Pantheism and Panentheism

[Dogbrain]

You all write as if the western version panentheism is the only possible form of panentheism. The Orthodox Church also has a doctrine that is called "panentheism" that is not the same as the western doctrine. For us Orthodox Christians, "panentheism" is the concept that nothing can exist without God's active presence and intervention. However creation ("the universe") is not part of God. God and creation are still ontologically distinct. Creation cannot exist without God's direct presence at all times, but God and creation are still completely distinct from each other. Thus, God is "in all things", but none of those things are "part of" God. God IS the Creator in our verson of panentheism, and the creation IS NOT "the manifest part of God". The universe is not "within God" in our panentheistic model. Instead, God actively sustains every part of the universe, for nothing can exist without God's constant support, in our view.

[shawn]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

You all write as if the western version panentheism is the only possible form of panentheism. The Orthodox Church also has a doctrine that is called "panentheism" that is not the same as the western doctrine. For us Orthodox Christians, "panentheism" is the concept that nothing can exist without God's active presence and intervention. However creation ("the universe") is not part of God. God and creation are still ontologically distinct. Creation cannot exist without God's direct presence at all times, but God and creation are still completely distinct from each other. Thus, God is "in all things", but none of those things are "part of" God. God IS the Creator in our verson of panentheism, and the creation IS NOT "the manifest part of God". The universe is not "within God" in our panentheistic model. Instead, God actively sustains every part of the universe, for nothing can exist without God's constant support, in our view.

perhaps we all write that way because we don't see that as a viable option.
IMO such a notion makes no sense at all.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Agnosticism is a definition as well, but doesn't explain much either.

Whether people can offer an explanation for what they believe is another matter ... but saying that something can be affirmed, it can be subject to reasoned investigation.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

So far as I understand it, Pantheism equates God as the Universe, but Panentheism sees the universe as a mere fraction of reality, and therefore to limit God to the universe is to limit God.

But there's the contradiction. What is it of the universe and of God that is of the same essence, the same nature, the same order of being ... that's what I keep asking.

As I see it, God and the universe are about as unalike as it's possible to be. Nothing that can be predicated of God can the universe claim as its own nature, it seems to me, and anything that we can declare as the nature of the universe, is a limitation on the divine.

So to me the panentheist who puts a limit on God by equating God with the universe. If God is the universe, then what applies to God-as-universe must equally apply to God-as-not-universe, otherwise you're positing two Gods.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Not at all, there are no "holy texts" that demand a specific approach to Panentheism, nor is there any body enforcing such a viewpoint.

Doesn't matter. If their claims are the product of philosophical reasoning, take me through the reasoning. No-one addresses the reasoning.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

While Agnosticism says "I'm not sure", Panentheism appears to say, "I'm not sure, but I am sure reality is too big for me to understand". Somewhat flippant, I know, but I'm trying to connect the points about unknowing and uncertainty between the two.

OK. But I'm still working within the bounds of what can be reasoned, let alone accepting stuff in blind faith.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

After all, if God is beyond human comprehension, if the universe is such a small fraction of reality, then how the heck can we even begin to describe anything metaphysically?

Easy. You work from what you've got, and speculate from there. I'm saying even within the confines of what you've got, the theory is flawed.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Panentheism is not a doctrine, just as agnosticism is not a doctrine. Both are approximate descriptors of the practitioner's approach to the Divine, not the Divine itself.

They are doctrines by virtue of the fact they can be defined.

Doctrine:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group;

Doctrine denotes whatever is recommended as a speculative truth to the belief of others.
And, as I keep saying, the approach is flawed, and no-one seems to be able to address the issue of the flaw I'm highlighting.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

One cannot have doctrine without some systemized belief about how the Divine works and what It is, and I don't have that.

Then you're in the dark, and not really in a position to saying anything about anything, surely?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Instead, I have a body of experience and practice that I engage in but hold as a limited approach to an infinite Something.

Maybe. Maybe it's all delusion. If you can't trust it, I don't see how you can ask anyone else to.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Something like the Trinity is a doctrine- it is a systemized, formalized and defined way of understanding characteristics of God (be they interior or not) and there is a ton of other stuff in Christianity that is also wound up in God's attributes- substitutiary atonement and the relevance of Jesus' sacrifice, etc.

No, they are revealed data. Whether you believe in them is another matter, but the revelation was there before the doctrine.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I have never been attacking Christianity, only pointing out that there is a difference between traditions with doctrines and traditions that only have descriptions of approaches.

I can't accept that. Your approaches are conditioned by something ... and you approach something ... both that which you approach, why you think there is something to be approached, and the way of approach, and so on, is a doctrine. Otherwise you're saying you haven't got a clue about what you're doing, you're just flailing about in the dark ... which you're not.

I think 'no doctrine' is an avoidance.

I repeat the definition of doctrine:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group;
Doctrine denotes whatever is recommended as a speculative truth to the belief of others.
If you say you have no principles, no ideas, etc.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Panentheism describes my approach to God- that I am open to experiencing God in everything and that I am also open to a transcendent God that is ineffable.

Where do you get your idea of God from? What is your idea of God? The answer to both these two is doctrinal.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

But it does not put forth doctrine or definition about God.

Yes it does. 'Panenthism' defines a way of seeing.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

It points to the limitations of myself and the possibility that lies beyond these limitations. For me, spirituality is a journey that demands my openness to this possibility. Whether or not God changes, learns, grows, unfolds, and so forth is not the question. The issue is whether I am open to doing these things.

Then it's not about God, it's about human nature. It's more about ethics than essences.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

G-d would be at least as complex as His Creation.

No, that's the Dawkins error, a materialist way of seeing.

Complex things are composites of simple things, but the possibility of complex things inheres in the simple, whilst the possibility of things decreases in relation to their complexity.

In God, who the most simple of all, the most possibility exists.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by thomas

So to me the panentheist who puts a limit on God by equating God with the universe. If God is the universe, then what applies to God-as-universe must equally apply to God-as-not-universe, otherwise you're positing two Gods.

Namaste Thomas,

A magician can't practice in a mirror. Because as he does his slight of hand if there is a portion that he doesn't do quite right he will unintentionally blink. He wants so bad to do the trick correctly that his brain will provide the fix by blinking exactly at the right point.

Seems to me you are blinking. Seems to me you've been told repeatedly by many sources that panentheists don't believe G!d is the universe, or G!d is everything, but G!d is IN everything. And not like a raisin in a bun. You can pull the raisins out of the bun, but you can't pull G!d out of everything.

Btw, this is my belief. I can't speak for others but they are also speaking their belief. And to play the old broken record...we realize it isn't your belief. And we have no problem with you having your belief, we are just telling you what ours is.

Now you say we can't back it up. Well we back it up with this thing called faith and understanding, surely you are aware of it. Surely you realize that is all you have as well. I mean there is no logical person in the world that concludes that G!d is this or that or says this or that whose proof is some book that someone says G!d wrote as eividenced by the fact that that contained in those 66 books is some words that said G!d wrote it...we know that is circular...but we don't have a problem with it...why?? Because of our faith and understanding.

So please quit blinking. I'm not saying G!d is the Universe, or the Earth, or You or Me, or the toothbrush, or the bacteria on the toothbrush or the mitochondria in the cell on the toothbrush in your mouth on the earth in the Universe...but that ALL of G!d, is in each of these things.

And asking me to explain my faith and understanding in this regard is like you providing the science for the virgin birth or turning water into wine.... How can the kingdom of heaven be within us all?? How can ALL of G!d be in ALL creation???

The answer is within my brother, seek and ye shall find. Nobody can answer this to your satisfaction but you....but you already knew that.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Seems to me you've been told repeatedly by many sources that panentheists don't believe G!d is the universe, or G!d is everything, but G!d is IN everything.

But they do ... check the definitions.

There I am told that God is mutable, and can change ... can learn ... etc., And the question I ask is, how can a God who is aeternal, that is not subject to time, but is outside of time, change? How can such a God not know when it knows the origin and end of all things?

Why is a God who is beyond time and space, subject to temporal and spatial limitation?

Contradictions which no-one seems inclined to address.

Originally Posted by wil

Btw, this is my belief. I can't speak for others but they are also speaking their belief. And to play the old broken record...we realize it isn't your belief. And we have no problem with you having your belief, we are just telling you what ours is.

I have no problem with anyone having a belief ... my question was as iterated above ... since then everybody's been sentimentalising about the right to believe, which is not the point.

Originally Posted by wil

Now you say we can't back it up. Well we back it up with this thing called faith and understanding, surely you are aware of it. Surely you realize that is all you have as well.

OK. So address the issue ...

What one understands one can reason. So will someone please reason the issues I've raised?

Originally Posted by wil

So please quit blinking. I'm not saying G!d is the Universe, or the Earth, or You or Me, or the toothbrush, or the bacteria on the toothbrush or the mitochondria in the cell on the toothbrush in your mouth on the earth in the Universe...but that ALL of G!d, is in each of these things.

What does that mean? And on what is that based? That's such a generalisation as to be almost meaningless.

Originally Posted by wil

And asking me to explain my faith and understanding in this regard is like you providing the science for the virgin birth or turning water into wine....

No it's not at all. Those are miracles and revealed data (the 'science' of which I can explain, by the way, within the context of Christian metaphysics), which I would not start with ... I'd start with the exoteric, and work into the esoteric stuff. I'm questioning the very basics, not anything 'esoteric'.

Originally Posted by wil

How can the kingdom of heaven be within us all?? How can ALL of G!d be in ALL creation???

I don't know Wil, how can it? You assertion ... so you argue the point???

Originally Posted by wil

The answer is within my brother, seek and ye shall find. ...

But: "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

Touché!

Thomas

[nativeastral]

'Further, there is reason to believe that the whole world forms one vast entangled system. The long road to this conclusion begins with the observation that the world begins with the Big Bang, where everything interacts.39 This suffices for entanglement, as Schrödinger explains:
When two systems… enter into temporary physical interactions due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled. (1935: 555)
The world then evolves via the wave equation,40 which preserves entanglement. More precisely, the initial singularity is virtually certain (with measure 1) to produce an entangled universe, and the Schrödinger dynamics are virtually certain (with measure 1) to preserve entanglement as the universe evolves. Thus Gribbin writes:
If everything that ever interacted in the Big Bang maintains its connection with everything it interacted with, then every particle in every star and galaxy that we can see “knows” about the existence of every other particle. (1984: 230-1)' schafferv pdf monism

yes, l know, creation out of nothing, and composition [of the parts] is not identity [of the whole] since g#d is above and beyond the whole, overflowing in plenitude yet totally separate in fact and we are only derivative, 'Father'. sure l can understand the need to ensure the mysteries are mediated only by spiritual authorities for worshipping and alliance to continue with a particular religion, but this has historically been proven not to be in the interests of true ecumenicalism. Creation and the source of that creation needs to be holistically and primordially understood and spiritually realized both individually and communally for any real development in 'this' world, which maybe is a shadow of the next, but hey the shadow always follows

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by shawn

perhaps we all write that way because we don't see that as a viable option.
IMO such a notion makes no sense at all.

That you are incapable of grasping a notion does not make that notion automatically invalid. Kant, for example, was convinced that space could only have three and no more dimensions, because he could not get his head around the idea of a fourth spatial dimension.

It is very instructive regarding the quality of thought here that, when something that does not adhere to a single, rigid, outlook is brought up as a way that a term is not only proposed to be used but actually IS used (by the Orthodox Church), it is simply dismissed as not "viable".

Exactly HOW is it not "a viable option" for the presence of God to be necessary for the continued existence of the universe without requiring that the universe be "part of" God or God be "part of" the universe?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

... The Orthodox Church also has a doctrine that is called "panentheism" that is not the same as the western doctrine. For us Orthodox Christians, "panentheism" is the concept that nothing can exist without God's active presence and intervention. However creation ("the universe") is not part of God. God and creation are still ontologically distinct. Creation cannot exist without God's direct presence at all times, but God and creation are still completely distinct from each other. Thus, God is "in all things", but none of those things are "part of" God. God IS the Creator in our verson of panentheism, and the creation IS NOT "the manifest part of God". The universe is not "within God" in our panentheistic model. Instead, God actively sustains every part of the universe, for nothing can exist without God's constant support, in our view.

Exactly as I believe. Thank you.

Thomas

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

They are doctrines by virtue of the fact they can be defined.

Doctrine:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group;

Doctrine denotes whatever is recommended as a speculative truth to the belief of others.
And, as I keep saying, the approach is flawed, and no-one seems to be able to address the issue of the flaw I'm highlighting.

Just because something is paradoxical, does not mean it cannot be true. Light is both wave and particle. Paradoxical, but true. Panentheism points toward a fundamental way of approaching God that speaks to paradox.

And OK, by your definition, I choose to have a vaguely defined doctrine. I like this. This means it is open-ended and has room for development as I learn.

Then you're in the dark, and not really in a position to saying anything about anything, surely?

Are you saying personal relationship with God and spiritual experience cannot provide light? Only systemized belief can do this?

Maybe. Maybe it's all delusion. If you can't trust it, I don't see how you can ask anyone else to.

That's the difference between me and someone espousing only "one way" (their way, usually ). I don't ask people to trust my experiences and journey. I would encourage them to embark on their own. And anything could be delusion- all religions, select religions, materialism. So far as someone is functional and sane, I fail to see how anyone can point to any particular religious tenets or approach and say "Now, this one is definitely not delusional, but that other one is."

Everyone always says the other guy is delusional. No one would ever call oneself an idolator.

No, they are revealed data. Whether you believe in them is another matter, but the revelation was there before the doctrine.

As some of this, such as substitutiary atonement, is at the root of disagreements and doctrinal debates, it is questionable whether it is revelation or whether it is what was built on top of revelation. I realize you think that only the RCC has THE way, but surely you can recognize that from most other perspectives, you are speaking from faith (which is fine) and I am speaking from an historical standpoint.

I can't accept that. Your approaches are conditioned by something ... and you approach something ... both that which you approach, why you think there is something to be approached, and the way of approach, and so on, is a doctrine. Otherwise you're saying you haven't got a clue about what you're doing, you're just flailing about in the dark ... which you're not.

I see what you're saying... I wasn't saying we all aren't conditioned- we are. What I was trying to get at is that there are clearly approaches that mostly define the Divine for the practitioner by an institution and religious elite, emphasize agreement with said institution and belief, and greater restrict the practitioner's worldview, ideas, and practices. There are other approaches that mostly keep questions about the Divine open-ended and encourage individual engagement and responsibility, emphasize personal study and experience rather than belief, and seek to get the practitioner to be self-reflexive about his/her own conditioning and contemplate potentiality rather than restrict oneself to a particular view.

I think 'no doctrine' is an avoidance.

I should probably say no dogma. You are right, I was using the wrong word.

Where do you get your idea of God from?

Primarily from my mystical experiences, but considering the huge amount of revelatory and sacred text in the world from other people, I choose to think I only have a little glimpse... the glimpse that is most beneficial to my development at this time. I'm always open for revisions, and as my experience changes, this constantly occurs.

Then it's not about God, it's about human nature. It's more about ethics than essences.

How can one reasonably divorce one from the other? We invariably are saddled with human bodies, human brains, human natures... If we talk about God as somehow divorced from these things, it makes no sense, because in thinking and talking about something at all (anything) we are already engaging human nature. As for ethics and essence... oh my, I can't begin on that. I'm currently writing a book that is partly what I've come to realize on my journey about my essence, the essence of human potential, and its relationship to action through ethics. It's a very complex thing.

[immortalitylost]

Thomas, from what I see, you're into faith dependent on proof, evidence, the testimony of time. You believe in the long standing, tride and true, centuries tested idea.

Others will naturally shy away from believing the centuries old idea, simply because it has been around for centuries. They look for the open ended question, and when they find answers, they don't consider them fixed, bullet proof, and infallible. They tend to leave them as possibilities. They hear the questions, why are we here, and what awaits us when we die, and they say, "I dunno, but here's my best guess so far."

All religions, all schools of thought, are in the end, really no more than best guesses. People may have faith that they have the right answer. They may be a part of a vast group of people that believe as they do in an answer. And they could be right.

But no one really knows. How could they know? Anecdotal evidence aside, all we can really know is that we exist. And anyone's best guess is as good as the next as to why, because there is no proof. None. In favor of any theory. No matter how old, or how many sources and peoples it is derived from.

Our best bet is to pick one, hold on for the ride, and hope that when we're done, we'll get some answers.

I dunno, don't really have a point, I guess. I just see all this quibbling about little details, and I don't get why they are so important. We'll all find out the truth sooner or later. Hopefully...

[shawn]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

That you are incapable of grasping a notion does not make that notion automatically invalid. Kant, for example, was convinced that space could only have three and no more dimensions, because he could not get his head around the idea of a fourth spatial dimension.

It is very instructive regarding the quality of thought here that, when something that does not adhere to a single, rigid, outlook is brought up as a way that a term is not only proposed to be used but actually IS used (by the Orthodox Church), it is simply dismissed as not "viable".

Exactly HOW is it not "a viable option" for the presence of God to be necessary for the continued existence of the universe without requiring that the universe be "part of" God or God be "part of" the universe?

Due to your not knowing me at all you assume I am "incapable of grasping a notion", which is a false assumption....but I can see how you would jump to such a conclusion.
I actually believed a very similar "notion" for many years, but my studies and life experiences led me to embrace other "notions" which make more sense to me.

[Avi]

Thanks for the interesting links, NA.

Originally Posted by nativeastral

As everything is already as it should be [apart from us not all being totally in alignment!] he has no final cause or teleology; nor believes in a substantial self [Spinoza, On The Immortality of the Soul « Frames /sing ].

This one boggles my mind. I do not see the link of immortality or the soul to the triangle in the discussion.

However, I do find this quote interesting:

So the essence of a mind is said to exist within the mind of God, eternally, despite its own limited duration.

Which seems to connect the idea of pantheism with temporal notions. I had not thought about the relation of panteism with time and it is an interesting context.

Found a nice site that merges buddhism and spinoza from a dutch guy who does bring in a spiritual 'evolution' path and the articles on spinoza are spot on, again, for me, because l need all the help l can get with definitions! Notes about immortality in Spinoza - Advayavada Buddhism Infocenter - Amsterdam

This article makes more sense to me, but it seems like the main point is the connection of Spinoza's pantheism to the Tao. A fairly simple concept. Do you see more sophistication to the argument ?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Just because something is paradoxical, does not mean it cannot be true. Light is both wave and particle. Paradoxical, but true. Panentheism points toward a fundamental way of approaching God that speaks to paradox.

OK. But we can explain the principles.

I keep asking for clarification of the principle. How can something that is beyond time and space, change?

How can something that is Absolute and Infinite undergo any order of determination?

Thinks like that.

Thomas