Pantheism fundamentals





Realising Identity



This pantheist believes that:



Every identifiable1 reality2,3,4 is identical5 with the procedure6 that emerged it.7,8,9




Some individuals respond to above realization with rapture, some with horror, and some with indifference.
















© 2020 by Victor Langheld












1.     For ‘identifiable’ read: cognisable, whereby cognition can be mental or sensory, i.e. as physical experience.

2.     i.e. whatever is born, and therefore natural, i.e. bit or bite of nature.

3.     Some pantheists choose to name whatever is born, thus the natured, ‘god’.

4.     For ‘identifiable reality’ read: a completed, thus quantised differential order. Completion happens two-fold. Firstly, as differential ordering procedure ending. Secondly, as quantum contact with an alternative completed differential order and which makes the first completion real. Hence each quantum of differential order, i.e. each natural emergent, is twice-born.

5.     i.e. not different from, i.e. same. At contact, sameness is compressed out, hence neither the natured, i.e. ‘god’ nor the naturing procedure, i.e. ‘GOD’, are cognised/realised. At contact (in a relativity vacuum) only realness, i.e. isness (Meister Eckhart’s Istigkeit) is cognised.

6.     For ‘procedure’ read: a series of (random) constraints (i.e. repeating as rules or laws) that, when ended, emerges an identity or a contact procedure. Some pantheists choose to name the unlimited dynamic procedure that emerges (i.e. generates ≈ creates) identity and then reality, thus identifiable reality, i.e. naturing, ‘GOD’.

7.     Since the natured (i.e. a ‘god’) and the naturing procedure (i.e. ‘GOD’) are identical (i.e. same, not different), the achievement (or attainment) of union, at-one-ness, ‘marriage’, presence and so on cannot happen to the pantheist. After all, one cannot become what one already is. He or she does not achieve union but realisation (or awareness or knowledge) as a sudden or gradual (mental) cognition or (sensory) experience of the fundamental identity between creation procedure and the created consequently that there is ‘naught but nature’ ≈ ‘naught but GOD.’

8.     Only in dualist systems, like pseudo-monist Christianity, Samkhya-Yoga or advaita Vedanta, can union, or reunion, merging, at-one-ness, marriage between the natured (i.e. the natural) and the naturing (i.e. the supernatural) be achieved, the means to such a ‘union’ of a selected supernatural (good) ‘God’ and a selected individual of ‘the natural (bad) world’ being prescribed by self-professed intermediaries, namely priests.

9.     In Adi Shankara’s advaita (i.e. non-dual, whatever that is) Vedanta, and which serves a mildly disguised as monist dualist system, everyday objects are described as ‘neti, neti’ (i.e. as ‘not this, not this’), meaning that the momentary identifiable object (actually the saguna Brahman) is not identical with the allegedly infinite and eternal unidentifiable (nirguna) Brahman. In ekatā (i.e. monist) Vedanta everyday objects are described as ‘eti, eti’ (i.e. ‘this, this’), meaning that the (i.e. any and every) object (i.e. saguna Brahman) is identical with the (nirguna) Brahman.