Reality in a Metaphysical Model

By Nickson Sylvestre
Contents
Introduction
A very brief History of Science
An Introduction to SPL (Spirito-Physical Linguistic)
he !isdo" #f $abbalah
%en and SPL
Abstract: Reality is Perceptual in nature, and from that concept, we can
deduce that it is also a Lanuae! Anythin that is real is known to be real
throuh some form of Perception whatsoever! Perception tends to
"nterpretation! #verythin that is perceived is bein perceived by the
brain$%ind &or conitive function'! "t is pure "nformation interpreted by said
(onitive )unction &or %ind'! *hat bein said, "nterpretation has to do with
%eanin! *hus, Reality is Semantical by nature! And the "nformation that is
bein processed &or transduced' has to be structured or such "nformation has
no meanin whatsoever! #ro, Reality is Syntactic! )rom Synta+ and
Semantic, we deduce that Reality is a Lanuae! But, which Lanuae, *he
study of Reliion and Science shows that there are - kinds of Lanuaes:
.ne is Physical Lanuae &PL'///which usualy tend to Science and
%athematics! Another one is Spiritual or Non/Physical Lanuae &SL'///
which usually tend to Reliion and %ysticism! #ro, the SPL &Spirito/
Physical Lanuae'! "n this material, Reality is presented throuh the Lenses
of a new system////a %etaphysical one termed :0 SPL0 &Spirito/Physical
Linuistic'! Althouh part of a much loner work, this material tends to
show how SPL is conceived and how it relates to Reality &includin the
many different Reliion and Science'!
Introduction
Since there was man on #arth &to not say since the Beinnin of *ime', our
race has wondered about the mystery of the 1niverse, man has tried to
define Reality usin the many different tools that was available to him &at
the time'! 2et, to this moment, we seem to not have a framework within
which we can , with absolute certainty, say that this is how Reality is
defined! And one has to wonder if///for all that lon we have been e+plorin
&in terms of (oncepts' Reality///we have not had it &referin to the
framework within which Reality can be safely defined' and yet not reali3in
it &labelin it Pseudoscience or worst 0%ysticism'!
4owever, if we don5t now have a framework to describe or define Reality, it
isn5t for lack of tryin! Science has done the most that it could do to provide
such a framework! %ostly in relation to Physics &or what we refer to most of
the time as %odern Physics'! 0"f " have been able to see so far, it is because "
was standin on the shoulders of the iants0 &"5m pretty sure "5m
paraphrasin here, but whatever!!!'! *his reminds us of "saac Newton! A
enius that he was, he contributed to our 1nderstandin of the 1niverse! "n
fact, even today, with our most advanced technoloy, we have to use
Newton5s laws of motion and 6ravity to send someone on the %oon!
*he story of the fallen Apple! Nope, not the one with Adam and #ve &don5t
know who ave us that idea the tree of 7nowlede of ood and evil was an
apple anyway'! No, "t is a reference to the one that Newton is famous for!
)rom a fallin apple, the story has it, Newton was able to deduce &usin
%athematics, of course///even a special kind of %athematics developped by
him: "nfinitesimal Analysis' that the same law or force that5s causin the
apple to fall most be same one overnin the motion of all the Solar System
&and beyond'! *his Law or )orce, he called: 06ravity0!
6ravity then, became the new Reality *heory &so to speak', because from
that simple Law or )orce, 4e &Newton ' developped a complete &ish' theory
as to how the (elestial Bodies move within space! *hat ave Newton the
title of 0*he Last %aician0, because he did somethin "mpossible! )rom
one simple concept he derived a complete (elestial mechanic!
But that wasn5t enouh! Althouh an e+ceptional %aician, Newton failed to
e+plain how ravity was .peratin within space &as in what was the medium
throuh which 6ravity was affectin bodies within space'! Actually no, he
proposed a medium throuh which 6ravity affects bodies within space! *hat
medium was that which that was already known and accepted by the many
saes and scientists of the time namely: *he A#ther!
A very brief History of Science
Now this is a sub8ect that has been around for times ao! At some point, man
believed that nature could be describd in terms of 9 elements &#arth, )ire,
Air, and :ater' surpassed by one elemen &we could call it a %eta/element or
Super/element' known as the Aether///which was known to hold all 9 in
e;uilibrium! "t is this Aether that was believed to have been the medium
throuh which thins are connected, and the medium throuh which 6ravity
was affectin bodies within Space! *his could all be okay, but, it isn5t! *ruth
bein told, the Aether has never had empirical evidence! .f course, for the
four, it was somewhat different, for to some measure they could be
empirically demonstrated! But the Aether itself was never empirical!
Newton, however, did not stop here in his thouhts! 4e concluded that
6ravity was affectin bodies within space throuh the Aether! *hat was one
thin! 4e also believed that his model was not to be thouht as e+plainin
why thins were the way they were! 4e was simply e+posin the mechaninc
throuh which everythin seemed to be workin! *hat much he said: 6od
was the one *rue Power behind it all! *hat it wasn5t throuh the means of
Self/%aintenance that 6ravity was operatin! 6od was behind it all!
Newton5s problem was not 8ust the idea of the Aether as a solution for a
medium throuh which 6ravity must act, it was also the "dea that time was
constant everywhere in the 1niverse!
Now, as mentioned before, Newton5s model is stil bein used until today! "t
is the same system that is bein used everytime we send man on the %oon!
But as we see, the system was limited as it was incapable of providin a
complete framework that would e+plain not 8ust how 6ravity was affectin
bodies throuh Space, but perhaps, how it was doin it within *ime!
4ence, came a youn enius known as: Albert #instein!
#instein came with a rather unusual *heory: 0Relativity0! "n his *heory,
#instein took - thins &with the word thins bein conceptual here' that
were thouht to be separated in Newton5s model and combined them as one,
namely: 0Space and *ime0///ero, the Space/*ime continuum! "n providin
such a model, #instein didn5t 8ust ift us with a Relativistic system, he
showed us that #verythin we thouht to be true was not, that the model of
Reality we thouht we were livin in was not complete and that 0There were
more things in Heaven and Earth than that we dreamt of in our Philosophy
(science)0!
Althouh it was already known before #instein that there was a certain
Relativity in Space &as in the fact that some ob8ect could seem bier and
different in color in relation to how far from or how close to the observer
they are'///this was known as Perspective/// #instein5s Relativity put it a
very bi step further! "t suested that *ime and Space &as in Space/*ime'
were Relative to the e+periencer! 4owever, #instein5s Relativity was
6eometric &as in it was e+ternal' and was not attributed to Perception itself
&as in (onitive'!
.ne would now think that 6eneral Relativity or 6R would have scattered
our view of Reality for ood, as if there was no more surprise! *hen came
<uantum %echanic or <%! Now that5s a theory that could be e;uali3ed to
:onderland///where up is down and down is up! "t basically 8ust break your
world apart!
<% deals with the "nfinitely small aspect of Reality///somethin that has
been hinted by #instein5s Special Relativity! "n this "nfinitely small aspect of
Reality, thins are not as you would think they5d be! )or as 6R proposes a
world that is predictable &with specifics sets of rules when understood
properly allow one to make ood prediction', <% shows that Reality is not
as predictable as we would e+pect! "n fact, it shows that everythin in this
"nfinitely small aspect of Reality can be reduced to probabiblity!
#instein himself couldn5t et his head around that idea! 4e said: 06od
doesn5t play dice0! 4is vision of a predictable 1niverse 8ust ot shattered in
pieces by <%!
And then there was this concept of 0Liht wave$particle0!
"n terms of Binary Loic &or any Binary system', a thin can eitheir be = or
>! #ven in this Relative world that #instein had 8ust presented, such concept
was still true! A *hin is eitheir = or >! And yet, in this new, rather cra3y
theory that we call <% &short for <uantum %echanic', when it comes down
to the basic stuff that Reality is made of, as in a Liht///which presumably
could be eitheir a wave or a particle///in turns out that it5s both 0wave and
particle0! "t all depends on the observer! "f the observer e+pect a wave, thus
he$she shall see! "f the observer e+pect a particle, thus he$she shall see!
1nless there is an observer to make the liht wave$particle eitheir a wave or
a particle, this liht wave$particle e+ist only in terms of possibility!
Now the ;uestion remains: 04ow does one harmoni3e the view of 6R that
could be termed 5?eterministic5 with the view of <% that can be termed
5Nondeterministic5,0
*he doin of that would imply &accordin to some' creatin a *heory of
#verythin &*.#'! But a *heory of #verythin is supposed to be e+avtly
that: A *heory of #verythin! *hat is somethin that we don5t have yet!
*hen came Strin *heory! Now! Strin *heory presents itself as the most
capable &so most people think' *heory of #verythin that we have at the
moment! "t reduces Reality in terms of #neretic Strins! "t says that Reality,
as it is, is at its basis a symphony of vibratin strins! Basically, each strin
is vibratin in a certain manner, and the manner in which a strin is vibratin
creates a certain particle in the 1niverse! Now that is very similar to the "dea
of the :ord that created everythin in the Bible!*his is, in a way, ;uite
interestin!
But Strin *heory itself cannot be considered as a *heory of #verythin! "f
anythin, Strin *heory is a *heory of #very Physical thin!As for 4ow did
Perception came to be, Strin *heory has not answered that yet! Althouh it
has answered the 04ow0 ;uestion, Strin *heory has not answered the
0:hy0 ;uestion yet! :hat is meant by that, is that Strin *heory has not
been able to answer 0:hy the strins are vibratin the way they are
vibratin,0///as in 0:ho or :hat set the rules by which they are vibratin,0!
4ence entered the (*%1!
*he (*%1 &short for (onitive/*heoretic %odel of the 1niverse' is a
*heory developed by (hristopher %ichael Lanan that tends to define the
relationship that the %ind has with Reality! "n its basic principles, it says that
%@R &as in %ind e;uals Reality principles'! #ro, the name (onitive/
*heoretic %odel of the 1niverse!
Put simply, (*%1 says that Reality is Self/(aused or Self/(reated!
Basically, what it is sayin is that the very Prime %over or (reator of
Reality would be Reality itself!
:hy,
:ell, if Reality is defined as 0All that is real, and only that which that is
real0! any first cause or Prime %over$(reator would have to be inside of
Reality itself! )or if anythin should be real enouh to influence Reality,
such a thin as to be part of Reality! #ro, Reality is Self/(reated!
But how,
"t does so throuh a process called S(SPL &short for Self/(onfiurin Self/
Processin Lanuae'! )irst we start by definin Reality as a Lanuae &we
miht as well call it the Lanuae of 6od'! Notice that Lanuae is
presented here in the sameness as Structured "nformation! "n that case, and
since there is no e+ternal Prime %over$(reator to confiure such a
Lanuae, the Lanuae of Reality is Self/(onfiured! *hen a Lanuae has
to be interpreted, processed, or transduced! Since, accordin to the definition
of Reality, there can5t be any Prime %over or )irst (ause outside of Reality,
Reality as a Lanuae has to be Self/Processed! 4ence the S(SPL &Self/
(onfiurin Self/Processin Lanuae'!
Now obviously, havin stated that Reality includes all that is real and
therefore does not make place for anythin outside of it, it would be
improper to talk about 0:hat e+isted before the 1niverse$Reality,0! )or
before implies *ime! And since *ime is real enouh to influence Reality &on
a certain measure', *ime is part of Reality! #ro, there is no 0Before
Reality0!
So, the ;uestion must be addressed differently: "f we were to remove
everythin that e+ist &includin *ime and Space' what would remain, *he
answer to that is what the (*%1 refers to as >/constraint!
Note that Reality as it is presented in the (*%1 is a Lanuae! Now a
Lanuae has constraints! "n such, the absence of a Lanuae &in this case
the absence of Reality' is >/constraint! *his could be e+pressed this way:
0L@constraint, Not/L@>/constraint0!
*his >/constraint state is also known as 1nbound *elesis &or 1B* for short'
in the (*%1! "t is in many ways similar to what the 7abbalists call 0#in
Sof0 meanin 0*he #ndless0! Perhaps, the Sinularity! *imeless, Spaceless,
and ?imensionless! Some even call it the Nothinness!
Now by Nothin, one has to understand that it isn5t really Nothin! "t is
Nothin in the sense of 0Not/a/thin0 or 0No/thin0! Simply put &if you can
call that simple' it is Nothin with the potential for somethin
"t would be improper to not mention the fact that scientists were not the first
to have tempted the idea of definin RealityA way before that, the masters
and saes have done so &in many different ways'!
*hus the idea that " wanted to come to throuh this whole paper! By readin
this whole paper up to this point, one may or may not notice that this idea
have been hinted on many levels! " have hinted the fact that there are some
similarities between some scientific notions or concepts or facts &whatever
works better' and many different concepts in reliion and mysticism///even
what may be considered by some to be 0Pseudo/Science0!
*he reason for that///that is before " o into showin you how this works///is
because of that simple &yet almost unnoticed' system known as 0SPL0 &short
for Spirito/Physical Linuistic'! *he SPL could be seen as a %etaphysical
System that can be used to analy3e virtually anythin! "t is a system based
on (omparative *heoloy and (omparative Philosophy &that would include
Philosophy of Science meanin also (omputer Science, and Philosophy of
%ind as in Psycholoy'! "n respect to that, SPL says that everythin is at its
basis a SPL &short for Spirito/Physical Lanuae'! :hat that means is that
everythin in Reality can be described in terms of - kinds of Lanuae :
0Spiritual Lanuae &SL' and Physical Lanuae &PL'0! *hat is to say that
down to its essence, Reality is simply a Lanuae &8ust like the (*%1
seems to say' and that the many aspects of it that seem to be so different
have to do with 0"nterpretation0///8ust a matter of Perception!
An Introduction to SPL (Spirito-Physical Linguistic)
As mentioned before, SPL describes Reality in terms of - kinds of
Lanuaes: 0Spiritual Lanuae &SL' and Physical Lanuae &PL'0! *hat
bein said, SPL descirbes those - Lanuaes as imaes of each other! *hat is
to say that &PL' is the imae of &SL' and &SL' is the imae of &PL'! .ne
could think of it like /Infinite reflectin BInfinite and both bein connected
throuh > & with > bein the neutral aspect of the model'! "n respect to that,
Lanuae &L' would be the neutral aspect connectin &SL' and &PL'!
*o make thins a little simpler, let5s show how SPL approaches the (*%1!
)rom the "dea of S(SPL that Reality turns out to be &based on the
description of the (*%1', we derive 6.? &6lobal .rderly ?efinor'! )or it
would appear that the (onitive function of Reality that is at the basis of
Reality bein a S(SPL is also Self/?istributed within the whole of Reality!
?ue to the nature of the S(SPL, it possesses characteristics that are
e;uivalent to the *heoloical )ashion concepts of 0.mniscience,
.mnipresence, and .mnipotence0! #ro, 6.?!
7abbalah seems to be sayin the same thin!
*he SPL says that the 1nbound *elesis or 1B* within which 6.? or the
S(SPL seems to be e+istin is the same as the #in Sof &or #ndless' of the
7abbalists within which 6od or the :ord &Loos' seems to be e+istin! As it
is written: 0:ith a Beinnin it created 6od, the 4eavens and the #arth
&Bereshit Bara #lohim et 4ashamayim vet 4a5aret3'0! *hus we ask, 0:hat is
this 5it5 that created 6od,0
0"t0, it turns out, is the #in Sof! *herefore we have, 1B* or #in Sof, 6.? or
6od, and S(SPL or the :ord$Loos!
:hat does SPL say about 6od,
SPL says that 6od is Loical Necessity! .f course, this has to do with a
definition of 6od! "f 6od is defined as the hihest form of e+istence, we can
admit &throuh loical reasonin' that in the evolutionary chain of e+istence,
there must be a hihest form! #ro, 6od! "f 6od is defined as the
(reator$Prime mover$)irst (ause, we can admit &throuh loical reasonin'
that considerin the law of (ause and #ffect &as in (ausality', there must be
a first cause! #ro, 6od! .f course, there is this idea of (ausality that oes
indefinitely into the past &as in sayin No first cause'! *hat also doesn5t
prevent 6od to be! 6od is also defined as bein #ternal &ero "nfinite'! "n
such, 6od e+ist!
But as mentioned by the (*%1, there can5t be any first cause outside of
Reality! *his is due to the definition of Reality itself! *herefore, any first
cause to Reality has to be within Reality itself///it has to be part of Reality!
0#hyeh Asher #hyeh &" am that " am'0! "n this statement, 6od defines his
e+istence as bein e+istence itself! *his could be stated this way: 0" e+ist
because " e+ist0! *hat is to say that there is no way to define me because
there is nothin outside of me to which to compare me, 0" am the Alpha and
the .mea, the Beinnin and the #nd0! *he same could be said of Reality!
2ou can5t define Reality because there is nothin outside of Reality to which
to compare it! *hus, Reality is Self/?efined!!!and so is 6od!
6od, however, is a &SL'///as in a Spiritual Lanuae! By Spiritual, what is
meant is Non/Physical! "n such, the SL implies no/restriction! *hat has to do
with the fact that &PL'///as in Physical Lanuae///has to do with
restrictions! laws and principles actin within Space/*ime continuum! :ith
&SL' on the other hand, there is no Space/*ime! *hat necessarily means that
everythin &so to speak' within &SL' is 8ust one thin! 0Adonai #chad &*he
Lord is .ne'0!
*hus, one can say that &SL' deals with Absolute Reality, while &PL' deals
with Relative Reality &so to speak'! .ne has to do with (onception////that is
respectively &SL'///the other has to do with Perception///that is respectively
&PL'! Now, what happen is that when facin with the truth of concepts, our
mind does it by interpretin it in terms of Perceptive Reality! #ro, Anels
and ?emons and other kinds of Spirits! )or Spirit is .ne! *here is no
separation, for there is no Space within which separation would be defined!
*hus, no *ime too! So, whatever is bein perceived is nothin but an
interpretation of somethin///the word somethin bein used vauely///
conceptual!
*he ;uestion that comes now &amon many " miht add' is: 0:hat of the
?evil now,0
)airly enouh, if 6od is the Alpha and *he .mea, the Beinnin and the
#nd, and since nothin can e+ist outside of the Beinnin and the #nd, it is
only loical to say that the ?evil e+ist within 6od! :e already know that
6od, Anels and ?emons &Spirits in eneral' are part of the &SL' and that
there is no separation in the &SL'! *here, everythin is .ne and can only be
(onceptuali3ed!
0I have created Good and Evil0 &" may be paraphrasin here too'!
SPL is based on a simple idea, and " think Rav Shaul &*he Apostle Paul' said
it better: 0If there is a Physical body, there is also a piritual !ody0!"n fact,
7abbalah///which is part of the 4ebraic System///is based on the same
principle of SPL! *he whole :isdom itself refers to the idea of Lanuae as
a definin aspect of Reality! 0As above So below0!
.f course, SPL is not mentioned by name throuhout 7abbalah &mostly
because the term itself is new', but the footprint is there!
:hat SPL is sayin is that Science and Reliion are not that different! *he
only difference e+ist in Lanuae! Science leans toward &PL', Reliion leans
toward &SL'! .ne is more likely to see the difference between Science and
Reliion when one has otten attached to the Lanuae instead of the
essence of the thin the Lanuae is describin! *hus SPL says that when
one oes beyond Lanuae, truth reveals itself! .ne can, thus, reali3ed that
everythin is in fact .N#! As lon as one is not willin to see that an Anel
is nothin but a conceptual aspect of 6od &therefore, an aspect of Reality',
one is still oin to keep on aruin the e+istence of an Anel as a
Supernatural bein &person' standin ne+t to one! *his is the part that
Science has trouble with!
:ith respect to that, is Science riht or Reliion is,
:ell, why not both, "s it so impossible to imaine both bein riht, (ould it
not be that way,
*he problem is not that it can5t, but that we5ve otten too attached with
terminoloy instead of that which the terminoloy is referin to! "nstead of
seein the moon the finer is pointin at, we are more concerned with the
finer! *herefore, we miss the truth! But truly, the truth is in the profane and
the profound! "n the same way 6od is in the profane and the profound! "f one
cannot see 6od in both the profane and the profound, one is missin half of
the story!
:ith respect to that, SPL says that Reality is dual! .f course, in its basic
aspect Reality is a %onad &.ne'! But, in terms of Relativity, Reality is ?ual!
And that5s where thins et interestin because Reality is also a *riad! *hat
is somethin that is Perceived///or conceived &for that matter'///when
considerin the idea of dual!
*hink of 4ere and *here, as an e+ample! 4ere and *here represent the idea
of ?uality a we know it! But between 4ere and *here, there is the Space/in/
between that holds them! "t is the neutral connector mentioned earlier, as in
/Infinite and BInfinite connected by >! "t is this Space/in/between that breaks
the world apart! )or once one reali3es that the Space/in/between or for
simpler term the neutral connector is of >/value, one also reali3es that that
which this connector hold toether is also of >/value &this will be e+plained
in a more detailed and deeper work'! *he same is true for the SPL! "t holds
that Reality can be defined this way: .n one side there is the Physical
Lanuae &PL', on another side there is the Spiritual Lanuae &SL' or Non/
Physical Lanuae, and they are both held toether by Lanuae or the
%etaphysical! .nce we reali3e that Lanuae is Perceptual in nature///that is
that it is open to "nterpretation///we also reali3e that the whole of Reality
e+ist in the same manner &Perceptual'!
As we5ve mentioned before, Reality is based on (omparative *heoloy and
(omparative Philosophy! "n order to understand it clearly and completely, an
e+position of some of the many different Philosophies and *heoloies that
SPL is based on is necessary! And what better way to start than with the one
that is closer than ever to what SPL says, #ro, 7abbalah!
he !isdo" #f $abbalah
)irst we start by askin the obvious ;uestion: 0:hat is 7abbalah,0
*he :isdom of 7abbalah is very mystical in nature, and because of that
answers concernin what it is can vary dependin on who5s bein asked the
;uestion! But one thin that is sure about 7abbalah is its #tymoloycal
definition!
7abbalah, in 4ebrew is a derivation of the :ord 07abal0 &kbl' meanin 0*o
Receive0! "n respect to that, 7abbalah means the same thin 0*o Receive0 or
0Reception0! Automatically, one miht think and ask 0*o receive what,0 and
0)rom who,0!
7abbalah can be described in terms of C concepts: 0A 6iver, A 6ift, and A
Receiver0! "t is mostly refered to in terms of what it isn5t! As an e+ample,
7abbalah is not a system! "t isn5t a doma! "t isn5t a reliion! "t isn5t a cult! "t
isn5t a philosophy! "n respect to many thins, 7abbalah can be considered a
Science! But, because of the nature of 7abbalah and the Aspect of Reality
that it seems to be interested in, 7abbalah is mostly refered to as 0*he
:isdom of 7abbalah0 instead of 0*he Science of 7abbalah0!
7abbalah oes beyond that which that is perceivable and study Reality
throuh the lenses of that which that is conceptual or conceivable! People
who study 7abbalah and achieve its hihest oal are called 7abbalists!
"t is said that the first 7abbalist was Avraham &Abraham'! 4e was the first to
have pierced the Nature of Reality and have past it onto his son "saac
&2itchak'! "saac did the same and past it onto his son Dacob &2akov'! Dacob
did the same and past it onto his sons and it went on throuh "srael!
And then there was %oses &%oshe'! 7abbalah says that the *orah is a
7abbalistic work! 0%oshe kbl 4a *orah &%oses received the *orah'0! "n
fact, it says that there are - kinds of *orah: 0*he written *orah &as in the E
books of %oses' and the Spoken *orah &as in the *orah or 7abbalah that has
been past on throuh enerations as a tradition'0! *his e+plains the reason
why a careful readin of the *orah miht show some inconsistencies or
missin information!
7abbalists hold that every aspect of Reality is concealed, and that it is up to
the 7abbalist to decode it! 6/d himself is concealed in 7abbalah! :ith
respect to that, it is always written with a missin 0o0! *he very first verse in
the Bible &*orah' challenes our understandin of 6od! "t5s read like this: 0"n
the Beinnin 6od created the 4eavens and the #arth0! But kabbalah says
that this readin of it miht be wron! Because of the %ystical aspect of the
4ebrew Lanuae, every 4ebrew word may have more than one meanin,
and may reflect aspect of 4iher Reality than that which that is known to us
today! 0Bereshit Bara #lohim et 4ashamayim vet 4a5Aret3 &:ith a
Beinnin it (reated 6od, the 4eavens and the #arth'0! *his is one way that
this verse miht be read! *he first thin that comes to mind then is: 0:hat is
this it that created 6od,0! *he answer to that is 0#in Sof &*he #ndless'0! "n
which case, 6od would be an aspect of #in Sof///somethin that is
Perceptual$(onceptual in nature, somethin that is open to "nterpretation!
&in Sof in $abbalah
"n God is a "erb Rabbi ?avid A! (ooper says that The Idea of Ein of was
first described by the twelfth#century $abbalist, Isaac the !lind &don5t know
if he was really blind or not'! He taught that Ein of precedes thought
(machshavah), and it even precedes the %othingness (ayin) out of which
thought is born& %othingness is viewed as a level of awareness that is the
result of the 'annihilation of thought'&
By its nature, #in Sof is a parado+! As Rabbi ?avid (ooper put it, (s
Infinity is beyond the imagination, what about that which transcends
Infinity###that which created it) Ein of is not 'restricted' by Infinity&
Indeed, we have suddenly run out of words because the idea of 'trans#
infinite' is a logical absurdity& *hat can go beyond Infinity) +oreover, what
can go beyond the %othingness that surrounds Infinity)This is Ein of&
'od and $abbalah
7abbalah says that 6od is not what we think he is! "n fact, we shouldn5t even
call him 04e0 or 0She0! 6od has no ender! Some even refer to 6od as it!
But even that is not appropriate! 6od is not a 0"t0! 6od is the aspect of #in
Sof that we can work with! :e shouldn5t even try to understand or define
6od! 6od is the .nly definor! "n fact, 6od is Self/?efined! 0#hyeh Asher
#hyeh &" am the " am'! *his is what 6od said about 4imself in the Bible!
0Bereshit Bara #lohim et 4ashamayim vet 4a5Aret3 &:ith a Beinnin 5it5
created 6od, the 4eavens and the #arth'0! *hen we ask: 0:hat is this 5it5 that
created 6od,0! *he answer to that turns out to be 0#in Sof0! *hen we ask:
0"sn5t 6od Self/(ontained,0! *o that, the answer is 02es and No0! No
because, as it is stated, that which we call 6od is created by 0it0 &as in #in
Sof'! 2es because 6od, as we know it, is an aspect of #in Sof! :hat is,
therefore, meant by 0it created 6od0 is that the aspect of #in Sof that we5ve
come to know as 6od has come to e+ist with creation! :ithout creation,
there is no 6od! 6od is only 6od in relation to somethin else, 8ust like a
)ather is only a )ather in relation to a child! *he same can be said of a
(reator! :ithout a (reation, there is no (reator!
%en and SPL
Fen, 8ust like 7abbalah, can be difficult to define &especially in relation to its
%ystical aspect'! Because of this, one may find many definitions concernin
it based on who5s bein asked the ;uestion &or who5s bein asked to defined
it'! 4owever, it can be defined very simply in relation to its simple/minded
oal! *he oal of Fen is Non/?uality also known as Nirvana///a state of
complete .neness with everythin! "n this state, one reali3es that All is one
and .ne is All! "n respect to that, Fen Students as well as Fen %asters say
that Fen is not a doma! Fen is not a Reliion! Fen is not a Philosophy! Fen
is not a sect! Fen is not a cult! Fen is in a sense %editation//the kind of
%editation that leads to 1ltimate truth! Such 1ltimate truth is known as
Absolute! As Reality is ?ual and Relative in Nature, the truth upon which
Reality is based is Absolute and Non/?ual! A Fen %aster miht say that Fen
is that which that leads to the 1ltimate Reali3ation: 0Self/Reali3ation0! "n
that moment, one reali3es that the Self and Reality are not separated &that
there is no Separation'! "n that moment, one finally knows Relaity for what
it really is: 0Self and .neness0!
(irvana and &in Sof and then so"e
"f one simply look on the internet for a simple research on Nirvana, the
definition that is iven si breathtakinly similar to or can be associated with
the idea of #in Sof that we5ve already established! An article on :ikipedia
&hopefully the readers appreciate :ikipedia' puts it this way: 0In the
!uddhist conte,t nirvana refers to the imperturbable stillness of mind after
the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally e,tinguished& In
Hindu philosophy, it is the union with the divine ground of e,istence
!rahman (upreme !eing) and the e,perience of blissful egolessness&0
Brahman, in many ways, can be seen as the same as #in Sof! Dust like #in
Sof Brahman is "nfinite to the point that even the word "nfinite cannot
ade;uately define it! Brief, Brahman cannot be defined nor conptuali3ed!
#ro, the many different ods in 4induism! #ach one of them is an aspect of
Brahman///one that can be conceptuali3ed and understood! "n respect to that,
Brahman also e+ist in sameness with 1B* &1nbound *elesis'! *ruth bein
told, based on that simple definition of Nirvana, many correlations can be
noticed between Nirvana and many different concepts in so many other
Reliions! As an e+ample, in many ways, Nirvana can also be understood as
4eaven or even the idea of the 4oly/Spirit inhabitin man!
%en Language
*he Fen master will use whatever Lanuae that would et the messae
across! "t does not matter if one is Buddhist or (hristian or Dewish! "t does
not matter what Lanuae or concept one is more comfortable with!
:hatever works, the Fen %aster will use! .ne should not attach oneself to
words or a particular verbiae! "f one ets attached to verbiae or Lanuae,
one miht end up focusin on the finer instead of the moon to which the
finer is pointin at! :ords are noises, utterances interpreted by one5s
brain$%ind! *his is one concept or notion that the SPL seems to be
promotin &so to speak'! "f one were to o beyon words and verbiae and
Lanuae, one would find truth for what it really is, one would find Nirvana!
"f one can o beyond words, one would be able to see Allah as 24G4 and
Brahman for #in Sof! "t does not matter what we call it or term it! "t only
matters what it is in essence!
Acknowledgement:
*he Author, now, wish to thank the many friends who have ivin him their
time & not only in readin the many ideas that are presented here///however
incomplete they miht be, but' in discussin these many ideas and e+plorin
the many concepts that are presented here! Althouh not all of them will be
mentioned here by name &if any', some have been very helpful in bein
open/minded! A special thanks o to 6arysson Sylvestre for presentin a
definition of Fen in the most simplest form possible! Another thank you also
o to ?8ohndel and Steeve for their time and "maination in pushin these
ideas further and e+plorin different aspects of Reality that may have not
been e+plored before!
References)(otation
?ue to the way this document has been put toether, it would be really
difficult &if not "mpossible' to ive a reference for each pae in this
contenance! )or that, the Author apoloi3e sincerely! 4owever, althouh not
in order, references concernin the contenance of this document will be
presented here for your deliht &as in the readers' and curiosity, and probably
for the need of verifyin the claims made by this document!
(onversations with 6od &*riloy'
*he (onitive/*heoretic %odel of the 1niverse: A new kind of Reality
*heory
= (or! =E: 99
6od is a Gerb: 7abbalah and the Practice of %ystical Dudaism
6enesis =: =
Dohn =: =
Psalms H-: I
"saia 9E:J
6enesis =:C
6enesis =: =9/=K
#+odus C: =9
Revelation --:=C
Dewish 7abbalah %editation from *orah
to Self/improvement to Prophecy