Not necessarily a "lack of" but perhaps a "one with" or more accurately "one and the same."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pan(en)theism and Pantheism Differences
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Not necessarily a "lack of" but perhaps a "one with" or more accurately "one and the same."
Right I was meaning lacking something "higher", not necessarily higher, equal is hard to say.
You may need to explain this to me a little more as it's not clear. First the Gnostic approach, in the historic sense of the word is very dualistic. A lot of what is called "Gnostic" today is not what the historical Gnostics believed which was a strict separation of spirit from flesh, that to get rid of the flesh was to be free in spirit. That is not nonduality. So you'll need to clarify what you are meaning in using the term Gnostic in this context.
Secondly, I'm not sure I would understand the Trinity as "God's mind" being one substance. It has to do with the various aspects of the being of God, sort of like Saguna Brahman (God with qualities) and Nirguna Brahman (God without qualities). In this sense, they are opposites, yet not two gods. To say God is personal and impersonal are opposites, yet each are simultaneously true (paradox). God both exists and does not exist (paradox). Monism says "One not two". Nonduality says "Not one, not two". God both everything and nothing. It really is a shift in perception that does not divide and then resolve as monism does to duality. It is simply a perception of dualities and paradoxes without the need to resolve. It is to perceive and experience the paradox "as is".
I've shared this elsewhere before, but will add it here to help "explain", or rather shed some light on the differences. I feel he does a great job in this. Here's a brief excerpt from it: (the link I had seems to be broken, but I'd saved the text previously. I'll quote a small section of it, but can offer the entire text if you have further questions. I'll bold the parts I think pertain to our discussion. In this he refers to "not-duality" as what monism is, contrasted with non-duality which he explains).
Apprentice: Perhaps I am confused about the Dzogchen teaching of emptiness and how it is similar and different from non-duality and “not-duality”.
Rinpoche: The Dzogchen teaching on emptiness is that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. “Not-duality” is a way of saying that duality is emptiness. It is a reversal of the usual mindset because most people think reality in terms of Duality and that reality is form; that is the ordinary mindset. The ordinary mindset is that form is all there is and that any emptiness that pokes out can be avoided, ignored, or fixed through some strategy. Monism is a way of saying that Duality is empty, that form is empty. That would be the equivalent of Sutra; Sutra is the path of establishing that form is empty. Then Tantra establishes that emptiness is form. Dzogchen is the recognition that form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
Apprentice: With my mind, I ‘understand’ that this cannot be rationally comprehended but only hinted at, so it is way over my head since I have had limited experience of it.
Rinpoche: It seems to me that people can rationally comprehend it, but yes, realizing it’s lived meaning is something else altogether. The key seems to be not taking the aggressive approach of doing away with or denying duality. Instead dualistic conceptions are rendered unproblemeatic. They are only problematic as long as they are taken as definite reference points. When they are experienced as opened ended reflections or “appearances,” then they can simply arise and dissolve as one aspect of the texture of experience. If we do not grasp onto dualistic conceptions, if we do not revolve around them, if we do not identify with them, if we do not build our world around them, then they are not problematic. The practices of our path aim at getting to know the non-dual texture of experience within which dualistic conceptions arise. The more we are able to communicate with that non-dual texture then the less problematic dualistic conceptions are. They can simply come and go. They can impart their intelligence and even reflect non-duality more starkly by indicating it to us when we have trained.
It is a more ambiguous space to allow dualistic conception to exist than is monism. In monism everything is defined, tidy, captured in exalted spiritual language. In non-duality, both monism and dualism exist as temporary partial reflections of reality - flavors of the moment. The key seems to be meditation practice, there is the experience where non-dual experience and dualistic conceptions could take place simultaneously and non-problematically, the situation is self-liberated.
When it comes to Panentheism that is a positive statement about Reality (cataphatic contrasted with apophatic or negation), what we can try to say about it, as opposed to saying nothing and finding Truth beyond ideas. It's not that Panentheism defines this, as it cannot since it's paradoxical. And that's the point that contrasts it with Pantheism (monism) which does define it. I hope this begins to clarify this, and yes, it's impossible to wrap one's mind around it and hold it conceptually. And that's the point.
While I understand the tendency to conflate the questions "what is the nature of god(s)" and "what are the underlying substance(s) of reality" they are not really the same question. I wouldn't regard either pantheism or panentheism as implying some particular philosophical position on the fundamental substance(s) of reality.
I mean, I'm a pantheist, but I'm also a polytheist and a substance pluralist. But I could just as well be a pantheist and a monotheist and a substance dualist.
I mean, I'm a pantheist, but I'm also a polytheist and a substance pluralist. But I could just as well be a pantheist and a monotheist and a substance dualist.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The French Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard, brings up an interesting point imo, and that is that he thinks the single creator-god approach doesn't seem to fit into what we understand about cause & effect. Namely, what caused this deity, and if the deity had no cause, how does that in any way fit into our limited understanding of cause & effect ("dependence rising")?
Also, how could a supposed unchanging creator-deity actually create if the deity is unchanging? IOW, if nothing changes, nothing gets done.
Also, how could a supposed unchanging creator-deity actually create if the deity is unchanging? IOW, if nothing changes, nothing gets done.
To get where?
With Pantheism it seems to me that monism is inherent in the definition. Maybe not necessarily so for a monotheist. Dualism cant go very far in Pantheism before you would have to call the type of theism
something different.
Pagans do not represent one belief system. I believe many primitive pagans are most often pantheists and animists where the nature their physical existence including the animals and themselves were Divine, and there were no Gods. Some early pagan cultures did develop animals as Gods and made statues such as the bull.As they became more sophisticated Gods became a part of the belief system in various forms, and hierarchy of Gods. One common belief was a male God and a female God at the top of the hierarchy.
Could you elaborate on why you see monism as inherent to pantheism?
Seems to me the only thing inherent to pantheism is the rejection of viewing deity and nature/universe as distinct (or put another way, it rejects the idea of deity transcending nature and instead posits it is fully immanent). Whether or not one regards the fundamental substance(s) underlying nature/universe/god(s) to be one, two, or many sounds like a separate issue to me. I mean, I'm a pantheist (also a polytheist and animist in terms of theology), and I am not a substance monist. If, as you say, pantheism must be monistic, how do I square?
Actually pantheists are materialist monists, but not all monists are pantheists. The variations are often described as spiritual monists where there is one reality, but different material and spiritual aspects of the one reality.
Like you said deity and universe are not distinct that is monism. If deity is 'a' and universe is 'b' monism and Pantheism both agree a = b.
Good question, that's one for panentheists.
Why? He asked the question of pantheists. I'd like to hear their answer as well.
Okay, I'm super confused. Saying gods and the universe/nature are not distinct isn't monism; saying there is one underlying substance behind all realities is monism. We are clearly using the word "monism" in two very different ways.
Well, I'm a pantheist and not a materialist or a monist, so I don't know what to tell you.
For a pantheist there is no where to get to. Panentheism would imply an extra step toward god, pantheists there are no steps, it is equal to nature.
What do all the monisms have in common, I will give a hint there is one thing they have in common.We are clearly using the word "monism" in two very different ways.
Your claim that I was responding to was a claim about what pantheism thinks: "Pantheism just thinks you don't have to even go beyond regular ole nature to get there."
There are steps for the dualist to reconcile the subject and object of observation, to bring mind and body together in pantheism.
To get to god or spirit and what not.
So, when you say, "Pantheism just thinks you don't have to even go beyond regular ole nature to get there [to god or spirit or whatnot]," you are contrasting this to panentheism? (Or to what panentheism "thinks"?)