Ask the Pan(en)theist

[Jane_the_Bane]

As this forum seems quite overburdened with Christian vs. Muslim flame wars and/or the death throes of GA, I figured it would be nice to resuscitate the classic type of "Ask a..."-thread that used to pop up around here a lot.

So - fire away! There's no such thing as a dumb question, even if it's: "Do you actually think that God is a bunch of rocks?"

 

[sidhe]

Do you actually think God is a bunch of rocks?

Sorry, silly question.

Seriously.

Do you actually think Goddess is a bunch of rocks?

ACTUALLY SERIOUSLY.

Is your panentheism influenced in any way by any study of the qabalistic model of existence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So - fire away! There's no such thing as a dumb question, even if it's: "Do you actually think that God is a bunch of rocks?"

What distinguishes your pantheism from the usual nontheistic naturalistic conception of reality, as often found among the scientifically-minded?

Do you think that consciousness is a property of the universe as a whole? Or just of certain parts, e.g. living beings?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Is your panentheism influenced in any way by any study of the qabalistic model of existence?

I'd certainly count that among my stronger influences, albeit a relatively revent one: I was a pan(en)theist long before I became familiar with the Western esoteric tradition, and basically just found that it corresponds rather well with what I had figured out already.
Other strong influences include shamanic trance techniques (the "shamanic journey" with its life-death-rebirth cycle), post-structuralism, Jungian psychology/ Campbell's take on mythology, Zen Buddhism, certain strands shared by all mystic traditions across history, Albert Einstein's pantheism, (deep) ecology (in brackets because, frankly, wide portions of the "deep ecology"-scene are a bit too wacky and extreme for my taste), and posthumanism.

I'm sure there's even more, but these are the ones that came to my mind straight away.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What distinguishes your pantheism from the usual nontheistic naturalistic conception of reality, as often found among the scientifically-minded?

For the most part, I'd say that it's not so much a question of conceptual differences, but of attitudinal dispositions.
Many scientifically-minded people still subscribe to the mechanistic notions that dominated the 18th and 19th century, whether they are aware of it or not. They basically view Man as something intrinsically apart from "Nature", which needs to be stripped naked, dissected and put to good use for the advancement of Civilization. I, on the other hand, see us as part of an organic whole, an interconnected system that cannot be plucked apart at a whim without consequences for all constituent parts involved.

Do you think that consciousness is a property of the universe as a whole? Or just of certain parts, e.g. living beings?

Living beings are part of the whole - but no, I do not consider the universe as a whole sentient in the sense that you seem to have in mind.

 

[Celticflower]

**lurking to learn

 

[Chesterton]

How do pantheism and panentheism differ? Which are you?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

How do pantheism and panentheism differ? Which are you?

Neither label wholly suits me, so I mostly use a conflation of both for lack of a better term that might even roughly communicate what I believe in. (Maybe I should coin a new term... hmmmm....)

Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".) is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.

My personal view differs from both, insofar as I like to avoid the term "god" altogether, feeling that it carries too many misleading notions (such as picturing the deity as an entity whose psychological makeup or even physical appearance resembles our own, or as a supernatural potentate interfering with the universe by means of a celestial bureaucracy). I also feel that any sort of label is too narrow and too constricting to fully allow for the diversity and range of possibility that might be contained in an individual point of view. Remember any generalizing comments along the lines of "but you Christians believe that..."? That's what labels do for you.

 

[Rasta]

Neither label wholly suits me, so I mostly use a conflation of both for lack of a better term that might even roughly communicate what I believe in. (Maybe I should coin a new term... hmmmm....)

Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".) is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.

My personal view differs from both, insofar as I like to avoid the term "god" altogether, feeling that it carries too many misleading notions (such as picturing the deity as an entity whose psychological makeup or even physical appearance resembles our own, or as a supernatural potentate interfering with the universe by means of a celestial bureaucracy).

So would the word "everything" be a better description than the word "god"?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So would the word "everything" be a better description than the word "god"?

Absolutely not, and for similar reasons: misleading connotations.

 

[Chesterton]

It seems that your description of panentheism could describe ancient Hebrew monotheism. Utterly different from pantheism.

 

[Rasta]

Absolutely not, and for similar reasons: misleading connotations.

Ok. Hmmm. Just trying to put the pieces together.

So your belief is simular to pantheism but it is not pantheism. Your belief is simular to panentheism but is not panentheism. Pantheism says "god is all" but says god is an abstract, rather than a personal diety. Panentheism says "god in all" and that god is equivalent to "the material universe". You don't use the terms god or everything because of misconceptions of the words.

So is "the thing we shall not name" an abstract entity? Is it a priciple? I don't understand.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Ok. Hmmm. Just trying to put the pieces together.

So your belief is simular to pantheism but it is not pantheism. Your belief is simular to panentheism but is not panentheism. Pantheism says "god is all" but says god is an abstract, rather than a personal diety. Panentheism says "god in all" and that god is equivalent to "the material universe". You don't use the terms god or everything because of misconceptions of the words.

So is "the thing we shall not name" an abstract entity? Is it a priciple? I don't understand.

Hm, well, I'm sorry that it's so hard to explain, but I'll give it a try anyway:
Language presents us with an unsolvable dilemma - on the one hand, it is indispensable when it comes to communicating; on the other hand, it limits one's perceptions by introducing a specific set of dichotomies and conceptualizations. Language is self-referential, and its meaning is based on its inherent (and ultimately arbitrary) dichotomies: the Welsh language, for example, has no word for the colour grey; this part of the spectrum is covered by the Welsh words that would most roughly correspond to green and brown. Accordingly, chances are that native speakers of Welsh will perceive the world differently in terms of language, simply by virtue of categorizing them differently.

Or else, let's quote the Tao-te-Ch'ing: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao."
People - including Lao-tsu or whoever wrote that book - can try to communicate the idea (as with the Tao-te-Ch'ing), but whatever is said is at best a rough approximation that cannot result in full-blown understanding.

Or take the concept of Gnosis: direct spiritual experiential knowledge that cannot be acquired through second-hand accounts, no matter how fitting their metaphors and images.

It might also help to tackle the concepts of differance and apophatic theology.

I hope that helps.

 

[Druweid]

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.

Being a panentheist myself, I want to add my two cents as well (hoping Jane will not object).

The two basic buzz words of Pantheism or Panentheism are immanent and transcendent. Pantheism sees Deity as exclusively immanent, where Panentheism sees Deity as both. I know this is redundant with Jane's explanation, but these buzz words are tossed about so much, I thought including them would be useful.

My personal view is similar to Jane's, although with some significant variations. I also avoid using the term "god" for the same reason, but also, I consider it anywhere from disrespectful to blasphemous to ascribe specific physical qualities (including gender) to the Godhead. To me, the Godhead (whom I typically refer to as the Great Mystery or Great Divine), is an abstract concept that is well-beyond the human ability to understand. At the same time, however, I do use, and support the use of, archetypes to understand aspects of the Godhead. Thus, the use of God and Goddess, the Triple Goddess (Maiden, Matron, and Crone), The Dagda, Brigid, Apollo, Artemis, etc.

Kindest regards,
-- Druweid

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Actually, Druweid, I basically do the same (meaning that I use archetypes and do not object to using them). It's just when people pick a particular personal deity (wow, what an alliteration!) and conflate it with the One True God that my hackles rise, as that sort of exclusivism usually leads to conflict and bloodshed.

 

[Rasta]

Hm, well, I'm sorry that it's so hard to explain, but I'll give it a try anyway:
Language presents us with an unsolvable dilemma - on the one hand, it is indispensable when it comes to communicating; on the other hand, it limits one's perceptions by introducing a specific set of dichotomies and conceptualizations. Language is self-referential, and its meaning is based on its inherent (and ultimately arbitrary) dichotomies: the Welsh language, for example, has no word for the colour grey; this part of the spectrum is covered by the Welsh words that would most roughly correspond to green and brown. Accordingly, chances are that native speakers of Welsh will perceive the world differently in terms of language, simply by virtue of categorizing them differently.

This makes sence to me.

Or else, let's quote the Tao-te-Ch'ing: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao."
People - including Lao-tsu or whoever wrote that book - can try to communicate the idea (as with the Tao-te-Ch'ing), but whatever is said is at best a rough approximation that cannot result in full-blown understanding.

This makes sence to me.

Or take the concept of Gnosis: direct spiritual experiential knowledge that cannot be acquired through second-hand accounts, no matter how fitting their metaphors and images.

It might also help to tackle the concepts of differance and apophatic theology.

I hope that helps.

Thanks. I'll look in to it.

 

[Chesterton]

Jane, can you explain what your sig line means to you? It sounds like the type of anthropomorphism that Jews and Christians engage in.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Jane, can you explain what your sig line means to you? It sounds like the type of anthropomorphism that Jews and Christians engage in.

How do you jump to that conclusion? Actually, I read that quote rather anachronistically, interpreting it in terms of Jungian psychology: in getting to know ourselves, we inevitably come to understand the Archetypes that we share with the rest of humanity, and thus also learn to grasp the way we perceive and relate to the rest of the universe.
Of course, you can also read the quotation as a tongue-in-cheek remark on man's tendency to create deities in his own image, only to reverse the process by claiming that it was the gods who shaped mankind (indirectly implying that we are all "extra-special").

 

[Jersey]

As this forum seems quite overburdened with Christian vs. Muslim flame wars and/or the death throes of GA, I figured it would be nice to resuscitate the classic type of "Ask a..."-thread that used to pop up around here a lot.

So - fire away! There's no such thing as a dumb question, even if it's: "Do you actually think that God is a bunch of rocks?"

What's the difference between panentheism vs pantheism?

 

[MichaelNZ]

Jane, do you believe that the Supreme Being (I won't use the term "God") is personal or impersonal? Do you believe that the Supreme has attributes, or that the Supreme is more like an all-pervading universal force?

I ask this because what you have described seems similar to the Mayavada philosophy of the Hindu saint Sri Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya taught that the Supreme Being (Brahman) was without form, attributes, or activities. Anything that appeared to give Brahman form, attributes or activities was merely an illusion. According to this philosophy, the various Hindu gods and goddesses are just different forms of the impersonal Brahman.

Shankaracharya taught that this world is ultimately just maya (illusion) and the only thing that really existed was Brahman. According to him, the human soul was actually Brahman, and it was simply illusion that it appeared different from Brahman.