Overview of Substantive Monism

[Metempsychosis]

Substantial monism ("one thing") is the view that there is only one substance and that all diversity is ultimately unreal. This view was maintained by Spinoza, who claimed that there is only one substance, or independently existing thing, and that both God and the universe are aspects of this substance. The Christian intellectual tradition has generally held that substantial monism fails to do justice to the distinction between God and creature, and that of attributive monisms only idealism is theologically acceptable.

Aristotle, maintains, that man is one substance, composed of body and soul, which are respectively matter and form. The soul is the principle of life, energy, and perfection; the body is the principle of decay, potentiality, and imperfection. These two are not complete substances: their union is not accidental, as Plato thought, but substantial. They are, of course, really distinct, and even separable; yet they act on each other and react. The soul, even in its highest functions, needs the co-operation, at least extrinsic, of the body, and the body in all its vital functions is energized by the soul as the radical principle of those functions. They are not so much two in one as two forming one compound. In popular imagination this dualism may be exaggerated; in the mind of the extreme ascetic it sometimes is exaggerated to the point of placing a too sharp contrast between "the flesh" and "the spirit", "the beast" and "the angel", in us.

In addition to having many eminent proponents in the Western philosophical tradition, substantial monism is a tenet of Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism each element of reality is part of maya or prakriti, and in Buddhism all things ultimately comprise an interrelated network.In the Hindu religion, Brahman (bráhman) is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools.While Advaita philosophy considers Brahman to be without form, qualities, or attributes, Visishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophies understand Brahman as one with infinite auspicious qualities.In Buddhism,Anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the notion of "not-self".Buddhists reject all these concepts of ātman, emphasizing not permanence, but changeability. Therefore all concepts of a substantial Self are incorrect and formed in the realm of ignorance.In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a Self" and "I have no Self" as ontological views that bind one to suffering.

 

[conrad beckman]

Sounds right to me. What do Monists make of those unexplained things that seem to keep us on some predetermined path?

 

[Onkara]

Sounds right to me. What do Monists make of those unexplained things that seem to keep us on some predetermined path?

I would say it depends on the flavour of monism. In dharmic philosophy it would be a balance between karma, and our intrinsic nature (svabhava). The question of freewill and determinism would also bring answers. Perhaps you have an explanation in mind already?

 

[not yet now]

hmm
perhaps it was on that pbs news guy thingie
where he says wrong and the answer is...
perhaps there is where this was said
oops no
now that i think of it..it was wiki...

IN CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY, while human beings are not ontologically identical with the Creator, they are nonetheless capable with uniting with his Divine Nature viA THEOSIS. In addition to this supernatural union, ST JOHN OF THE CROSS says, "it must be known that God dwells and is present substantially in every soul, even in that of the greatest sinner in the world, and this union is natural." ST JULIAN OF NORWICH, while maintaining the orthodox duality of Creator and creature, nonetheless speaks of God as "the true Father and true Mother" of all natures; thus, he indwells them substantially and thus preserves them from annihilation, as without this sustaining indwelling everything would cease to exist.

 

[atanu]

Substantial monism ("one thing") is the view that there is only one substance and that all diversity is ultimately unreal.

Is this then same as material monism or is this same as idealistic monism?

 

[Willamena]

Substantial monism ("one thing") is the view that there is only one substance and that all diversity is ultimately unreal.

I would think a truly monitive view would deny unreality. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Comet]

I would think a truly monitive view would deny unreality. But maybe that's just me.

First of all - throw Aristotle out! That is DUALISM! Yes, we are trapped in a dualistic reality. A true Monist accepts unreality just as much as reality. The same way I view good and evil as the same thing, so too is "reality". They do not exist but exist just the same. I think it was "not yet now" who said we are not the same as the Creator. I could only answer by saying, "Nothing exists outside of itself. ALL as ONE as NOTHING."

How easy to separate but not see, how easy to see and separate! UGH...

 

[atanu]

I would think a truly monitive view would deny unreality. But maybe that's just me.

To 'deny unreality', OTOH, seems to me, to be indirectly validating unreality. As we say mAyA is neither real nor unreal.

 

[atanu]

Real and unreal are not two different substances. Unreal is simply a view of the real. It is like wrong perception which when removed gives a true view. But it is not appropriate to say that the wrong perception is real or unreal.

The very best ancient definitions of unreality from at least three different levels are brought out here. Willamena may especially like this.

Advaita Siddhi

 

[Willamena]

Real and unreal are not two different substances. Unreal is simply a view of the real. It is like wrong perception which when removed gives a true view. But it is not appropriate to say that the wrong perception is real or unreal.

That is almost precisely my view of "unreal," too. It is reality taken out of context, or mistaken.

The very best ancient definitions of unreality from at least three different levels are brought out here. Willamena may especially like this.

Advaita Siddhi

Thank you, I will read it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"unreal" is a word - the map is not the territory.

 

[atanu]

Summary definitions of unreality from advaita siddhi text


The first definition of mithyAtva (unrealness) says that what is mithyA (unreal) is characterized by "sadasadanadhikaraNatva", not being the substratum of either sat (Existence) or asat (nonexistence).

The second definition of mithyAtva says that what is mithyA (unreal) is characterized as being the counterpositive (pratiyogin) of an absolute negation (asat) in the very substratum where it (the thing that is mithyA) is cognized.

The third definition in the advaita-siddhi simply says: YAnanivartyatvaM vA mithyAtvam.h |, Unreality is the property of being sublated by knowledge or cognition.

 

[Comet]

Lovely posts atanu. It is hard when people speak different "languages" as concepts are not the same from East to West and vice versa.

 

[Willamena]

"unreal" is a word - the map is not the territory.

The territory isn't even the territory.

 

[Prana Pastime]

Substantial monism ("one thing") is the view that there is only one substance and that all diversity is ultimately unreal. This view was maintained by Spinoza, who claimed that there is only one substance, or independently existing thing, and that both God and the universe are aspects of this substance. The Christian intellectual tradition has generally held that substantial monism fails to do justice to the distinction between God and creature, and that of attributive monisms only idealism is theologically acceptable.

Aristotle, maintains, that man is one substance, composed of body and soul, which are respectively matter and form. The soul is the principle of life, energy, and perfection; the body is the principle of decay, potentiality, and imperfection. These two are not complete substances: their union is not accidental, as Plato thought, but substantial. They are, of course, really distinct, and even separable; yet they act on each other and react. The soul, even in its highest functions, needs the co-operation, at least extrinsic, of the body, and the body in all its vital functions is energized by the soul as the radical principle of those functions. They are not so much two in one as two forming one compound. In popular imagination this dualism may be exaggerated; in the mind of the extreme ascetic it sometimes is exaggerated to the point of placing a too sharp contrast between "the flesh" and "the spirit", "the beast" and "the angel", in us.

In addition to having many eminent proponents in the Western philosophical tradition, substantial monism is a tenet of Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism each element of reality is part of maya or prakriti, and in Buddhism all things ultimately comprise an interrelated network.In the Hindu religion, Brahman (bráhman) is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools.While Advaita philosophy considers Brahman to be without form, qualities, or attributes, Visishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophies understand Brahman as one with infinite auspicious qualities.In Buddhism,Anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the notion of "not-self".Buddhists reject all these concepts of ātman, emphasizing not permanence, but changeability. Therefore all concepts of a substantial Self are incorrect and formed in the realm of ignorance.In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a Self" and "I have no Self" as ontological views that bind one to suffering.

Its like in the Tao. The world of the 10,000 things is not actuality, it isn't the true true. However, if one uses it to link in to the timeless it has served its purpose.

 

[Milton Platt]

Substantial monism ("one thing") is the view that there is only one substance and that all diversity is ultimately unreal. This view was maintained by Spinoza, who claimed that there is only one substance, or independently existing thing, and that both God and the universe are aspects of this substance. The Christian intellectual tradition has generally held that substantial monism fails to do justice to the distinction between God and creature, and that of attributive monisms only idealism is theologically acceptable.

Aristotle, maintains, that man is one substance, composed of body and soul, which are respectively matter and form. The soul is the principle of life, energy, and perfection; the body is the principle of decay, potentiality, and imperfection. These two are not complete substances: their union is not accidental, as Plato thought, but substantial. They are, of course, really distinct, and even separable; yet they act on each other and react. The soul, even in its highest functions, needs the co-operation, at least extrinsic, of the body, and the body in all its vital functions is energized by the soul as the radical principle of those functions. They are not so much two in one as two forming one compound. In popular imagination this dualism may be exaggerated; in the mind of the extreme ascetic it sometimes is exaggerated to the point of placing a too sharp contrast between "the flesh" and "the spirit", "the beast" and "the angel", in us.

In addition to having many eminent proponents in the Western philosophical tradition, substantial monism is a tenet of Hinduism and Buddhism. In Hinduism each element of reality is part of maya or prakriti, and in Buddhism all things ultimately comprise an interrelated network.In the Hindu religion, Brahman (bráhman) is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools.While Advaita philosophy considers Brahman to be without form, qualities, or attributes, Visishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophies understand Brahman as one with infinite auspicious qualities.In Buddhism,Anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the notion of "not-self".Buddhists reject all these concepts of ātman, emphasizing not permanence, but changeability. Therefore all concepts of a substantial Self are incorrect and formed in the realm of ignorance.In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a Self" and "I have no Self" as ontological views that bind one to suffering.

Glad you bothered to explain all of that. Not being familiar with the terms, I was thinking the opposite of "substantive" would be "vacuous".

 

[Andrew Gooding]

I also believe this, that we are all part of an interconnection that includes God and so much more..

 

[SESMeT]

I do think that there is ultimately only one thing--nature--and that all apparently distinct entities are just parts of that one thing.

 

[rational experiences]

I do think that there is ultimately only one thing--nature--and that all apparently distinct entities are just parts of that one thing.

Meaning in conscious correct use of ONE WORD and ONE meaning, what was taught was relative, all bodies exist in ownership of being one. Therefore each separate body is holy as one body.

One does not exist anywhere else. Yes it does says a male fed back constantly in AI communications, lots of ones as each one exist. Science in medical awareness, conscious teaching said mind is possessed by AI.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

Monism is false because its making everything one. But if everything were one, all would exist at the same time, and die at the same time. Its a simple enough belief. Oneness means we can control the universe and its function by being in unity. of course this isnt true. This is why i am a Christian. Its logically sound and makes sense.