Pantheism and Panentheism

[iBrian]

Interesting schematic of synchronicity by CG Jung.

Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OMG - it's the Merovingian from The Matrix!

all it says to me is how incapable we are of thinking outside the box. How narcisstic we are. I think the Universe...as it really is.... is without bounds, infinite. Why? Because the finite needs a boundary and to have a boundary means something is contained within... in what...? Something that too must have a boundary. I think the problem most people face is getting their head round just what infinity means, and no wonder...it is completely dissorientating. I think everything is alive in some sense. The universe we see is a living entity. But I see no gods, only mental cosmetic augmentation to our individual and wholly animal sense of self importance. How we love to label to our whims.

What is becoming increasingly evident is that we do not even fully comprehend the dimensions in which we operate, never mind those we have no senses to detect. We really are still just cave men pointing at the stars and inventing stories about them.

Absolutely agree - when we create boundaries to limit God, the Universe, and All Existence, all we are really doing is setting limits on our own understanding.

Many people just cannot accept uncertainty - everything must have an answer offered.

To myself, uncertainty has to be a core part of spiritual belief. As I've said before, I try the approach of "Accept everything, believe nothing".

 

[Avi]

Interesting schematic of synchronicity by CG Jung.

Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am trying to understand the schematic of synchronicity shown in post # 16, any suggestions ?

OMG - it's the Merovingian from The Matrix!

So the Merovingian is represented by the causality portion of the figure, is that correct ?

Here is a quote from wiki on "synchronous analogues" :

Some of the evidence that Pauli cited was that ideas that occurred in his dreams would have synchronous analogs in later correspondence with distant collaborators.[10]

Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This relates to the acausal experience of gleaning ideas through dreams. Most of us have probably struggled with problems, only to wake one day, after a dream, with new ideas. Was it a coincidence or related to the original cause ?

I am still a little confused about the regions of the schematic related to "energy indestruction" (this is probably conservation of energy) and "continuous space-time" (four dimensional space-time). I suppose this relates to an understanding of hierarchical views of reality. Going from Newtonian classical physics to Einstein's quantum mechanical vision.

Any other interpretations of synchronicity ?

 

[wil]

In the multiiverse theory I wonder what percentage of universes would have any given synchronistic event.

 

[Thomas]

Pantheism and its variants is a response to the question of subjectivity.

The assumption is, that if there is a One Above All, then all that is emanates from the One, for that alone provides the foundation of their experience. It is not 'I' who says 'I', but the One Above All who says 'I' in me.

But then who is 'me'? A chimera. Who is it who hears the spoken Word, that 'I'? Nothing, just the 'I' experiencing an echo of Itself. There is only one subject in all objective bodies. Even the bodies have no real existence — so the reality of existence, either objectively or subjectively, is denied.

There is no 'I', nor any 'being' but the One Who Is.

But here's a leap. Those experiential bodies are nothing, because the 'I' they experience is not themselves, but the Other, hidden from them; they do not exist as there is nothing to say 'I' but the One Above All.

Supposing the One Above All can not only institute finite and material existence, but endow it with its own real, true, subjectivity? Not only can a being exist in the mind of the All, but can actually exist as a rational and self-knowing being that can authentically say 'I am'?

That the 'I' who speaks in them is not the One Above All, but a finite 'I' brought into existence by the Will of the One who not only creates it, but gives it the freedom it Itself possesses ... albeit a freedom limited according to its circumstance as a created nature, but true being nonetheless, and true being that can join the Being of the One Above All.

This is the being of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, I think). That a person is not a chimera, but 'an individual substance of a rational nature' (to quote Boethius) just as the One Above All is ... a creation in likeness and image ... brought forth and sustained, in its freedom, by the One Above All, but free even of the One above All, should it so choose.

Thomas

 

[dauer]

This is the being of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, I think). That a person is not a chimera, but 'an individual substance of a rational nature' (to quote Boethius) just as the One Above All is ... a creation in likeness and image ... brought forth and sustained, in its freedom, by the One Above All, but free even of the One above All, should it so choose.

There's too much variation in Jewish theology for that to be universally true as stated. Some perspectives within Judaism are acosmic. See for example Reb Schneur Zalman of Liadi's ontological position in Tanya according to which (as I understand it), from God's perspective, nothing but God exists. Rather, from God's perspective, everything is as it was before the creation of the world and there has been no change in Godself whatsoever. Our own perception of multiplicity is an illusion that is usually maintained because no one can see Him and live, as it were. For Reb Schneur Zalman the kelipah or husk is (rather than the absence of God or even something that denies God's existence) a reality that accepts God's existence but thinks it has its own independent existence.

I'm not certain that the above agrees with your quote from Boethius or at least not when left at his point without further explanation.

 

[nativeastral]

I am trying to understand the schematic of synchronicity shown in post # 16, any suggestions ?



So the Merovingian is represented by the causality portion of the figure, is that correct ?

Here is a quote from wiki on "synchronous analogues" :




This relates to the acausal experience of gleaning ideas through dreams. Most of us have probably struggled with problems, only to wake one day, after a dream, with new ideas. Was it a coincidence or related to the original cause ?

I am still a little confused about the regions of the schematic related to "energy indestruction" (this is probably conservation of energy) and "continuous space-time" (four dimensional space-time). I suppose this relates to an understanding of hierarchical views of reality. Going from Newtonian classical physics to Einstein's quantum mechanical vision.

Any other interpretations of synchronicity ?

'At the most fundamental level, synchronicity led Jung to speculate about the nature of reality. The fact, for instance, that in synchronistic events the same archetypal pattern of meaning seems capable of expressing itself independently in both psychic and physical contexts suggested to him that `all reality [may be] grounded on an as yet unknown substrate possessing material and at the same time psychic qualities' (Jung 1958b: 411). The synchronistic principle `suggests that there is an inter-connection or unity of causally unrelated events, and thus postulates a unitary aspect of being which can very well be described as the unus mundus' (Jung 1954--55: 464--5). This postulated unitary background to existence, in which the concepts of psyche and matter and space and time merge into a psychophysical space-time continuum, was where Jung considered the archetypes themselves, as opposed to their phenomenal manifestations, ultimately to be located. To express this ambivalent nature -- at once psychic and physical yet neither because beyond both -- he was led to coin the term `psychoid'. The ability of the archetype to manifest synchronistically in independent psychic and physical contexts is itself an indicator of its fundamentally psychoid nature.
Regarding the phenomenal world rather than its hypothetical substrate, synchronicity, as a connecting principle complementary to causality, directs attention to a whole dimension of experienceable relationships between events which would be disregarded or marginalized by any exclusively causalistic view. On a general level, this helps create conceptual space for the acknowledgment of radically anomalous or paranormal events which might otherwise be denied.'
synchronicity

 

[Thomas]

There's too much variation in Jewish theology for that to be universally true as stated. Some perspectives within Judaism are acosmic. See for example Reb Schneur Zalman of Liadi's ontological position in Tanya according to which (as I understand it), from God's perspective, nothing but God exists.

Christian apophatism says the same.

All 'other' existence does exist, but is dependent upon God for its being — it is not self-subsisting — so paradoxically its selfhood is nothing. Its selfhood only exists in as much as if follows its predestined nature, both individually and collectively, which is predetermined in God.

If a rational nature chooses to centre its being in those things that are transitory, and essentially nothing, then it joins itself to that which ontologically has no being. It is not God, but participates in God, by striving to discover the truth of its own nature. 'Know thyself', as the Greeks had it.

Rather, from God's perspective, everything is as it was before the creation of the world and there has been no change in Godself whatsoever. Our own perception of multiplicity is an illusion that is usually maintained because no one can see Him and live, as it were. For Reb Schneur Zalman the kelipah or husk is (rather than the absence of God or even something that denies God's existence) a reality that accepts God's existence but thinks it has its own independent existence.

That's a good way of putting it — man is either a husk, filled with nothing but its own ephemeral fantasies — or is filled with the being of God. Some would call this illumination, others theosis. It's a panentheism as long as it is understood that what the creature is, is a gift of God, but not God as such. It's a panentheism in that exists by participation, not by nature.

Thomas

 

[Avi]

Pantheism and its variants is a response to the question of subjectivity.

This is one element of pantheism, but it seems to be much more to me.

The assumption is, that if there is a One Above All,

I am not sure this is the main assumption in pantheism, but lets accept your premise.

then all that is emanates from the One, for that alone provides the foundation of their experience.

I would say more than "emanates from", I would say "then all that is represents the One".

But then who is 'me'? A chimera.

This word, chimera, has many different meanings, please explain the sense that you mean it here ? Is it a mixture ?

But here's a leap.

Up to now has been a leap for me !!

Those experiential bodies are nothing, because the 'I' they experience is not themselves, but the Other, hidden from them; they do not exist as there is nothing to say 'I' but the One Above All.

In a sense, this is what I believe is embodied in panentheism. The 'en' represents the "other".

Supposing the One Above All can not only institute finite and material existence, but endow it with its own real, true, subjectivity? Not only can a being exist in the mind of the All, but can actually exist as a rational and self-knowing being that can authentically say 'I am'?

Moreover, and what makes things even more complicated is that the being can exist as a non-rational being as well.

That the 'I' who speaks in them is not the One Above All, but a finite 'I' brought into existence by the Will of the One who not only creates it, but gives it the freedom it Itself possesses ... albeit a freedom limited according to its circumstance as a created nature, but true being nonetheless, and true being that can join the Being of the One Above All.

The notion for free will is an interesting one with respect to pantheism and panenthesim. I do not think we really know much about free will at all. We understand it in a very local environment. We know we want it. But whether we really have it or not, I do not think we truly understand it very deeply.

This is the being of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, I think). That a person is not a chimera, but 'an individual substance of a rational nature' (to quote Boethius) just as the One Above All is ... a creation in likeness and image ... brought forth and sustained, in its freedom, by the One Above All, but free even of the One above All, should it so choose.

Thomas

I do not think the notion of creation in G-d's image is a good fit with panethism or panenthism. If we envision G-d as our reality, there is no need for an image at all.

Thomas, thank you for sharing your ideas about pantheism and panenthism. You have a natural sense of interfaith dialogue, I hope my questions and comments are not too naive.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Avi —
Thanks for your post.

This is one element of pantheism, but it seems to be much more to me.

Yes, you're right. A number of questions could be the starting point ... is there a God? Why do things exist? Do things exist? Do I exist? ... you can drive yourself round the bend with them, I think ...

I am not sure this is the main assumption in pantheism, but lets accept your premise.

Again, you're right ... pantheism assumes no 'above' but 'One In All' I think — Christian Tradition flatly rejects this, as it renders God subject to change and contingency ...

I would say more than "emanates from", I would say "then all that is represents the One".

I would then ask how it represents the One, as it is not the One.

By chimera I mean something ephemeral, an illusion.

In a sense, this is what I believe is embodied in panentheism. The 'en' represents the "other".

Yes, but I know Christianity refutes that, as does Islam ... and indeed the Hindu Traditions, too ... the 'Other' is Infinite and Absolute, and suffers nothing — no addition, subtraction; it neither grows nor decays, etc., so the 'en' in panentheism represents a continuity between 'It' and 'nature' that these traditions deny ... God has no need of Creation, nor any dependence ... Panentheism always seems like an attempt to have it both ways, as it were.

God utterly transcends the created order, but on the other He is immanently present within it, but as a matter of choice, not necessity. Panentheism would seem to assume that because the Deity is immanent to all things, then the Deity is in all things, as a property of things, whereas we would say that is not the case.

If deity was a property of things, then so would omniscience and omnipotence ...

The notion for free will is an interesting one with respect to pantheism and panenthesim. I do not think we really know much about free will at all. We understand it in a very local environment. We know we want it. But whether we really have it or not, I do not think we truly understand it very deeply.

I think free will is problematic for pantheism and panentheism, because they present inherent contradictions, if not an insoluble paradox. That's why I'm not a believer in either of them.

I think free will is the greatest gift of God, because it's the nearest thing to God we can conceive — freedom and autonomy —

I do not think the notion of creation in G-d's image is a good fit with panethism or panenthism. If we envision G-d as our reality, there is no need for an image at all.

That's another reason I don't believe them. I think 'likeness and image' is a lot more profound, insightful and optimistic. What is 'real to God and what is 'real' to us are different things. Reality suggests a contrary: unreality, or illusion, for example, but there are no contraries in the Divinity, so really 'reality' is a human concept, not a Divine one. It's applied to the Divine but, like all Divine Names, they are analogies, they are not the totality of the thing signified.


Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

Panentheism would seem to assume that because the Deity is immanent to all things, then the Deity is in all things, as a property of things, whereas we would say that is not the case.

1) Who has espoused a Panentheism that suggests that Deity is a property of things?

2) If God is that in terms of which something (everything) exists, can we say that the Beingness for which things are dependent on G-d is
a property ?

3) Assuming we can agree with the premise suggested in Q2, why we would say that is not the case that Deity is in all things as a property of things? It seems to me that the point of the Creation story is to suggest that it this presence is a vital property - "the breath of life."

 

[shawn]

It is
"I"
Captain Mobius
who has you all caught in the eternal loop.
Such fun.
Much ado about ouden.

 

[Avi]

Thomas,
1) Who has espoused a Panentheism that suggests that Deity is a property of things?

It seems to me that the Panthesim which was originally proposed in ancient Greece was around the concept of the god Pan, a god of nature, with many natural manifestations. This god was responsible for the god of sun, the god of wind, etc. He was a naturalist god.

My understanding is that since the time of Spinoza, pantheism and panenthism has been reinterpreted in a much more realistic manner. In this newer interpretation, Netti, I agree that the traditional view of the diety is not necessary.

2) If God is that in terms of which something (everything) exists, can we say that the Beingness for which things are dependent on G-d is
a property ?

Of course this depends upon your operational definitions of Beingness and property. I would say that you can re-phrase your question as: "can we say the Beingness for which things are dependent on reality is a property" ? I think we need the definitions to determine the logic of this statement.

3) Assuming we can agree with the premise suggested in Q2, why we would say that is not the case that Deity is in all things as a property of things? It seems to me that the point of the Creation story is to suggest that it this presence is a vital property - "the breath of life."

This perspective is very reminiscent to the issue of biocentricity that Tao brought up earlier.

 

[Avi]

There's too much variation in Jewish theology for that to be universally true as stated. Some perspectives within Judaism are acosmic. See for example Reb Schneur Zalman of Liadi's ontological position in Tanya according to which (as I understand it), from God's perspective, nothing but God exists. Rather, from God's perspective, everything is as it was before the creation of the world and there has been no change in Godself whatsoever. Our own perception of multiplicity is an illusion that is usually maintained because no one can see Him and live, as it were.

Dauer, it seems like R. Zalman of Liadi's position is very consistent with pantheism. But don't you think this consistency goes much further back, even to Avraham ?

You mention the perspective of "no one can see Him and live". This has always felt to me more like the anthropomorphism of early Torah, ahd I have always felt it must be interpreted metaphorically or allegorically. Do you have a stronger belief in this idea ?

For Reb Schneur Zalman the kelipah or husk is (rather than the absence of God or even something that denies God's existence) a reality that accepts God's existence but thinks it has its own independent existence.

Does R. Zalman have an idea about this "independent existence" ?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

If God is that in terms of which something (everything) exists, can we say that the Beingness for which things are dependent on G-d is
a property ?

No, I don't think so. Effects do not necessarily contain all or any of the properties of their causes.

why we would say that is not the case that Deity is in all things as a property of things?

Because then all things would possess all the properties of the Divine — perfection, infinitude, self-subsistence ... which it seems to me they do not. As the Divine cannot undergo alteration and change, then things cannot be Divine for if they were, they would know it, for the Divine knows Itself absolutely.

It seems to me that the point of the Creation story is to suggest that it this presence is a vital property - "the breath of life."

And the same Scripture says the breath goes back to its Source.

Life suggests death — the Divine cannot be predicated of anything that has a contrary.

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

Yes, but I know Christianity refutes that, as does Islam ... and indeed the Hindu Traditions, too ... the 'Other' is Infinite and Absolute, and suffers nothing — no addition, subtraction; it neither grows nor decays, etc., so the 'en' in panentheism represents a continuity between 'It' and 'nature' that these traditions deny ... God has no need of Creation, nor any dependence ... Panentheism always seems like an attempt to have it both ways, as it were.

Thomas

Though there are many Hindu traditions the vedanta philosophical system we are most familiar with is non duality or advaita, founded by Shankara 788-820 [but obviously based on the Upanishads] which states ultimate reality and the self were identical. He used the story of the salt in the water, 'the finest essence here- that constitutes the self of this whole world; that is the truth; that is the self [atman]. And that's how you are, Shvetaketu' chandogya upanishad 6.13

This philosophy was brought to the west by Vivekananda, that the personal G#d that people worhipped was also the higher self within each 'tat tvam asi', 'he is you yourself'.

 

[dauer]

Dauer, it seems like R. Zalman of Liadi's position is very consistent with pantheism. But don't you think this consistency goes much further back, even to Avraham ?

Brief correction: It's Schneur Zalman, not Zalman. He's more accurately an acosmic panentheist, not a pantheist. And no I don't think such a view goes back to Abraham. If Abraham existed it's much more likely that he believed in some sort of pantheon, a Divine couple, or (and most unlikely to me) was a henotheist.

If you are speaking about the ahistorical Abraham then he is whatever the present interpreter projects back onto him.

You mention the perspective of "no one can see Him and live". This has always felt to me more like the anthropomorphism of early Torah, ahd I have always felt it must be interpreted metaphorically or allegorically. Do you have a stronger belief in this idea ?

We've had a talk about belief before, so I won't respond to that bit of what you've said. You know that I'm not a literalist and don't believe that the Torah is uniquely Divine. Based on that information the entire direction of your quote seems misguided. I will try to answer as best as I can from my position. In the Jewish mystical tradition "No one can see Him and live" is sometimes used as a reference to the idea that we cannot have an unfiltered experience of God because it would either destroy us because we would be so blinded in that light, as it were, that we could not perceive anything other than God, not even our own awareness of God.

Does R. Zalman have an idea about this "independent existence" ?

Yes, it's an illusion. Nothing exists independently of God and everything is constantly being created, willed into existence, by God. The kelipah itself is an illusion. Being self-aware is realizing on a palpable rather than intellectual level that one's sense of self is an illusion, that He fills all worlds, surrounds all worlds, and nothing else exists but God. The kelipah is filled with beings who are ignorant of their own nature who we help to strengthen when we do not maintain a proper awareness of God.

 

[taijasi]

yes, and it is not that we, ourselves, do not exist - this is not at all what maya, and illusion suggest. rather, the delusion is to believe that I exist as a being totally independent from you, materially and spiritually. our sojourn into the worlds of deepest & densest matter is what blinds us from the greater Truth. Consciousness, whether as ahamkar (the `I-making' principle) or Atma-Buddhi-Manas, is the product of the unification of Spirit and matter. and what is Spirit? the opposite pole of matter, yet as the esoteric philosophy has always pointed out, spirit & matter are but two poles, the subtlest and the densest expression respectively, of the SAME substance.

Spirit, at its highest, must remain an abstraction for us, but we are told that beyond the physical, astral and mental planes (however we choose to recognize them, under whatever system) ... there are Arupa, or `formless' worlds. this means nothing to us as long as we mistakenly associate our ultimate SELF with body, emotion or even concrete mind. MANAS, whence we derive the term we give ourselves collectively - MAN - is the expression of Mahat, known to the Egyptians of course as Ma'at. and this has everything to do with how we understand ourselves, our world, and consciousness (and thus, also, Divinity, both singular and in a plurality of expressions).


Alexander Pope, well aware of the true nature things, said it best:

All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.
​

Once the religionists grasp that God is not a proper name, and that in fact, such a ridiculous notion has always been frowned upon by the Powers that Be, we might finally be able to get somewhere. A quiet, unwavering Respect for all Life (knowing it in ALL of its many expressions to be the same, Great Divine) is what has been called for.

part of Right Discrimination means being able not only to recognize this Life, but also to know where & when & how to pay it heed, to do our Duty toward it ... in all circumstances & situations. if memory serves, this idea is well preserved in the Christians Liturgy in such expressions as -

It is indeed right and salutary that we should at all times and in all places give Him thanks and Praise. Amen (OM)
​

but instead of God Transcendent, here, we substitute one man, living in one, remote time - a different era entirely. and for the recognition of God Immanent, we have forsaken the teachings of the Elders and adopted - materialism.

Annie Besant, in 1923, penned these lines:

O Hidden Life, vibrant in every atom;
O Hidden Light, shining in every creature;
O Hidden Love, embracing all in Oneness;
May all who feel themselves as one with Thee,
Know they are therefore one with every other.
​

This recognition we know Besant was capable of in part because she herself was a seer (clairvoyant of some degree), yet primarily because her heart was open and her mind receptive to Universal Spiritual Truth - undifferentiated upon our little planet save to the degree that we ourselves uniquely and creatively express Divine Purpose.

Christ uttered similar words. His were: "I and the Father are One." yet the theologians cannot see the simple underlying reality, as close as their own elbow, so to speak, which substantiates these affirmations. and so we have a religion with more sects and denominations than the proverbial 10,000 names of God. when will they ever learn - o, when will they ever learn?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nativeastral —

I am not deeply conversant with the Hindu texts, but does that not suggest the opposite on pantheism, or panentheism — not that the Divine is in the material, but that the material has no ontological being it can call 'self'?

From my reading of Guénon, he points out that the 'self' of Hindu metaphysics is not the self that most westerners assume. This 'self' is a universal self, the transcends the individual, which assumes something — selfhood — which it does not actually possess.

I suppose it devolves to whether 'reality' is perceived as a reality, or as an illusion. The Hindu texts would seem to suggest the latter, whereas generally the Abrahamic Traditions infer the former.

If reality is illusory, then so is pantheism, and panentheism?

I admit this is only an impression, but it revolves around the 'Big Question' I have always asked about reincarnation — if all that is 'me' is transitory and ephemeral, all part of the illusion ... what is it that reincarnates?

In the Christian Tradition, at least, 'being' is a given, a reality. Not God, for God is 'beyond-being' as both Plato and Christian philosophy insist, but being is real, concrete and actual.

That it depends on the Divine as it source, and as its sustainer, does not make it any less real ... it just means there is something greater than it.

A useful notion I came up with is that any quality that can be predicated of God, inescapably calls up its contrary ... and as there is no contrariness in God, it cannot adequately define the Deity.

In the Cosmos however, we cannot conceive of something without its contrary ... in fact we can only conceive things by their difference to other things ... so whilst I cans ay that all things are brought into being by God, I do not assume that God is in all being ... as being itself immediately invokes its contrary.

Really, I'd have to get into a deep investigation of the meaning of 'metaphor', 'analogy' ... but I think that would show that there is no necessary contiguity between a thing and its source.

Sorry ... rambling ... I've worked 38 hours of the last 72, just recovering from a 19.5 hour run ... so whilst I might seem lucid to me, I might actually be opaque to everyone else ...

... but we could conceive of a God, the deus absconditus, who made the finite realm, and has absolutely nothing to do with it ... where does that leave the various Modes of P then, I wonder?

Thomas

 

[shawn]

What on earth do you do Thomas? (for work that is)

 

[Tao_Equus]

Because then all things would possess all the properties of the Divine — perfection, infinitude, self-subsistence ...

How can you know that if there is a creator that it would be perfect? Looking at the universe I see nothing that is perfect, indeed I see no two things that are the same. I would hazard an intuit that it is impossible for two things to be absolutely identical. Based solely on our Earthly observations that nothing appears to be. Why cant this creator be imperfect, flawed, even mindless.... an automaton if you like? In short why do you keep imposing upon it human ideals? If there is a creator, and I believe that not to be the case in any meaningful way we could comprehend, why would it have to be this perfect thing you want to paint it?