So, I'd be interested in what you think is right. :yes:
-
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!
Panentheism vs. Pantheism
- Thread starter challupa
- Start date
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
"The foolish reject what they see, not what they think;
the wise reject what they think, not what they see."
~Huang Po
In other words, by thinking, you are wrong.
A map is not the territory.
That doesn't mean maps cannot be useful
but a map is a map.
The real function of discipline is not to provide us with maps but to
sharpen our own sense of direction so that when we really get going we can travel without maps.
Thomas Merton
Just like you don't need to believe everything you think? I agree, maps can be useful to get you started, the rest depends on you and what things look like once you actually get there. Someone else's map is never "perfect" for you.
However, I think I'm being dense today, but what does this have to do with panentheism and pantheism both being wrong. I recognize they are both "maps" pointing the way but not completely right. I feel as though I'm missing something quite important.
WayFarer
Rogue Scholar
Challupa, if I may comment on what I think Mr. Cheese is saying from a different angle:
Describe yourrelationship with anyone of significance in your life. (The more significant the better.)Now look at the description of that relationship. In spite of your best effort the description is neither the (actual) relationship itself nor is it truly accurate. It is just a description. If you described the same relationship tomorrow you may choose different words in an attempt to convey the relationship in either a different light or in different detail.So as far as the relationship is concerned your description is not real (as it is only a description) and it is not 100% accurate (though this does not mean it is inaccurate, just incomplete.)Theism, in any of its forms, is our attempt to put in a box that which the box can not contain. That is not to say it (theism) is not worth merit. It is just an illusion that is agreed to. And while there may be no truth in illusion, there can be wisdom.
Describe yourrelationship with anyone of significance in your life. (The more significant the better.)Now look at the description of that relationship. In spite of your best effort the description is neither the (actual) relationship itself nor is it truly accurate. It is just a description. If you described the same relationship tomorrow you may choose different words in an attempt to convey the relationship in either a different light or in different detail.So as far as the relationship is concerned your description is not real (as it is only a description) and it is not 100% accurate (though this does not mean it is inaccurate, just incomplete.)Theism, in any of its forms, is our attempt to put in a box that which the box can not contain. That is not to say it (theism) is not worth merit. It is just an illusion that is agreed to. And while there may be no truth in illusion, there can be wisdom.
Last edited:
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Water flows wherver it is allowed.
In order to use water we must contain it.
Through the use of a cup, hands, pipes or a dam
Just like the true nature of reality
in order to understand it, we must contain it
By containing water we are restraining its natural form
But eventually the water flows, no matter how we command it not to.
In order to use water we must contain it.
Through the use of a cup, hands, pipes or a dam
Just like the true nature of reality
in order to understand it, we must contain it
By containing water we are restraining its natural form
But eventually the water flows, no matter how we command it not to.
Yes that I do understand. Thank you.
But once we contain it, it is not it's true form, but is likely as close as we can come in physical form to understanding? The next step (if step is even the right word) would be allowing the water to flow where it will without trying to contain it to understand it?
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
correct...
wisdom (chockmah) water flows...
Understanding (Binah) contains....
In order to understand and receive the divine we need understanding...
at a more basic level, in order to watch TV SHow, we need a TV..the tv show is thus the water and the TV is the medium of understanding.
Thus Pantheism and panentheism are like the TV. This does not make them wrong, per se, however watching a tv show on tv is not the same as taking in the radio waves that form the tv show... because just like the divine we cannot understand radio waves unless they are translated.
From another thread:
We said above that Islam aims to base itself on the element Truth that is, it puts the ascent there according to its own point of view and intention and that is the impersonal character of this element which decentralizes Islamic mythology. In Christianity it will be doubtless be thought that the divine reality manifested by Christ has precedence over truth, the first being concrete and the second abstract, and this is the case when truth is reduced to the level of thought; but we must not lose sight of the fact we have a priori no knowledge of the divine Reality in the absence of metaphysical truth, whatever the degree of our understanding; from another angle, the word truth is often taken as synonymous with reality I am the way, the truth, and the life and this is how Islam understands it. It is precisely because we have to begin with no knowledge beyond the truth that we have a right to call true what is real, a terminology that in no way prejudices the effectiveand eventually concrete quality of our apparently abstract knowledge. Be that as it may, the subjective manifestation of the Absolute is no less real than its objective manifestation: certitude is nothing less than a miracle.
F Schuon (Gnosis divine wisdom, page 9)
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1854598-post4.html
Thank you for the insight. I see what you mean, now it is just a matter of experiencing it myself.
blackout
Violet.
If "un'realized potential" or the "un'realized/unREALized"
counts as something "seperate" from 'existence',
in that it does not yet 'exist'
I guess I am panenthiest.
If existence, the ideas of god mind (in human or any form)
have not yet been realized/REALized...
this would be as a potential expansion of the Universe.
If the potential expansion of the Universe
(gOd "stepping out" beyond it's present Self)
is considered PART of the Universe,
then I guess I would consider mySelf panthiest.
Either way, I do consider mySelf and everything else
in existence/potential existence... gOd.
My mind, is one manifestation of the mind of gOd.
counts as something "seperate" from 'existence',
in that it does not yet 'exist'
I guess I am panenthiest.
If existence, the ideas of god mind (in human or any form)
have not yet been realized/REALized...
this would be as a potential expansion of the Universe.
If the potential expansion of the Universe
(gOd "stepping out" beyond it's present Self)
is considered PART of the Universe,
then I guess I would consider mySelf panthiest.
Either way, I do consider mySelf and everything else
in existence/potential existence... gOd.
My mind, is one manifestation of the mind of gOd.
Last edited:
blackout
Violet.
One conciousness experiencing itself in many bodies.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I don't believe that a panentheist needs to see God as seperate. The personal and Impersonal are ONE.
What about when what we think is what we see?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Then it's time to dig up a different quote to tell you what to do.
Is that how it is seen? If it is, what is the point of seperating the two?
Metempsychosis
Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
From the point of Advaita Vedanta there are not two any where in the cosmos. There is only One. All is Brahman, you are Brahman, I am Brahman, the stars are Brahman. The personal God is just a projection of Brahman given to the universe to help us understand our own nature.
"Do you know what I mean? Satchidananda [ A name for God it means existence knowledge bliss] is like an infinite ocean. Intense cold freezes the water into ice, which floats on the ocean in blocks of various forms. Likewise, through the cooling influence of bhakti,[ a bhakti is a lover of God] one sees forms of God in the ocean of the Absolute. These forms are meant for the bhaktas, the lovers of God. But when the Sun of Knowledge rises, the ice melts; it becomes the same water it was before. Water above and water below, everywhere nothing but water. Therefore a prayer in the Bhagavata says: 'O Lord, Thou hast form, and Thou art also formless. Thou walkest before us, O Lord, in the shape of a man; again, Thou hast been described in the Vedas as beyond words and thought.'-Ramakrishna
To me it matters not if you see God as personal or impersonal it is all ONE.
Last edited:
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
sure...
but Huang Po is saying (at least my intepretation)...
that a person can see things, but what we think about them is false
or in other words a person can experience beyond the five senses, but when we begin to impose structures or models upon them we are lost....
but then I see thing through a Gnostic lense