Mindfulness as an Expression of Pantheism

[Ella S.]

I notice that some pantheistic spiritual approaches place a focus on remaining silent and still in order to passively listen to the world.

I have only recently begun to pick up mindfulness again, but to me it makes sense as a form of the Stoic "Amor Fati" and the veneration of nature. Even if I am a metaphysical naturalist, and I believe all that exists is ultimately reduced to relationships between physical objects and forces, and that the world operates "automatically" or "by itself," I still understand that I am a part of that process. Taking time to shut up and re-orient myself in relation to nature makes sense as far as wanting to remain clear-minded and aware.

In fact, mindfulness in general improves emotional resilience, concentration, and memory. It also helps when you're trying to remain calm. While I am developing techniques and skills for calming myself down in the moment, mindfulness as a general practice is something I can maintain as a disposition to remain logical. Logic is, of course, at the forefront of my interpretation and practice of Stoic philosophy.

I'm wondering if anyone else here sees a connection between mindfulness and pantheism in their personal spiritual experiences.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yes. It is something I need to practice more

 

[vulcanlogician]

I think pantheism can generate both active and passive spiritual practices and can serve as metaphysical support for both approaches. I personally like the "time for X, time for Y" approach to spirituality. (The Ecclesiastes method.) I've even found that meditation and contemplative methodologies have actually spurred me to "come out" of my shell and be more active in the world.

Metaphysically speaking, both approaches are supported by a pantheistic outlook. (At least when we're talkin determinism.) After all, if determinism is true, there is no need to will an act. But at the same time, if you do will an act, such an act is not an intrusion into the balance of nature. It is the necessary unfoldment of the universe. (Or as Salinger put it, "God pouring God into God.")

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think pantheism can generate both active and passive spiritual practices and can serve as metaphysical support for both approaches. I personally like the "time for X, time for Y" approach to spirituality. (The Ecclesiastes method.) I've even found that meditation and contemplative methodologies have actually spurred me to "come out" of my shell and be more active in the world.

Could you explain the "time for X, time for Y" approach to spirituality? And could you describe in detail how you meditate?

Metaphysically speaking, both approaches are supported by a pantheistic outlook. (At least when we're talkin determinism.) After all, if determinism is true, there is no need to will an act. But at the same time, if you do will an act, such an act is not an intrusion into the balance of nature. It is the necessary unfoldment of the universe. (Or as Salinger put it, "God pouring God into God.")

Agreed. All of our actions, and their consequences, are what was meant to happen. If that's what you're saying.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Could you explain the "time for X, time for Y" approach to spirituality?

It refers to a quote from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Not that my approach to spirituality is necessarily Jewish or Judeo-Christian... (I'm not really all that spiritual to begin with).

It's just that I think one's spiritual life can be comprised of many things including what we might consider opposites (like activity or non-activity).

Spending time in silence and contemplation... studying our inner world... these things are often taken to be "spiritual." And they are.

But being an active person, working, laughing, loving, walking through the woods, playing games... is also spiritual. "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity."--"A time to laugh, a time to weep."--"A time to mourn, a time to dance."-- That's what I meant by the Ecclesiastes approach to spirituality.

And could you describe in detail how you meditate?

Mostly just chanting. I like to chant Sanskrit and Tibetan mantras.

Sometimes I'll take a break and sit silently or stretch. Other times I just chant and chant and chant. Sometimes, when I inhale it feels good, when I chant the mantra out it feels good. I don't think Sanskrit mantras have supernatural properties or anything. But they are nice for sitting alone and creating a resonance.

Your mileage may vary. Mine does.

All of our actions, and their consequences, are what was meant to happen. If that's what you're saying.

"Meant to happen" isn't a phrase I would use. That implies that a human-like agent (with cosmic powers) is calling the shots. Some "divine plan" is being acted out. I don't see those conclusions as plausible.

But you could mean "meant to happen" in a different way. As in, inevitable. Or, "the natural result of prior conditions."

What exactly do you mean by "meant to happen"...?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It refers to a quote from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Not that my approach to spirituality is necessarily Jewish or Judeo-Christian... (I'm not really all that spiritual to begin with).

It's just that I think one's spiritual life can be comprised of many things including what we might consider opposites (like activity or non-activity).

Spending time in silence and contemplation... studying our inner world... these things are often taken to be "spiritual." And they are.

But being an active person, working, laughing, loving, walking through the woods, playing games... is also spiritual. "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity."--"A time to laugh, a time to weep."--"A time to mourn, a time to dance."-- That's what I meant by the Ecclesiastes approach to spirituality.



Mostly just chanting. I like to chant Sanskrit and Tibetan mantras.

I like it

Sometimes I'll take a break and sit silently or stretch. Other times I just chant and chant and chant. Sometimes, when I inhale it feels good, when I chant the mantra out it feels good. I don't think Sanskrit mantras have supernatural properties or anything. But they are nice for sitting alone and creating a resonance.

Your mileage may vary. Mine does.

"Meant to happen" isn't a phrase I would use. That implies that a human-like agent (with cosmic powers) is calling the shots. Some "divine plan" is being acted out. I don't see those conclusions as plausible.

But you could mean "meant to happen" in a different way. As in, inevitable. Or, "the natural result of prior conditions."

What exactly do you mean by "meant to happen"...?

I feel like “the natural result of prior conditions” is one and the same as “divine plan”

 

[vulcanlogician]

I feel like “the natural result of prior conditions” is one and the same as “divine plan”

I personally would differentiate the two. But I suppose there is some overlap between the two notions.

A hurricane, the movement of celestial bodies, or the erosion of a hillside... I see these things as natural events that happen, but not according to some "plan." They happen because the universe has laws of nature. These laws of nature dictate the course of things in a way we cannot affect.

In a way, it's just the same as if "God's plan were set into motion." But, in another way, it's crucially different: we ought not assume that things will work out the way we expect or wish... nor should we assume that the universe is communicating with us or acting on our behalf (in the way which a classical God intervenes in the world to achieve human-like ends).

Either way, whatever ultimately happens in the world is out of our hands. The only freedom we have (in either case) is a kind of "inner freedom" or "mental freedom." That is, we can be wise enough to realize that we shouldn't be fatalistic in light of this fact. We rather should take the actions we want to take regardless, and know that it could not have been otherwise.

Not that I live according to these sagely principles or anything. But these are the things I try to remind myself when things become difficult... when I regret the past or worry about the future.

 

[Ella S.]

I personally would differentiate the two. But I suppose there is some overlap between the two notions.

A hurricane, the movement of celestial bodies, or the erosion of a hillside... I see these things as natural events that happen, but not according to some "plan." They happen because the universe has laws of nature. These laws of nature dictate the course of things in a way we cannot affect.

In a way, it's just the same as if "God's plan were set into motion." But, in another way, it's crucially different: we ought not assume that things will work out the way we expect or wish... nor should we assume that the universe is communicating with us or acting on our behalf (in the way which a classical God intervenes in the world to achieve human-like ends).

Either way, whatever ultimately happens in the world is out of our hands. The only freedom we have (in either case) is a kind of "inner freedom" or "mental freedom." That is, we can be wise enough to realize that we shouldn't be fatalistic in light of this fact. We rather should take the actions we want to take regardless, and know that it could not have been otherwise.

Not that I live according to these sagely principles or anything. But these are the things I try to remind myself when things become difficult... when I regret the past or worry about the future.

For me, I try to see life as a package deal. To live, I must experience living, which by definition follows the natural laws of the universe.

At any time I could choose to stop living, but I don't. Why? Not because life is free from suffering, but because life is worth the cost of suffering. It is the price of admission. Loss is the price we pay for love.

As Tennyson wrote, "Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."

In this way, we can cultivate Amor Fati, by appreciating what we have and becoming more accepting of that we cannot control. Every "bad" thing is reframed as "worth it" in the broader context.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I personally would differentiate the two. But I suppose there is some overlap between the two notions.

A hurricane, the movement of celestial bodies, or the erosion of a hillside... I see these things as natural events that happen, but not according to some "plan." They happen because the universe has laws of nature. These laws of nature dictate the course of things in a way we cannot affect.

In a way, it's just the same as if "God's plan were set into motion." But, in another way, it's crucially different: we ought not assume that things will work out the way we expect or wish... nor should we assume that the universe is communicating with us or acting on our behalf (in the way which a classical God intervenes in the world to achieve human-like ends).

I admit I fall into this trap on and off for a boost of optimism. But other times I will remind myself that the universe works for itself and not me. Regardless, I believe there is a plan of sorts. Everything that happens was set in stone from the moment existence clicked into… well… existence. Predetermined by math and natural laws and cause and effect on all levels, micro and macro. Nothing at all could have happened any other way, this is the only form existence could take. This tells me there is some rhyme behind it, and if there is a rhyme perhaps there’s a reason.

Either way, whatever ultimately happens in the world is out of our hands. The only freedom we have (in either case) is a kind of "inner freedom" or "mental freedom." That is, we can be wise enough to realize that we shouldn't be fatalistic in light of this fact. We rather should take the actions we want to take regardless, and know that it could not have been otherwise.

Not that I live according to these sagely principles or anything. But these are the things I try to remind myself when things become difficult... when I regret the past or worry about the future.

I agree and I think what you’re saying very much relates to Stoic philosophy, correct? We can’t control the weather but we can control how we act in light of it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

For me, I try to see life as a package deal. To live, I must experience living, which by definition follows the natural laws of the universe.

At any time I could choose to stop living, but I don't. Why? Not because life is free from suffering, but because life is worth the cost of suffering. It is the price of admission. Loss is the price we pay for love.

As Tennyson wrote, "Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."

In this way, we can cultivate Amor Fati, by appreciating what we have and becoming more accepting of that we cannot control. Every "bad" thing is reframed as "worth it" in the broader context.

Not only that, but we can train our minds to be grateful for the suffering as well sometimes. They are, after all, experiences too.

 

[vulcanlogician]

At any time I could choose to stop living, but I don't. Why? Not because life is free from suffering, but because life is worth the cost of suffering. It is the price of admission. Loss is the price we pay for love.

Spoken like a true Stoic. That's one thing I've always liked about the Stoic outlook. It doesn't sugar coat things. It's possible, to a Stoic, that a certain life condition may make life not worth living.

But the flipside to that notion is that if life IS worth living, it is wise (and possible) to surrender many things to live that worthy life. Many depressed people commit suicide, not because their lives aren't worth living... but because they've given up. Stoicism doesn't shy away from the prospect of suicide, but neither does it advocate "giving up."

 

[vulcanlogician]

I agree and I think what you’re saying very much relates to Stoic philosophy, correct? We can’t control the weather but we can control how we act in light of it.

Yeah. I was more thinking Spinoza rather than the Stoics, but Spinoza was highly influenced by the Stoics, especially in his advocacy for cultivating such attitudes. So in a way, yes. It's Stoic philosophy. We should be indifferent to the weather, and act how we want to act in spite of the weather's effect on us.

 

[Ella S.]

Not only that, but we can train our minds to be grateful for the suffering as well sometimes. They are, after all, experiences too.

Indeed. The usual example I read for this is exercise. I am not athletic, however, I do enjoy challenging my mind with a variety of difficult puzzles and abstract problems. This genuinely causes pain and discomfort, often due to straining my focus.

Yet those are the sensations that I seek out, even to the point of jumping into more difficult puzzles before mastering the basics in order to force myself to learn in a trial by fire. Part of it is because of the reward of surmounting intellectual obstacles, of course, but I have also learned to enjoy the effort itself.

Pain and discomfort are merely sensations, after all. Only our reactive judgments of them make them "bad;" they are not bad in and of themselves. At least, so goes the argument for Stoic ethics.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I admit I fall into this trap on and off for a boost of optimism. But other times I will remind myself that the universe works for itself and not me.

Since I'm thinking about Spinoza here anyway, I feel like I should point out that optimism (even optimism based on a faulty idea) can be good for you. To Spinoza, unless we are in a state where we are purely rational (which is never), we will always have a distorted view of the world.

If you are oscillating between optimism and despair, keep in mind that both states are ultimately distortions of reality.

Since that is the case, it is fine to choose optimism over despair. Spinoza has a model of adequate and inadequate ideas. Adequate ideas usually reflect the truth, but, more importantly, adequate ideas spur us to more positive and useful ways of thinking. And that's fine. The trick is not to become unrealistic or careless with your adequate ideas. Your ideas need to reflect reality to some precision... otherwise they are inadequate ideas and will lead you down the road of bondage and despair.

 

[Ella S.]

Spoken like a true Stoic. That's one thing I've always liked about the Stoic outlook. It doesn't sugar coat things. It's possible, to a Stoic, that a certain life condition may make life not worth living.

But the flipside to that notion is that if life IS worth living, it is wise (and possible) to surrender many things to live that worthy life. Many depressed people commit suicide, not because their lives aren't worth living... but because they've given up. Stoicism doesn't shy away from the prospect of suicide, but neither does it advocate "giving up."

Quite so, although this is not to insult those who give into depression. It is difficult to make a perfectly rational decision when you are so used to being weighed down by mental illness. It's simply that their illness prevents them from seeing the reality of their situation clearly enough to perform the correct actions. The Stoics call it "pathos" and psychologists call it "pathology."

It can be difficult to untangle someone so wrapped up in their own web of passion, and it is not always on them. Thankfully, we have therapists and psychologists who specialize in tackling these issues.

With that unnecessarily expository disclaimer out of the way, I have had quite a few conversations on the topic of euthanasia from a Stoic perspective due to this facet of their philosophy. I do think Stoicism justifies some forms of euthanasia without advocating for depressed people to commit suicide, and I think there are a number of well-crafted arguments for this distinction. I'm glad you recognize the division.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Since I'm thinking about Spinoza here anyway, I feel like I should point out that optimism (even optimism based on a faulty idea) can be good for you. To Spinoza, unless we are in a state where we are purely rational (which is never), we will always have a distorted view of the world.

If you are oscillating between optimism and despair, keep in mind that both states are ultimately distortions of reality.

Since that is the case, it is fine to choose optimism over despair. Spinoza has a model of adequate and inadequate ideas. Adequate ideas usually reflect the truth, but, more importantly, adequate ideas spur us to more positive and useful ways of thinking. And that's fine. The trick is not to become unrealistic or careless with your adequate ideas. Your ideas need to reflect reality to some precision... otherwise they are inadequate ideas and will lead you down the road of bondage and despair.

:winner:

 

[vulcanlogician]

I have had quite a few conversations on the topic of euthanasia from a Stoic perspective due to this facet of their philosophy. I do think Stoicism justifies some forms of euthanasia without advocating for depressed people to commit suicide, and I think there are a number of well-crafted arguments for this distinction. I'm glad you recognize the division.

I certainly recognize the division. And I support euthanasia for those who desire it. But euthanasia is not as tricky a subject as "suicide proper." I think a good Stoic would keep the option in his back pocket, in case the need should arise... an ancient Stoic would resolve to commit the act should life become not worth living.

Seneca uses the example of a proud warrior who finds himself in a situation of inescapable enslavement. Seneca advises suicide as an option for the warrior. That is, he ought to consider it. And should he decide to, he ought to carry it out before he is "ground down into servility,"... before his life became not worth living. Those cases are difficult. Some people would say "keep hope alive," but Seneca says, "nay." At a certain point, when it becomes obvious that escape is impossible, one should carry out the act.

Of course, we don't have slavery nowadays, but there are perhaps analogous situations to find oneself in perhaps.

I think the disclaimer is needed that we aren't talking mental health situations (like depression or schizophrenia) but rather material situations wherein one resolves to rather die than live on. The reason the disclaimer is necessary is that mental illness affects perception. Depressed individuals often perceive their situations as hopeless when they really aren't. I'm wondering about the ethics of suicide in a situation that is truly and actually hopeless.

Let me give a "depression/schizophrenia neutral" description of what I would deem to be such a set of circumstances. In my own case, I would be fine being placed in a care home if I am at some point unable to care for myself when I become elderly. If I (all three) become 1) Unaware of my surroundings. 2) Unable to use the bathroom by myself -AND- 3) unhappy... then I would want to be euthanized in that set of circumstances. And I would readily express such desires in a living will. But I doubt many states would allow such practices in medicine.

In your opinion, should they or shouldn't they?

 

[Ella S.]

I certainly recognize the division. And I support euthanasia for those who desire it. But euthanasia is not as tricky a subject as "suicide proper." I think a good Stoic would keep the option in his back pocket, in case the need should arise... an ancient Stoic would resolve to commit the act should life become not worth living.

Seneca uses the example of a proud warrior who finds himself in a situation of inescapable enslavement. Seneca advises suicide as an option for the warrior. That is, he ought to consider it. And should he decide to, he ought to carry it out before he is "ground down into servility,"... before his life became not worth living. Those cases are difficult. Some people would say "keep hope alive," but Seneca says, "nay." At a certain point, when it becomes obvious that escape is impossible, one should carry out the act.

Of course, we don't have slavery nowadays, but there are perhaps analogous situations to find oneself in perhaps.

I think the disclaimer is needed that we aren't talking mental health situations (like depression or schizophrenia) but rather material situations wherein one resolves to rather die than live on. The reason the disclaimer is necessary is that mental illness affects perception. Depressed individuals often perceive their situations as hopeless when they really aren't. I'm wondering about the ethics of suicide in a situation that is truly and actually hopeless.

Let me give a "depression/schizophrenia neutral" description of what I would deem to be such a set of circumstances. In my own case, I would be fine being placed in a care home if I am at some point unable to care for myself when I become elderly. If I (all three) become 1) Unaware of my surroundings. 2) Unable to use the bathroom by myself -AND- 3) unhappy... then I would want to be euthanized in that set of circumstances. And I would readily express such desires in a living will. But I doubt many states would allow such practices in medicine.

In your opinion, should they or shouldn't they?

I think so. You're right that euthanasia is only one form of suicide, and I didn't mean to imply that other forms of suicide were not ethically justifiable.

It's not even always about whether your material situation is worth being in. Sometimes, the logical option is to die, depending on what you are trying to achieve. Our culture already recognizes this for martyrs who sacrifice themselves to save others, for instance, or to prevent your knowledge from falling into the wrong hands by taking it with you to your grave.

In my opinion, the question is more about whether you have considered the consequences and alternative choices rationally than why you're doing it, because under intellectualism rationality is equated with morality. If you have the wisdom to know that suicide is your best option for whatever it is you're trying to achieve, whether that's saving others or never submitting to the will of another person, then I would say that it isn't unethical to commit suicide.

I hold similar opinions regarding murder and thievery, too, mostly in regards to some forms of vigilantism. I don't think murdering one's business competitor for the sake of capital is rational, because ultimately the goal of increasing revenue comes from the vice of indulgence, but I could see arguments made for, say, assassinating dictators or stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

This is arguably less extreme than the Stoics, who often upheld Roman customs where fathers were allowed to kill their own children and slaves, for instance. On the face of it, it can seem like a radically permissible ethics, but I don't think it is. Its constraints and limitations are simply different from what we would expect of Christian ethics, utilitarianism, or deontology, because it's about acting from a place of virtue rather than following a set of rules or seeking out a particular consequence

 

[vulcanlogician]

because under intellectualism rationality is equated with morality.

I don't think rationality is equated with morality. In my view, a good ethics is rational about moral questions and claims. But rationality is it's own thing. You can be rational about things that don't involve good or bad. You could be rational about figuring out the temperature of the sun or about which car you ought to buy. These are not ethical concerns (except maybe the car decision might brush up against a few ethical matters). But you can still be rational about them.

You can be rational about ethical problems, just like you can with empirical problems. And that's what ethicists try to do. But that doesn't mean they assume that rationality is equated with morality.

This is arguably less extreme than the Stoics, who often upheld Roman customs where fathers were allowed to kill their own children and slaves, for instance. On the face of it, it can seem like a radically permissible ethics, but I don't think it is. Its constraints and limitations are simply different from what we would expect of Christian ethics, utilitarianism, or deontology, because it's about acting from a place of virtue rather than following a set of rules or seeking out a particular consequence.

Beautifully said.

 

[Ella S.]

I don't think rationality is equated with morality. In my view, a good ethics is rational about moral questions and claims. But rationality is it's own thing. You can be rational about things that don't involve good or bad. You could be rational about figuring out the temperature of the sun or about which car you ought to buy. These are not ethical concerns (except maybe the car decision might brush up against a few ethical matters).

You can be rational about ethical problems, just like you can with empirical problems. And that's what ethicists try to do. But that doesn't mean they assume that rationality is equated with morality.

I don't think ethicists assume that rationality is equated with morality.

That's a Stoic position, because their highest good was living in accordance with reason and they viewed wisdom - which is the capacity to reason well to arrive at understanding and apply that understanding to real-world problems - as the root of all virtue (ETA: and a virtue in and of itself). This is achieved through living purely in accordance with one's rational faculties by purifying oneself of the irrational passions.

Their ethical theories would have concerned themselves with which car you ought to buy or how to figure out the temperature of the sun if those were problems available to them back then. They attempted to approach natural philosophy with wisdom and they gave advice on a number of trivial everyday matters, from how to bathe to what kinds of clothes to wear, also in accordance with their ethics.

You're right that a division between the two can be drawn, but that's more relevant in the context of other ethics.