Monism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the academic journal, see The Monist.

Monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[1] The wide definition states that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them (e.g. in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One).[2] A commonly-used, restricted definition of monism asserts the presence of a unifying substance or essence.[2]

One must distinguish "stuff monism" from "thing monism".[3] According to stuff monism there is only one kind of stuff (e.g. matter or mind), although there may be many things made out of this stuff. According to thing-monism there exists strictly speaking only a single thing (e.g. the universe), which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.[4][not in citation given]

In contrast to monism, are metaphysical dualism[2][note 1] and metaphysical pluralism.[2][note 2]

The term monism originated from Western philosophy,[5] and has often been applied to various religions.

History[edit]

The term Monism was introduced in the 18th century by Christian von Wolff[5] in his work Logic (1728),[6] to designate types of philosophical thought in which the attempt was made to eliminate the dichotomy of body and mind[7] and explain all phenomena by one unifying principle, or as manifestations of a single substance.[5]

The body-mind dichotomy in philosophy examines the relationship between mind and matter, and in particular the relationship between consciousness and the brain. The problem was addressed by René Descartes in the 17th century, resulting in Cartesian dualism, and by pre-Aristotelian philosophers,[8][9] in Avicennian philosophy,[10] and in earlier Asian and more specifically Indian traditions.

It was later also applied to the theory of absolute identity set forth by Hegel and Schelling.[11] Thereafter the term was more broadly used, for any theory postulating a unifying principle.[11] The opponent thesis of dualism also was broadened, to include pluralism.[11] According to Urmson, as a result of this extended use, the term is "systematically ambiguous".[11]

According to Jonathan Schaffer, monism lost popularity due to the emergence of Analytic philosophy in the early twentieth century, which revolted against the neo-Hegelians. Carnap and Ayer, who were strong proponents of positivism, "ridiculed the whole question as incoherent mysticism".[12]

The mind–body problem has reemerged in social psychology and related fields, with the interest in mind–body interaction[13] and the rejection of Cartesian mind–body dualism in the identity thesis, a modern form of monism.[14] Monism is also still relevant to the philosophy of mind,[11] where various positions are defended.[15][16]

Definitions[edit]

There are two sorts of definitions for monism:

  1. The wide definition: a philosophy is monistic if it postulates unity of origin of all things; all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them.[2]
  2. The restricted definition: this requires not only unity of origin but also unity of substance and essence.[2]

Three basic types of monism can be discerned:[11]

  1. Substantial monism, "the view that the apparent plurality of substances is due to different states or appearances of a single substance"[11]
  2. Attributive monism, "the view that whatever the number of substances, they are of a single ultimate kind"[11]
  3. Partial monism, "within a given realm of being (however many there may be) there is only one substance"[11]

Contrasting with monism are:

Although the term "monism" originated in Western philosophy to typify positions in the mind–body problem, it has also been used to typify religious traditions. In modern Hinduism, the term "absolute monism" is being used for Advaita Vedanta.[17][18]

Philosophical monism[edit]

Types of monism[edit]

Monism in philosophy can be divided into three broad categories:

  1. Idealist, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism which holds that only mind or spirit is real[2]
  2. Neutral monism, which holds that one sort of thing fundamentally exists,[19] to which both the mental and the physical can be reduced[7]
  3. Material monism (also called Physicalism and materialism), which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced to the physical[2][19]
a. Eliminative Materialism, according to which everything is physical and mental things do not exist[19]
b. Reductive physicalism, according to which mental things do exist and are a kind of physical thing[19][note 3]

Certain positions do not fit easily into the above categories, such as functionalism, anomalous monism, and reflexive monism. Moreover, they do not define the meaning of "real".

Monistic philosophers[edit]

Pre-Socratic[edit]

While the lack of information makes it difficult in some cases to be sure of the details, the following pre-Socratic philosophers thought in monistic terms:[20]

  • Thales: Water.
  • Anaximander: Apeiron (meaning 'the undefined infinite'). Reality is some, one thing, but we cannot know what.
  • Anaximenes: Air.
  • Heraclitus: Change, symbolized by fire (in that everything is in constant flux).

It is clear that Parmenides was a monist since he argued that Being or Reality is an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging, undivided.[21]

Post-Socrates[edit]

  • Neopythagorians such as Apollonius of Tyana centered their cosmologies on the Monad or One.
  • Stoics taught that there is only one substance, identified as God.
  • Middle Platonism under such works as Numenius taught that the Universe emanating from the Monad or One.
  • Neoplatonism is Monistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent god, 'The One,' of which subsequent realities were emanations. From The One emanates the Divine Mind (Nous), the Cosmic Soul (Psyche), and the World (Cosmos).

Modern[edit]

Religious monism[edit]

Main article: religion

Philosophy is a part of religion, but religion also entails religious practices, ethical guidelines, and social rules and behaviour to direct one's life and experience.[24] According to Momen, religious experience is a central aspect of religion.[25] Critics have pointed out that the centrality of religious experience is of recent origin.[26][27][28]

Pantheism, panentheism and pandeism[edit]

There are pantheists, panentheists and pandeists in:

Pantheism[edit]

Main article: Pantheism

Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God,[29] or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.[30] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god, but believe that interpretations of the term differ.

Pantheism was popularized in the modern era as both a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza,[31] whose Ethics was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate.[32] Spinoza held that the two are the same, and this monism is a fundamental quality of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance.[32] Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate.[33]

Following a long and still current[citation needed] tradition H.P. Owen (1971: 65) claimed that

Pantheists are ‘monists’...they believe that there is only one Being, and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.[34]

Pantheism is closely related to monism, as pantheists too believe all of reality is one substance, called Universe, God or Nature. Panentheism, a slightly different concept (explained below), however is dualistic.[35] Some of the most famous pantheists are the Stoics, Giordano Bruno and Spinoza.

Panentheism[edit]

Main article: Panentheism

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature, but is not one with nature. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[36]

In panentheism, there are two types of substance, "pan" the universe and God. The universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. God is viewed as the eternal animating force within the universe. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos.

While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism claims that God animates all of the universe, and also transcends the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[36] like in the concept of Tzimtzum. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[37][38] Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to paradoxical transcendent Divine Panentheism, through intellectual articulation of inner dimensions of Kabbalah, with the populist emphasis on the panentheistic Divine immanence in everything and deeds of kindness.

Such a concept is more compatible with God as personal while not barring a bridge between God and creation.[citation needed] Paul Tillich has argued for such a concept within Christian theology, as has liberal biblical scholar Marcus Borg and mystical theologian Matthew Fox, an Episcopal priest.[note 4]

Pandeism[edit]

Main article: Pandeism

Pandeism or pan-deism (from Ancient Greek: πᾶν pan “all” and Latin: deus meaning "god" in the sense of deism), is a term describing beliefs coherently incorporating or mixing logically reconcilable elements of pantheism (that "God", or a metaphysically equivalent creator deity, is identical to Nature) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the universe no longer exists in a status where it can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly the belief that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate entity.[39][40]

Through this synergy pandeism claims to answer primary objections to deism (why would God create and then not interact with the universe?) and to pantheism (how did the universe originate and what is its purpose?).

Asian traditions[edit]

Characteristics[edit]

The central problem in Asian (religious) philosophy is not the body-mind problem, but the search for an unchanging Real or Absolute beyond the world of appearances and changing phenomena,[41] and the search for liberation from dukkha and the liberation from the cycle of rebirth.[42] In Hinduism, substance-ontology prevails, seeing Brahman as the unchanging real beyond the world of appearances.[43] In Buddhism process ontology is prevalent,[43] seeing reality as empty of an unchanging essence.[44][45]

Characteristic for various Asian religions is the discernment of levels of truth,[46] an emphasis on intuitive-experiential understanding of the Absolute[28][47][26][48] such as jnana, bodhi and kensho, and an emphasis on the integration of these levels of truth and its understanding.[49][50]

Hinduism[edit]

Hinduism has a rich diversity of religious traditions and philosophies.[51]

Puruṣārtha — chief aims of human life[edit]

Indian philosophy emphasizes that "every acceptable philosophy should aid man in realizing the Purusarthas, the chief aims of human life:[52]

  • Dharma: the right way to life, the "duties and obligations of the individual toward himself and the society as well as those of the society toward the individual";[53]
  • Artha: the means to support and sustain one's life;
  • Kāma: pleasure and enjoyment;
  • Mokṣa: liberation, release.

According to Puligandla:

Any philosophy worthy of its title should not be a mere intellectual exercise but should have practical application in enabling man to live an enlightened life. A philosophy which makes no difference to the quality and style of our life is no philosophy, but an empty intellectual construction.[54]

Vedas[edit]
Main article: Vedas

The Vedas are a large body of texts originating in ancient India. The texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism.[55]

The Vedic texts or śruti are organized around four canonical collections of metrical material known as Saṃhitās, of which the first three are related to the performance of yajna (sacrifice) in Vedic Hinduism:

  1. The Rigveda, containing hymns to be recited by the hotṛ;
  2. The Yajurveda, containing formulas to be recited by the adhvaryu or officiating priest;
  3. The Samaveda, containing formulas to be sung by the udgātṛ.
  4. The fourth is the Atharvaveda, a collection of spells and incantations, apotropaic charms and speculative hymns.[56]

The various Indian philosophies and sects have taken differing positions on the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which cite the Vedas as their scriptural authority are classified as "orthodox" (āstika). Other traditions, notably Buddhism and Jainism, which did not regard the Vedas as authorities are referred to by traditional Hindu texts as "heterodox" or "non-orthodox" (nāstika) schools.[57]

According to Sehgal, "the Vedas and the Upanishads preach and propagate neither pantheism nor polytheism but monotheism and monism".[58] There are many Gods, but they represent different aspect of the same Reality.[58] Monism and monotheism are found intertwined. In many passages ultimate Reality is represented as immanent, while in other passaged ultimate Reality is represented as transcendent.[59] Monism sees Brahman as the ultimate Reality, while monotheism represents the personal form of Brahman.[59]

Jeaneane D. Fowler too discerns a "metaphysical monotheism"[60] in the Vedas. The Vedas contain sparse monism. The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda speaks of the One being-non-being that 'breathed without breath'. The manifest cosmos cannot be equated with it, "for "That" is a limitless, indescribable, absolute principle that can exist independently of it - otherwise it cannot be the Source of it."[61] It is the closest the Vedas come to monism,[61] but Fowler argues that this cannot be called a "superpersonal monism",[61] nor "the quintessence of monistic thought",[61] because it is "more expressive of a panentheistic, totally transcendent entity that can become manifest by its own power. It exists in itself, unmanifest, but with the potential for all manifestations of the cosmos".[61]

Vedanta[edit]
Main article: Vedanta

Vedanta is the inquiry into and systematisation of the Vedas and Upanishds, to harmonise the various and contrasting ideas which can be found in those texts. Within Vedanta, different schools exist:

Advaita Vedanta[edit]

Monism is most clearly identified in Advaita Vedanta,[62] though Renard points out that this may be a western interpretation, bypassing the intuitive understanding of a nondual reality.[63]

In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools.[64]

Advaita Vedanta gives an elaborate path to attain moksha. It entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one's real nature. Practice, especially Jnana Yoga, is needed to "destroy one’s tendencies (vAasanA-s)" before real insight can be attained.[65]

Advaita took over from the Madhyamika the idea of levels of reality.[66] Usually two levels are being mentioned,[67] but Shankara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels:[68][69]

  • Pāramārthika (paramartha, absolute), the absolute level, "which is absolutely real and into which both other reality levels can be resolved".[69] This experience can't be sublated by any other experience.[68]
  • Vyāvahārika (vyavahara), or samvriti-saya[67] (empirical or pragmatical), "our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we handle every day when we are awake".[69] It is the level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true.
  • Prāthibhāsika (pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), "reality based on imagination alone".[69] It is the level in which appearances are actually false, like the illusion of a snake over a rope, or a dream.
Vaishnava[edit]
Main article: Vaishnavism

Vaishnavism is one of the major branches of Hinduism along with Shaivism, Smartism, and Shaktism. It is focused on the veneration of Vishnu. Vaishnavites, or the followers of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, lead a way of life promoting differentiated monotheism, which gives importance to Lord Vishnu and His ten incarnations.

All Vaishnava schools are panentheistic and view the universe as part of Krishna or Narayana, but see a plurality of souls and substances within Brahman. Monistic theism, which includes the concept of a personal god as a universal, omnipotent Supreme Being who is both immanent and transcendent, is prevalent within many other schools of Hinduism as well.

Tantra[edit]
Main article: Tantra

Tantra sees the Divine as both immanent and transcendent. The Divine can be found in the concrete world. Practices are aimed at transforming the passions, instead of transcending them.

Tantra has been very influential in both Hinduism and Buddhism, where it is known as Vajrayana,[70] but is relatively unknown in the west, apart from the popular interest in Tantric sexuality.[71]

Modern Hinduism[edit]

The colonisation of India by the British had a major impact on Hindu society.[51] In response, leading Hindu intellectuals started to study western culture and philosophy, integrating several western notions into Hinduism.[51] This modernised Hinduism, at its turn, has gained popularity in the west.[28]

A major role was played in the 19th century by Swami Vivekananda in the revival of Hinduism,[72] and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Ramakrishna Mission. His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called "Neo-Vedanta".[73]

Vivekananda emphasized samadhi as a means to attain liberation.[74] Yet this emphasis is not to befound in the Upanishads nor with Shankara.[75] For Shankara, meditation and Nirvikalpa Samadhi are means to gain knowledge of the already existing unity of Brahman and Atman,[74] not the highest goal itself:

[Y]oga is a meditative exercise of withdrawal from the particular and identification with the universal, leading to contemplation of oneself as the most universal, namely, Consciousness. This approach is different from the classical Yoga of complete thought suppression.[74]

Vivekenanda's modernisation has been criticized:

Without calling into question the right of any philosopher to interpret Advaita according to his own understanding of it, [...] the process of Westernization has obscured the core of this school of thought. The basic correlation of renunciation and Bliss has been lost sight of in the attempts to underscore the cognitive structure and the realistic structure which according to Samkaracarya should both belong to, and indeed constitute the realm of māyā.[73]

Buddhism[edit]

Main article: Buddhism
Monism in Buddhism[edit]

According to the Pāli Canon, both pluralism (nānatta) and monism (ēkatta) are speculative views. A Theravada commentary notes that the former is similar to or associated with nihilism (ucchēdavāda), and the latter is similar to or associated with eternalism (sassatavada).[76] See middle way.

In the Madhyamaka school of Mahayana Buddhism, the ultimate nature of the world is described as Śūnyatā or "emptiness", which is inseparable from sensorial objects or anything else. That appears to be a monist position, but the Madhyamaka views - including variations like rangtong and shentong - will refrain from asserting any ultimately existent entity. They instead deconstruct any detailed or conceptual assertions about ultimate existence as resulting in absurd consequences. The Yogacara view, a minority school now only found among the Mahayana, also rejects monism.

Levels of truth[edit]

Within Buddhism, a rich variety of philosophical[70] and pedagogical models[77] can be found. Various schools of Buddhism discern levels of truth:

The Prajnaparamita-sutras and Madhyamaka emphasize the non-duality of form and emptiness: "form is emptiness, emptiness is form", as the heart sutra says.[79] In Chinese Buddhism this was understood to mean that ultimate reality is not a transcendental realm, but equal to the daily world of relative reality. This idea fitted into the Chinese culture, which emphasized the mundane world and society. But this does not tell how the absolute is present in the relative world:

To deny the duality of samsara and nirvana, as the Perfection of Wisdom does, or to demonstrate logically the error of dichotomizing conceptualization, as Nagarjuna does, is not to address the question of the relationship between samsara and nirvana -or, in more philosophical terms, between phenomenal and ultimate reality [...] What, then, is the relationship between these two realms?[79]

This question is answered in such schemata as the Five Ranks of Tozan,[80] the Oxherding Pictures, and Hakuin's Four ways of knowing.[81]

Abrahamic faiths[edit]

Judaism[edit]

Main article: Judaism

Jewish thought considers God as separate from all physical, created things (transcendent) and as existing outside of time (eternal).[note 5][note 6]

According to Chasidic Thought (particularly as propounded by the 18th century, early 19th century founder of Chabad, Shneur Zalman of Liadi), God is held to be immanent within creation for two interrelated reasons:

  1. A very strong Jewish belief is that "[t]he Divine life-force which brings [the universe] into existence must constantly be present... were this life-force to forsake [the universe] for even one brief moment, it would revert to a state of utter nothingness, as before the creation..." [82]
  2. Simultaneously, Judaism holds as axiomatic that God is an absolute unity, and that he is Perfectly Simple - thus if his sustaining power is within nature, then his essence is also within nature.

The Vilna Gaon was very much against this philosophy, for he felt that it would lead to pantheism and heresy. According to some this is the main reason for the Gaon's ban on Chasidism.

According to Maimonides,[83] God is an incorporeal being that caused all other existence. In fact, God is defined as the necessary existent that caused all other existence. According to Maimonides, to admit corporeality to God is tantamount to admitting complexity to God, which is a contradiction to God as the First Cause and constitutes heresy. While Hasidic mystics considered the existence of the physical world a contradiction to God's simpleness, Maimonides saw no contradiction.[note 7]

Christianity[edit]

Creator-creature distinction[edit]

Much of Christianity strongly maintains the Creator-creature distinction as fundamental. Many Christians maintain that God created the universe ex nihilo and not from His own substance, so that the creator is not to be confused with creation, but rather transcends it (metaphysical dualism) (cf. Genesis). It is, however, within Him, as Saint Paul says in Acts 17:28, "in him we live and move and are." Even the more immanent concepts and theologies are to be defined together with God's omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, due to God's desire for intimate contact with his own creation (cf. Acts 17:27). Another use of the term "monism" is in Christian anthropology to refer to the innate nature of humankind as being holistic, as usually opposed to bipartite and tripartite views.

Rejection of radical dualism[edit]

While some might say the Christian metaphysics are dualistic in that they describe the Creator's transcendence of creation, they reject radical dualism such as the idea that God is eternally struggling with other equal powers such as Satan (cf. Gospel of John 14:30). In On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine argued, in the context of the problem of evil, that evil is not the opposite of good, but rather merely the absence of good, something that does not have existence in itself. Likewise, C. S. Lewis described evil as a "parasite" in Mere Christianity, as he viewed evil as something that cannot exist without good to provide it with existence. Lewis went on to argue against dualism from the basis of moral absolutism, and rejected the dualistic notion that God and Satan are opposites, arguing instead that God has no equal, hence no opposite. Lewis rather viewed Satan as the opposite of Michael the archangel. Due to this, Lewis instead argued for a more limited type of dualism.[84] Other theologians, such as Greg Boyd, have argued in more depth that the Biblical authors held a "limited dualism", meaning that God and Satan do engage in real battle, but only due to free will given by God, for the duration God allows.[85]

Theosis[edit]

In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, while human beings are not ontologically identical with the Creator, they are nonetheless capable with uniting with his Divine Nature via theosis, and especially, through the devout reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a supernatural union, over and above that natural union, of which St. John of the Cross says, "it must be known that God dwells and is present substantially in every soul, even in that of the greatest sinner in the world, and this union is natural." Julian of Norwich, while maintaining the orthodox duality of Creator and creature, nonetheless speaks of God as "the true Father and true Mother" of all natures; thus, he indwells them substantially and thus preserves them from annihilation, as without this sustaining indwelling everything would cease to exist.

Christian Monism[edit]

Some Christian theologians are avowed monists, such as Paul Tillich. Since God is he "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Book of Acts 17.28), it follows that everything that has being partakes in God. Dualism with regard to God and creation also barred the possibility of a mystical union with God, as John Calvin rejected[citation needed], according to Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Such a dualism also leads to the problematic position of positing God as a particular being the existence of which can be argued for or against, failing to recognize God as the ground and origin of being itself, as in Acts 17, or in Hashem, YHWH, meaning "He causes to come into being." Such a view was called by Tillich panentheism: God is in all things, neither identical to, nor totally separate from, all things.

Islam[edit]

Main article: Islam
Quran[edit]

According to Vincent J. Cornell, the Qur'an also provides a monist image of God by describing the reality as a unified whole, with God being a single concept that would describe or ascribe all existing things:

He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward; He is the Knower of everything. (Sura 57:3)[86]

Another verse in the Quran is:

To God belongs the East and the West, Wheresoever you look is the presence of Allah. (Sura 2:115)

Sufism[edit]
Main article: Sufism

Many followers of Sufism advocated monism. Most notably the 13th-century Persian poet Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi-Rumi (1207–73) in his didactic poem Masnavi espoused monism.[87][88] Rumi says in the Masnavi,

In the shop for Unity (wahdat); anything that you see there except the One is an idol.[87]

Bahá'í[edit]

Although the Bahá'í teachings have a strong emphasis on social and ethical issues, there exist a number of foundational texts that have been described as mystical.[89] Some of these include statements of a monist nature (e.g. the Seven Valleys and the Hidden Words). The differences between dualist and monist views are reconciled by the teaching that these opposing viewpoints are caused by differences in the observers themselves, not in that what is observed. This is not a 'higher truth/lower truth' position. God is unknowable. For man it is impossible to get any knowledge of God or the Absolute, because any knowledge that one has, is relative.[90]

Non-dualism[edit]

Main article: Nondualism

"Nondualism" is a modern, western New religious movement, with a reflexive-monist understanding of reality. It is typified by a syncretistic understanding of various religious traditions. According to nondualism, many forms of religion are based on an experiential or intuitive understanding of "the Real"[91] Nondualism, a modern reinterpretation of these religions, prefers the term "nondualism", instead of monism, because this understanding is "nonconceptual", "not graspapable in an idea".[91][note 8][note 9]

To these nondual traditions belong Hinduism (including Vedanta, some forms of Yoga, and certain schools of Shaivism), Taoism, Pantheism, Rastafari and similar systems of thought.[citation needed]

With increasing awareness of these systems of thought, the western spiritual and philosophical climate has seen a growing understanding of monism.[citation needed] Moreover, the New Thought and New Age movements embraced many monistic concepts during the twentieth century and continue up to the present day.[citation needed]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Dualism asserts that there are two ultimately irreconcilable substances or realities such as Good and Evil, for example, Manichaeism.
  2. ^ Pluralism asserts three or more fundamental substances or realities.
  3. ^ Such as Behaviourism,[7] Type-identity theory[7] and Functionalism[7]
  4. ^ See Creation Spirituality
  5. ^ For a discussion of the resultant paradox, see Tzimtzum.
  6. ^ See also Negative theology.
  7. ^ See the "Guide for the Perplexed", especially chapter I:50.
  8. ^ In Dutch: "Niet in een denkbeeld te vatten".[91]
  9. ^ According to Renard, Alan Watts has explained the difference between "non-dualism" and "monism" in The Supreme Identity, Faber and Faber 1950, p.69 and 95; The Way of Zen, Pelican-edition 1976, p.59-60.[92] According to Renard, Alan Watts has been one of the main contributors to thepopularisation of the notion of "nondualism".[91]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Cross & Livingstone 1974.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Brugger 1972.
  3. ^ Strawson, G. (2014 in press): "Nietzsche's metaphysics?". In: Dries, M. & Kail, P. (eds): "Nietzsche on Mind and Nature". Oxford University Press. PDF of draft
  4. ^ Monism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  5. ^ a b c Monism, Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, 11/1/2011
  6. ^ jrank.org, Monism
  7. ^ a b c d e Luke Mastin (2008),Monism
  8. ^ Robert M. Young (1996). "The mind-body problem". In RC Olby, GN Cantor, JR Christie, MJS Hodges, eds. Companion to the History of Modern Science (Paperback reprint of Routledge 1990 ed.). Taylor and Francis. pp. 702–11. ISBN 0415145783. 
  9. ^ Robinson, Howard (Nov 3, 2011). Edward N. Zalta, ed, ed. "Dualism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition). 
  10. ^ Henrik Lagerlund (2010). "Introduction". In Henrik Lagerlund, ed. Forming the Mind: Essays on the Internal Senses and the Mind/Body Problem from Avicenna to the Medical Enlightenment (Paperback reprint of 2007 ed.). Springer Science+Business Media. p. 3. ISBN 9048175305. 
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i Urmson 1991, p. 297.
  12. ^ Schaffer year unknown.
  13. ^ Fiske 2010, p. 195.
  14. ^ Fiske 2010, p. 195-196.
  15. ^ Mandik 2010.
  16. ^ McLaughlin 2009.
  17. ^ Chande 2000, p. 277.
  18. ^ Dasgupta 1992, p. 70.
  19. ^ a b c d Mandik 2010, p. 76.
  20. ^ Abernethy & Langford pp.1-7.
  21. ^ Abernethy & Langford pp.8,9.
  22. ^ Wonders of Life by Ernst Haeckel.
  23. ^ The Evolution of Man: A Popular Scientific Study, Volume 2 by Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel.
  24. ^ Momen 2009, p. 26-28.
  25. ^ Momen 2009, p. 117.
  26. ^ a b Sharf 1995-B.
  27. ^ Hori 1999, p. 47.
  28. ^ a b c Rambachan 1994.
  29. ^ Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. Paul Edwards. New York: Macmillan and Free Press. 1967. p. 34. 
  30. ^ The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN 0-19-861263-X. 
  31. ^ Picton, James Allanson (1905). Pantheism: its story and significance. Chicago: Archibald Constable & CO LTD. ISBN 978-1419140082. 
  32. ^ a b Plumptre, Constance (1879). General sketch of the history of pantheism, Volume 2. London: Samuel Deacon and Co. pp. 3–5, 8, 29. ISBN 9780766155022. 
  33. ^ Shoham, Schlomo Giora (2010). To Test the Limits of Our Endurance. Cambridge Scholars. p. 111. ISBN 1443820687. 
  34. ^ H.P. Owen, 1971, p.65
  35. ^ Crosby, Donald A. (2008). Living with Ambiguity: Religious Naturalism and the Menace of Evil. New York: State University of New York Press. pp. 124. ISBN 0-7914-7519-0.
  36. ^ a b Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley, David B. Barrett (1999). The Encyclopedia of Christianity pg. 21. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-2416-1. 
  37. ^ [1] Britannica - Pantheism and Panentheism in non-Western cultures
  38. ^ Whiting, Robert. Religions for Today Stanley Thomes (Publishers) Ltd. P. VIII. ISBN 0-7487-0586-4.
  39. ^ Sean F. Johnston (2009 ISBN = 1-85168-681-9). The History of Science: A Beginner's Guide p. 90.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  40. ^ Alex Ashman, BBC News, "Metaphysical Isms".
  41. ^ Nakamura 1991.
  42. ^ Puligandla 1997.
  43. ^ a b Puligandla 1997, p. 50.
  44. ^ Kalupahana 1992.
  45. ^ Kalupahana 1994.
  46. ^ Loy 1988, p. 9-11.
  47. ^ Hawley 2006.
  48. ^ renard 2010, p. 59.
  49. ^ Renard 2010, p. 31.
  50. ^ Maezumi 2007.
  51. ^ a b c Michaels 2004.
  52. ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 8-9.
  53. ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 8.
  54. ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 11.
  55. ^ Radhakrishnan 1957, p. 3.
  56. ^ Bloomfield, M. The Atharvaveda and the Gopatha-Brahmana, (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde II.1.b.) Strassburg 1899; Gonda, J. A history of Indian literature: I.1 Vedic literature (Samhitas and Brahmanas); I.2 The Ritual Sutras. Wiesbaden 1975, 1977
  57. ^ Flood 1996, p. 82.
  58. ^ a b Sehgal 1999, p. 1372.
  59. ^ a b Sehgal 1999, p. 1373.
  60. ^ Fowler 2002, p. 39.
  61. ^ a b c d e Fowler 2002, p. 43.
  62. ^ Momen 2009, p. 191.
  63. ^ renard 2010.
  64. ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
  65. ^ James Swartz, What is Neo-Advaita?
  66. ^ Renard 2010, p. 130.
  67. ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 131.
  68. ^ a b Puligandla 1997, p. 232.
  69. ^ a b c d advaita-vision.org, Discrimination
  70. ^ a b Williams 1994.
  71. ^ White 2000.
  72. ^ Dense 1999, p. 191.
  73. ^ a b Mukerji 1983.
  74. ^ a b c Comans 1993.
  75. ^ Comans 2000, p. 307.
  76. ^ David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, page 88. The passage is SN 2.77.
  77. ^ Buswell 1994.
  78. ^ Welwood, John (2000). The Play of the Mind: Form, Emptiness, and Beyond, accessed January 13, 2007
  79. ^ a b Liang-Chieh 1986, p. 9.
  80. ^ Kasulis 2003, p. 29.
  81. ^ Low 2006.
  82. ^ http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=7988
  83. ^ See Foundations of the Law, Chapter 1
  84. ^ Lewis, C.S, "God and Evil" in "God in the Dock: Essays in Theology and Ethics", ed. W. Hooper (Grand Rapids, Mich, Eerdsmans, 1970), p. 21-24
  85. ^ Boyd, Gregory. A, "God at War" (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1971) p. 185
  86. ^ Vincent J. Cornell, Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol 5, pp.3561-3562
  87. ^ a b Reynold Nicholson Rumi
  88. ^ Cyprian Rice, O.P., (1964) The Persian Sufism George Allen, London
  89. ^ Daphne Daume, Louise Watson, ed. (1992). "The Bahá'í Faith". Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. ISBN 0-85229-486-7. 
  90. ^ Momen, Moojan (1988). Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions vol. 5, chapter: A Basis For Bahá’í Metaphysics. Kalimat Press. pp. 185–217. ISBN 0-933770-72-3. 
  91. ^ a b c d Renard 2010, p. 59.
  92. ^ Renard 2010, p. 59, p.285 note 17.

Sources[edit]

  • Abernethy, George L; Langford, Thomas A. (1970), Introduction to Western Philosophy:Pre-Socratics to Mill, Belmont,CA: Dickenson 
  • Brugger, Walter (ed) (1972), Diccionario de Filosofía, Barcelona: Herder, art. dualismo, monismo, pluralismo 
  • Buswell, Robert E. JR; Gimello, Robert M. (editors) (1994), Paths to Liberation. The Marga and its Transformations in Buddhist Thought, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers 
  • Chande, M.B. (2000), Indian Philosophy In Modern Times, Atlantic Publishers & Dist 
  • Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A. (1974), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, OUP, art. monism 
  • Dasgupta, Surendranath (1992), A history of Indian philosophy part 1, Motilall Banarsidass 
  • Dense, Christian D. Von (1999), Philosophers and Religious Leaders, Greenwood Publishing Group 
  • Fiske, Susan T.; Gilbert, DanielT.; Lindzey, Gardner (201), Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 1, John Wiley & Sons 
  • Flood, Gavin (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43878-0 
  • Fowler, Jeaneane D. (2002), Perspectives of Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Hinduism, Sussex Academic Press 
  • Hawley, michael (2006), Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975) 
  • Hori, Victor Sogen (1999), Translating the Zen Phrase Book. In: Nanzan Bulletin 23 (1999) 
  • Kalupahana, David J. (1992), The Principles of Buddhist Psychology, Delhi: ri Satguru Publications 
  • Kalupahana, David J. (1994), A history of Buddhist philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited 
  • Kasulis, Thomas P. (2003), Ch'an Spirituality. In: Buddhist Spirituality. Later China, Korea, Japan and the Modern World; edited by Takeuchi Yoshinori, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 
  • Liang-Chieh (1986), The Record of Tung-shan, Kuroda Institute 
  • Low, Albert (2006), Hakuin on Kensho. The Four Ways of Knowing, Boston & London: Shambhala 
  • Maezumi, Taizan; Glassman, Bernie (2007), The Hazy Moon of Enlightenment, Wisdom Publications 
  • Mandik, Pete (2010), Key Terms in Philosophy of Mind, Continuum International Publishing Group 
  • McLaughlin, Brian; Beckermann, Ansgar; Walter, Sven (2009), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind, Oxford University Press 
  • Michaels, Axel (2004), Hinduism. Past and present, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 
  • Momen, Moojan (2009) [Originally published as The Phenomenon of Religion in 1999], Understanding Religion: A Thematic Approach, Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, ISBN 978-1-85168-599-8 
  • Nakamura, Hajime (1991), Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited 
  • Puligandla, Ramakrishna (1997), Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy, New Delhi: D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. 
  • Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli; Moore, Charles A. (1957), A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy (12th Princeton Paperback ed.), Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-01958-4 
  • Rambachan, Anatanand (1994), The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press 
  • Renard, Philip (1999), Ramana Upanishad, Utrecht: Servire 
  • Schaffer, Jonathan (year unknown), Monism  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Sehgal, Sunil (1999), Encyclopaedia of Hinduism: T-Z, Volume 5, Sarup & Sons 
  • Sharf, Robert H. (1995-B), Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience, NUMEN, vol.42 (1995)  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Yrmson, James Opie (1991), The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers, Routledge 
  • White (ed.), David Gordon (2000), Introduction. In: Tantra in practice, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press 
  • Williams, Paul (1994), Mahayana Buddhism, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-02537-0 

External links[edit]