apologetic-pantheism

7/28/2019 apologetic-pantheism

1/50


2/50

God is alland

All is God


3/50

Sankaraspantheism

approaches anabsolute form.


4/50

Spinozaspantheism

acknowledges"modes" - a limited

or secondaryreality


5/50

Radakrishnanspantheism

acknowledgeslevels" - a limitedor secondary

reality


6/50

There are variousnuances between theteachings of differentgurus.


7/50

A brief word from Deepak Choprawhich also assumes a shade of

pantheism.


8/50

Sankara's philosophy is called Advaita(non-dual) and it belongs to one of theVedantic schools of India. These are

philosophical schools which rely on thewritings of the Vedantic ( end of Vedas) period. Vedanta expresses certainreligious and philosophical speculationson the last section of Vedic literaturecalled Upanishads. A group of 55 sutras(2-3 word statements) systematiseUpanishads. Sankara, who lived

between 788 - 820 A.D. in Kaladi

(present-day Kerala) distilled his pantheistic philosophy in hiscommentaries on the Upanishads. Theyare recognised as the crowningachievement of Indian philosophicalspeculation.


9/50

The strongest reasonfor Asias resistance to

the Gospel is itsphilosophical heritage.

- Norman Geisler.


10/50

Main Tenets


11/50

The doctrine of advaita (non-duality)implies that the causeof reality is notdifferent from theeffect. The effect (thisworld) and its cause(Brahman) are `non-different'.

Reality as non-duality


12/50

GodThe first principle of

reality is Brahman (not tobe confused with Brahma,the finite personal god of creation in polytheisticHinduism). He (or It) isthe ultimate and onlyreality. The reality weultimately experience isnot different from God.

Brahman is `nirguna' -without qualities. Toascribe qualities is to limitBrahman. But Brahman isabove such distinction.


13/50

GodFor the same reason,

Brahman has no being or he is non-being, becausebeing implies limitation.Brahman is prior to andbeyond being. Callingsomething `A' implies thatit is not `non-A' (law of non-contradiction). Thiswould mean that the

reality is made up of Aand non-A. This apantheist would notaccept because it wouldimply limitation inBrahman.


14/50

God

Brahman is both the stuff of the world and the formthat shapes the stuff.Even though Brahmandoes not have a form initself, Brahman is theoperative cause (there isno other ruling principle)and is also the materialcause (there is no other substance) of the world.But Brahman isunaffected by the world.


15/50

God

Brahman in its unlimitedor no-form is callednirguna (unqualified)Brahman and in its limitedunderstanding is calledsaguna (qualified)Brahman.


16/50

God

The concept of nirgunaBrahman relates to trueknowledge and that of saguna Brahman toignorance. Saguna(qualified) Brahman isuseful for worship butnirguna (unqualified)Brahman is the true

knowledge of the ultimate.


17/50

The World

The world flows from Brahman.

Even the worlds of life after death depend on Brahman for their origin. But it is unplanned,i.e., it is necessarily originated

from Brahman.


18/50

The World

For Sankara, 'Sarvam KalvidamBrahman' which means, 'Verily

all this is Brahman'. But theworld is neither 'real' nor 'unreal'

in relation to Brahman. Theworld is less than real.


19/50

ManThe individual self (Jivatman) isidentified with the highest self (Paramatman). This isexpressed us `Tat tvam asi',`That art thou'.This union of self

with cosmic self, is `self-established' and not`accomplished by endeavour'.Itis already a reality. The reality inwhich we are all one isBrahman. This is expressed inthe Sanskrit words, `Ayam AtmaBrahma' which mean `This soulis Brahman'.


20/50

Man

The whole notion that individualselves could be different fromBrahman at all, is due to`avidya' or the result of erroneous thinking. From theultimate point of view, onlycosmic self (Paramatman or

Brahman) is real.


21/50

Salvation

The goal of Sankara's epistemology isenlightenment. That is knowledge that

one already had, but is rediscovered. It isthe kind of knowledge when, all of a

sudden you remember where you putyour lost keys.


22/50

Salvation

The sudden realisation that jivatman isBrahman, releases the individual from the

cycle of rebirths (karma/samsara). TheSanskrit word for this release or freedom

is `moksha' (salvation).


23/50

Salvation

During moksha, the covering of ignorance(avidya) is stripped away and replaced by

the true knowledge of the ultimate(Brahmavidya). The world does not

disappear, but understood as less thanreal (maya in comparison to the reality of

Brahman. Incidentally, maya sometimesidentified in terms of a female deity, is apower which flows from Brahman and is

the cause of avidya.


24/50

DestinyThe finite self, born of ignorance, is

bound by karma/samsara cycle. According to the law of karma, the pastdeeds determine the status of the finiteself in the present life and the present

will determine the status in the next life. At death, the individual self which hasattained Brahmavidya is absorbed intothe cosmic self, Brahman, and is nolonger associated with the senses thatgave rise to ignorance. Only the finiteself, born of ignorance and suffering inthe cycle of reincarnation (samsara)ceases to exist.


25/50


26/50


27/50

EvilSince pain and suffering(determined by the law of karma) are part of thisworld, they are just

illusions. Sankara claimsthat the pain weexperience is less thanreal. Sankara's solutionto evil is the realisationthat there is no suchthing.


28/50

EthicsIn achieving Moksha, morality plays buta preliminary function. Sankaramentions four pre-requisites for theinquiry into Brahman:

1) Differentiating between the temporaland the eternal.

2) Renouncing the desire to enjoy thebenefits of good deeds (nishkama

karma).3) Developing tranquility and restraint.

4) Longing for the release fromsamsara.


29/50

EthicsSankara uses the works one does inthis life to explain the various positionspeople hold in society(caste/varnashrama). The caste system

is perpetuated by two other presuppositions - the ideas of rebirth(samsara) and of the causal law(karma). The human soul reincarnates,or transmigrates to another body andsocial position determined by theinviolable law of karma.


30/50

Epistemology

The goal of Sankara's epistemology is enlightenment.The knowledge of the cosmic self (Brahmavidya) isthe true and ultimate knowledge. Brahmavidya ismore of a direct, immediate, intuitive knowledge. This

is the knowledge at the ultimate level.Sankara resolves the apparent contradictions thatpepper the vedas and the vedanta texts by appealingto two levels of thinking. He differentiates the ultimatefrom the phenomenal.


31/50

The goal of Sankara's epistemology is enlightenment.The knowledge of the cosmic self (Brahmavidya) isthe true and ultimate knowledge. Brahmavidya ismore of a direct, immediate, intuitive knowledge. Thisis the knowledge at the ultimate level.

Sankara resolves the apparent contradictions thatpepper the vedas and the vedanta texts by appealingto two levels of thinking. He differentiates the ultimatefrom the phenomenal.


32/50

This can perceive only external things. Brahman is notknowable by senses. We should not accept theoriesthat contradict our observations in this world, but thiswarning applies only to this world,i.e., the phenomenalworld.

Sense perception:


33/50

The sheer diversity of opinions, not all correct according tologic, proves that reason alone leads to error and thus theneed to study Brahman. Moreover, the less than real status of the phenomenal world corrupts the mind. Logic is useful andnecessary in describing the qualified nature of Brahman.

Rational tests do possess at least some rudimentary validity.But the higher knowledge, Brahmavidya, is beyond logic. It isinteresting to note that Sankara assumes logic's rationalvalidity in his rejection of Buddhist doctrines. He also defendsthe vedas and vedanta texts as rationally consistent and

coherent. This concept of two levels of thinking serves anepistemological function by resolving logical paradoxes.

Logic


34/50

According to Sankara, the Vedas and Vedanta texts arerationally consistent and coherent. This confirms their truth.Sankara assigns the empirical data lower level than the

scriptural teaching. Sankara posits two levels of truth, onlyone of which is ultimately sound. It may initially seem like thescriptures are contradicted by empirical knowledge, but in thefinal analysis, they are not.

Scriptures


35/50

Since the knowledge that uses concepts are not ultimatelytrue, a non-logical non-conceptual knowledge must be morebasic than inferential thinking. Logical thinking is legitimate,but not when it is `bare' or `independent'. Rather, conceptualthought is `a subordinate auxiliary' to the more basic intuitivekind of knowledge.

Knowledge


36/50

Critique


37/50

1. Pantheism attempts to be comprehensive in itsperspective.

2.It emphasizes unity as the ultimate dimension of reality.

3.It emphasizes the immanence of God in the world.

4.It acknowledges that only God is absolutely necessaryand creation is ontologically dependent on God.

5.It encourages an intuitive epistemological approach.

6.It places a strong and appropriate emphasis on the vianegativa.

7.It emphasises limitations of sense and conceptperception (such as advocated by evidentialism andrationalism).

Positive contribution:

R f i f h i


38/50

Unaffirmable claims of Sankara:When a Pantheist makes an affirmation 'AhamBrahmasmi', i.e., 'I am Brahman', he is engaging in thenegation of the finite individual reality. It is equivalent to

saying 'Brahman is, but I am not'. But who is speakinghere? What does 'I' refer to? To answer these questions,reference can be made only to two possibilities:

(i) 'I' refers to a finite individual. But this is self-defeating. If someone exists to tell this, this statement is wrong. If thestatement is true, there could be no speaker to utter it.

Refutation of pantheism

Consistency and Coherence

R f i f h i


39/50

Unaffirmable claims of Sankara:(ii) 'I' refers to God. Even though this alternative maysolve the problem of self-defeat from the ultimate point of view, the very reason he is trying to express it to me

shows that he is treating me as a real entity. On the other hand, the infinite mind of God once deceived now seesthe truth, implying an error in God's understanding and achange in his understanding. This limits God, contrary toSankara's efforts. It introduces into God fallibility andmutability.



R f t ti f th i


40/50

Sankara's metaphysical assumption of non-dualismbegs the question:

Pantheists avoid the use of the word BEING as applicable

both to God and the world, as it would be limiting God.What is true of God is not true of the things of the world.The result is that god is placed beyond the world(transcendent), an "unpantheistic" thing to do.



R f t ti f th i


41/50

Sankara's metaphysical assumption of non-dualismbegs the question:

Pantheists avoid the use of the word BEING as applicableboth to God and the world, as it would be limiting God.What is true of God is not true of the things of the world.The result is that god is placed beyond the world(transcendent), an "unpantheistic" thing to do.

This arises out of the assumption that words have only

singular meanings - only univocal usage. As a univocalview does not allow any differences in kinds of existingthings, this results in question-begging. The conclusionthat there is only one being is based on the assumptionthat there is only one sense to the word `being'.



R f t ti f th i


42/50

Faulty dilemma in the understanding of languageusage:

For Sankara, only univocal usage of language isapplicable. Equivocal usage does not make sense. But thisunivocal view ignores a third option,i.e., a theistic option of an analogous application of words like `being'. A word suchas `being' analogously predicates different kinds of existingthings -independent eternal Being (such as God) as well asdependent temporal beings (such as creatures).



Ref tation of pantheism


43/50

Sankara's pantheistic God depends on theistic God for meaning:

(i) Pantheism is indistinguishable from atheism. To describeBrahman as 'neti, neti', i.e., 'not this, not that', with a motiveto preserve the supremacy and absoluteness of Godresults in not saying whether Brahman is divine or mundane, personal or impersonal. This makes Sankara'sGod indistinguishable from an impersonal, naturalisticcosmos. So theists could say that pantheism ismetaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. A Godidentical with the universe is another name for universe.The word 'God' depends on theism for meaning.





44/50

Pantheistic God is incomplete without creation.

The efforts to compliment God by denying any limitingconcepts to God have negative consequences which limitGod. The universe flows from the pantheistic God bynecessity not deriving from God's free decision. If pantheistic God is without personality (nirguna) and withoutany capacity to decide freely, then God creates necessarilyand God must create. God can not 'not create'. Inprotecting infinity by denying personhood, God is madesubject to necessity.





45/50

Pantheistic God has contradiction within infinitenature.

According to pantheism, 'God is all and all is God'. God isthe world and the world is God because the world flowsfrom God. This means that infinite is finite and contingent isnecessary. But this exposes the contradiction within theinfinite nature of a pantheistic God.





46/50

1. How did this pervasive mistake arise? Why are we so oftenwrong? But an individual mind as an aspect of this phenomenalworld can not adequately explain this. On the other hand, if our thoughts are not illusory thoughts of an illusory mind, thenpresumably they are God's thoughts. Our knowing becomesGod's knowing and we are God thinking. Then why errors?

2. How can any individual statements be true, includingstatements about pantheism?

3. If we are deceived about our individual existence, how can apantheist be sure that he is not being deceived?

The explanation for this belongs to a conceptual level, a lower level of reality. But this is a problem of experience for apantheist!


Congruence and Comprehensiveness



47/50

For a pantheist, evil is less than real.

1. If evil is not real, what is the origin of theillusion?

2.Why is it universally persistent and seem soreal?

3. Why could it not be true that believing evil is anillusion is itself an illusion?

4. Why does one not accept the illusion as unreal?





48/50

For a pantheist, evil is less than real.

5. How does the pantheist define the evil deeds thatare subjected to the law of karma? How can you

explain the law of karma if Brahman is beyond goodand evil?

6. If this world is less than real, then the consequencesof karma must also be less than real. Then mokshafrom the karma/samsara cycle is related to a less-than-real aspect. In that case even the caste system cannotbe accounted for. If there are no `I - You' distinctions,my karma is your karma.




49/50

Presentation

Conclusion


50/50

If a pantheist wants to make his truth claims, realitymust exist if these claims are to make sense. In theattempt to preserve the unity an infinity of God,pantheism denies the existence of the reality of theexternal world and thus fails the tests of

CONSISTENCY and COHERENCE.Pantheism fails to provide an adequate theory to fitthe facts and does not accommodate the wide rangeof human experience. Thus it fails the tests of

CONGRUENCE and COMPREHENSIVENESSConsequently, we conclude that pantheism has noEXPLANATORY power.

Conclusion

apologetic-pantheism

Documents