Problems WITH pantheism. Pantheism – the doctrine of divinity of all – is common especially in Hinduism. It is actually the second cornerstone of Hinduism along with the idea of reincarnation, and that people have the goal of becoming free from the circle of reincarnation by understanding their own divinity and their connection with the Brahman. Understanding this is called experiencing “enlightenment”. In brief, these two issues, reincarnation and the doctrine of divinity of all, belong firmly together in Hinduism.

   But several problems arise when considering this notion that all is divine. Let’s look at a few of them. Let’s consider the following:

 

- Why do we not remember the past?

- Pantheism does not explain the beginning of all

- It is untrue

- It nullifies the difference between good and bad

- It is in conflict with the law of karma

- Maya: what really is delusion?

 

Why do we not remember the past? The first problem we encounter when considering pantheism is similar to one presented by reincarnation: We do not remember our past experiences from existence in that other life-form. If all is one with Brahman – we, too, are one with Brahman – then each of us should remember all events that took place before we were in our present bodies. We should remember every event across the history of our existence. This should be no problem.

   The problem is, why do we not remember events that happened before our current lives, if we really are one and exist eternally with Brahman? If we are all one with Brahman, and if he has always existed (or at least has existed from the beginning of creation), then each of us should remember these early periods of time very well. But is it not true that we do not have the vaguest memory of those times? The fact that we have no such memories should prove that our eternal connection with Brahman is not true. If it were true, we certainly would remember something about those times.

   The following conversation refers to this same issue. What was true in Job's life is also true in our lives. He could say nothing about the Creation of the Earth because he did not exist at the time it took place. He was born and became aware long after the world was created; this clearly conflicts with pantheism:

 

 - (Job 38:1-4) Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now your loins like a man; for I will demand of you, and answer you me.

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding.

 

Pantheism does not explain the beginning of all. Another problem is the nature of existence before Creation, before there was any life on the Earth, because there should be a moment when Brahman (everything) came into being and became visible. None of these things can be everlasting, otherwise the energy reserves of the stars and the Sun should already have been consumed, which would in turn mean that all life on the Earth should have ended a long time ago. Therefore, they must have appeared at some point in time because they exist now.

   Rabi Maharaj refers to this problem of the beginning in his book Death of a Guru. He says that the pantheistic view is conflicting because the appearance of Brahman from nothing is difficult to explain and because it is also in conflict with the Hindu writings:

 

I had always clearly understood that God had always existed and that He had created all. However, the books of Veda taught that there had been a time when there was nothing and that Brahman had come from nothing. Gosine could not fit this together with a sentence of Krishna that is in the Gita: "That which is not can never become." This remained a mystery.

 

The view of non-existence in the beginning is supported also by other holy writings of the Hindus. This is how, for example, Rigveda explains the situation in the beginning when there was neither life nor extensive abodes of heaven. Similarly, another text states that the initial condition was non-being and invisible; and from this condition Brahman then created himself:

 

At that stage there was neither life nor lifelessness, no extensive spaces of air nor extensive abodes of heaven behind them. Were there waters, the bottomless depths of the oceans? Who knows, who can now declare from what stage creation followed: He, the cause of existence, whose eye supervises everything, he alone knows it, or perhaps not even he knows! (Rigveda).

 

Before the world was born, Brahman existed as a non-manifested non-being. From this invisible he let visible things flow forth. From himself he created himself. (Taittira-upanishad).

 

A good question to ask is, how can the fact that Brahman created himself from nothing be explained? The text above explains that in the beginning there was nothing, only emptiness; so what caused Brahman and the creation appear from this emptiness and how did he create himself?

   In order for someone to cause his or her own existence, there must first be something. There must be something that brings about existence; so there must be a cause and a consequence. But something existing before its existence is simply impossible! It goes against the laws of logic because the existence and non-existence of something can never be simultaneously valid. It is impossible, just as if a book simultaneously existed and not existed. A man can not be simultaneously asleep and awake, a bird can not be simultaneously flying and standing on the ground. 

   You believers of this doctrine that conflicts with the beginning of the world should also consider the possibility that the known universe did not come about by itself, but that God created it – God, who is not one with the Creation, but apart from it. The following verses show that God exists separate from His Creation, and that He created it:

 

 - (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

- (Isa 66:1-2) Thus said the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that you build to me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things has my hand made, and all those things have been, said the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word.

 

- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

 

It is untrue. That pantheism is false is also shown by the fact that many people imagine themselves to be small gods (a natural deduction if one believes that everything is divine), but they are not able to create a star, a planet, or an object the size of the Moon. This should not pose any problems if we are equal with God and have the same omnipotence. Why can we not do this? Should this not already prove that pantheism is false, since it so clearly conflicts with reality?

   The following conversation illustrates the same point. Rabi Maharaj tells readers about the difficulties he had in defending the pantheistic view that everything is a part of God. He was embarrassed by the awkward questions asked by boys and had to stay on the defensive. He described this problematic exchange in his book. It shows the false nature of pantheism:

 

“Is it true that Hindus believe everything is God?"

   I nodded. I looked uneasily at the boys who represented different races and religions, who had come to pin me down. It soon became a regular habit, and other Hindu boys carefully avoided giving me any support. They actually seemed frightened or even ashamed.

   "Do you mean that a fly is God, or an ant, or a dung beetle?" The small group around me started to laugh.

   “You laugh, because you do not understand,” I proudly said. "You see only a delusion, but you don't see the One Real being – Brahman.”

   "Are you God?" A Portuguese boy asked, unbelievingly.

   I did not dare to hesitate or to withdraw – I would have looked even more ridiculous. "I am," I answered firmly, "and so are all Hindus. They must only come to see it."

   "How can you come to see something that is not true?" He said scornfully. "You didn't create the world!" (3)

 

It nullifies the difference between good and bad. Another problem with the pantheistic view is that it nullifies the difference between good and bad. Since Brahman the all-inclusive divinity contains both good and bad, the difference is missing. This difference is deemed only an illusion; morals become relative because good and bad lose their opposite nature and become one.

   This union of good and bad can be found in the writings of Hindu teachers. For example, Swami Vivekananda claims that good and bad are the same:

 

“Good and bad are one and the same" (4) and "also murder is God" (5)

 

Guru Bagwan Shree Rajneesh – while explaining the Bhagavad Gita, the holy book of the Hindus – also refers to the idea that our deeds are meaningless:

 

Kill, murder, completely conscious of the fact that nobody has been murdered and nobody has been killed. (6)

 

Where does it lead? The fact that there is no separation between good and bad leads us to ask where a view like this would lead if it were put into practise. Would it not lead to an increase in suffering? It would cause social anarchy and raise personal suffering because no difference between cruelty and kindness, or love and hate would be acknowledged. This notion of the oneness of all is not beneficial for anyone, since it only causes damage. Jesus taught followers about the reality of opposites:

 

- (John 10:10) The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

 

Those people who believe in this teaching should ask: Is it really correct?  Where does it come from? If the idea would only hurt people if put into practice, is that not a strong sign that it comes from a bad source? Does it not point to the archenemy, since his activity does not produce anything positive?

   It is worth your while to take into account the following words found in the Book of Isaiah, about the same matter. They clearly warn that we should not call evil good and good evil, exactly what we are led to do by Hinduism. Consider:

 

- (Isa 5:20) Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

It is in conflict with the law of karma. If we continue our study of this Brahman belief that good and bad are the same, then we see that it conflicts with another important tenet of Hinduism: the law of karma. The law of karma states that the bad deeds of people always follow them to their next lives, where they will be punished for those bad deeds. This is described in the book Kuolemaa ei ole (by Rauni-Leena Luukanen, p. 186):

 

An important teaching is: A man reaps what he has sown. We are responsible for everything we have done. (…) People do not generally understand the meaning of the law of Karma.

 

How can both, karmic and Braham tenets be true? How can karmic law -- the consequences of which are avoided by doing good deeds – and the Brahman unity of good and bad both be valid?

   If people aim to get in connection with Brahman by avoiding the consequences of the law of karma, how can they succeed? These two are opposites, or at least there is an apparent conflict between them. (It’s like a man trying to be both asleep and awake. He can not succeed.) Will people not face irreconcilable conflicts if they try to fit these two together – the pantheist concept of god where good and bad are the same and the law of karma where they are opposites? How could they ever succeed?

 

Maya – what really is delusion? An issue, which has been connected to the pantheistic view, is that we are under a delusion, maya, which prevents us from seeing our connection with Brahman. It has been said that only the delusion, maya, prevents us from seeing our real position and that we cannot trust our senses or our own observations; and because of this, many people try to get rid of this delusion so they will be freed from the circle of reincarnation.

   A good question to ask is, how can one know what is or is not a delusion? If our senses delude us, can we even trust this lesson that everything is a delusion and only the tenets explained above are real? The possibility of making a mistake in this matter is more than likely, because our senses may have already deceived us, at the point when we believed the lesson that all reality is a delusion. It is good to take that fact into consideration.

   It is also reasonable to ask if all our observations are influenced by this delusion. How can we be sure that our enlightenment and our perception of this state of mind are not also a part of an illusion? Is our experience like that of mentally ill people who confuse delusion and reality? 

   This possibility is addressed by Rabi Maharaj in his book Death of a Guru. He brings out the possibility that perhaps the state of bliss, which he is trying to reach, is nothing but a delusion, because he cannot trust his own judgement and observations. This possibility is at least worth consideration, as well as the possibility that the pantheistic view is a ‘maya’ (a delusion or a lie) itself, although some may believe in it:

 

If senses were also a maya as the Vedas taught, how could I trust in any teachings? How could I even believe that everything is a ‘maya’ and only Brahman is real? How could I be sure that the bliss, which I tried to reach was not a delusion, if I could not trust my observations or my deductions? In order to accept what my religion taught, I had to deny everything that my brain said. But what about other religions? If all was One, then they were all a part of the same whole. From this seemed to follow that god is confusion, because it is the Truest Reality. My thoughts were in disorder.