Panentheism vs. Pantheism

[Mr Cheese]

Then it's time to dig up a different quote to tell you what to do.

:clap for another pointless post

 

[Mr Cheese]

IMHO,Our mind seperates them into two.

In The Heart Sutra of Buddhism says:

the mind does whatever it can to cope...to understand

the point being any structure, model is just that

 

[Kilgore Trout]

:clap for another pointless post

Well, at least this exemplifies why your posts always consist of the words and thoughts of others. Probably better off sticking to that method.

Protip: Have somebody explain "irony" to you, when you get a chance.

 

[challupa]

IMHO,Our mind seperates them into two.

In The Heart Sutra of Buddhism says:

Yes, I would agree with this. In the physical world duality is necessary. If we saw things as all one, physical experience would be pointless in a sense.

 

[challupa]

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.

That does make sense. It is all one on the cosmic level, if you can call it that. However, in the physical world, duality is necessary to experience anything really.

 

[Troublemane]

I think Panentheism is more idealistic, in that it projects deity on ALL existence, not just the existence we can be aware of. Pantheism, on the other hand, tends to be more "down to earth", as it were, embracing concepts of deity representing more immediate existence, IMO.

I guess you could say Pantheism is more like a nature-type religion, similar to a belief in the "cosmos" as a living entity in and of itself, like the philosphies Carl Sagan & Einstein promulgated. Panentheism tends to project an archetypal order above and beyond that perceived existence, such that the cosmos isn't merely alive, it's also aware.

perhaps not aware like the old testament god, speaking in red letters, etc. maybe prehension is the best way to describe it. pure consciousness. :angel2:

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I think Panentheism is more idealistic, in that it projects deity on ALL existence, not just the existence we can be aware of. Pantheism, on the other hand, tends to be more "down to earth", as it were, embracing concepts of deity representing more immediate existence, IMO.

I guess you could say Pantheism is more like a nature-type religion, similar to a belief in the "cosmos" as a living entity in and of itself, like the philosphies Carl Sagan & Einstein promulgated. Panentheism tends to project an archetypal order above and beyond that perceived existence, such that the cosmos isn't merely alive, it's also aware.

perhaps not aware like the old testament god, speaking in red letters, etc. maybe prehension is the best way to describe it. pure consciousness. :angel2:

Maybe its like Pantheism is like what Einstein promulgated and Panentheism is more like the views of Schrodinger. Just on the theoretical level, we know that that the observer dictates whether light behaves as a wave or a particle. It takes a bigger leap of faith for me to believe that some how the human mind evolved to the point that it could control the nature of light then for consciousness is endemic to the universe. I can not prove my beliefs but neither can the other side. For the Hindu ( like all mystics )it is the experience of the divine is what is important.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Yes, I would agree with this. In the physical world duality is necessary. If we saw things as all one, physical experience would be pointless in a sense.

Our view is this once reality is directly experienced as all is One, all suffering stops. The ideal is to live in the world with one foot in both worlds. This way we can transcend suffering and help others to do the same.

 

[challupa]

Our view is this once reality is directly experienced as all is One, all suffering stops. The ideal is to live in the world with one foot in both worlds. This way we can transcend suffering and help others to do the same.

Have you been able to directly experience the "oneness"? If so, any suggestions as how to do that and how it helps with suffering?

 

[challupa]

I think Panentheism is more idealistic, in that it projects deity on ALL existence, not just the existence we can be aware of. Pantheism, on the other hand, tends to be more "down to earth", as it were, embracing concepts of deity representing more immediate existence, IMO.

I guess you could say Pantheism is more like a nature-type religion, similar to a belief in the "cosmos" as a living entity in and of itself, like the philosphies Carl Sagan & Einstein promulgated. Panentheism tends to project an archetypal order above and beyond that perceived existence, such that the cosmos isn't merely alive, it's also aware.

perhaps not aware like the old testament god, speaking in red letters, etc. maybe prehension is the best way to describe it. pure consciousness. :angel2:

Well, in a sense, the cosmos does seem to have an awareness of some sort. If observing light can change a wave to a particle, there does seem to be something there that is aware at some level. It's interesting for sure. I wouldn't call that god though.

 

[Troublemane]

Well, in a sense, the cosmos does seem to have an awareness of some sort. If observing light can change a wave to a particle, there does seem to be something there that is aware at some level. It's interesting for sure. I wouldn't call that god though.

In the sense that 'awareness' underlies all existence, and all particular forms of awareness are particles of it, I feel justified to call it 'God'.

Even if it doesn't talk back all the time, LoLz.

 

[Troublemane]

Maybe its like Pantheism is like what Einstein promulgated and Panentheism is more like the views of Schrodinger. Just on the theoretical level, we know that that the observer dictates whether light behaves as a wave or a particle. It takes a bigger leap of faith for me to believe that some how the human mind evolved to the point that it could control the nature of light then for consciousness is endemic to the universe. I can not prove my beliefs but neither can the other side. For the Hindu ( like all mystics )it is the experience of the divine is what is important.

The experiments of quantum physics are particularly interesting, as they reveal a level of existence where subject/object dichotomies are non-existant. subject and object one and the same? how awesome is that?:yes:

 

[challupa]

In the sense that 'awareness' underlies all existence, and all particular forms of awareness are particles of it, I feel justified to call it 'God'.

Even if it doesn't talk back all the time, LoLz.

Quick question, do you think an aware existence which you call God is a caring or personal god in any way?

 

[blackout]

Quick question, do you think an aware existence which you call God is a caring or personal god in any way?

People certainly embody/are that aware existence.
Sometimes people are caring and personal,
sometimes they're not.

so yes, sometimes, in that way.
(and most likely in other ways too)


UV, (not Troublemane).

 

[Metempsychosis]

The experiments of quantum physics are particularly interesting, as they reveal a level of existence where subject/object dichotomies are non-existant. subject and object one and the same? how awesome is that?:yes:

Erwin Schrödinger was a follower of Vedanta,so that makes it somewhat less awesome.

Yes, I would agree with this. In the physical world duality is necessary. If we saw things as all one, physical experience would be pointless in a sense.

The closest of this oneness probably is the deep sleep state,wherein there is no subject-object duality(but this is not a state of knowledge).

Quick question, do you think an aware existence which you call God is a caring or personal god in any way?

To say God(or whatever we call it) as impersonal alone is a limitation,to say it just personal is another limitation ,in my opinion.It is like dividing god into two.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well, at least this exemplifies why your posts always consist of the words and thoughts of others. Probably better off sticking to that method.

Protip: Have somebody explain "irony" to you, when you get a chance.

ooh you attempted something of substance that isnt a sarcastic one liner....

I doubt it will last long

:bow:

 

[challupa]

People certainly embody/are that aware existence.
Sometimes people are caring and personal,
sometimes they're not.

so yes, sometimes, in that way.
(and most likely in other ways too)


UV, (not Troublemane).

If we are the conscious universe then I would agree. But there is so much more than us, inanimate objects, other species etc. Do you feel they are conscious in any way?

 

[challupa]

Erwin Schrödinger was a follower of Vedanta,so that makes it somewhat less awesome..

Why does it make it less awesome? I think that he would have even more knowledge to bring to the subject being a follower of Vedanta.

The closest of this oneness probably is the deep sleep state,wherein there is no subject-object duality(but this is not a state of knowledge)..

Even in sleep we do lots of work. Our mind works through daily problems and sometimes solves them or releases them. I agree we are closer to that "oneness" though, which may be why we do solve some things when asleep.

To say God(or whatever we call it) as impersonal alone is a limitation,to say it just personal is another limitation ,in my opinion.It is like dividing god into two.

Yes, I see what you mean. I just don't know enough about "God" to be able to understand what he/she might be or if one even exists outside of a creation of our minds.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Why does it make it less awesome? I think that he would have even more knowledge to bring to the subject being a follower of Vedanta.

That was my opinion, probably because he was already knowing about it,and that idea would have not been novel to them.I agree that it would have made him more interested in his field.

 

[blackout]

If we are the conscious universe then I would agree. But there is so much more than us, inanimate objects, other species etc. Do you feel they are conscious in any way?

thus my comment...

(and most likely in other ways too)