Of Oneness with All

As it is said and explained thus, from all the variety of religions, God can be said to have explained its own existence – because he is perfect. And therefore we draw from this, mathematically speaking, that he be un-derived. This is the premise that leads to fundamental dichotomies, of the absurdity of all things. Yet, as outrageous this may sound, but it nevertheless gives me greater pursuit for the understanding of the nature of all things.

I have come to understand that if God be un-derived, since he alone explains his every attribute, then, in effect, we cannot even subscribe the name God to him. Nor can we use any pronoun for him – including him. For to do so would be to make God be derived from the word ‘God’, and the word ‘him’, and then, thus, to make him imperfect. Yet, I cannot say that he is either perfect or imperfect, for, in doing so, it would cause God to be a derivative of these two essences. In this way, we cannot describe God. For if he is to be perfect – and therefore be un-derived – God is not perfect or imperfect. God is also neither mysterious nor innately coherent. God is neither something nor nothing. And God is neither everything nor no other. And in conclusion, God neither exists nor is non-existent.

And so, if God is perfect, innately coherent and therefore in itself true, or be un-derived, then he cannot be perfect. Because the very act of making him inertly derived makes him unexplainable – and yet saying this makes him, again, derivative of being unexplainable. It seems as if that whatever I say about God, this something-ness and yet nothingness, is utterly meaningless and unutterable.

Perhaps this was what was meant by Jesus and all the other saints when they said that they were God. For if everything that which they said were true, or beyond reasonable doubt, then they are by reason perfect. And if this is so, then their reason is self-derived, and requires no other to prove those reasons – for they are rational axioms. Then, this reason becomes both imperfect and yet perfect, because it is un-derived, and therefore cannot be derived from either the sense of perfection or imperfection of rationality. Neither are they meaningful nor meaningless. It is a dichotomy of reality they accept, and therefore seek nothing and yet have everything all at once. Then, they can be rich and yet poor at the same time. Strangely, then, to call themselves God is to defeat the very purpose of saying so. For if those of which that are un-derived are necessarily perfect, then all reason or irreason breaks down into something-ness or nothing-ness. The pursuit of perfection is thus flawed to end in itself, since perfection comes to a halt where all opposites are true and yet false at the same (or even different) time. Perhaps this was why those saints by reason threaded the life of lifelessness, to live in a social world yet be unsociable, to seek life but want for death to come. This is the ultimatum of pall perfection, if perfection means to be un-derived.

And yet, it seems, then, that the idea of being un-derived as perfect and yet imperfect is both refuted against and proved for. We can neither disprove this proposition by argument through contradiction, nor prove via inference or deduction. Indeed, this idea is alien to both irreason and reason. Therefore, to say anything as perfect is therefore to say that is it both perfect and imperfect. Where perfection comes, it seems that it is simpler for the non-existence of something and nothingness itself. And yet, ironically, this argument exists.

This is the singular point where all religions unite. To hold and be held responsibility unto oneself, to be accountable for and from one’s self, to exist for and in it is viewed as the ultimatum of perfection itself. And thus to live in a secular society is thus mimicking the best of perfection, since no religion is truer than the other, other than the rituals and derivative beliefs they each individually hold.

But I ask why, in the first place, be being un-derived considered as perfect? The greatest irony to this question is that I am baffled. Since this is the most begging of questions, an answer that is beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily follows. Yet, if this be coherent in reason, and therefore perfect, then I cannot give an answer. This is what I meant by the strangeness of what is thought to be perfect.

However, since it is simpler for the non-existence for something and nothingness itself, and yet that we obviously exist, then our existence is necessarily imperfect – that we are derived from other things, that all things that exists are a result of other existing things and this follows for all eternity. It follows, then, that if God’s nature was to reflect upon known reality, and that since reality is imperfect, then God himself is imperfect. And thus if only reality and God exist, and that both are imperfect, then one is a derivative of the other, in such a way that they become complementary to one another – being not derived from each other. They become contingent upon each other for their own existence, thus unified into one total reality of all what that which exists. God and reality become as one – a super-reality.

For those mathematics students, it would be the same as saying that reality and God are both e^x, in such a way that both are derivative of each other, forming no greater no smaller authority with each other – that are essentially the same!

Then, if God and reality were similar, then it makes no difference to do away with God, since God is essentially reality, and that reality is essentially God. For, in doing so, we make things contained within reality derivative of other things within reality – though we keep in mind that both God and reality remain derivative unto one another. And yet here, in my point that follows from the above, a sense of strangeness is felt. For if God were imperfect, and if reality considered independently were innately following cause-effect laws, then God’s attributes must be derivative of other known attributes, which are in all derivative of reality, and vice versa.

Therefore, when we observe nature we observe God, and that when we observe God we observe nature. This is all in such way that if we observe natural coherence among all things contained within reality, we are in actual fact observing the eternal decree God has put forth unto reality. And when we come to understand God’s unbroken will, we understand the path of nature. As I said, both are complementary to one another. We are as One.