PAPER NO. 80

SPIRITUAL MONISM

  1. Spiritual monism is the ontological position that there is only one kind of being and that this being is spirit and that all spirit is eternal. Material objects only appear to exist. It is distinct from dualism and from theism.
  2. Points of contact with spiritual monism are in reincarnation, karma, yoga, the Hare Krishna Movement, Transcendental Meditation, New Age, and several other instances of Eastern thought. Note that some forms of Indian thought are not monist.
  3. The appeal of spiritual monism is that it is believed to offer:
  1. an alternative to the emptiness of materialism.
  2. a hopeful view of the afterlife in which a person reincarnates until enlightenment is achieved.
  3. an explanation of why events in this life occur in terms of influence from one’s previous lives.
  1. Some objections to reincarnation are:
  1. Explanation using reincarnation is ad hoc—it explains too much.
  2. Since innumerable lifetimes are involved, the assumption is that knowledge is difficult to attain yet we suffer until we know.
  3. If the soul is eternal how long has reincarnation been going on—is there real hope that the goal can be attained?
  4. How can a unique event (enlightenment) occur for an eternal being?
  1. Some responses of spiritual monism to these objections:
  1. Against the view of a unique beginning or end, the process of reincarnation is cyclical, without beginning and without end.
  2. If an endless cycle makes striving for release meaningless the response is that ultimately the cycle itself is an illusion.
  3. If the illusion is inexplicable then the problem is with reason; ultimately there is no difference between ordinary existence (samsara) and enlightened existence (nirvana).
  1. There are two forms of spiritual monism:
  1. Absolute non-dualism, one without parts, called historically Advaita Vedanta and espoused by Shankara (800 AD) and in Transcendental Meditation (where you meditate to transcend the confines of space and time and the self is realized as the ultimate reality).
  2. Qualified non-dualism, one with parts, called historically Dvaita Vedanta and espoused by Ramanuja (1200 AD) and in the Hare Krishna movement. Ramanuja is looking back at Shankara’s position and critiquing it.
  1. The central teaching of Advaita Vedanta is that atman is Brahman; the self is the ultimate reality. The nature of atman/Brahman is pure existence, consciousness, bliss (sat-chit-ananda (Sanskrit words)). That is what the real self is (tat tvam asi—that thou art). There is one mind only and its ideas. The world is maya (illusion) or avidya (due to ignorance).
  2. The reasons for spiritual monism are based on the analogy of a dream (maya or avidya):
  1. A shared illusion as in a dream is not a guarantee of objective reality.
  2. In a dream just because we think we are real does not mean that we are real.
  3. As in a dream there is one self behind the many apparently real selves.
  4. As in a dream the only way in which the illusory nature of the individual self and the world can be realized is through mystical experience of self-realization, samadhi, enlightenment, awakening. You know it’s a dream by waking up.
  1. The general objection to appeal to experience is fourfold:
  1. No experience (of awakening—becoming one with the one) is meaningful without interpretation.
  2. This experience (pure consciousness) has been interpreted in many ways (monist, dualist, Buddhist, theist etc.).
  3. A valid interpretation is internally consistent.
  4. This interpretation (absolute non-dualism) is incoherent in many ways.
  1. Consider the criticisms raised by the qualified non-dualists (Ramanuja):
  1. Where does the illusion reside? It cannot be in either Brahman or in the individual self.
  2. How can Brahman be concealed given its nature as (infinite) pure consciousness?
  3. How can the world—maya—be neither positive nor negative nor both nor neither?
  4. How can the world be neither real nor unreal (nor both nor neither)?
  1. Since Shankara believes all is One and therefore all is eternal, things must be either real/eternal or unreal/nonexistent; they cannot be temporal given his assumption. He says that reason cannot grasp the nature of the world as neither real nor unreal. He is faced with giving up his presupposition or reason. He chooses to give up reason. (Those caught in the meshes of intellect are like an elephant stuck in deep mud. The highest philosophy is silence. It isn’t is, it isn’t isn’t, it isn’t both, it isn’t neither. Silence. – Quote from Shankara)
  2. In the second form of non-dualism (one with parts) we are all part of the One (God).

The three possible interpretations are:

  1. all parts are the same—finite
  2. all parts are the same—infinite
  3. all parts are not the same; some part(s) are infinite and some finite
  1. Objections to qualified non-dualism:
  1. If all parts are finite, then the whole (God) cannot be infinite.  Further, beings cannot be finite (growing—going through unique events) and be eternal.
  2. If all parts are infinite each would be complete in itself and therefore not have or need parts to make it whole.
  3. If some parts are infinite (and eternal) and some finite (and temporal) this would be Creator/creation rather than non-dualism/spiritual monism.

This paper was originally developed for an Introduction to Philosophy course.


© 1992 Logos Papers Press