Posts and Notes from the Net Community

Pantheism
part2

In our last discussion (Pantheism I) a point was made that some of the prevailing thought in common currency describing God, Cosmic, etc. the idea of a supernatural being, spoken of as a universal Spirit, who is endowed with righteousness, love, forgiveness, saving grace, an all powerful creator, one who maintains control over the destiny of the human race, and one with whom we may come into friendly relations if our own character attitude, demeanor and actions are benevolent. This may be how many people view this deity.

Frater Ralph Lewis, a mystic, subscribes to a point of view as he states in his book, Mental Alchemy, that the dualistic view of the Cosmic in many philosophies, is not brought to its logical conclusion of monism (unity).Whereas in many opinions there are two situations. One is: Here is God (Cosmic) and two: There is His creation. In one position we have perfection, The Cosmic, and on the other hand we have 'the creation', imperfection. Why imperfection, some philosophers ask? Imperfection because, in the 'creation' the world, the universe, we see, murder, crime, starvation, man's inhumanity to man, hate, war, discrimination in all of its manifestations, disease, death etc. Is this the creation of an all loving God, they ask? Since there was no logical answer, some say, the idea of will was transferred from the Creator, the Cosmic to the created. Now the 'blame' can be arrested from the Cosmic and placed on the lives of those who become the beneficiaries of creation. So MAN now has the free will, and it is up to Man to produce the so-called 'good and proper life' for not only for himself but for his neighbor as well. Somehow philosophers had to rationalize the age old question 'Why do bad things happen to good people?' If the Cosmic possesses all those positive qualities as stated above, why does mankind suffer.

Mystic Pantheism with its plusses and minuses makes an attempt to provide an answer through logic and without the need for an appellation to emotion, artifice, circular reasoning, and 'higher authority'.

How this is accomplished is demonstrated in part by Rene Descartes, in his magnum opus 'Discours de la Methode' wherein he outlines his epoch philosophy which some say was the seminal stage of modern philosophy, and brought to its logical conclusion in the Ethics of Baruch Spinoza, through deductive reasoning, (premise to conclusion). Many students are familiar with Descartes’ famous pronouncement, 'I think, therefore, I am.' Today, we would brand Descartes as a loner. He was wont to exclaim 'Bene vixit qui bene latuit', Happy is he who lives in seclusion!

Descartes, a military man, fell victim to a mental crisis, so it is reported, some time about the year 1619, when filled with the anguish of life he discovered 'the foundations of a wonderful science'. He shut himself up in a room and went into meditation which led to his famous general doctrine on 'Methode'. It occurred to him, so historians report, that the common works of many men, in general, is more imperfect than the works of that which is created by only one man. And he carried this line of thought to - the knowledge of many men, many teachers each of whom communicates by many opinions from the influence of different instincts, and contradictory judgements heard by many learned people is less perfect than the knowledge of one man.

Therefore, Descartes concludes, we must start from a singular solid foundation, get rid of imperfection, disregard tradition, the bugaboo of progress, and rebuild an edifice on pure reason, clear thought, separating it components into its simplest form so that we may gradually reach the answer to the most complex question. This was to be the foundation for his analytical method, which Spinoza brought to its logical conclusion.

One can not discuss Pantheism without mentioning the word GOD. Dr. Lewis in the early 1900's,when he was organizing the Order in the United States faced many difficult problems. One problem pertained to the idea of God and how one addresses this delicate subject without contravening the doctrine that the Rosicrucian Order is a philosophical body of similar minds and thoughts and not one which expresses the dogma of an organized religion or some other theology. It would be inopportune to state a declarative sentence such as, 'God is......' For this declarative statement would be the spark that would ignite the fury of those members who were members of an organized religious group and might frighten away future candidates for membership in the Order if these people did not agree with his definition. In order to avoid this dilemma and any dichotomy of all opposing views the decision was made to 'dance' around the issue by referring to the idea of a supreme being as 'The God Of Your Heart' This invokes the wisdom of Solomon, and everyone can pick and choose an all powerful being according to his own delight and no one is offended. A masterful stroke on his part. In this manner theology is avoided and the idea of God can now be addressed as the Cosmic or any other nominative of your choice, and the theological dogma of a religion is avoided.

The philosophic idea of pantheism is as old as philosophy itself. Some of the ancient Greek philosophers were pantheists vs. Plato. In modern times and in the course of human history the 1600's might be considered by some as modern and the philosopher under discussion, Spinoza was a paradigm.

Some people envision God or the idea of God as a man on a throne way up there who controls the universe and controls man's destiny for better or for worse, and many predicate adjectives are used to describe this all powerful being. Some refer to this as an anthropomorphic view of the deity. Man was made in God's image etc. ( See Genesis).

It can be argued that there are three main questions which have bothered man from the time he could think rationally. (1) Where did I come from? (2) What am I doing here? (3) Where am I going when I leave this life?

Most pantheists do not seem to address this issue, since they vision God Cosmic etc. as not being endowed with strictly 'human' characteristics. When ancient man was asked, Who is God, the most likely answer was another man - up there.

"To a blade of grass in my back yard,
I questioned it about our God.
Tell me, who is God, perforce,
It replied, why another blade of grass, of course"
from R.E. Dreier - Therein Enter"

So one can understand that there are many frames of reference in the attempt to understand God, or the idea of God.

As a side light, the word God can be traced to the ancient Sumarian word for one - achad (ch - gutteral like ch in the Scotch loch) It found its way into ancient Hebrew as - echud, and made the journey to the Germanic languages with a hard ch as Gott and English as God.

Turning to Spinoza and his vision of Pantheism we are reminded that Rene Descartes did not carry his ideas of pantheism to it logical conclusion because of a fear of retribution of the church fathers of his era, who were all powerful. Witness the fact that many scientists and philosophers gave of their lives because of contradictions of church dogma. Spinoza did not suffer from this plight since he was not a Christian and was looked upon by the members of organized religion as an anathema to the human race since he did not accept the Christ as Lord and Savior. He was also rejected by his religious peers because he could not accept the dogma of his native religion. Therefore he was devoid of this excess baggage in his opinion.

In our next discussion we will talk about those tenets of his pantheism which caused his ouster from most of organized society. Many statements will be made (Spinoza's) which will be challenged by many members who read this forum because they are contrary to the accepted views of members of organized religious bodies. It might be interesting to read comments of possible acceptance or rejection.

Altie

Pantheism I
Pantheism II
Muse 1