neshama is the vitality of intellect; and neshama l'neshama is the essence of life of the human soul. The Arizal refers to this fourth level of soul as Chaya, signifying its function as the essence of life. However, all these four aspects of the soul he regarded as mere extensions of the essence of the soul, which he called Yechida.

Between the Creator and the created [i.e., the aspect of spirituality in general, as opposed to physical creation] there is an intermediate level, regarding which it states, "You are children of G‑d your Lord…," for our Sages have declared, "the Patriarchs are the merkava [the Divine Chariot]." The intention here is that a tiny spark of G‑dliness, drawn from the lowest level of the Creator, clothes itself in a single spark of the created in potentia, which is an extremely ethereal soul. Within this soul-spark, called Yechida, are the roots of all the other four levels of spirituality - Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama and Chaya. (Etz Chaim, shaar 42, chap 1).

In other words, the soul is both part of the Creator and at the same time it is created. Its luminous essence is "a tiny spark of G‑dliness", and the sheath in which it is clothed is a created being, albeit a spiritual being and not physical. As the soul emanates from the Ein Sof eventually to be clothed in the physical body, the soul descends via the four worlds mentioned above, leaving a root in each of the worlds - Chaya in the world of Atzilut, Neshama in the world of Beriya, Ruach in the world of Yetzira, and Nefesh in the spiritual dimension of Asiya. (Shaar HaGilgulim, hakdama) All of this is then enclothed within a physical body.

The soul enclothed within the body is a reflection of the Divine Form, called the "Tzelem", or "Tzelem Elo-him". This "Tzelem Elo-him" may be described as the human mold of man's physical form, linking his body and soul. This mold derives from the configuration of the sefirot, which form the structure of the worlds through which the soul descends on its journey down into the body.

At the same time that the soul's outer dimension reflects the configuration of the sefirot, the inner dimension of the soul reflects the Infinite Light that illuminates the sefirot. This reflection is called the "Demut Elokim" (literally, the "Image of G‑d"; see R. Chaim Vital's Shaarei Kedusha, part 3, ch. 5, and Likutei Torah, Shir Hashirim, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi). Thus man includes all of creation within him, from the loftiest spirituality to the most mundane physicality. (Pardes, shaar 4, ch. 10).

From the perspective of man's service of G‑d, these levels of soul may be described as five ascending levels of awareness of, and communion with, G‑d. Regarding these levels of soul, Zohar states that when a person is born, he is given a Nefesh from the world of Asiya, the lowest world, representing the greatest concealment of G‑d. If, through his divine service and proper action, he makes himself worthy, he is then given Ruach on the plane of Yetzira. With greater effort, he can earn the revelation of Neshama, paralleling the world of Beriya. If he purifies himself greatly, he may be able to attain the level of Chaya paralleling Atzilut, and even Yechida, the G‑d-consciousness of the level of Adam Kadmon and beyond. ("Beyond," because the level of soul called yechida, in essence, transcends all the worlds, since it is never separated from G‑d. It is described as being "truly part of G‑d above," the "spark of the Creator clothed within a spark of the created" described earlier. See Job 31:2 and Tanya ch. 2)

This setup puts humankind in a unique position, for through his spiritual and physical composition (soul and body) he is bound up with all levels of Creation. His actions and behavior are therefore capable of affecting all the worlds and all the sefirot. Thus, man is a microcosm of Creation, and his actions have cosmic significance. (R. Chaim Vital, Shaarei Kedusha III, 2-3) He is able to affect the balance of the universe, both spiritual and physical, by his kavanot (mystical intentions)(Pam's interpretation: spiritual "image" of Hashem) and yichudim (unifications of the sefirot) (Pam's interpretation: physical "image" of Hashem). The Arizal revealed an elaborate system of kavanot and yichudim designed to achieve this very purpose.

This ends our introduction to the basic concepts of Lurianic Kabbala.

Lurianic Kabbalah.
My introduction to the concept of panentheism.

~edit~

Looks like ali said what I was working on in a much more concise fashion while I was formatting.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:36 pm**

I was attempting to say that God, as written in Genesis 1, created the heavens and the earth, then had to create water so that his reflection would bring light into the world.

This seems to imply a heavenly face- The Face Of God! But to see his face we first have to look into the face of his creation. And it's all around us, as it is within us.

Can't help thinking about Covenant's reaction to seeing Revelstone for the first time.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:42 pm**

Menolly wrote:Looks like ali said what I was working on in a much more concise fashion while I was formatting.

Thanks!

And here I am, with next-to-zero knowledge about the Kabbalah....

It took decades for me to work this out. One of the things I never realized was that Spirit is a separate thingum. All along, I had envisioned the components of "a human being" as basically two: the physical body, and the mind. I thought Spirit -- if I thought about it at all -- was just part of the mind. Once it dawned on me (via a few whacks on the head, figuratively speaking

) that Spirit is separate from Mind and Body, well, that's when it became obvious to me that there is, in fact, some Universal Something out there that we all come from and go back to.

An aside: This revelation, if you will, came to me as I was going through the prep for being baptized in the Episcopal Church as an adult. I then mentioned it to our priest in a one-on-one meeting -- that I'd never grasped the idea before because I'd never heard anybody explicitly say it before. The next Sunday, she worked it into her sermon as a sort of proclamation: "There are three things: Body, Mind and Spirit."

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:58 pm**

aliantha wrote:
Menolly wrote:Looks like ali said what I was working on in a much more concise fashion while I was formatting.
Thanks! And here I am, with next-to-zero knowledge about the Kabbalah....

It took decades for me to work this out. One of the things I never realized was that Spirit is a separate thingum. All along, I had envisioned the components of "a human being" as basically two: the physical body, and the mind. I thought Spirit -- if I thought about it at all -- was just part of the mind. Once it dawned on me (via a few whacks on the head, figuratively speaking ) that Spirit is separate from Mind and Body, well, that's when it became obvious to me that there is, in fact, some Universal Something out there that we all come from and go back to.

An aside: This revelation, if you will, came to me as I was going through the prep for being baptized in the Episcopal Church as an adult. I then mentioned it to our priest in a one-on-one meeting -- that I'd never grasped the idea before because I'd never heard anybody explicitly say it before. The next Sunday, she worked it into her sermon as a sort of proclamation: "There are three things: Body, Mind and Spirit."

A genuine advance in knowledge!
I think I have a better one to offer, though (and you'll like Fr Tom's folksy, yet intelligent manner of speech):
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/darwin_and_christianity_-_part_12_the_soul
(Download or listen online)
(PS - the man is Alexander Schmemann's son-in-law.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Schmemann
If it weren't for Schmemann, I wouldn't even be able to take Communion...

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:01 pm**

aliantha wrote:
Menolly wrote:Looks like ali said what I was working on in a much more concise fashion while I was formatting.
Thanks! And here I am, with next-to-zero knowledge about the Kabbalah....

About the same level as my own then.
But I have started studying.
Much of what I read seems innate to me, once I somewhat comprehend the concept presented...

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:38 pm**

Sounds a bit like brahman and atman. A concept that I find interesting.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:30 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:Sounds a bit like brahman and atman. A concept that I find interesting.

Well, *that* sent me off googling.

Wikipedia's entries on brahman and atman get bogged down in the definitions of the various schools of Hindu thought, without ever really defining the two terms. Here's a better summary:

This dual conception, Brahman and Atman, gets worked out in the following way. Brahman can be located both in the physical, external world and also in the spiritual and inner world where it is present as Atman, "universal spirit." Now every human being has an undying soul (atman) which, because of samsara, lasts through eternity from life to life; this undying atman is a microcosm of Atman, the universal spirit. By understanding yourself, by coming to know one's own soul, one then arrives at the knowledge of Atman itself; the key to understanding the nature of the one unitary principle of the universe is to see one's (undying) self as identical with that principle: "tat svam asi": That (Atman) is what you are, Svetaketu. (Chandogya Upanishad VI.8.4ff.)

Here's the equation: Brahman=Atman=atman. Brahman is the totality of the universe as it is present outside of you;, Atman is the totality of the universe as it is present within you; Brahman is the totality of the world known objectively, Atman is the totality of the world known subjectively.

This equation fundamentally underlies the whole of Krishna's teachings concerning dharma in the Baghavad Gita.

I suspect we would refer to samsara coloquially as reincarnation. (And in a side note, I'm struck by the word Svetaketu's similarity to svět, which means saint or holy in Czech (and I assume in Russian too -- am I right, rus?). Gosh, Indo-European root words are *such* fun!

Anyhow, to get back to Fist's observation: Yes, I think it's more or less the same -- or rather, the Tzelem of the Kabbalah and the Atman/atman of the Baghavad Gita are both attempts to explain the same concept.

To me, tho, giving the separate components names only serves to distance them, one from another. It's important (for me, anyhow) to understand that it's all one thing -- the Universal Spirit exists in us and in everyone and everything around us. (And yes, Menolly, there's yer panentheism.

)

(I had understood that Brahma was the "physical" form of Brahman, the Universal spirit. Atman was a new term to me.

)

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:43 pm**

aliantha wrote:To me, tho, giving the separate components names only serves to distance them, one from another. It's important (for me, anyhow) to understand that it's all one thing -- the Universal Spirit exists in us and in everyone and everything around us. (And yes, Menolly, there's yer panentheism. )

That's actually more pantheism than panentheism though, right? We contain and are G-d. G-d is us and everything around us.

But G-d is even more than that, beyond what we consider the Universe.
Because of that, so are we and everything else.
Before we came to be here, and once we rejoin The All, we have, can and will experience the All. Beyond anything we have yet to imagine.

For me, that is what I mean by panentheism.
It is for everyone. And everything.
Just Be.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:51 pm**

My understanding of the idea is this:

Brahman is, as I've quoted several times, "The irreducible ground of existence. The essence of every thing." "The eternal, imperishable Absolute. The supreme nondual reality of Vedanta."

Atman is Brahman within us. A shard of Brahman, if you will. But an infinite shard of an infinite thing. Brahman is all things, and so is the Atman within each of us. We just don't experience it that way, and we have to keep going through the cycles of samsara, (hopefully) learning more each time. When we learn all, Atman merges with Brahman again. We are free of that cycle.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:52 pm**

Rus,

If you really want to blow peoples minds youy should link to a tretis on theosis.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:13 pm**

SerScot wrote:Rus,

If you really want to blow peoples minds youy should link to a tretis on theosis.

blast... <mutter, grumble, google, mutter>
Yeah, no. Not the same thing.

The doctrine of theosis assumes that we are apart from God to start with, yes? And that in order to get back to God, we need to study and learn and strive to attain saintliness and all that. Then eventually, we might reach theosis.

What I'm saying is that there is no Brokenness involved. There is no need to strive to be back with God -- we never left. Brahman = Atman = atman. The soul *is* the Universal Spirit.

This is a tough concept, I think, for people brought up as Christian. You're told from infancy, practically, that there's a part of you that yearns to be with God, but your corporeal existence holds you back. You have to overcome the imperfection of your humanity -- the lusts of the flesh and so on -- in order to reunite with God. That's your job here on earth. That's your life's purpose, to be one with God (again).

What I'm saying, and what the Hindus are apparently saying (if I'm not misunderstanding, which I very well might be

), is that there was no break with God when we became human. Our soul isn't part of God; it *is* God.

That doesn't make *us* God. It makes us all part of the Infinite Web. And we're all equal there, in that web.

Does that help?

Menolly: Pantheism means that there are a bunch of separate gods/goddesses. Under that scheme, if each of our souls is part of the Universe, then each of us would be a god/dess. That's not what I'm saying at all. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your definition of panentheism.

Fist: I can see how reincarnation could fit into that scheme, yeah. I'm still on the fence about reincarnation....

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:30 pm**

Heh. You might be able to guess my stance on reincarnation.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:08 pm**

aliantha wrote: What I'm saying, and what the Hindus are apparently saying (if I'm not misunderstanding, which I very well might be ), is that there was no break with God when we became human. Our soul isn't part of God; it *is* God.

hmmm....there isn't a "break"...but there is a...umm...semi-permeable barrier?...it's thickness and density at any moment dependent on the individuals knowing.
Then it gets complicated, different versions and different understandings of same version [heh...is there a difference?].
I'm not going to go on and on, but for instance in at least one, "your" soul is part of God, but it isn't God, because once it IS God, there is no "you."

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:16 pm**

aliantha wrote:Menolly: Pantheism means that there are a bunch of separate gods/goddesses. Under that scheme, if each of our souls is part of the Universe, then each of us would be a god/dess. That's not what I'm saying at all. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your definition of panentheism.

hmm...
That is a different definition for pantheism than I am getting from wikipedia.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning ‘all’ and θεός (theos) meaning ‘God’. As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that “God” is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe. Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

I know that many deity pantheons tend to be called pantheism. But that is not the definition I mean when I refer to it. I mean it according to the definition above, that G-d and the Universe is identical.

Which is not panentheism, which means G-d is all of that, and more beyond the universe. Wiki defines Panentheism and goes on to compare it to pantheism thusly.

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.

Briefly put, in pantheism, "God is the whole"; in panentheism, "The whole is in God." This means that the Universe in the first formulation is practically the Whole itself, but in the second the universe and God are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe, some versions positing the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and some forms hold that the universe is contained within God.

Hence me saying what you postulated was more pantheism than panentheism, if it stops at the concept of the universe and nothing more beyond that.

Vraith wrote:I'm not going to go on and on, but for instance in at least one, "your" soul is part of God, but it isn't God, because once it IS God, there is no "you."

There are belief systems that support that. My own outlook is more that at all times we *are* G-d and there is no break, but we have to relearn to find our way as the material overlays and hides our own g-dliness from us. But I do believe individual awareness is not retained upon merging back. We are here and elsewhere we manifest to experience and learn and return to The All with the experience innate to us.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:15 pm**

Menolly: I think of the Universe as being more than just Nature -- more than just the material world that we can perceive. I think that's where the difference lies.

Fist: I assume you think reincarnation is bullhockey?

Vraith: I don't think I would even go so far as to say there's a barrier. Hmm. Let's try this: Let's imagine the Universe (my definition, dammit!

) as a web. As a human, I have been granted a smidgen of that web. It's sort of, uh, implanted in me. And it's not like I'm a fly on the web either.

(One of you smart-butts was gonna come up with that, sooner or later, I just know it.

)

My smidgen of the web isn't detached, and has never been detached. Everything else in the Universe has a smidgen of the web, also. I can affect some of the stuff that goes on around me, but as a human, I can't control the whole web -- it's far too vast. So the Universe is in me, but I am not God. I cannot be God.

Another name for that smidgen of web that's in me is soul, or Spirit, or what-have-you. Tapping into it is the province of spirituality/religion.

If there's a barrier between my smidgen of web and the rest of the web, it's only one of consciousness vs. subconsciousness. Ego vs., uh, id? superego? Kind of?

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:17 pm**

Aliantha,

Not exactly. There is nothing wrong with the pleasures of the flesh in their proper context. For example food should be enjoyed but not to the level of gluttony. Rest is important but not to the level of slothfulness. Sex is fine but lust for the sake of lust is not. In other words the pleasures, in their proper context, are fine. Othodoxy is not all asceticism.

Kevin's Watch

"made in God's image"

"made in God's image"