Beyond-Being and Absolute Relativity

A reader asks:

If "infinity is a mode of each of the divine attributes and not a principle from which they are derived," does that not imply that the divine attributes themselves are somehow other than infinite? If so, what could conceivably be antecedent to that which is infinite?

Here I must attempt to read Garrigou-Lagrange's mind, and it's challenging enough to read his writing. However, it seems this touches on the two meanings of infinite mentioned in yesterday's post: yes, the divine attributes are "infinite perfections," but Schuon often uses infinite as synonymous with "All-possibility," that is, with the "radiation" of the Absolute into manifestation:

that is infinite which is not determined by any limiting factor and therefore does not end at any boundary; it is in the first place Potentiality or Possibility as such, and ipso facto the Possibility of things, hence Virtuality. Without All-Possibility, there would be neither Creator nor creation, neither Maya nor Samsara. 

Conversely, G-L very much wants to preserve the absolute freedom of the Absolute to create, whereas Schuon's quasi-emanationism makes it appear almost determined. 

G-L is in agreement with Schuon that "Goodness is essentially communicative; good is diffusive of itself," but he disagrees that God must necessarily create. However, it's unclear if he rejects this for metaphysical or for dogmatic reasons, for he writes that it is the Church that

rejects this doctrine which fails to recognize the absolute freedom of God's creative love and the gratuitous nature of the gifts we have received.

While not strictly necessary, G-L calls it fitting for God to have created us and the world. 

Me? I take an in-between stance, that the Creator must create, but not necessarily this creation, thus preserving both his essential freedom and essential creativity.

The same reader writes that

I’m not sure that Schuon considers Beyond Being to be a ‘separate reality’; rather, it is the highest dimension of the Absolute itself (of which Being is its first ‘auto-determination’, so to speak, and thus already ‘relative’ but not another reality altogether).

This "auto-determination" may go to the same issue just mentioned, i.e., the divine freedom. For example, G-L writes that

A free gift is the more precious according as it is more gratuitous and might as well not have been given. It demands the more gratitude in proportion as it is less due. 

If the creation is a free gift, then it makes no sense that being itself is a kind of compulsory emanation from Beyond-Being. 

As for what goes on beyond being, it seems this goes to the sufficient reason for revelation, for it

supplies what reason could never ascertain. In God [i.e., within the Trinity] there is a supreme and necessary outpouring of Himself. It is the impenetrable mystery of His intimate life and of His interior fecundity...

Note that there is "necessity" within the Godhead, the necessary outpouring of the Son from the Father; but putting it this way doesn't sound quite right, because the necessity must be a consequence of "absolute love," or something, so it's somehow both free and necessary. 

Schuon often compares infinitude to the rays of the sun, but G-L specifically uses that analogy to say what God is not like: 

The supreme Good does not communicate Himself outwardly by a sort of internal necessity, after the manner of the sun which illumines things. His loving goodness is absolutely free.  

What does Bob think? As they say, a philosophy is generally true in what it affirms but false in what it denies. Just because the Church disavows emanationism, this doesn't mean that there is no truth in emanationism. Being, for example, is "necessarily" good, but it doesn't mean this or that good is necessary, so we must still cultivate gratitude.

More from our reader: 

I think Schuon would agree with you that Being and Beyond Being are simply twin aspects of the Supreme Reality. It’s unfortunate that Schuon often uses the word ‘impersonal’ to characterize the latter, when he actually means ‘supra-personal’. As you’ve correctly pointed out on more than one occasion, the greater cannot derive from the lesser!

I guess it's okay for one to say "supra-personal" so long as one defines what it means. Problem is, we can conceive of nothing higher or prior to personhood -- something from which persons would be a mere entailment or potentiality. This is a Big Difference between Christianity and eastern philosophies, since (as seen in yesterday's chart) personhood belongs to maya, which is to say, appearances. 

It also belongs to relativity, which opens another can of wormholes, because I agree with Schuon that the principle of relativity must somehow be situated in divinas, I just disagree on exactly how. For Schuon, it is grounded in the principle that Being (and Person) is relative to Beyond Being.

However, I would anchor relativity in the Trinity, as in the Son being relative to the Father, and vice versa. Here I would even venture the orthoparadox that relativity is absolute. Indeed, for me, this is the ultimate principle of the Trinity, and why it must be revealed. 

We can easily arrive at the principle of God -- of the One -- by the light of natural reason. But the same reason could not arrive at the orthoparadoxical idea that God is substance-in-relation, such that relation is irreducible to anything more fundamental; although 3 is 1+1+1, there is no 1 prior to the relations between them. This idea is wild but definitely not wooly, and we'll be getting more deeply into it as we proceed. 

Seems like a logical place to stop and catch our breath. I try to keep it under 1,000 words...