Thomas Aquinas and Vaishnava Philosophy
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Reason and revelation in spirituality
This is St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas, who lived from 1225 to 1274.
He compiled the entire body of church philosophy called Summa Theologica, and the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas is the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church.
He, uh, unlike Augustine, he did not distinguish so sharply between the material world and the spiritual world, or between secular society and the City of God.
He felt that the entire creation, both material and spiritual, has its origin in the Personality of Godhead. He acknowledges at the same time that the spiritual world is superior to the material world.
Material world remains temporary, and some philosophers, like the Māyāvādīs, they say it is false. But we vaiṣṇava, we don't say it is false, but it is temporary illusion.
It is a reflection of the spiritual world, but there is no reality. Sometimes it is compared with the mirage in the desert. There is no water in the desert.
But sometimes, by reflection of the sun, it appears that there is water. In the material world, there is no happiness, but the transcendental bliss and happiness existing in the spiritual world is reflected here.
And those who are less intelligent, they are after this illusory happiness, forgetting real happiness in the spiritual life. Aquinas believed that truths, religious truths, are attained through both reason and revelation.
He ascribed to Anselm's statement: "I believe in order that I may understand." And also, while true, uh, through reason, uh, that is, if human reason is not perfect, the revelation is also required.
So the truth arrived by logic, philosophy, and revelation, that is real truth.
Our process is to arrive through the true guru, spiritual master, and he is accepted as representative of the Absolute Truth, Personality of God.
And he carries the message of truth because he has seen the Absolute Truth, uh, through discipleship.
So if we accept the bona fide spiritual master, representative of God, and please him by submissive service, then by his mercy and pleasure, we can understand God, the spiritual world, by revelation.
We offer that for our great respect to the spiritual master and say, "yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo".
If you can please the spiritual master, who is carrying the message of the Lord without any speculation, then God becomes revealed. In that place it is said: "sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ".
When we engage our senses in the spirit of service to the Supreme Lord, then the Lord becomes revealed. In another place it is said: "teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam" "dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ tam".
The Lord is there, but one who is engaged in loving service to the Lord, he gets direct connection with the Lord and instruction also, so that the devotee may be able to enter the spiritual world.
Arguments for the existence of God
Aquinas believes that God is the only single essence that consists of pure form. He felt that matter is only a potential, and in order to be real, must assume a certain shape or form.
Beings in the universe have to acquire an individual form in order to actualize themselves. When matter unites with form, the form gives an object its individuality and personality.
The form gives an object its individuality and personality. Yes. The matter has no form. The spirit soul has got form. Though the matter is covering the actual form of the spirit soul, the matter appears to have form.
Just like the original cloth has no form. But when the tailor cuts the cloth according to the body of the person, then the shirt and coat take a form. The matter itself has no form.
When you take clay, it has no form, but if you make it like a doll, like a man or woman, then it has a form. When they take the clay and you manufacture a pot, then the pot has form.
So form and formlessness is of the matter. But in the spiritual world, everything has got form. The spirit soul has got form, God has got form. This is the truth.
Aquinas believed that only God and the angels have form that is not material. There is no difference between God's form and His spiritual self. Yes.
As in the material world, any form—man or beast or anyone—the outward, external covering is matter, but uh, within the matter there is the soul.
The soul has form and God has form; that is a real form, and the material form is simply sitting and coating over the spiritual body. Aquinas gives five arguments for God's existence.
The first is that there must be a first cause, a first cause of everything. The second is similar in saying the material world cannot create itself but requires something external or spiritual to bring it into existence.
And the third argument claims that because the world exists, there must be a creator capable of bringing it into existence.
The fourth states that since there is relative perfection in the world, there must be absolute perfection underlying this relative perfection. And the fifth is the argument from design.
Because the creation has design and purpose, there must be a designer and a planner. So at this time we were very... and Aquinas gave these five. Yes, we also accept these points about the world.
Just like we say that there is the mother and the children. The mother is the material world and there are so many forms of children.
So when the mother is existing and the children are existing, then the father must exist. Without father, how can they be children?
This is the strongest argument uh, that these uh foolish philosophers contemplate without God. God is there, although there are so many godless men. But
our philosophy is strong on the fact that there must be a creator of this family, mother and sons. The father must be there. Another argument... Um, well, the first cause, that is in Brahma-saṁhitā. Yeah.
Sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam, yeah, that is also admitted by that, everything has got cause, and when it reaches the ultimate cause, that is God.
Because we have an idea of perfection in the world, or we see relative perfection, there must be some absolute perfection. Yeah.
That kind of the spiritual world is the absolute perfection, and the reflection of the spiritual world is this temporary material world.
So whatever perfection we find in this material world, that is derived from the spiritual world.
Janmādy asya yataḥ, the Vedānta-sūtra, that whatever is generated, that is the... uh, is generated, it is from the Absolute Truth.
Material nature and divine creation
And the, um, I believe the statement that since in the material world we see that nothing can create itself, it requires something different to bring it into existence. Something that's not non-material.
We, we don't find... uh, even the biggest mountain cannot create anything. But when the spiritual or the human being takes a stone, he can give a form to the stone.
But the mountain always is very big, it cannot give any particular form to this stone. It remains stone. Unlike Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas believed that God created the universe out of nothing.
And you know, he created the universe out of nothing. No. Uh, the universe is created by God, how we can say out of nothing? God is there. So before creation of the universe, God was there.
So you cannot say that the universe was created out of nothing. Well, that the material universe must have been created out of nothing because it could not have arisen out of God's spiritual nature. No.
The material nature is also inferior nature of God that is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca / apareyam... uh,
the material nature means earth, uh, water, fire, the... and... the subtle materials: mind, intelligence, ego, they are all emanation from God. So actually they are not unreal, but inferior.
It is called bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā. They are separated material energy. Uh, we can have a little idea. Just like we are speaking in the microphone and it is being recorded in the tape recorder.
When the tape recorder is replayed, the sound coming from it is exactly like the original person's sound. But it is not in touch with the person, but it has come from the person.
But he does not see wherefrom the sound is coming; he can conjecture that such and such person is speaking, although such and such person is away from that speaking engagement.
Similarly, this material world is emanation, is expansion of energy of the Supreme Lord. But it is not that this material has come into existence from nothing.
No, it has come from the Supreme Truth, but it is inferior energy. The superior energy is the spiritual world, which is reality. This cannot be supported: the material world has come from nothing.
It was created out of nothing. Huh? They say it was created by God out of nothing. In other words, God has created from His energy. But His energy you cannot say is nothing. Energy exhibited.
That energy eternally exists with Him. Yes. So that's a different viewpoint. Energy must be there. God, if He hasn't got energy, then how has He got parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate? He has got multi-energy.
So this is one of the energies. Exhibited. So you cannot say "from nothing"; God is everything. Huh? Again, like Augustine, Plotinus believed that sin and man go together due to Adam's, the first man's, original sin.
Divine law and social responsibility
All men require salvation. Salvation can only be attained through God's grace, but the individual living entity has to assent by his free will in order for God's grace to function. Yeah, that is bhakti.
Uh, bhakti is devotional service. Mukti is jīva-bhūtaḥ, and bhakti is our eternal engagement. So salvation means when you are engaged in our eternal activities, that is called salvation or liberation.
When you are engaged in false activities, that is called māyā. Muktiḥ hitvānyathā-rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ. — Mukti means to remain in one's own constitutional position.
In the material world, we are also engaged in different types of activities, but they are with reference to the particular body.
The spiritual world, spirit as he is, is engaged in the service of the Lord; that is liberation.
Concerning law and government, Aquinas believed in the divine law, which consisted of the commandments of God given in the Bible.
Aquinas felt that human laws also have some moral bearing and that they also emanate indirectly from God, for he felt that all earthly powers exist by God's permission.
Ideally, the church is God's emissary on earth, and Aquinas considered it proper that the church control earthly secular power as well. That is, he felt the secular rulers should remain subservient to the church.
And he felt that the church could excommunicate—that means throw out—a monarch or ruler, in which case the ruler could no longer claim his throne.
In other words, that the church has not only spiritual power, but secular power on earth, should have. Because, uh, the world activities must be regulated to the ultimate goal: understanding of God.
Human civilization is meant for understanding God. So although the church or the brāhmaṇas may not directly handle administrative activities, but it must be done under their supervision or under their instruction.
That is basic system. The brāhmaṇa is the church and the kṣatriya is the administrator. So the administrator used to take instruction from the brāhmaṇas, one who can deliver a spiritual message.
This is also mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā: Kṛṣṇa, millions of years ago, he instructed the message of Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god. The sun-god is the origin of administrators, kṣatriyas.
So therefore the king, or the kṣatriya who administers the business of the state, if he follows the instruction of Vedas through the brāhmaṇa or the church, then he is called rājarṣi, king and at the same time saintly person.
Although he's king, he's following the instructions of saintly person, of the church.
So in this way, if the brāhmaṇas or the church are in order, the instruction is in order, and the administrators, kṣatriyas, they follow that instruction, it is in order.
So the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya—if he follows the instruction of the kṣatriya, it is in order. And śūdras, they have no intelligence, therefore they follow the instruction of the three superior orders.
This is the division of the society. Aquinas considered sins to be both venial, that is petty, and mortal. The venial sin can be pardoned, but the mortal sin cannot be pardoned. Consequently, the mortal sin stains the soul.
Is there anything like this? Yeah. Mortal... mortal sin. Mortal sin. A mortal sin would be a breaking of one of the direct commandments of God given in the Bible, such as "Thou shalt not kill." Anyway...
Uh, we also have similar message that kṛṣṇa- bhuli' yā-i bhoga-bāñchā kare. This is mortal sin.
When the living entity disobeys the order of God, he is put into this mortal world, and that is his punishment, and he either rectifies himself, uh, by good association, or he continues this uh, transmigration, one body after another, and suffers these uh, tribulations of material existence.
But in any case, how can a sin, and any sin, stain the soul, if the soul cannot be stained in any way? He's not stained. But as we saw, but he can be put into sinful activity. This is like the water and the oil.
If you put the oil on the water, it does not mix with the water. It remains as separate from the water, but uh, he is carried away, this—the oil, uh, floating on the water, is carried over the water.
So that means as soon as we put in material contact, then on account of our contact we are practically under the clutches of water or material world. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ.
As soon as the living entity puts himself in the material world, he loses his own, uh, power. He's completely under the clutches of the water. This is the exact similarity. The oil never mixes with the water.
But as soon as the oil is in touch with the water, it is being carried by the waves of the water. Continuation of Aquinas.
Aquinas felt that the monastic vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience gave one a direct path to God, but that they are not meant for the masses of men.
He conceived of life as a pilgrimage through the world of the senses, through the world of nature, and to the spiritual world of God's grace.
These—when a—when one enters a monastery, he takes a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience. These three vows. Yes, it is called vānaprastha. According to Vedic institution, one must take to the path of vānaprastha.
Vānaprastha means voluntary self-denial, sense gratification denial. That is vānaprastha. Tapasā brahmacaryeṇa. Vānaprastha āśrama begins, uh, with brahmacarya, celibacy, uh, no sex life. That's the beginning of vānaprastha.
Śamena brahmacaryeṇa śamena—controlling the senses, controlling the mind, then uh, the... Renouncement or giving in charity whatever he has got for the service of the Lord. Tyāgena.
Satya-śaucābhyām—by, by following the path of truthfulness and remaining clean, uh, yamena niyamena—by practice of mystic yoga.
In this way one makes advancement, uh, towards a spiritual, um, kingdom or king—spiritual world. All this can be, uh, totally performed simply by engaging oneself in devotional service.
And that is also stated: «Kecit kevalayā bhaktyā», «vāsudeva-parāyaṇāḥ».
If one becomes a devotee of Lord Vāsudeva, Krishna, then simply by executing devotional service, he attains the result of austerity, celibacy, uh, mystic yoga practice, and the result of charity, uh, truthfulness, cleanliness—everything attains simultaneously without separate effort.
Therefore, our Krishna consciousness movement is spreading devotional service. By one stroke, the candidate can attain the results of all other processes.
Eternal soul and spiritual form
This is a point where Catholic doctrine seems to differ. Aquinas did not believe in a soul per se, or pure soul per se, as divorced from a particular form. God did not simply create a soul.
He created an angelic soul, or the soul of a demigod, a human soul, an animal soul, a plant soul, etc. He believed that simply to create a pure soul, a being, would be almost the same as creating God Himself.
So again we see the Christian conception that God created the soul out of nothing. No. Soul is created and actually not created; soul is existing along with God. Just like the sparks of fire is existing with the fire.
But the difference between the two fires is that the sparks may be separated from the big fire, and when it is separated, it loses its illumination. Similarly, the individual soul is already there.
The master is there and the servants are there eternally. Just as the body is there, the parts of the body are also there. Uh, we cannot say that the parts of the body is separately created.
As soon as the body is there, the fingers of the body are there, the other limbs and parts of the body are there. The soul is never created or never dead. It is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: «na jāyate mriyate vā».
Soul has neither creation nor death. It appears because the soul has accepted this material body; with the end of this material body, it appears that somebody is dead, but he is not dead.
He simply transmigrates from this body to another body. And when he's liberated, then he hasn't got to, uh, accept any more material body; then in his original spiritual body he goes back to home, back to Godhead.
So actually soul is never created, it is always existing with God. And this is uh nice that if it is accepted the soul is created, then God is also supreme soul. The question may be raised that he is also created.
So that is not the fact. God is eternal and his part and parcels are also eternal. The only difference is the God never accepts his material body but the individual soul being small particle uh it
may be sometimes he is succumbed by the material energy. So but the soul is eternally existing with God in some form. Yes. Well that well then maybe this is saying the same thing.
By its nature the form of the soul is the form of the body. It is that form incorruptible? No. See all material body is imitation, is false. Real body is the spiritual body.
Because the spiritual body has form, the coating of the spiritual body may matter takes a form, as I've already explained. That the sharpam coat originally has no form, but only
certain quote is cut by the tailor according to the form of the man it takes a form. So actually this material form is an illusion. It is not form. It it takes the form and when it is old enough, no one used,
it again comes to the original position. At dust thou or dust thou create. So this phone is made by uh the material nature. It is just like a machine. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, Brahmayana Saraputani, Dantra
Rurani Maya. The soul has its own form, but he is given a machine, a particular machine which is this body, and therefore he enjoys by wandering throughout the whole universe in different conditions of life.
I think the problem with all of these is that they cannot conceive of spiritual form. When they speak of form, they are thinking that there must necessarily be matter involved.
Aquinas believed that the August Augustinian and Platonic doctrines of the complete independence of the soul from matter or the material body denied man substantial unity, that is, man is body and soul.
He is a particular type of soul and a particular type of body.
That when you are dressed, uh, it appears that you are not defined from the dress; the coat is moving, the pant is moving, but actually it is completely defined from the person who is putting on the coat and so forth. So,
in other words, he actually had no idea of spiritual form as such. He considered that matter was necessary to give the soul form. No. He has got his original form. Original form? Yes. Which is the form of the body.
Original form, that is the form of the spirit. Of the spirit. Yeah. And the the form of the body takes place on account of the form of the spirit. This is a very nice example. The cloth has no form.
But when it is cut according to the form of the gentleman, it takes a form. Similarly, matter has no form. When it is coated on the spiritual form of the soul, it takes the form. So it is very easy to understand.
To get on to another point, Aquinas believed, or rather, he opposed sex for any purpose other than the begetting of children; and not only should sex be used only for the begetting of children, but that when one begets children, one takes the responsibility of giving them a spiritual education.
Yeah. That is the Vedic injunction. That don't beget children unless you can give the children relief from the cycle of birth and death. One should not become father and mother. That is responsible father and mother.
And without this responsibility, if a man gives birth to a child and if a woman bears the pregnancy, that is prohibited. One should not become a father, one should not become a mother unless they are competent to give freedom to the children from the cycle of birth and death.
His argument well says marriage is natural to man and an irregular connection outside of marriage is contrary to the good of man, therefore fornication must be sinful. Yes.
But he goes on to argue that the inordinate emission of semen is repugnant to the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species.
Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seems to hold the second place, whereby the generation of human nature is precluded.
But how people today would ask, uh, how could the argument of the generation or the conservation of the species still hold, since there's so many human beings, since there are almost four billion human beings on this earth, uh, how could this argument still hold that, uh, that—what is that argument?
That, um, sex is only to beget children for propagation of the species, and any other use is... uh, that we, uh, recommend in our this Krishna consciousness: no illicit sex.
Uh, not for producing children but for enjoyment, that is sinful. Uh, and well, the conservation—what he calls the conservation of the species. That doesn't enter into it. No.
The soul is already explained that it has nothing to do with the body, but he has to accept a certain type of body on account of his association with certain type of modes of nature.
So this is actually a faulty argument to say that, that, uh, illicit sex is sinful because, uh, it threatens the conservation of the species. Illicit sex is, uh, sinful.
Illicit sex is sinful because it is not meant for begetting child. It is for sense gratification. The sense that we have, sin in any form is hence sinful.
Human purpose and scriptural authority
He believed, like Plato, in an enlightened monarch ruling, but in certain cases Aquinas believed that it was not necessary for men to obey—it wasn't very much. Just, uh, I couldn't know the one? No.
That it was not necessary for man to obey human laws if these laws were opposed to human welfare and instruments of violence. Very good. First of all, they must know what is the welfare of the human being.
Unfortunately, with the advancement of so-called material education, the human society is missing the aim of life. The aim of life is declared very openly in the Vedanta philosophy: «athāto brahma jijñāsā».
This is the aim of human life. And the Bhāgavatam, that is, jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā. The life is meant for understanding the Absolute Truth. That is the aim of human life.
The whole Vedic civilization is based on this principle.
But on account of being deviated from the original Vedic civilization, they have dedicated the human form of life in so many unnecessary scientific discoveries—that discovery which will not give him any relief to the human society.
The real tribulation of life is birth, death, and disease, and old age. So the so-called advancement of material civilization has not solved the real problem of life.
And the aim of human life is to solve the real problem of human life. The real problem of life is that we are eternal, as eternal as God, but we are subjected to birth and death.
So it's a poor fund of knowledge; in the Kali-yuga, people mean very bad or slow for self-realization, and they create their own way of life. Mandāḥ sumanda-matayo. And they are unfortunate and disturbed.
Disturbance is always there. But they are not mindful about the real disturbances of life. Now, on the whole, in this age, practically the human being has become like animals.
The animal, although always in a disturbed condition, cannot understand what is the aim of life, what is its position.
So this type of civilization is very, very dangerous to the human society, that they have no aim of life. So he concludes: we must obey God rather than men in terms of laws.
Yes, we can obey such a man who obeys the laws of God. Otherwise, it is useless to obey an imperfect person. Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānās.
To obey the imperfect person means just like a blind man following another blind man. So what benefits will we get? If one blind man is begging help from others, "Please help me in crossing the road,"
if another blind man comes and he says, "Yes, come along with me," so what will be the result? Both will be crushed by accident.
So any person who does not follow the instruction of the Supreme Controller, he is a blind person. He cannot lead. As far as we are concerned, we therefore don't accept the so-called scientists' and philosophers' belief.
They say, "We believe," "Perhaps it may be like this" — these are all doubtful declarations. There is no truth in it. If there is any truth, that is also doubtful.
Why should we risk our life by following such a blind man who is thinking, who is believing, but he has no clear knowledge?
Therefore, we have decided to take lessons from the Supreme Person, Krishna, who knows everything perfectly well: vedāhaṁ samatītāni. He knows past, present, and future, and what is our benefit, welfare, everything.
So we should follow Krishna instead of so-called blind philosophy.
Aquinas writes on beauty and contrasts the absolute beauty of God, which is beautiful in all times and all places — absolute beauty — he contrasts this with the relative beauty that we find in the world.
And he says He is beautiful in Himself and not in relation to some limited terminus, that is God. Hence it is clear that the being of all things is derived from the divine beauty.
By God's own beauty, He wishes to multiply it as far as possible, that is to say, by the communication of His likeness. Indeed, all things are made in order to imitate divine beauty in some fashion.
Yes, God is the reservoir of all knowledge, all beauty, all strength, all renunciation, all riches; He is the reservoir of everything. Therefore He is God.
So beauty, whatever we see beautiful, that is an emanation from a very minute percentage of God's opulences. So read this morning.
Concerning theology and philosophy, Aquinas writes: "Just as sacred doctrine is based on the light of faith, so is philosophy founded on the natural light of reason.
Hence it is impossible for items that belong to philosophy to be contrary to those that pertain to faith.
But the former may be defective, that is, philosophy may be defective in comparison with the latter, theology, which is based on faith.
If any point among the statements of the philosophers is found contrary to faith, this is not philosophy, but rather an abuse of philosophy resulting from a defect in reasoning. Yes, that we say.
That every man is defective on account of his material conditional life. So philosophy coming from such defective persons cannot be any good for the human society.
Uh, philosophy coming from a person who is in contact with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, uh, that is perfect. That will benefit human society.
And the speculative philosopher who has no definitive idea, simply basing on his belief or imagination, by following such philosophy nobody will be benefited. Rather he will be deviated from the actual goal of life.
So he concludes that divine revelation is absolutely necessary because by the philosophical method, very few men could arrive at the truth and only after a long time and many errors.
The so-called philosophers are imperfect. So there is no need of consulting them.
Our path is that we directly contact the Supreme Person in knowledge who has got complete knowledge, Krishna, and we take His instruction and try to follow Him.
This knowledge based on revelation or scripture is called sacred doctrine or scripture.
He says this scripture does not provide information about God and about creatures in equal fashion, but about God principally and about creatures as they are related to God as to a source or to an end.
Hence the unity of the science is not hindered. So scripture for him is the science of God. This is science of God. Yes. God is explaining things, you see. This is the continuation of Thomas Aquinas.
We've been discussing sacred doctrine, which is the same as Scripture.
He states that the only author of sacred scripture is God Himself, within whose power is not only to adjust words to their meaning, which even man can do, but also to adjust things themselves.
In reading the scripture, one should avoid two mistakes. One, one should not think that they can be false in any way. But there's no falsity.
Falsity cannot form the basis of divine scripture which has been handed down by the Holy Spirit. That's one mistake one can make in reading scripture.
Another, he says, no one should try to restrict scripture to one meaning to such an extent that other meanings containing some truth and quite possible in relation to the context would be excluded.
In fact, it belongs to the dignity of divine scripture to contain many meanings in one text so that in this way it may be appropriate to the various understandings of men.
Meaning is, uh, one, but, uh, interpreted and different, uh, just like it's... Even in the Bible it is said, "God created, uh, the universe." So that is a fact: God created.
So unless you interpret in a different way, how you can say that the universe is created by some junk and this and that way?
So we accept scripture in that sense without any change; therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, we cannot change the words of God. That is our principle.
And interpretation with motifs—there are so many interpreters, and that has spoiled the God concept in the human society.
Well, this is rather strange because Aquinas, his writings form the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church has always emphasized one meaning, which is interpreted by the Pope, by the head of the church.
The, the, the meaning is given by the Pope, scripture. Yes. And here he says that the scriptures may contain many meanings according to one's degree of realization. Yes, not many meanings. Meaning is one.
But if one is not realized, then he can make many meanings. Otherwise, meaning is one. What can be any other meaning? Suppose God created this universe.
This is stated in the Bible, or in the Bhagavad-gītā the same thing is expressed in a different way: "From Me everything emanates." So that's a fact, that everything is coming out from God's energy.
So why there should be a second meaning and second interpretation unless one is godless? What is the possible second meaning? That means God created. That's how I accept, if God created. Well, the second meaning...
Well, he would give the example of the creation, of God walking through — in the Bible it's stated God walks through paradise in the afternoon — he would cite this as having an interior meaning.
He, God, can create, He can walk also, He can speak also, He can touch also, He can see also; God is a person. So where is the second meaning? What is the possible second meaning?
The second meaning, as far as I could see, would be based on an impersonal interpretation. So God cannot be impersonal. If He's created, how He can be impersonal? It must be a person, otherwise there is no meaning.