Monistic theism

[shivaji]

I know little about Vaishnavism and the different schools of philosophy in Hinduism, so i would be grateful if people could educate me. Many religions hold that God is birthless and deathless. These religionists (particularly muslims) say that it is blasphemy to even think that God could be confined to a body. I was thinking about this and i thought - why? If God was truly Omnipotent, He could do anything, right? If He chose to manifest in human form for the benefit of his devotees, He could. Most importantly, some hold that God can never be born - He is deathless and birthless. These people say that it is blasphemy to say that God can be confined to the four walls of the womb, problems in life and childhood etc. I've been thinking - why is this unacceptable for us? Why are we trying to limit God? Why do some limit Him by saying that He is not Omnipresent (the dualists), that he is present in His own abode? Similarly, it is not beyond His power to be born if He so chooses, right? - What do you think? Although, He is also capable of taking any form He chooses without being born (i.e spontaneously appearing).

 

Surely there must be a way of reconciling the monists and dualists - is that through monistic theism (or panentheism)? Monistic theism holds that God is both Formless and can take form, both Absolute and relative, both immanent and transcendent. He is formless but also capable of taking any form. This way, we are not placing any human constraints on God by saying he is not this or that.

 

I became interested in this after reading the Bhagavad Gita - does the Gita agree with monistic theism? If i am not mistaken, in the Gita, Krishna says something along the lines of:

'He who knows I am beginningless, unborn, the Lord of all the Worlds, this mortal is free from delusion, and from all evils he is free' 10.3

'Although I am unborn, everlasting, and I am the Lord of all, I come to my realm of nature and through my wondrous power I am born' 4.6

When righteousness is weak and faints and unrighteousness exults in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth' 4.7

'He who knows my birth as God and who knows my sacrifice, when he leaves his mortal body, goes no more from death to death, for he in truth comes to me' 4.9

 

Therefore, God is birthless and deathless. He is Omnipresent, pervading the universe. God is in all. He is formless, but through His Divine Grace, he has taken form for the benefit of mankind. Although birthless, He is capable of taking birth. Although Formless, He is capable of taking form.

 

Therefore, monistic theism seems to be the best way of uniting the 2 paths of monism and dualism. Monism and dualism are not wrong per se, but they do not present the complete picture, the full reality.

 

Monistic theism is best summarised by the following: 'God in all, all in God'. By this we mean that God is present in all - we are taught to see God in everything. BUT all is NOT God. Yet. This approach emphasises a subtle difference between God and souls - all in God, that He is above us all. We are not at one with God yet. Through the process of self-realization, through yoga, meditation etc, we will realise the Self, the Atman and attain liberation finally.

 

I probably haven't explained this too well. But my point is one of unity - i am trying to reconcile different opinions. Whilst the views of the Eastern (typically monism) and Wstern religions (typically dualism) are not wrong, they present only half the picture. The complete picture is provided by a form of monistic theism, a beautiful synthesis of these opposing views. And it makes sense and seems to be backed up by the Scriptures. Please let me know what you think.

[shivaji]

I must add that I know that it will be impossible to reconcile all aspects of the Western and Eastern religions eg. question of Satan, Hell, Western religions being the only religion all others false, incorrect or distorted etc. But at a fundamental level, perhaps we unite the 2 views on the nature of God.

[shivaji]

Sorry again - i don't normally reply to my own questions?

 

BUT:

Why do some people (esp muslims) say that it is blasphemy to even think that God can be confined to a body, yet they deny His Omnipresence, saying that He has his own abode, and that he does not pervade all. By saying this, surely they are placing human restrictions on God? On one hand they say, He cannot be confined to a body, but yet he is not Omnipresent.

[shivaji]

I MADE A MISTAKE!

 

I said:

"Whilst the views of the Eastern (typically monism) and Wstern religions (typically dualism) are not wrong"

 

What i meant to say was:

""Whilst the views of the monism and dualism are not wrong".

I make this correction because Hinduism embraces all schools of thought, monism, dualism and monistic theism.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Those verses from Gita that you quoted certainly provide a nice perspective for this topic. All contradictions are reconciled in the Personality of Godhead. He is simultaneously all-pervading and personal. He is simultaneously unborn, and born through divine descent (avatara). Krishna is everything, yet everything is not Krishna (vasudeva sarvam iti). This is His yogam aisvaram, His mystical oppulence.

 

When we project our own imperfections and limitations onto the Personality of Godhead, we come to conclusions that He cannot be this, or He cannot be that. But this is an imperfect vision, for God is not a limited being like ourselves. He can take birth while maintaining His supreme spiritual position as the source of everything.

 

As long as we consider the Lord's form to be mundane or material, like our own embodied situation, then it is impossible to accept or understand His divine lila. His form is sat-chit-ananda - eternality, knowledge and bliss - thus when He descends, He remains in His absolute position, free from the defects and limitations of an embodied self.

 

[shvu]

 

The complete picture is provided by a form of monistic theism, a beautiful synthesis of these opposing views. And it makes sense and seems to be backed up by the Scriptures. Please let me know what you think.

 

This raises the question of what quaifies as scripture. If you are trying to unite eastern and western religions, then you must be willing to accept their holy books as scripture too and once you do that there is no way you can bring them together for they are as different as can be.

 

Cheers

 

 

[shivaji]

No, I am not trying to unite Western and Eastern religions - there are too many differences. But i am trying to present the complete picture by fusing the monistic and dualistic views of God. So, i am only trying to unite different schools of philosophy.

[theist]

shivaji,

 

I think you are on the right track.Are you familiar with the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu?

[Avinash]

What is up with this forum? First we had Shvu, whose name is Shivakumar. Then we had Shiva. Now we have Shivaji.

[Gauracandra]

While there are certainly many differences in the teachings of various religions, they do have many common elements. And those that aren't common can still be appreciated. I kind of wish they'd teach religion in schools. Not as propaganda for one group or another. But suppose they taught Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism in high school. Teach them from an historical perspective, what their philosophy is, rituals etc.... then I think we'd all have a greater appreciation for the various religions around the world. Perhaps its part of the solution to end religious fighting (as can be seen in Jerusalem today).

 

Imagine all the people....

[Shashi]

Perhaps we are able to to be uniting the two aspects that God is limitless and God has the birth by the insite that GOd is not limited by the birth. Alternatuvly we could be seeing that God's birth is limitless.