Monistic Theism

[littlefire]

So I read through the introductory post to this forum and was struck by the idea of monistic theism. I think that might actually describe what I believe, but I want to be sure I'm understanding it correctly.

From what I gather, monistic theism says that God(s) are both immanent, in that the universe is a part of him/her/them/it, and transcendent, as the universe is not the only "God-ness" there is. Does this also include beliefs that say a part of God is in everything but also that God exists outside of things?

Also from what I gather, Hinduism is the only major monistic theistic (I guess that's how you phrase it?) religion. Would De'anism be under this category too, or am I completely misunderstanding it?

(I am not that articulate of a whooper-snapper so I apologize for this silly attempt at an explanation.)

 

[Willamena]

So I read through the introductory post to this forum and was struck by the idea of monistic theism. I think that might actually describe what I believe, but I want to be sure I'm understanding it correctly.

From what I gather, monistic theism says that God(s) are both immanent, in that the universe is a part of him/her/them/it, and transcendent, as the universe is not the only "God-ness" there is. Does this also include beliefs that say a part of God is in everything but also that God exists outside of things?

A "part" is not the whole. It's an analytical term.

 

[idav]

So I read through the introductory post to this forum and was struck by the idea of monistic theism. I think that might actually describe what I believe, but I want to be sure I'm understanding it correctly.

From what I gather, monistic theism says that God(s) are both immanent, in that the universe is a part of him/her/them/it, and transcendent, as the universe is not the only "God-ness" there is. Does this also include beliefs that say a part of God is in everything but also that God exists outside of things?

Also from what I gather, Hinduism is the only major monistic theistic (I guess that's how you phrase it?) religioYun. Would De'anism be under this category too, or am I completely misunderstanding it?

(I am not that articulate of a whooper-snapper so I apologize for this silly attempt at an explanation.)

Yes your describing panentheism which is god is as being within creation and transcendent of it simultaneously. I don't know that Hindus are the only Panentheists, I think thats what most monotheists, including those in Abrahamic faiths, believe. God being part of the universe sounds more like pantheism, where god is everything, but there is room for overlap depending on how one interprets humans corresponding with god.

 

[littlefire]

@idav that's really helpful. So...let me get this straight... panentheism is that God is within creation and transcendent of it.... I hadn't heard that term defined before so that's helpful. So...hmmm.... so is there a term for a system that believes a "part" (like an essence or spirit or attribute or something...not necessarily the entire thing) of God is in everything and also that God is transcendent of everything? That doesn't exactly sound like pantheism to me... maybe that's good ol' deism re-branded: I think I'm confusing myself

 

[idav]

@idav that's really helpful. So...let me get this straight... panentheism is that God is within creation and transcendent of it.... I hadn't heard that term defined before so that's helpful. So...hmmm.... so is there a term for a system that believes a "part" (like an essence or spirit or attribute or something...not necessarily the entire thing) of God is in everything and also that God is transcendent of everything? That doesn't exactly sound like pantheism to me... maybe that's good ol' deism re-branded: I think I'm confusing myself

Maybe animism? One thing that often comes up is transcendent meaning god is somehow supernatural but when realizing nature is already transcendent kind of gets rid of the supernatural notion, then panentheism and pantheism sort of merge. So it really depends on ontological interpretations, ontology being how one sees the nature of being, existence, reality etc.

 

[George-ananda]

mo·nism
(mō′nĭz′əm, mŏn′ĭz′əm)
n. Philosophy
1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.
2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

I'm thinking that includes me when I say 'Brahman Alone is Real'.

 

[littlefire]

Maybe animism? One thing that often comes up is transcendent meaning god is somehow supernatural but when realizing nature is already transcendent kind of gets rid of the supernatural notion, then panentheism and pantheism sort of merge. So it really depends on ontological interpretations, ontology being how one sees the nature of being, existence, reality etc.

Oh gotcha! I'm going to have to think more about all of this and research a little more but I think I'm starting to understand. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[littlefire]

mo·nism
(mō′nĭz′əm, mŏn′ĭz′əm)
n. Philosophy
1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.
2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

I'm thinking that includes me when I say 'Brahman Alone is Real'.

Thanks for providing this definition!

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are five major shades of Monism in Hinduism. I will try to give my understanding of it.

1. God is the only thing that exists but what he creates, cannot equal it. (Madhva - Dvaita). 1238–1317
2. God and his creations are the same, but have a qualified sameness. (Ramanuja - Vishishta Advaita). 1017–1137
3. God and his creations are the same. The first is independent, the second is dependent on the first (Nimbarka - Dvaitadvaita) 1130–1200
4. God and his creations are the same, the difference or sameness cannot be conceived. (Chaitanya - Achintya Bheda Abheda Advaita - Hare Krishnas) 1486–1533
5. Brahman alone is what exists in the universe, there is no second (Sankara - Advaita) early 8th century
Vedanta - Wikipedia (dates from Wikipedia)

Sequence: Sankara - Ramanuja - Nimbarka - Madhva - Chaitanya

 

[Terese]

@idav that's really helpful. So...let me get this straight... panentheism is that God is within creation and transcendent of it.... I hadn't heard that term defined before so that's helpful. So...hmmm.... so is there a term for a system that believes a "part" (like an essence or spirit or attribute or something...not necessarily the entire thing) of God is in everything and also that God is transcendent of everything? That doesn't exactly sound like pantheism to me... maybe that's good ol' deism re-branded: I think I'm confusing myself

In Hinduism the atma (spirit) is Brahman, He resides in our body, and is also all pervasive of all things, and is all things. All living things possess an atma, that is what makes us breathe, eat, sleep, etc... Is this similar to what you are referring to?

 

[Vinayaka]

So I read through the introductory post to this forum and was struck by the idea of monistic theism. I think that might actually describe what I believe, but I want to be sure I'm understanding it correctly.

From what I gather, monistic theism says that God(s) are both immanent, in that the universe is a part of him/her/them/it, and transcendent, as the universe is not the only "God-ness" there is. Does this also include beliefs that say a part of God is in everything but also that God exists outside of things?

Also from what I gather, Hinduism is the only major monistic theistic (I guess that's how you phrase it?) religion. Would De'anism be under this category too, or am I completely misunderstanding it?

(I am not that articulate of a whooper-snapper so I apologize for this silly attempt at an explanation.)

In my Hindu school, we refer to our understanding as monistic theism. To be specific, it's monistic Saiva Siddhanta. It's a combination ot two sometimes opposing views, that of monism, (a one reality) and that of theism (belief in God). Each of those can stand alone. There are monists, and there are theists.

So it's seeing them both together, as non-contradictory.

Here's a link to a much longer explanation; https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=307

 

[David T]

One thing I want to caution on. Transcendent can end up becoming a false sense of reality as much as anything. Its what currently plagues chrisianity. Here on RF we tend to frame statements on a particular way which narratively is called descriptive. That by it's nature is reductive and limited to a very very small part of the brain, the newest part. One has to remember we are in the form life almost 4 billion years old, but we tend to get caught in our self identified age of what ever it is. I am 61 that's old by descriptive terms but just a fraction of a second by other ways of looking at things. Descriptively understanding oneself and nature purely descriptively is normal but leads to all kinds of seriously unhealthy psychological issues wether in religion or outside religion. The easiest way to describe the forgetting is that "they forgot to breathe". Breathing is a something that experiencing and seeing the reality around us directly is forgotten often times due to reductionism. If one wants to do spirituality so to speak then groundeness in relationship to nature, becomes more and more critical. Jesus spent 40 days and 40 nights in the wilder-ness for reasons we don't recognize today. I have spent 1000 days and nights in the wilderness, mostly because I am just not as quick, also I find it to be very healthy mentally.

 

[Aupmanyav]

5. Brahman alone is what exists in the universe, there is no second (Sankara - Advaita) early 8th century

There is no problem about there being a God in my own line though it is monistic. This is because we consider two distinct reality levels - Absolute (Parmarthika) and Pragmatic (Vyavaharika). In the higher (absolute) reality, there is nothing else but Brahman (even the universe or us do not exist), the entity which constitutes all things in the universe. At the lower level of reality (that is where we exist), because of our ignorance we accept the existence of God. We do not realize the oneness. We are subject to such illusions because, it is the nature of Brahman that just its existence creates illusions and we think that there has been a creation, there will be a destruction, there is life and death, and so on. At there own levels, both realities exist and are not to be denied.

 

[Vinayaka]

Is the world illusion, or a great place to learn?

 

[littlefire]

In Hinduism the atma (spirit) is Brahman, He resides in our body, and is also all pervasive of all things, and is all things. All living things possess an atma, that is what makes us breathe, eat, sleep, etc... Is this similar to what you are referring to?

Neat! I think that might be what I'm referring to...I'm resonating a lot with item 1 (Madhva) in what @Aupmanyav posted above about the shades of Monism in Hinduism. Thank you both.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is the world illusion, or a great place to learn?

What is the level/angle that you are looking from? Perspective?
different perspectives optical illusions - Google Search

 

[Vinayaka]

What is the level/angle that you are looking from? Perspective?
different perspectives optical illusions - Google Search

Exactly.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

From what I gather, monistic theism says that God(s) are both immanent, in that the universe is a part of him/her/them/it, and transcendent, as the universe is not the only "God-ness" there is. Does this also include beliefs that say a part of God is in everything but also that God exists outside of things?

I see problems with this theory. Its not possible to transcend reality but still be a complete part of it. To transcend reality requires omni abilities. If God were the universe then we would be able to manipulate reality being a part of reality ourselves.

 

[freelight]

Is the world illusion, or a great place to learn?

Both - I agree with the nuanced forms of 'monism' within Sanatana Dharma, which schools give us the best descriptions while still holding to a form of 'theism'. I tend to agree with a panentheistic view which corresponds best with 'monistic theism' in general, but as shared, there are different nuances and contextual frames in which to relate and coordinate how all things are 'one' and the 'same', yet also 'different' or 'seperate', as far as substance, consciousness and forms are concerned. One universal absolute non-dual reality is at the heart and substrate of all existence, while appearances and forms appear in the dualism of perception we experience in space-time. Its just different wave forms arising from within one infinite Ocean.


------------o