Aspect Monism
All religious systems attempt to characterize the structure of reality. Inevitably they find their foundation is what is called ontology (the study of being). The ontology chosen stems first of all from an intuition about the structure of reality. Those intuitions have always struggled with a sense of being both an individual and a part of the whole. Historically this struggle has been characterized as the question of the One and the Many. In philosophic terms it dates back at least 600 years BCE. It was probably first dealt with in depth by philosophers in the Indus Valley of what we now know of as India. There early philosophers seemed to diverge into two schools, dualistic and monistic. The dualists claimed that there are two distinction ontological realms, the realm of God or some form of ultimate reality and the realm of reality as we experience it. The monists claimed that there is only one ontology, one being and that we are part of that One. As these philosophies spread to the West through Persian trade routes the question of the One and the Many was taken up by early Greek philosophers as well. There too philosophers, for the most part, opted for either a dualist or monist ontology. Plato, in most of his works, was a dualist positing both a realm of ulimate reality and the mundane reality of life. In fact Plato thought that this realm was so corrupt and God was so perfect that God had no direct contact with this world and used a demiurge instead. Interestingly enough, however, Plato in his work Timaeus sounds much more like a monist. Parminedes was an early philosopher who, through logic, claimed that there can only be the One reality and that we are a part of it.
This debate continued through all of history with new formulations like Idealism and Realism springing up to address the issue in new terms. Interestingly enough the debate has taken on fresh force with the advent of modern physics with many of the top physicists like Bohr and Shrodinger asserting a monistic view. While in the East monism took a stronger hold in the religions of Buddhism and Hinduism, in the West with monotheism a dualistic view of reality became dominant. This resulted in what we now know as the classic theism of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is not to say that there are no monistic trends in Western religion. Every age has had reactions to dualism in theism but for the most part dualism prevailed. It may be that we are entering a time of change in this respect. Particularly among professional theologians there is a resurgence in monistic thought that is called panentheism. Panentheism says that the world is “in” God but God is also more than the world. While there are forms of panentheism that, in my view, are still dualistic (as in process theism) there are other strains that assert the oneness of reality. I believe a monistic form of panentheism fits experience very well and solves many problems in theology.
The question that arises is how to characterize a monistic system. Dualistic system have a much easier time in their characterizations of the relationship between God and the world because it is very easy for people to conceptualize distinct individuals and their interaction. Monism, on the other hand, faces the difficulty of explaining how the Many can be part of the One and still be distinct in some sense. If there is no distinction between the One and the Many it is difficult to understand our sense of separateness and freedom. The idea of a holness in the One and the Many is particularly difficult for those in the West because they do not have a history of nondualism in their culture as they do in the East. To be sure, the great Western mystics are part of this history but for the most part their sentiment has been ingnored in Western culture perhaps because of the emphasis on rationality and the skepticism in a science loving culture. That, however, has not detered theologians and philosophers from grappling with the issue. Once again the question of how to intelligibly characterize the unity of the many has become of paramount importance. These thinkers have opted for at least two approaches. One is to use philosophic language and the other is to draw on metaphor. I think both are helpful.
Now there has been no shortage of metaphors to elucidate how a distinction can be made between the One and Many. One of the more popular ones in panentheism is that “the world is the body of God”. This metaphor is apt because humans can all relate to having many parts, cells, organs, the brain, etc. that are distinction but also part of the whole. I believe there are some drawbacks to this metaphor, however. Mainly it fails to address the issue of our minds and the mind of the One. The metaphor I use to overcome this is the Author/Story metaphor. In this metaphor the mind is one, the mind of God but the characters in the story God creates share in God’s mind and some of its abilities. Now although God is the author of the story (the creator) as any fiction writer will attest the characters in the story seem to often have mind of their own and can even surprise the author.
At any rate, metaphors can offer a rough and ready picture of how to understand individuality within a monistic ontology. But what about philosophic language? This comes down to what terms to use to characterize this distinction. The main term I use is “aspect”. While I may use this term differently than others, it is not original to me. It has been used of late in philosophy of mind (dual aspect monism) and has also been employed by philosophers like Hartshorne, Dooyeweerd, and in the non-physics thought of people Erwin Shrodinger. I think it is an apt term because it is able to draw some distinction without creating a dualism. I also think people can relate the term because we all recognize that we have distinct aspects to ourselves while remaining a unity.
In my theology, God has aspects. The great Hindu philosopher Ramanuja called these attributes of the One. If there is only one ontology and that is God then God has both a living aspect of which we are a part and an unknowable abysmal aspect that is the “more” in panentheism. In process philosophy the abysmal aspect is called God’s primordial nature while the living aspect is found in God’s concrete aspect. The notion of aspects in God is also obvious in the trinitarian concepts in Christianity.
One of the great advantages of an aspect monism for theology is that there is no great divide to be crossed to commune with God. There is a seamless flow between the aspects of God. Instead of a divide there is an infinite depth to all of reality. Religions often divide reality into the sacred and the mundane or profane. While these terms can have a use, if they lead to a dualism they create many problems for theology. We can think, instead, of the scacred as that which dwells in all things and seeks to embrace its depth in God.
Another significant advantage of an aspect monism is that it dispels the typical conflict between religion and science. If reality is monistic there is no need to talk about “interventions” of God in this realm. Instead, God’s activity is intrinsic to reality in God’s living aspect. Divine action is not something imposed on the world from the outside but rather the ubiquitous activity of a living God in every moment of life. Interestingly enough much in modern physics today supports this idea.
From the standpoint of personal sense of self and action, if we are aspects of God then we are not fallen creatures but participants in the divine life with all its challenges and the opportunities of spirit. It also means that as we engage in these struggle we do not look outside our realm for help from God but rather to the intrinsic divine depth within us all.
Are you familiar with H.N. Wieman’s “The Source of Human Good”? He identifies God as the creative source of the human mind and the world appreciable to the human mind. Does this identify him as a panentheist?
Comment by Ray Anderson —
Hi Ray,
Welcome.
My only exposure to Weiman has been my readings on the internet. However he seems to me to be a so called panentheist like Hartshorne. In the following quote he seems to see God as a person among others, albeit an uber-person.
If I am right that Weiman, like Hartshorne, sees God as a person with a separate set of occasions of experience then I don’t really see this as a true panentheism. Process thought, in my view, is triistic where the separate “entities” are Creativity, God, and the World. If God has a separate set of occasions of experience it is hard for me to see a true ontological “in” in panentheism. Instead it seems that the “in” is not ontological but communicational or prehensional. As such I don’t see much difference in that from a classical dualistic theism except that God is changed by those prehensions. To me a true panentheism is monistic where the “in” means an ontological “in”. Communication between God and the world is an inner dialog (intracommunication) not an intercommunication.
However, I’m not all that familiar with Weiman so if I’ve missed the mark please feel free to correct me.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
This is a good intellectual analysis of aspect monism, which is what I would term non-duality. The eastern term for this is advaita, or “not-two”. This is in order to be distinguished from a flat “oneness” which would remove all sense of distinctions.
How does one move from an intellectual appreciation of this to an integrated gestalt seeing / being / experiencing of aspect monism / non-duality?
I would submit that the natural state is an experiencing of oneness, and that only the development of a mental concept of separate sense of self around age 2 to 2 1/2 begins the split between self and God. In the beginning this split is a simple awareness of the idea of “self” and “not-self” centered around words like “I”, “me”, “mine” and your name, but this idea becomes more and more a scaffold upon which are built extended self-identifications. In adolescence the growth of this mental structure rapidly expands as new aspects of identity are added, such as “geek”, “jock”, “goth”, “prep” or a myriad of others. Eventually, by adulthood, identity has become something like: “Me”, the Democrat, the atheist, the writer and journalist, childless by choice, vegan, physically fit and reasonably handsome, environmentalist, who despises George Bush and the Republicans, Manhattanite, cynical, and smart enough to see through anyone’s bullshit. And that kind of well-developed identity is seen as the pinnacle of the evolution of personal consciousness, which it probably is (emphasis on “personal”). But is that the end of the journey for consciousness itself?
The “person” can be seen as a deep conditioning of consciousness through successive identifications with more and more rigid and refined concepts. But this identification cannot hold forever. This identification of consciousness with the temporary and the contingent is bound to fail eventually.
The question eventually arises: “who is it that is having this experience, really?” And through this inquiry it is seen that no one is, that there is simply an experiencing, a watching, and a witnessing. That the idea of “me” and all its conditioning is actually a concept within awareness, an object, not a subject. The self was always simply just a movie character playing out on the screen of awareness, identified with for a while, but there was never actually anything substantial there, simply a playing out within Awareness.
Comment by MatthewCromer —
Hi Matthew,
The Eastern school I find the most amenable is the Vishishtadvaita school based on Ramanuja. I don’t know Hindi but I suspect the word means “not-two but with attributes”. It’s unfortunate that Western theologians don’t know much about Eastern thought. There’s a lot of good stuff there.
I think the first thing for people to understand is that all “intellectual” explications first start out as tacit knowing (gestalt processes). In the West there has been a general downgrading of the intuitional self probably because of the skepticism that arose in the enlightenment. I do think that there is a turn around going on now as reductionist programs in science and philosophy are failing. Feminist theology also is helping people to appreciate their gestalt senses and intuition.
I agree. The problem for religion today is what to provide as an alternative to the failed alternatives of the past? Many people are rejecting overly personalized and individualized religious sentiment but don’t seem to have anywhere to go. One alternative is to look to formulations with Eastern influences like Hinduism and Baha’i. I don’t know if significant inroads are being made in these or not. What I think is needed are many new alternatives for people to choose from. Those alternatives that meet people’s needs and are transparent to the divine will survive and thrive. The others will fade away.
I like your metaphor. It’s a lot like my Author/Story. Where we may differ could be the question of substance. I don’t know if you are coming from the Eastern concept that all is illusion or not. I would agree with Eastern and process thought that there is no substantial permanence but I wouldn’t characterize our sense of existence as an illusion. Where we can, however, be deluded is that we are somehow distinction from the divine. As you mentioned initially in life we feel a oneness but later develop a sense of self with all its categories. I don’t see a problem with this unless it leads to a loss of connectedness and unity with the cosmos and God. Unfortunately I think in modern societies this often happens.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
The rigid identification with a particular identity, say “Matthew”, his “spiritual journey”, his life-story, his good qualities and his flaws — this is the illusion. But the “I AMness” is not an illusion.
As for Baha’i, the central figures of the Baha’i faith certainly had a very deep understanding of spirituality. But unfortunately the religion has been more or less taken over by fundamentalist elements at this point. I left the Baha’i religion in 1993 because of the rigid and dogmatic rules on personal relationships, although I still have a deep respect for the vision of Baha’u'llah and his son Abdu’l-Baha.
Comment by MatthewCromer —
Steve Petermann wrote: The Eastern school I find the most amenable is the Vishishtadvaita school based on Ramanuja.
Buck’s reply: The Trika School of Kashmir Shaivism has contributed more to my own personal developing concepts of panentheism than Vishishtadvaita. As I learned from reading M. A. Kazlev, the Tantric cosmology of Kashmir Shaivism (later adopted by the Bengali branch of Shaktism or Tantra proper), incorporates both Samkhyan emanationism and Advaita Vedantin Monism.
Comment by Buck —
Hi Buck,
Welcome. Thanks for the info on Kashmir Shaivism. I’m still a neophyte on Indian philosophy but I’m very interested in it. I’ll do some reading. Lately I’ve been reading the works of Sri Aurobino and found much to my liking. While panentheistic thought has been prominent in the East for centuries, it seems to also be taking off in the West now. There are prominent thinkers in process thought and Christianity who are embracing it. At some point I hope there can be an indepth dialog between the East and West on panentheism. Only a matter of time, I suspect.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Howdy Steve,
I have noticed, as you have too, that many Westerners end up qualifying either the “en” or the “pan” in panentheism. For me, process theology/philosophy as well as panentheism must be based on a dipolar concept of God, which emanates/flows/unfolds. I suspect that many supposedly dipolar process theologians still subconsciously harbor loyalty to a Judeo-Christian monopolar God. The acrobatics they go through to impose a monopolar view of reality upon a dipolar paradigm results in things like soterological-eschatological, expressivist, sacramental and divine-energies brands of panentheism. However, in my humble opinion, a monopolar god dressed in dipolar drag will never allow for a truly satisfying answer to the problem of the one in the many and the many in the one. Such a stunted panentheism may appeal to those who retain a secret fetish for orthodoxy, but let us hope it is just a phase they will eventually outgrow as the dialogue between East and West continues.
I appreciate much of what I have read in Sri Aurobindo, especially his basic theory of involution/evolution. When recently studying how Sri Aurobindo viewed the concept of a lasting individualized personality, I ran across a question/answer page where the Mother described the following…..
“As if honey could taste itself and all its drops together and all its drops could taste each other and each the whole honeycomb as itself, so should the end be with God and the soul of man and the universe.” (Cent. Ed. Vol. XVI, p. 384)
I rather like that metaphor.
Buck
Comment by Buck —
Buck,
I agree with your assessemnent of many panentheisitic formulations, especially those of process thinkers. In fact, Hartshorne said he was comfortable with the label of neo-classical theist. In my view the ontology of process thought is deeply flawed. It just can’t seem to get out of a dualistic mentality (actually it is triistic, creativity, God, the world). While Hartshorne talks about aspects of God, is it really valid when God’s only participation in reality is separate experience and influence? I don’t think so.
I think this all goes back to a dualistic mentality that Whitehead seemed wedded to. According to Griffin, Whitehead felt that one of the greatests insights came from Plato where he said, “the Divine element in the world is to be conceived as a persuasive agency and not as a coercive agency”. While I can understand this sentiment it smacks of a classic dualism that to me doesn’t fit well within a panentheism. It may be much harder to grasp the consilience of both freedom in the Many that are still part of the One, but this is, in my view, one of the key elements of non-dualism. As you said other formulations attempt heroic acrobatics to maintain some intelligibility. They don’t succeed.
Where I find trouble with some Eastern thought is the idea of there being an end in perfection. The Mother quote seems to represents this difficulty for me. Here are my thoughts. Would you care to comment?
Comment by Steve Petermann —