Pantheism and Panentheism

N-N said:
My own feeling is that a psychological understanding does not preclude a theological one. Deconstruction does not destroy spiritual meaning,

And I'm in complete agreement with you. As I stated, I only believe that this explanation may be the case. It has little to do with my lived reality. It was more or less stated to prevent Thomas from countering that the line of reasoning I was pursuing could be said to apply to panentheism itself. Certainly it could. I have no objection to that.

To me, this is the importance of panentheism: Pantheism obscures the relation between human and Divine by equating them. Panentheism brings the Divine into focus as a present reality and shows us that our path is to become increasingly responsible toward the Divine that is continuously meeting us half way and then some.

My view is similar but different. I think that panentheism better preserves all of the othering dynamics between man and God which are in many cases the most accessible way to relate to the Divine. That is to say, I think it preserves the possibility for the most subjective and personal ways of connecting to God. Whether or not there's any non-subjective validity to these experiences, I don't have an answer. I'm no more ready to conclude that God isn't a psychological construct than that God is a psychological construct. Either opinion seems like a lot of unnecessary commentary. Yes, to be clear, I just stated that belief in the truth of God's existence as more/less than a psychological construct seems like a lot of unnecessary commentary to me. I realize that many people on both sides of the debate are likely to disagree with me.

-- Dauer
 
All interesting reading, I just cannot not see G!d in all things.

Can you please give some examples of things that you do not see manifestations of G-d ?

Are you thinking about good vs. evil, or is there a neutral case too ?
 
Thomas,

you didn't respond to what I stated...
That's true.

I thought you were saying that pantheism and panentheism are to do with absolute objectivity rather than subjectivity.[/quote]
I would say that they are to do with a lack of objectivity.

But it seems pretty plain to me that pantheism and panentheism can use highly subjective language.
With a greater or lesser degree of accuracy according to the degree of objectivity.

... If the issue that troubles monotheism is seeing a particular mask, a particular partzuf/face or interface as God, because it elevates that thing, then panentheism ... resolves the issue because all is a part of God and God is accessible through all.
My issue is monotheism (at least Christian) never said otherwise ... It's a lack of comprehending orthodox theology that brings about 'panentheism' as a modification of pantheism.

If we were to reconstruct a logical argument for Jay Michaelson I think it would begin with the assumption that something is lost in an entirely abstract conceptualization of the Divine and that a position which allows for subjective relating is more desirable. I don't think you disagree with that much.
No.

But he'd probably also have to include the premise that, when dealing with God-language, more subjectivity is more desirable. I think this is where you might begin to disagree.
Yes.

Thomas
 
Can you please give some examples of things that you do not see manifestations of G-d ?

Are you thinking about good vs. evil, or is there a neutral case too ?
Namaste Avi,

I indicated I cannot not see G!d in all things....ie I see G!d in all things.

My issue is monotheism (at least Christian) never said otherwise ... It's a lack of comprehending orthodox theology that brings about 'panentheism' as a modification of pantheism.
Namaste Thomas,

I have no issues with monotheism. Just because G!d is in all things, does not make G!d not one, and not one with all things.

Take a look at this Largest organisms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia what we once thought as numerous or seperate we find out to be one. I'm not saying this is the same but analogous. Just as my fingernail, and my little toe, and my elbow are all different, but they are all part of me. Just as the Hindu Priest told me they are monotheistic....all their gods are representations of Krishna.
 
Thomas said:
My issue is monotheism (at least Christian) never said otherwise ... It's a lack of comprehending orthodox theology that brings about 'panentheism' as a modification of pantheism.

And that's all well and good. The two places in this thread where I've responded to you it's been because you've seemed to extended your understanding of Christian theology to Judaism where it's not accurate. In Judaism panentheism is an acceptable belief that even some ultra-orthodox adhere to. There are also ultra-orthodox Jews who adhere to a fairly radical acosmism. I do think that there are more similarities between Catholic and Jewish thought than Protestant and Jewish thought (except insofar as Reform Judaism is concerned) but there are also a lot of differences. This is one of them.

wil said:
Just as the Hindu Priest told me they are monotheistic....all their gods are representations of Krishna.

I think it's interesting how in Hinduism, there are various gods that are manifestations of the same God and in Judaism there are various names, with sometimes extremely different associations, that are all the same God. It's like viewing the same problem from different angles.

-- Dauer
 
I think it's interesting how in Hinduism, there are various gods that are manifestations of the same God and in Judaism there are various names, with sometimes extremely different associations, that are all the same God. It's like viewing the same problem from different angles.
wil:status:like laying in the redwood forest on a bed of moss admiring the sun rays shooting thru the trees...

Namaste Dauer, thank you for sending me there....
 
I think it's interesting how in Hinduism, there are various gods that are manifestations of the same God and in Judaism there are various names, with sometimes extremely different associations, that are all the same God. It's like viewing the same problem from different angles.-- Dauer

wil:status:like laying in the redwood forest on a bed of moss admiring the sun rays shooting thru the trees...
Hi,
I sometimes think that it might be more than just "interesting". Although at this time I don't get but a glimpse of possibility , I do see that Wil is relaxing in the light. Cool.
Joe
 
Hi Wil —
I have no issues with monotheism.
And obviously nor do I ... moreover it seems to me Christian monotheism (of the orthodox order, at least) expresses the idea of Divine Immanence quite succinctly ... but it also seems to me that panentheism blurs the boundaries between pantheism and immanence and can lead to all manner of ill-advised assumptions.

Just because G!d is in all things, does not make G!d not one, and not one with all things.
Agreed ... but we still maintain the distinction between God and created natures, I'm not sure panentheism can say where the boundary lies?

I think the Christian metaphysical tradition of how God is in all things, and yet things remain integral and 'real' creations, it unique and, among all systems, the most optimistic and inspirational.

I'm not saying this is the same but analogous.

Christian metaphysics goes further ... man stands at the apex of creation, and as all is united in him, He unites himself to God, and thus God is all in all.

Just as my fingernail, and my little toe, and my elbow are all different, but they are all part of me. Just as the Hindu Priest told me they are monotheistic....all their gods are representations of Krishna.
Well we would say that all are members of the Body of Christ ...

... again and again, I don't see why people have to invent new names or new ideas to express what we've been saying for 2,000 years.

But the point remains the union is by participation, not by nature.

What panentheism needs to do is show just how created nature is divine.

Thomas
 
Well we would say that all are members of the Body of Christ ...

... again and again, I don't see why people have to invent new names or new ideas to express what we've been saying for 2,000 years.
I suppose the Jews, the Hindus, Native American Indians, Plotinus....could all say the same thing. eg why invent new names or ideas. But the truth is they aren't new names or ideas, Jesus and we are discussing age old concepts are we not?
But the point remains the union is by participation, not by nature.

What panentheism needs to do is show just how created nature is divine.

Thomas
Panentheism needs to show? As if Christianity could show how it is divine? To me man shows how this or that is this or that, or tries to explain their beliefs to others. To me, I look at a bud and watch a flower unfurl, a catepillar turn into a butterfly, or even a rock be it metamorphis, sedimentary, igneous or whatever...all emanations.

Ya know while I am working hard on the its all good concept. I can more easily see the benefit of the horrendous acts of nature hurricanes, floods, forest fires, volcanic eruptions...than I can the horrendous acts of churches and followers. But it doesn't stop me from working on it.
 
I suppose the Jews, the Hindus, Native American Indians, Plotinus....could all say the same thing.
Not really. The doctrines are significantly different, that's my point. Most people delight in telling me what Christianity is, when really they don't know beyond superficial hearsay and pop soundbites.

The Jews are radically different with regard to the idea of 'The Body of Christ', so are the Hindus, who deny the detail, Native americans I can't speak for ... Platonism again is radically different.

So not the same thing at all. It's a modern and utterly unfounded assumption that all religions say the same thing, based more on sentimentalism than fact.

Frithjof Schuon came close to a reasonable argument in 'The Transcendent Unity of Religions', but the work is flawed.


As if Christianity could show how it is divine?
Does it surprise you that it can? There might be more to the doctrines of old dead men than you suppose ... ;)

To me, I look at a bud and watch a flower unfurl, a catepillar turn into a butterfly, or even a rock be it metamorphis, sedimentary, igneous or whatever...all emanations.
OK. So you believe in emanationism ... but that's not what Christianity ever taught. Creatio ex nihilo, and all that.

It's the little distinctions that are actually important.

But God is not a rock, nor a bud, nor a caterpillar, nor a butterfly nor a man ... so all very new age and poetic, but what happens when someone says 'how, exactly'? That's me, you see, I've always asked "How?"

You might have some new doctrine, but please don't confuse it with Christianity.

I can more easily see the benefit of the horrendous acts of nature hurricanes, floods, forest fires, volcanic eruptions...than I can the horrendous acts of churches and followers.
Then you should concentrate on not mixing moral and natural values. Acts of nature are not 'horrendous' in the way acts of man are, they're just nature ... so it's sentimentalism / anthropomorphism that calls them nature, as if nature could be 'evil'.

Also, taking a pop at the church when one's stuck for a cogent argument is a cop-out and no argument at all.

Thomas
 
OK. So you believe in emanationism ... but that's not what Christianity ever taught. Creatio ex nihilo, and all that.

It's the little distinctions that are actually important.

But God is not a rock, nor a bud, nor a caterpillar, nor a butterfly nor a man ... so all very new age and poetic, but what happens when someone says 'how, exactly'? That's me, you see, I've always asked "How?"

You might have some new doctrine, but please don't confuse it with Christianity.


Then you should concentrate on not mixing moral and natural values. Acts of nature are not 'horrendous' in the way acts of man are, they're just nature ... so it's sentimentalism / anthropomorphism that calls them nature, as if nature could be 'evil'.

Also, taking a pop at the church when one's stuck for a cogent argument is a cop-out and no argument at all.

Thomas
I'm taking no pop at the church, just those that purport to have its backing and abuse it.

And I am not saying the rock or plant is G!d but that G!d is in it...omnipresent, in all things...but you knew that already.

Thomas as usual, I am not saying what you are or your church is, but what I am and what my beliefs are.
 
Gregory of Nyssa (d 385/6) intended a work "On The Making of Man" as a supplement and completion of the Hexaëmeron (The Six Days) of his father, St Basil (329-369).

The narrative of the creation of the world is not discussed in detail. For Gregory, the world is created as the sphere of man's sovereignty, but man is not the equal of his Creator. He is the gardener in the estate of the Lord. His art is husbandry. Gregory argues that man was made with circumspection, fitted by nature for rule over the other creatures, made in the likeness of God in respect of his possession of a reasoning nature, while differing from the Divine in that he is a contained within a nature, albeit one cast in the Divine Image.

Man is a being, like all being, by virtue of the fact that he participates in Being — he is not self-sufficient but dependent upon his participation in Being, and derives his knowledge of things — including himself — not innately, but first by by means of the physical senses for the apprehension of things, and by means of the spiritual senses for the truth of things.

The body is fitted to be the instrument of the mind, shaped to the use of a reasonable being: and it is by the possession of the rational soul, as well as of the natural or vegetative and the sensible soul, that man differs from the lower animals. At the same time, his mind works by means of the senses: it is incomprehensible in its nature (resembling in this the Divine nature of which it is the image). The connection between mind and body is ineffable: it is not to be accounted for by supposing that the mind resides in any particular part of the body: the mind acts upon and is acted upon by the whole body, depending on the corporeal and material nature for one element of perception, so that perception requires both body and mind.

Bodies are the means by which essences are manifest in a finite nature; individuality is the means by which universals are realised.

Man was first made in the image of God: and this conception excludes the idea of distinction of sex. In the first creation of man all humanity is included, according to the Divine foreknowledge: our whole nature extending from the first to the last is one image of Him Who is. But for the Fall, the increase of the human race would have taken place as the increase of the angelic race takes place, in some way unknown to us.

In the Fall, man over-reached his nature. Made in the Divine Image, he seeks to be, in the world, that which God is, rather than act as the bridgemaker between the Image and the reality, he seeks to be the image of the world in himself, and thus sunders the foundation of the relationship with God. In so doing, by breaking the first covenant with God, the grace that would elevate his nature, that opens the essence of himself to the essence of God on the one hand and nature on the other, his inner (single) eye is closed, and his external, sensible, (dual) eyes are opened — where once he saw all in all, now he sees only things as other than himself.

The Fall from makes succession by generation a necessity. No longer nourished by God, he finds himself in need of nourishment by food. Where once he was pontifex, now he is one with the lower creation.

But these necessities are not permanent: God will not abandon His creation, but seeks man out where he has fallen ... and will restore him to his former excellence.

Man's restoration, the apocatastasis, follows from the finite nature of evil: it is deferred until the sum of humanity is complete. As to the mode in which the present state of things will end, we know nothing: but that it will end is inferred from the non-eternity of matter.

Gregory maintains that the body and the soul come into existence together, a potentially in the Divine will, an actually at the moment when each individual man comes into being by generation.

Gregory concludes that man is generated as a living and animated being, and that the power of the soul is gradually manifested in, and by means of, the material substratum of the body; so that man is brought to perfection by the aid of the lower attributes of the soul that stives towards its end.

The true perfection of the soul is not in the material domain however; man will not find God in the world, but God will be revealed in the world through man, which will ultimately be put away, but in the higher attributes which constitute for man the image of God, that image which is his own true nature, his good and his end, for which he must strive beyond all worldly attractions in the pursuit of 'the one thing necessary' (Luke 10:42).

Hebrews 8:3
"For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should have some thing to offer."

The gift and sacrifice is himself: Mark 10:21
"And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Mark 12:33
"And that he (God) should be loved with the whole heart, and with the whole understanding, and with the whole soul, and with the whole strength; and to love one's neighbour as one's self, is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices."

Panentheism is a noble endeavour, to seek God in the world, and love Him there: But Christianity is a higher calling, to seek God in God alone, for where man finds God, the world finds God with him.

The reality of the world is revealed then as theophany (a divine manifestation, which derives from epiphany "to appear") when man offers himself as sacrifice to God, in the footsteps of Christ, he becomes one in Him, and the Sacrament of the World. The Divine Nature indwells the spiritual soul (shekinah) and because the soul of man is one, so too are the lower orders, the natural orders, deified.

Man is called to know God not in things (pantheism) nor in the appearance of things (panentheism), but as the source and cause of things.

Thomas
 
....Panentheism is a noble endeavour, to seek God in the world, and love Him there: But Christianity is a higher calling, to seek God in God alone, for where man finds God, the world finds God with him....Man is called to know God not in things (pantheism) nor in the appearance of things (panentheism), but as the source and cause of things.
Namaste Thomas,

But Christianity is a higher calling?? I thought we've gone over the my G!d's better than your G!d concept or my church is better than your church discussion already. Hard to break free of that, eh?

There was a fellow here once that accused me of tearing down others beliefs and leaving them nothing...

Man is not called, some men are called to your belief, and others to mine, and others to theirs. Ah the glory of interpretation.
 
Man is called to know God not in things (pantheism) nor in the appearance of things (panentheism), but as the source and cause of things.
Thomas

Hi Thomas, you have now made many posts on this topic of panthesim and panentheism, and they have all been wonderfully enlightening and beautifully written.

And from the early posts they have all shared the common concept that I have quoted above.

But I have a different perspective.

Although I am Jewish, I do not think our difference is one between Judaism and Christianity.

I think the difference is a different view of reality.

As I try to understand reality, the universe, I am nearly of an atheist view. It seems like science is the best way that we have of understanding reality.

However, I am not an atheist. I think there is more to reality than the atoms and black holes that make up our universe. I think our hearts and minds are an important part of reality.

So when I try to imagine who / what G-d is, I think of G-d theistically, but I still have to return and try to have a consistent view of reality. A view that is consistent with science. And I cannot imagine any other way to envision G-d than as a representation of our universe.
 
Hi Avi — Thanks for that ...

As I try to understand reality, the universe, I am nearly of an atheist view. It seems like science is the best way that we have of understanding reality.

At a level ... I'd agree, and indeed Aquinas, for example, championed that viewpoint — that faith can be married to reason.

... but I still have to return and try to have a consistent view of reality. A view that is consistent with science. And I cannot imagine any other way to envision G-d than as a representation of our universe.
I would put it the other way round — because our only experience is the universe, that's all the material we have with which to envision God. As that experience is sensible, we are impoverished, but then God reaches out always and everywhere ...

The Fathers, for example, have envisioned God in a way that remains unsurpassed in the Christian Tradition, and yet the science available to them was, by comparison, limited, to say the least. The same, I think, can be said of the great Taoist philosophers, of the Buddhists ... and indeed all the great spiritual traditions.

I think if God was left to science alone (and here I assume science as generally understood today, whereas I regard theology as the First Science), then I think we would have a very poor and somewhat mechanistic view of God.

There should be no conflict between faith and reason, between science and theology. People like Dawkins like to make out there must be, but he's wrong. In fact his argument against God is founded on poor science — as someone said, he is a better botanist than he is a philosopher.

Thomas
 
Gregory of Nyssa (d 385/6) intended a work "On The Making of Man" as a supplement and completion of the Hexaëmeron (The Six Days) of his father, St Basil (329-369).

The narrative of the creation of the world is not discussed in detail. For Gregory, the world is created as the sphere of man's sovereignty, but man is not the equal of his Creator. He is the gardener in the estate of the Lord. His art is husbandry. Gregory argues that man was made with circumspection, fitted by nature for rule over the other creatures, made in the likeness of God in respect of his possession of a reasoning nature, while differing from the Divine in that he is a contained within a nature, albeit one cast in the Divine Image.

Man is a being, like all being, by virtue of the fact that he participates in Being — he is not self-sufficient but dependent upon his participation in Being, and derives his knowledge of things — including himself — not innately, but first by by means of the physical senses for the apprehension of things, and by means of the spiritual senses for the truth of things.

The body is fitted to be the instrument of the mind, shaped to the use of a reasonable being: and it is by the possession of the rational soul, as well as of the natural or vegetative and the sensible soul, that man differs from the lower animals. At the same time, his mind works by means of the senses: it is incomprehensible in its nature (resembling in this the Divine nature of which it is the image). The connection between mind and body is ineffable: it is not to be accounted for by supposing that the mind resides in any particular part of the body: the mind acts upon and is acted upon by the whole body, depending on the corporeal and material nature for one element of perception, so that perception requires both body and mind.

Bodies are the means by which essences are manifest in a finite nature; individuality is the means by which universals are realised.

Man was first made in the image of God: and this conception excludes the idea of distinction of sex. In the first creation of man all humanity is included, according to the Divine foreknowledge: our whole nature extending from the first to the last is one image of Him Who is. But for the Fall, the increase of the human race would have taken place as the increase of the angelic race takes place, in some way unknown to us.

In the Fall, man over-reached his nature. Made in the Divine Image, he seeks to be, in the world, that which God is, rather than act as the bridgemaker between the Image and the reality, he seeks to be the image of the world in himself, and thus sunders the foundation of the relationship with God. In so doing, by breaking the first covenant with God, the grace that would elevate his nature, that opens the essence of himself to the essence of God on the one hand and nature on the other, his inner (single) eye is closed, and his external, sensible, (dual) eyes are opened — where once he saw all in all, now he sees only things as other than himself.

The Fall from makes succession by generation a necessity. No longer nourished by God, he finds himself in need of nourishment by food. Where once he was pontifex, now he is one with the lower creation.

But these necessities are not permanent: God will not abandon His creation, but seeks man out where he has fallen ... and will restore him to his former excellence.

Man's restoration, the apocatastasis, follows from the finite nature of evil: it is deferred until the sum of humanity is complete. As to the mode in which the present state of things will end, we know nothing: but that it will end is inferred from the non-eternity of matter.

Gregory maintains that the body and the soul come into existence together, a potentially in the Divine will, an actually at the moment when each individual man comes into being by generation.

Gregory concludes that man is generated as a living and animated being, and that the power of the soul is gradually manifested in, and by means of, the material substratum of the body; so that man is brought to perfection by the aid of the lower attributes of the soul that stives towards its end.

The true perfection of the soul is not in the material domain however; man will not find God in the world, but God will be revealed in the world through man, which will ultimately be put away, but in the higher attributes which constitute for man the image of God, that image which is his own true nature, his good and his end, for which he must strive beyond all worldly attractions in the pursuit of 'the one thing necessary' (Luke 10:42).

Hebrews 8:3
"For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should have some thing to offer."

The gift and sacrifice is himself: Mark 10:21
"And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Mark 12:33
"And that he (God) should be loved with the whole heart, and with the whole understanding, and with the whole soul, and with the whole strength; and to love one's neighbour as one's self, is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices."

Panentheism is a noble endeavour, to seek God in the world, and love Him there: But Christianity is a higher calling, to seek God in God alone, for where man finds God, the world finds God with him.

The reality of the world is revealed then as theophany (a divine manifestation, which derives from epiphany "to appear") when man offers himself as sacrifice to God, in the footsteps of Christ, he becomes one in Him, and the Sacrament of the World. The Divine Nature indwells the spiritual soul (shekinah) and because the soul of man is one, so too are the lower orders, the natural orders, deified.

Man is called to know God not in things (pantheism) nor in the appearance of things (panentheism), but as the source and cause of things.

Thomas

those greek fathers wrote pure poetry and knew how to pull things together; l see not only christianity in there, but also all the other religions, particularly the esoterics of the abrahamic traditions, and the Easterns, who need no mediator, or 'body' to facilitate this 'participation'. They are all in their own hermeneutic circle of particular semantics, whether fall, dukka, maya or alienation to describe the tension of existence we intuite, between the poles of ignorance and knowledge, the separation of inauthenticity and at-one-ment of authenticity. We can only experience transcendence via our own immanence and we each have our own Archimedean point.

the ontological separation between creator and created has facilitated this modern world of subjects and objects, discrimination of creatures other than 'in the image' of humans, and now technology as both a means and a barrier to communication [tv dinners anyone?].

lt is inevitable that in the west the preponderance of reason and the rational to the detriment of the 'other' bits of soul stuff would rebalance at some point, hence now the popular rise of mainstream mysticism and spirituality that couples beings and the world and the beyond necessarily. it feels right, and feeling is as important as thinking. Being analytic is all very well but we need more synthesisers! Panentheism synthesises.
 
those greek fathers wrote pure poetry and knew how to pull things together; l see not only christianity in there, but also all the other religions...
Maybe, but that's you, not the Fathers, nor would they accept that. They were, almost to a man, Platonists who embraced Christianity and revised their philosophy according to Revelation.

Of course there were those, like Celcus, Proclus and the like, who thought they were all mad.

Thomas
 
Aha! Platonists! Platonic Platonists Plagiarizing Plato. Platonian Patrons Peopling Paris. Parenthetical Preachers Papering Pythagoras. Pithy Protagonists Patent Pending.
 
Back
Top