I guess Im a "Pantheist"!!
I was sitting there bored on the sofa one day. So I picked up a dictionary we had on the coffee table. I was flipping through the pages and came to the word "Pantheism". It described my veiws well. I did not know there was a label for it.
[plato.stanford.edu]

[en.wikipedia.org]

[www.pantheist.net]

This was coppied from wikipedia, I find this intresting(-))

((According to Schopenhauer, pantheism has no ethics.

All pantheism must ultimately be shipwrecked on the inescapable demands of ethics, and then on the evil and suffering of the world. If the world is a theophany, then everything done by man, and even by animal, is equally divine and excellent; nothing can be more censurable and nothing more praiseworthy than anything else; hence there is no ethics.

– The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVII

However, some pantheists hold that the pantheist viewpoint is the most ethical viewpoint, pointing out that any harm done to another is doing harm to oneself because what harms one harms all. What is good and evil isn't the mandate of something outside of us, but as a result of the way we are all interconnected. Instead of good choices being based on fear of divine punishment, it comes from a mutual respect from all things.

Traditional forms and definitions of pantheism, would however, refer to their classical bodies of sacred texts and teachers for definitions of ethics.

Neo-Pantheistic ethics are based on the belief that any action initiated resonates throughout all of existence. What is good and evil is not mandated from something outside of us, but is a result of our interconnectedness. Instead of consideration based upon fear of divine punishment or hope of divine reward, the better Pantheistic ethical decision comes from an awareness of mutual interrelation.))



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2008 08:51PM by WorkoutMan.

WorkoutMan Wrote:

> However, some pantheists hold that the pantheist
> viewpoint is the most ethical viewpoint, pointing
> out that any harm done to another is doing harm to
> oneself because what harms one harms all. What is
> good and evil isn't the mandate of something
> outside of us, but as a result of the way we are
> all interconnected. Instead of good choices being
> based on fear of divine punishment, it comes from
> a mutual respect from all things.

This more or less represents the Buddhist view, minus the -theism part, which still requires a subtle "self" view in order to subscribe to it. i.e. "I am one with the universe" sort of thing, which still has an "I" in there. Buddhism teaches that self-views are the cause of suffering, even if they're nice ones. Other than that though, it's the same thing. So while I'm not a pantheist or any kind of -theist (including atheist), this is more or less my view of morality.


> Traditional forms and definitions of pantheism,
> would however, refer to their classical bodies of
> sacred texts and teachers for definitions of
> ethics.

Which texts might these be? I'd kind of like to see them.

> Neo-Pantheistic ethics are based on the belief
> that any action initiated resonates throughout all
> of existence. What is good and evil is not
> mandated from something outside of us, but is a
> result of our interconnectedness. Instead of
> consideration based upon fear of divine punishment
> or hope of divine reward, the better Pantheistic
> ethical decision comes from an awareness of mutual
> interrelation.))

i.e. Karma, fancy word for "actions have consequences." Also secular humanism.

Speaking of which, NPR had a really good episode of "Speaking of Faith" today about humanism.

[speakingoffaith.publicradio.org]

I dont know of these texts either. I didn't figure my post would be too weird for the open minds on this foum, so thanks for posting. I understand that they are really just talking about karma.

A question for you Itzdavey: I have the Dhammapada sitting here, and I have read it a couple times. What does this book mean to Buddhism? Is it like the bible to Christians, or what?

-Workoutman

WorkoutMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont know of these texts either. I didn't
> figure my post would be too weird for the open
> minds on this foum, so thanks for posting. I
> understand that they are really just talking about
> karma.

Nah, this forum's good people. The thread may get moved to another section. In general though this is a very spiritual community with a lot of common ground.

> A question for you Itzdavey: I have the Dhammapada
> sitting here, and I have read it a couple times.
> What does this book mean to Buddhism? Is it like
> the bible to Christians, or what?

Funny you should ask, because I am going through it verse by verse on a Buddhist forum right now.

[forums.about.com]

The Dhammapada is a selection of verses from a section of the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon is the main body of Buddhist literature, which is (by my estimations) about 20 bibles worth of stuff.

But it is one of the most esteemed pieces of Buddhist literature, sort of a "Buddha's greatest hits." There are lot of translations out there. I'm going through two of them in parallel at the moment.

-DaveK

"What is good and evil is not mandated from something outside of us, but is a result of our interconnectedness."

I deeply resonate with everything you wrote, especially this quote. We are all just ebbs and flows of energy, it feels like...constantly affecting the flow and constantly being affected by the flow. Thank you for posting this :-)