Pantheism and Panentheism
- Thread starter Avi
- Start date
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
There's that pesky free-will-being-necessary-for-love-thing again....
Andrew, hi!
I never realised you were omniscient, omnipotent, etc., etc., the One Source of All Being ... I'll have to watch how I respond to you in future!
Good to see you back ...
You may be unaware of it, but I have elected not to refer to Christian doctrine of my faith furthermore in these discussions (a post in the 'is Jesus a gnostic' section sneaked through when I wasn't thinking... ), so I limit myself to philosophical speculations, and the odd aside.
I'm deep into apophatic thinking, meontology, and am currently absorbing the works of John Scottus Eriugena, 'the last great Platonist of the West', as some have called him, who is challenging some of my own conceptions.
I'll be posting odd snippets over on the theology board, and would look forward to discussing things there, from a philosophical point of view ...
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Whose version?
Thomas, not sure why you're raising the question here. It's an ok starting point for an argument against pantheism, but does not pose any problem for panentheism. In a panentheistic view, the world is only part of G-d and therefore would not reflect all of the Creator's divine/transcendental attributes/powers.
Are you aware of a panentheist who claimed nature would be expected to perfectly share the Creators' traits of being omniscient, omnipotent, self-subsisting, and so on?
Same applies, moreso. An essence is an essence, a nature is a nature, and neither are composed of parts.
So again, if human nature is divine by nature, then it cannot be, and it cannot not know itself to be, anything other than divine.
As you haven't responded to my critiques of the author directly, I assume you agree he misrepresents Aquinas, and that he seems to misunderstand what 'accidents' implies philosophy?
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Author Philip Clayton wrote:Bro. Thomas responded:
I think Warren Felt Evans would have had a problem with you telling him he's not a Christian. He might also have had a problem with you positioning yourself as someone who can say conclusively what views are "Christian" and which are not.
G-d continually responds to our thoughts and actions with all the perfection of G-d’s character; and that interweaving of our action and G-d’s response of grace yields an overall whole that is richer than either would have been on its own.
The irony. In the Bible Jesus is portrayed as a panentheist: "The Father is in me and I am in the Father." ( John 10:37-38) It seems I'm not the first to notice:
The conscious realization of a life in God, and not as a speculative thesis to be argued and disputed, is the fundamental thought in the system taught by the Christ--a union with God so complete in every department of our being that we can say: "The Father is in me and I am in the Father," and "I and my Father are one."
A Christian Pantheism which does not destroy the individuality of man, nor separate God from the universe which he continually creates out of Himself, nor sunder Him from the activities of the human soul by the intervention of second causes, is the highest development of religious thought. An intuitive perception of the unity of the human with the Divine existence is the highest attainable spiritual intelligence, and one which raises man above disease and the possibility of death.
A Christian Pantheism which does not destroy the individuality of man, nor separate God from the universe which he continually creates out of Himself, nor sunder Him from the activities of the human soul by the intervention of second causes, is the highest development of religious thought. An intuitive perception of the unity of the human with the Divine existence is the highest attainable spiritual intelligence, and one which raises man above disease and the possibility of death.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. Are you saying that Aquinas and Aristotle used the term "accident" differently, thus indicating different metaphysics, and that's why Aquinas was not "hobbled" by Aristotle ?
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
The decorum required here spares you the most lewd and lascivious jokes..... but you have imagination....
Lol, icky. *washes imagination*
Oh, no! I've tricked someone into thinking me credible. What to do!
Super God?
Dauer moved a branch of this thread to the Judaism sub-forum, so the comments that I have, which are related to Judaism (which are probably most of mine), I will continue over there. As I mentioned on that thread, I think it might provide a nice parallelism.
But I think there is an idea which is more interfaith in nature, which I would like to continue here as well, and is why I started this thread in the Belief and Spirituality sub-forum. I think that pantheism and panentheism is unique because it is a set of ideas which might transcend traditional religions. I believe that there are a hierarchy of ideas, which may arise out of our understanding of traditional religion, which are common to these religions.
An example might be, for example, a convergence of our scientific understanding of creation of the universe, with a religious understanding of creation from many different faiths. I think this convergence could be an important aspect of interfaith dialogue.
But I think there is an idea which is more interfaith in nature, which I would like to continue here as well, and is why I started this thread in the Belief and Spirituality sub-forum. I think that pantheism and panentheism is unique because it is a set of ideas which might transcend traditional religions. I believe that there are a hierarchy of ideas, which may arise out of our understanding of traditional religion, which are common to these religions.
An example might be, for example, a convergence of our scientific understanding of creation of the universe, with a religious understanding of creation from many different faiths. I think this convergence could be an important aspect of interfaith dialogue.
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
One God to rule them all.
Lol, think about it. If there is a God, then he created all matter, all life, and in creating that life, which has resulted thus-far in all life including us, he has created all religions. Religions are simply a creation of his creation's.
If a religion states that God created the universe, or, this plane of existence as we know it, and beyond, then it's only natural to assume that all peoples, and all thoughts ideas and creations of those peoples are in reality thoughts ideas and creations of that God, as manifestations of creation arising out of his initial creation. And all of those thoughts ideas and creations should be encompassed into any understanding of that God. Any religion therefore that does not acknowledge all of God's creations that we are privy to so far, ie. all religions and ideas, is flawed in the sense that it is ignoring vast aspects of that God's creation.
If one believes that God created everything. Then everything is important, every single thing, as it is all a manifestation of God's will.
Or at least that's the way I see it...
Lol, think about it. If there is a God, then he created all matter, all life, and in creating that life, which has resulted thus-far in all life including us, he has created all religions. Religions are simply a creation of his creation's.
If a religion states that God created the universe, or, this plane of existence as we know it, and beyond, then it's only natural to assume that all peoples, and all thoughts ideas and creations of those peoples are in reality thoughts ideas and creations of that God, as manifestations of creation arising out of his initial creation. And all of those thoughts ideas and creations should be encompassed into any understanding of that God. Any religion therefore that does not acknowledge all of God's creations that we are privy to so far, ie. all religions and ideas, is flawed in the sense that it is ignoring vast aspects of that God's creation.
If one believes that God created everything. Then everything is important, every single thing, as it is all a manifestation of God's will.
Or at least that's the way I see it...
Several people have given very nice insight into Christian pantheism and panentheism. What about in the Eastern religions / philosophies ?
What does Buddhism, Tao, Hindu and other Eastern religions think about pantheism / panenthism ?
Are there unique perspectives there which differentiate them from the Abrahamics views of these ideas ? And I do not believe anyone mentioned an Islamic view of pantheism/panentheism, is there something different there ?
What does Buddhism, Tao, Hindu and other Eastern religions think about pantheism / panenthism ?
Are there unique perspectives there which differentiate them from the Abrahamics views of these ideas ? And I do not believe anyone mentioned an Islamic view of pantheism/panentheism, is there something different there ?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
nativeastral
fluffy future
does christian apophatism argue against an actual relation between, in Voegelin talk, the ground and the world ? [see also being and beyond, sorry need to put his terms in]?
'In the Middle Ages, the influence of Neoplatonism continued in the thought of Eriugena (815–877), Eckhart (1260–1328), Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), and Boehme (1575–1624). Although accused of pantheism by their contemporaries, their systems can be identified as panentheistic because they understood God in various ways as including the world rather than being the world and because they used a dialectical method. The dialectical method involved the generation of opposites and then the reconciliation of the opposition in God. This retained the distinct identity of God in God's influence of the world (Cooper 2006, 47–62)'.
Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
found an interesting article on apopatic mysticism, which seems to be an opening or emptying Apophatic Mysticism
another one l enjoyed [insofar as consciousness is concerned]
Forman2
Voegelin seems to be a platonic process existentialist theist philosopher! his idea that we are in between [metaxy] poles [of the ground and beyond]..in a tension of existence between two poles and as an interplay, in a participation, and in a consciousness beyond being merely human.
as l have been reading heidegger it struck me how similar he talks of dasein being in the world existingly as the world 'discloses' itself, though l haven't read on about the anxiety inherent in dasein.
another thing l have been picking up on is the idea of 2 souls [in judaism, sri aurobinbo and hinduism, plato] and the fact that christianity had to get rid of the platonic world soul [due to the demi urge
though they kept the rational as the logos, they booted out the shakti] which might have aligned with the praktri of hinduism somewhat; as voegelin states a dissociation occurred between the immanent and the transcendent, which only mysticism or meditation seems to repair Scholastic humanism and the ... - Google Books
Hi Netti-Netti —
Take human ature as an example: A person can choose to follow all the virtues anrd realise a perfect existence (even within the corporeal domain of its own corporeality), but this does not alter human nature in any way — human nature is not altered nor enriched because what is humanly possible is already there, as a reality, within the nature itself — the human cannot realise anything but the fulfillment of that nature of which it is but one instance. On the othe rhand a human can choose a life of dissolution, and again human nature itself is not intrinsically altered because of it ... the nature rmains what it is, simply the person has failed to fulfil his or her potential.
Only the finite creature, subject to contingency, experiences richness or not-richness ...
Questions of contradiction, paradox and dichotomy with regard to the text can only be resolved by reference to the text itself. Against the citation employed, we have another, "for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and indeed a raft of others, Psalm 85:10, Ecclesiasticus 3:21, Luke 5:21, Luke 18:19 "And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone."
The resolution of which I am guided by those theologians and mystics of the text (and indeed the terms are almost synonymous), who stand to another conclusion, formally pronounced at Chalcedon, whose words upon the matter offer me an unrivalled richness of understanding. They alone, to my mind, open up and ever deeper penetration into the mystery of being, and non-being, and beyond-being, whereas other solutions, in which i include panthesim and panentheism, seem to me to shut it down.
As Christ said in the mouth of John th Divine, "How can you believe, who receive glory one from another (pan[en]theism): and the glory which is from God alone, (monotheism) you do not seek?" (John 5:44).
It is axiomatic there is God and nought else, but if that is the case, then if God creates out of Himself, there is no other but God created ... and I'm back to tha paradox that the Divine eseence cannot be other than Divine, with all that the term implies ... and which we are not.
I am not saying God is not in things, nor that all things are not in God, but I am saying, following the line of the apophatists, that God is not a thing; not a form, not an idea, not a body, and that personally I seek God in that that is not which and there is nought in God but God ... as St Denys says: "For a super-essential understanding of It is proper to Unknowing, which lieth in the Super-Essence Thereof surpassing Discourse, Intuition and Being" (The Divine Names), "direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty." (The Mytical theology).
But if all that exists is divine, then humanity does not exist, and the idea of a union of an essence with itself is a nonsense, as an essence is immutably one.
Furthermore every argument I have presented you have not replied to, but simply shifted to some other point of dispute. So I assume you too have no response to the argument I present, but are simply intent on disputation.
And as Aristotle is still considered an authority even today, and studied at great length across the globe, I can't see how he can be described as 'hobbled' in his determinations. Especially as his theory of categories, from which accidents derive, is still considered a workable hypothesis and one that has been expanded upon at length, and perhaps even denied, but not to my knowledge surpassed.
Thomas
Is that not what love is?
The Christian Tradition would rather say that by the Grace of God we attain to a richness that would have been impossible without Him, for God alone knows the good to which His creature is destined. According to its philophical tradition, God is both the efficient cause and the final cause — the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the emergence of a being brought out of nought but the Divine Will, and ordered to no other end but full communion with its Cause ... but the point remains that if the created nature chooses, as we are discussing rational natures here, and a dimension of rationality is freedom, to seeks its proper end in God, then this end is foreknown and forsenn, so God profits nothing by it. If, on the other hand, the creatiure chooses tro pursue and end other than this union, then it seeks that which is ontologically non-existent, and so itself enters into non-existence, and again God suffers nothing by this course of action either, for no human activity, no matter how productive, can be said to alter the Divine Nature in any degree — thus the richness is ours, but not Gods.
Take human ature as an example: A person can choose to follow all the virtues anrd realise a perfect existence (even within the corporeal domain of its own corporeality), but this does not alter human nature in any way — human nature is not altered nor enriched because what is humanly possible is already there, as a reality, within the nature itself — the human cannot realise anything but the fulfillment of that nature of which it is but one instance. On the othe rhand a human can choose a life of dissolution, and again human nature itself is not intrinsically altered because of it ... the nature rmains what it is, simply the person has failed to fulfil his or her potential.
Only the finite creature, subject to contingency, experiences richness or not-richness ...
That is certainly one reading of the text, but it is not the only one — a Docetic reading is also entirely possible, and indeed reasonable, in the sense that if He and the Father is One, and the Father is spirit alone, then the physicality of Jesus, the humanity of Christ, is illusory. He is a spiritual entity with only the seemingness of humanity.
Indeed, but Docetism, which seems affirmed by this text, is not panenthesim.
Questions of contradiction, paradox and dichotomy with regard to the text can only be resolved by reference to the text itself. Against the citation employed, we have another, "for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and indeed a raft of others, Psalm 85:10, Ecclesiasticus 3:21, Luke 5:21, Luke 18:19 "And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone."
The resolution of which I am guided by those theologians and mystics of the text (and indeed the terms are almost synonymous), who stand to another conclusion, formally pronounced at Chalcedon, whose words upon the matter offer me an unrivalled richness of understanding. They alone, to my mind, open up and ever deeper penetration into the mystery of being, and non-being, and beyond-being, whereas other solutions, in which i include panthesim and panentheism, seem to me to shut it down.
As Christ said in the mouth of John th Divine, "How can you believe, who receive glory one from another (pan[en]theism): and the glory which is from God alone, (monotheism) you do not seek?" (John 5:44).
It seems to me however that such a panentheism does precisely tgat, it renders the essential nature of humanity as an accidental one, thus ephemaral, contingent and no part of the Divine Nature, for the Divine Nature, like any nature, is one and indivisible, entire and complete in all its parts.
Here I disagree, as I believe in creatio ex nihilo. For me God beings being into actual existence, which is thereby an authentic creatio, which is incomparably greater than 'out of Himself', by which what seems to exist has no actuality. All creation is subsistent actuality, for sure, but its actuality is nevertheless real and concrete in itself.It is axiomatic there is God and nought else, but if that is the case, then if God creates out of Himself, there is no other but God created ... and I'm back to tha paradox that the Divine eseence cannot be other than Divine, with all that the term implies ... and which we are not.
But panentheism by definition is a second cause, for God calls His creature to seek God as God ... whereas panentheis posits God in creation, of which the 'en' infers is not God-as-such ... this is what Denys, Eriugena, Eckhart, Cusa and others allude to ... nothing can be predicated of God in the order of knowing, because God transcends knowledge, God is not knowledge, but knowledge is an interface, if you will, ieven the knowledge of God ... even the Divine Name is not God, but an interface by which we might comprehend the incomprehensible ... whereas panthesim and panentheism are attempts to determine the Divine Nature according to material things.I am not saying God is not in things, nor that all things are not in God, but I am saying, following the line of the apophatists, that God is not a thing; not a form, not an idea, not a body, and that personally I seek God in that that is not which and there is nought in God but God ... as St Denys says: "For a super-essential understanding of It is proper to Unknowing, which lieth in the Super-Essence Thereof surpassing Discourse, Intuition and Being" (The Divine Names), "direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty." (The Mytical theology).
But if all that exists is divine, then humanity does not exist, and the idea of a union of an essence with itself is a nonsense, as an essence is immutably one.
Well one might ask what gives Warren Felt Evans the right to decide what is Christian and who is not by the same token. I am not saying he is not Christian, I don't know him or hios works, but I am saying that the arguments you present me are not conclusive and certain errors, according to what I call 'traditional' Christianity, are evident.
Furthermore every argument I have presented you have not replied to, but simply shifted to some other point of dispute. So I assume you too have no response to the argument I present, but are simply intent on disputation.
No. I'm saying they use the term accident according to its lexical understanding in the Greek philosophical tradition., whereas the use of the term by Clayton is either erroneous — a confusion of essence and accidents — or he's redefining the term, in which case he posits a non-Christian metaphysic.
And as Aristotle is still considered an authority even today, and studied at great length across the globe, I can't see how he can be described as 'hobbled' in his determinations. Especially as his theory of categories, from which accidents derive, is still considered a workable hypothesis and one that has been expanded upon at length, and perhaps even denied, but not to my knowledge surpassed.
Thomas
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Now that you have taiji, now consider wuji:Thank you, SG, a lady of few words, but always interesting ones
Wuji (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
Wait, just looked into panentheism more, and I have some questions...
In the wiki article it says that god is not exactly the creator of the universe, just the animating force behind it. So... Who created the universe then? Is god required to participate actively in this animation in the panentheistic view? What does not exactly mean?
I'm... confused...
Help?
The answers to these questions might just redefine my self imposed label of panentheist, lol. But really, what the fluffy kitty?
Will research more. But any input is, as always, appreciated.
In the wiki article it says that god is not exactly the creator of the universe, just the animating force behind it. So... Who created the universe then? Is god required to participate actively in this animation in the panentheistic view? What does not exactly mean?
I'm... confused...
Help?
The answers to these questions might just redefine my self imposed label of panentheist, lol. But really, what the fluffy kitty?
Will research more. But any input is, as always, appreciated.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
According to the Tao Te Ching chapter 25, God is just being God.
Numerous translations for comparison:
Tao Teh Ching 25 - Church of the East
Legge translation:
Tao Te Ching - Translated by J. Legge
25
There was something undefined and complete, coming into
existence before Heaven and Earth. How still it was and formless,
standing alone, and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and in
no danger (of being exhausted)! It may be regarded as the Mother of
all things.
I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the Tao
(the Way or Course). Making an effort (further) to give it a name I
call it The Great.
Great, it passes on (in constant flow). Passing on, it becomes
remote. Having become remote, it returns. Therefore the Tao is
great; Heaven is great; Earth is great; and the (sage) king is also
great. In the universe there are four that are great, and the (sage)
king is one of them.
Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from
Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Tao. The law of the Tao is its
being what it is.
nativeastral
fluffy future
great stuff, heres more congenial to [our] tao [on pantheism]
Universal Pantheist Society - Pantheism: The Religion of Science by Oliver L. Reiser
and a snippet from an islam/hinduism comparative, those inner/outer and being and beyond poles again, or is it really all maya and nothing really matters [either partly or wholly]?!!
Schuon : “It is by reducing the nature of the Universe to the exclusive
relationship “Creator and creature” and so confining it in inescapable alternative, that one is prevented from being able to recognize that creation is necessary or rather that it is an aspect of necessity. . . . Universal Manifestation — creation, is nothing other than the outflowing
of a Divine Quality, goes beyond the alternative “Creator creature.” From this point of view, the world is none other than an aspect of Atma. Maya is Divine aspect mysteriously projected towards a nothingness which by definition never exists but which is always intimated; Maya is this intimation itself extending from Being down to the smallest of privations and the spatial void. The duality of “Creator and creature” is situated in Maya; Atma
alone transcends it. Thus it isn’t an imperfection for God to manifest Himself.”23
hinduism and islam a critique
Universal Pantheist Society - Pantheism: The Religion of Science by Oliver L. Reiser
and a snippet from an islam/hinduism comparative, those inner/outer and being and beyond poles again, or is it really all maya and nothing really matters [either partly or wholly]?!!
Schuon : “It is by reducing the nature of the Universe to the exclusive
relationship “Creator and creature” and so confining it in inescapable alternative, that one is prevented from being able to recognize that creation is necessary or rather that it is an aspect of necessity. . . . Universal Manifestation — creation, is nothing other than the outflowing
of a Divine Quality, goes beyond the alternative “Creator creature.” From this point of view, the world is none other than an aspect of Atma. Maya is Divine aspect mysteriously projected towards a nothingness which by definition never exists but which is always intimated; Maya is this intimation itself extending from Being down to the smallest of privations and the spatial void. The duality of “Creator and creature” is situated in Maya; Atma
alone transcends it. Thus it isn’t an imperfection for God to manifest Himself.”23
hinduism and islam a critique
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
Thanks SG. That is really interesting.
I've solved my problem, looking further, and have determined that panentheism as a whole is not for me. I found that it has many similarities to what I believe, but, I guess the whole not creating the universe part of the theory was what did it in for me.
I guess, the way I look at it, God = creator. And so the god they talk about really isn't God. It's just a kind of governing force, with independent will, under the creator.
That's kinda the only way I can see it. I mean, I can appreciate the theory, but I can't believe that is the entire extent of God. Any realistic God, to me, has to be the three o's to their fullest extent. And a God who didn't create just don't do it for me. Leaves too many unnecessary unanswered questions to hold up.
But that's just my opinion.
I've solved my problem, looking further, and have determined that panentheism as a whole is not for me. I found that it has many similarities to what I believe, but, I guess the whole not creating the universe part of the theory was what did it in for me.
I guess, the way I look at it, God = creator. And so the god they talk about really isn't God. It's just a kind of governing force, with independent will, under the creator.
That's kinda the only way I can see it. I mean, I can appreciate the theory, but I can't believe that is the entire extent of God. Any realistic God, to me, has to be the three o's to their fullest extent. And a God who didn't create just don't do it for me. Leaves too many unnecessary unanswered questions to hold up.
But that's just my opinion.