On God and Ultimate Reality
Who or What is Behind it All?
The Divine has been historically conceptualized in multiple ways. These conceptions, in turn, have implications for how we see ourselves, the world we live in, and even for how we should live. The tension between absolute Unity and Multiplicity underlies them all.
One of the main functions of traditional symbolism is to disclose who or what God or the highest Principle of our reality is.
This, in turn, depends on the solution we give to what became known as the problem of the One and the Many, or the tension between unity and multiplicity, the universal and the particular. The One understood, not as a numerical and mathematical concept, but as ultimate reality, the underlying Unity behind the apparent multiplicity of our world (for example: God, the Absolute or pure Being). By contrast, the Many refers to all the particular objects or beings that can be found in it.
THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORITY
What is the source of metaphysical knowledge?
It may be viewed as a revelation from God or the gods (for example, via the incarnation of God Himself, avatars or prophets) or the hard-won collective experience of man, obtained through spiritual exercises, ritualistic endeavours or mere human reasoning. These experiences may be obtained with or without the help of psychoactive substances used as a way to shatter the barrier between the different planes of existence.
Further distinctions can be made between worldviews that conceptualize the One as a transcendent entity (eg., monotheistic religions), and the ones that view it as the immanent sum of all the different parts that constitute reality (e.g., Pantheism).
Common questions that underlie this metaphysical problem include: why do we perceive unifying categories in nature (e.g., the “treeness” in all different species of trees) instead of different objects with a vaguely similar collection of characteristics? Is this unity based on categories present in the very structure of the Universe (Universals) or only in the human mind? What is then the origin of these categories?
Why do we experience our consciousness as a continuous self-awareness, a unity, from cradle to grave? Especially given that we go through states of being that are completely different from each other (e.g., infant and adult). Even the components that form our body, the cells, are replaced in time without our perceived unity being affected in the slightest (the ship of Theseus paradox).
How are different sensorial stimulus integrated into a single consciousness (unity of consciousness problem) and why can some people experience one modality as another (synesthesia)? Does this not speak of an underlying unity?
What is the origin, then, of this underlying unity and stability that we perceive in our reality even though our universe is one of constant flux and change?
Ancient philosophy begins with this question, and it dominated early Greek thought. However, both the philosophy of East and West was dominated by this question. It seems to be the most deeply rooted metaphysical concern of man across the ages.
It even plays a decisive influence in modern physics, with its metaphysical push for finding a unique “Theory of Everything”. This theory, if found, would unify in mathematical language all the basic forces of the Universe. It would be like an intellectual return to the One. But why should there be a single unified theory? There is no scientific reason for reality to necessarily work this way.
We could say that we are hardwired to think about this metaphysical problem. It is a common “metaphysical human instinct”. Even modern science cannot explain the human need to find a solution to it. In fact, it does not make sense to have evolved this recurrent “hardwired metaphysical concern” in a Darwinist evolutionary context.
Why would humanity obsess over an abstract concept that does not increase its chances of survival? In fact, it can reduce them, as men have been willing to lose their life instead of abandoning their deeply felt position on this issue (e.g., martyrs) .Why would men in every corner of the world and throughout history organize their life around a concept that does not increase their “fitness” level to their particular environment, using a Darwinist term?
Regarding these matters, science cannot help us. The scientific method, by definition, cannot provide the answer to any metaphysical concern, while modern Scientism can only explain them away.
1. “The question which haunts the dialectical culture is this: how to have unity without totally undifferentiated and meaningless oneness? If all things are basically one, the differences are meaningless, divisions false, and definitions are sophistications, in that the tyranny, or destiny, of oneness is the truth of all being.
But, if all things are basically many, and if plurality is ultimate, then the world dissolves into unrelated particulars and becomes, as some thinkers insist, not a universe but a multiverse, and every atom is in a sense its own law and being.
The first leads to the breakdown of differences and the liberty of atomistic individualism and particularity; the second is the breakdown of fundamental law into nihilism and the retreat of men and their arts into isolated and private universes”.
― R.J. Rushdoony (
The Consequences of Our Presuppositions Regarding the Problem of the One and the Many
This seems like an abstract problem detached from everyday life. However, as we will see, the presuppositions we hold regarding the dilemma between the One and the Many will determine to a great extent which kind of life we will lead, even if we are not aware of them 1.
For example, do we find the core meaning and value of a particular being to be in its own individuality and idiosyncratic characteristics? Or do we find it in its participation on a basic unified structure? (e.g., a family, a culture, a nation, a religion).
It is the original question, as well as the one on which every other one depends. The solution given to it serves as a foundation upon which all other metaphysical beliefs that constitute a certain worldview are based on.
An Example: Realism and Nominalism
For instance, in worldviews that favour the Many and the value of individuals over an underlying unity, a nominalist position may be more easily held.
Nominalism is the metaphysical view that Universals and abstract objects do not actually exist other than as names or labels arbitrarily created and assigned by human ingenuity.
In views that embrace Nominalism, any unifying reality or concept such as God or the state might be seen as oppressive and limiting to each individual´s intrinsic value and desires. The moral action in these worldviews would be to break free from the perceived tyrant and the radical affirmation of the individual, whatever he might be or represent. A nominalist belief underlies many modern worldviews, including Materialism, Empiricism and Anarchism.
If the value of oneness is emphasized over that of particulars, however, one may be much more inclined to embrace a realist position. According to Realism, Universals exist, and give form to particular aspects of reality. Most traditional worldviews share this belief (e.g., Platonic Realism) and they are usually seen as aspects of the One, or highest reality.
Historical Answers Provided to the Question of the One and the Many
The knowledge transmitted by the various worldviews on this topic is usually related to the concept of number. Are there many gods (Polytheism) or does only an absolute God exist (Monotheism, as for example in Abrahamic religions)?
Answers Based on Prioritizing the Many over the One (or Metaphysical Pluralism)
This is the view that ultimate reality is made of a variety of irreducible entities, gods, laws or principles.
Usually, the existence of many different gods is believed. These can be seen, for instance, in Shamanism and ancient mythological pantheons (for example: the Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman and Norse ones; Japanese Shinto and other animistic worldviews).
Gods tend to be perceived as flawed and similar to human beings, but their good will can be propitiated. They can also be conceived as archetypes or particular aspects of reality. For example, Athena is the goddess of practical reason (also of war and handicraft).
Recurrent symbols of plurality: each god may have his/her own particular symbols. For instance, Mjölnir pendants are symbols of Thor. And the owl, the ever vigilant nocturnal animal that can see in the darkness, is used as one of Athena´s primary symbols.
Figure 1. An owl as a symbol of the goddess Athena in a Greek tetradrachm coin.
Dualistic Worldviews (or Metaphysical Dualism)
A particular case of the belief in ultimate multiplicity, where reality is composed of two primordial aspects or essences. Dualism can be either absolute or relative. In the first form, the two principles are held to exist from eternity. In the second, one of the two principles may presupose or derive from the other.
They can also be classified as antagonistic dualities involving opposites or as complementary ones.
Involving Opposites and Conflict
This is when ultimate reality is believed to be composed of two principles in conflict with each other. This conflict is usually presented in moral terms, such as the battle between good and evil (e.g., Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism). These powers are usually seen as equals and balanced.
Many classic mythologies speak of two primordial principles (e.g., the battle of Marduk and Tiamat in the Babylonian creation myth; Indra´s battle with the demonic serpent Vritra in the Rig Veda). The latter is related to Chaos, night, emptiness, primordial energy or matter, pure possibility. It is usually represented as a dragon, serpent or demonic entity. The former is usually represented by a sky or lightning god, who subdues Chaos and thus becomes capable of bringing creation into being. This hero transforms pure potentiality into actuality.
Another possible way of classifying these types of dualistic views is differentiating between dialectical and eschatological Dualism. The first involves an eternal tension between the two opposed principles. It is usually associated with a cyclical view of time. Eschatological Dualism, in contrast, believes in a final resolution of the conflict at the end of time, with evil disappearing and history having a beginning and an end.
Involving Complementarity
Where two Forces or Principles are the origin of all aspects of reality. They are seen as different halves of the same coin, whose interplay of forces describes everything that is. Examples are Mind and Matter, Spirit and Form (e.g., Platonism, Descartes Mind-Body Dualism, Samkhya school of indian philosophy).
Recurrent symbols of duality: a circle made of black and white halves. The Yin and Yang symbol can be wrongly used for representing duality, because, in Chinese non-dualist thought, Yin and Yang are both said to proceed from the Great Ultimate, Taiji.
Answers Based on Prioritizing the One over the Many (or Metaphysical Monism)
The view that ultimate reality can be reduced to a single substance or essence and the appearance of plurality or multiplicity is only an illusion or a temporal situation that happened after a catastrophic event.
Religious or Theistic Variations
Includes worldviews where a Supreme Being is believed to be the origin and end of all there is. God can be conceived in various ways. In theistic versions of “the One”, God is personal (such as in Islam and certain Hindu sects).
Depending on the worldview at hand, God can be involved with His creation (e.g., Christianity) or detached from it, being a God who does not intervene in the universe after creating it (e.g., Deism).
God can transcend His creation (as in, for example, monotheistic religions). “God” may also be conceptualized as an immanent “deity” identical with the totality of the Universe (Pantheism), or being the totality composed of ultimate reality plus the whole of creation derived from it (Panentheism).
Non-Religious or Atheistic Variations
Where reality can be reduced to only one aspect other than God. This aspect can be material (e.g., primordial matter, atoms, a particular element such as fire or Aether). It can also be immaterial, which can be seen in positions such as “everything is mind, consciousness or soul” (e.g., Panpsychism, Animism).
Ultimate reality may also be an impersonal Force or Principle (e.g., Chaos in older mythologies, the One in Neo-Platonism, Nirvana or emptiness in Buddhism, and most versions of Pantheism / Panentheism).
Recurrent symbols of unity: the Sun and the circled dot.
Figure 2. The circled dot symbolized the Monad or the Absolute for the Pythagoreans and later traditions.
Transcending the Numerical Dialectic of the One and the Many: Non-Duality and the Triune God of Christianity
The above mentioned solutions are dialectical in nature. Either the One or the Many are the ultimate ground of reality. If one is true, the other will necessarily be wrong.
The solutions based on the Many have relatively few followers today. However, the solutions based on the One still place on God or the Highest Principle the limitations of human concepts such as number and the need to follow a particular type of logic (Either/Or). However, God precedes them by definition.
It seems wrong to imagine that limitations pertaining to the human reasoning faculty can be applied to ultimate reality, however we imagine Him/It to be. He created them, so He transcends them. That which is inferior cannot bind that which is superior. Why would the Supreme Reality need to reason in a created (human) way? Either/Or logic may be true in a now dualistic, or “fallen”, world. But does it also have to be the whole truth outside this plane of existence?
Figure 3. Diagram of how the levels of reality can interact with each other. The superior level is the ground and basis of existence of the inferior ones. The latter cannot condition or influence the former.
2. “Nothing of Samsara is different from Nirvana, nothing of Nirvana is different from Samsara. That which is the limit of Nirvana is also the limit of Samsara, there is not the slightest difference between the two.”
― Nagarjuna. In David Loy (1983). “The difference between samsara and nirvana”. Philosophy East and West, p. 355
Believing that the One is the highest reality there is, we believe in the highest concept human reason can conceive. However, man is still a part of a created world currently in a dualistic state. Therefore, he is under the limits of his dialectical (Either/Or) logic.
Without being aware, we are putting our faith in human reason on top of the hierarchy, as we do not allow anything that transcends it to take precedence. The immanent (human reason) is then defining the transcendent (God) when, by definition, the lower levels of existence can only acquire full knowledge regarding the highest level through some type of relevation from above.
There are metaphysical doctrines, however, that state that ultimate reality transcends even the categories of the One and the Many, in one way or another.
These are the Far Eastern concept of Non-Dualism (e.g., Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism) and the Christian Tri-Une God.
There are differences among them, however. Non-dual consciousness teachings state that “Samsara equals Nirvana” 2, which can be translated roughly as “this apparently fallen world is non-other than ultimate reality once correctly understood and experienced”.
The One and the Many are “transcended”, but in an immanent way. This is done by including this “fallen” world into absolute reality, but understood in a different way.
The problem of the One and the Many remains for persons who achieve liberation, however. At a single point in time, enlightened people may either freely roam the different states of being that this reality has to offer or remain “absorbed” into the One.
In Christianity (especially in Orthodox Christianity, with its concept of deification), the Tri-Une God is at the same time One God and Three (Many) Persons. The transcendence of the categories of Unity and Plurality happens at the highest level, that of the Godhead. As a consequence, God does not need to include created reality in Himself in order to transcend them.
In addition, saved persons are believed to be deified instead of liberated, with God becoming “All in all” 3. The problem of the One and the Many, then, is transcended at all levels, with us also partaking of this transcendence. Neither individuality nor oneness are sacrificed.
The Godhead in non-dual solutions remains an absolutely simple unity that can be experienced in multiple ways through the created world once the distinction between object and subject, creator and created is seen to be an illusion. Everything created is a particular mode of existence of the Only Existent.
Figure 4. The most common solutions historically proposed to the dialectical problem of the One and the Many. The standard pluralistic, dualistic and monistic solutions do not transcend this dialectical way of thinking. Non-Dualism might or might not depending on the interpretation, as it is sometimes classified as a type of Panentheism.
In Christianity, however, the Godhead is Tri-Une in itself. The difference between Creator and created is not abolished, but the created is elevated to the stature of the Creator, who loves them in their individuality and difference.
Non-dual teachings are sometimes also understood as panentheistic 4. This is not the case for the Christian God.
Symbols of Non-Dualism: Sri Yantra, mandalas, the Taiji and the Om syllabe and A letter in Hinduism and Dzogchen Buddhism, respectively.
Symbols of the Christian Tri-Une God: the Shield of the Trinity, Borromean rings and the Celtic Trinity knot.
Figure 5. The Shield of the Trinity or Shield of Faith.
3. “Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”
― 1 Corinthians, 15:28. The Bible (New King James Version)
4. “At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience.
Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect.
To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, “panentheism,” according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence.“
― Reverend Zen Master Soyen Shaku (1906). Zen For Americans. The God-Conception Of Buddhism, p.26
Recommended Reading
God, History, and Dialectic. Volume I. Joseph P. Farrell.
NEXT
You can sequentially read the whole foundational and key articles on this website by just following the path below.
Metaphysics:
On Being and Time
On Being and Time
In this article we have analyzed the key question of the One and the Many, on which many of the other traditional metaphysical doctrines depend.
In the next part we will explore the metaphysical beliefs related to Being, the creation of the Universe and the nature of time. We will also see the different doctrines regarding our relationship with God or Ultimate Reality.
