“Monism”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Monism attributes oneness or singleness (Greek: μόνος) to a concept e.g., existence. Various kinds of monism can be distinguished:

Definitions

Although the term "monism" is derived from 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.{{sfn|Chande|2000|p=277}}{{sfn|Dasgupta|1992|p=70}}

History

The term "monism" was introduced in the 18th century by Christian von Wolff^[2] in his work Logic (1728),^[2] to designate types of philosophical thought in which the attempt was made to eliminate the dichotomy of body and mind^[4] and explain all phenomena by one unifying principle, or as manifestations of a single substance.^[3]

The mind–body problem 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,^[4]^[5] in Avicennian philosophy,^[6] 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.{{sfn|Urmson|1991|p=297}} Thereafter the term was more broadly used, for any theory postulating a unifying principle.{{sfn|Urmson|1991|p=297}} The opponent thesis of dualism also was broadened, to include pluralism.{{sfn|Urmson|1991|p=297}} According to Urmson, as a result of this extended use, the term is "systematically ambiguous".{{sfn|Urmson|1991|p=297}}

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".{{sfn|Schaffer|2010}}

The mind–body problem has reemerged in social psychology and related fields, with the interest in mind–body interaction{{sfn|Fiske|2010|p=195}} and the rejection of Cartesian mind–body dualism in the identity thesis, a modern form of monism.{{sfn|Fiske|2010|p=195-196}} Monism is also still relevant to the philosophy of mind,{{sfn|Urmson|1991|p=297}} where various positions are defended.{{sfn|Mandik|2010}}{{sfn|McLaughlin|2009}}

Philosophy

Types

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

Pre-Socratic

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:{{sfn|Abernethy|Langford|pp.1-7}}

Post-Socrates

Modern

Monistic neuroscientists

Religion

Pantheism

Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God,^[16] or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.^[17] 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,^[18] whose Ethics was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate.^[26] 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.^[19] Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate.^[20]

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.^[22] Some of the most famous pantheists are the Stoics, Giordano Bruno and Spinoza.

Panentheism

Panentheism (from Greek {{lang|grc|πᾶν}} (pân) "all"; {{lang|grc|ἐν}} (en) "in"; and {{lang|grc|θεός}} (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system that 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.^[23]

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,^[23] like in the concept of Tzimtzum. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.^[24]^[25] 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.

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.{{refn|group=note|See Creation Spirituality}}

Pandeism

Pandeism or pan-deism (from {{lang-grc|πᾶν|pan|all}} and {{lang-la|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 classical 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.^[26]^[27]

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?).

Brahmanic faiths

Characteristics

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,{{sfn|Nakamura|1991}} and the search for liberation from dukkha and the liberation from the cycle of rebirth.{{sfn|Puligandla|1997}} In Hinduism, substance-ontology prevails, seeing Brahman as the unchanging real beyond the world of appearances.{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|p=50}} In Buddhism process ontology is prevalent,{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|p=50}} seeing reality as empty of an unchanging essence.{{sfn|Kalupahana|1992}}{{sfn|Kalupahana|1994}}

Characteristic for various Asian religions is the discernment of levels of truth,{{sfn|Loy|1988|p=9-11}} an emphasis on intuitive-experiential understanding of the Absolute{{sfn|Rambachan|1994}}{{sfn|Hawley|2006}}{{sfn|Sharf|1995}}{{sfn|renard|2010|p=59}} such as jnana, bodhi and kensho, and an emphasis on the integration of these levels of truth and its understanding.{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=31}}{{sfn|Maezumi|2007}}

Hinduism

Vedanta

Vedanta is the inquiry into and systematisation of the Vedas and Upanishads, to harmonise the various and contrasting ideas that can be found in those texts. Within Vedanta, different schools exist:^[28]

Advaita Vedanta

Monism is most clearly identified in Advaita Vedanta,{{sfn|Momen|2009|p=191}} though Renard points out that this may be a western interpretation, bypassing the intuitive understanding of a nondual reality.{{sfn|renard|2010}}

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.^[30]

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.^[31]

Advaita took over from the Madhyamika the idea of levels of reality.{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=130}} Usually two levels are being mentioned,{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=131}} but Shankara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels:{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|p=232}}^[32]

Vaishnava

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

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.

Modern Hinduism

The colonisation of India by the British had a major impact on Hindu society.{{sfn|Michaels|2004}} In response, leading Hindu intellectuals started to study western culture and philosophy, integrating several western notions into Hinduism.{{sfn|Michaels|2004}} This modernised Hinduism, at its turn, has gained popularity in the west.{{sfn|Rambachan|1994}}

A major role was played in the 19th century by Swami Vivekananda in the revival of Hinduism,{{sfn|Dense|1999|p=191}} and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Ramakrishna Mission. His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called Neo-Vedanta.{{sfn|Mukerji|1983}} In Advaita, Shankara suggests meditation and Nirvikalpa Samadhi are means to gain knowledge of the already existing unity of Brahman and Atman,{{sfn|Comans|1993}} not the highest goal itself:

Vivekananda, according to Gavin Flood, was "a figure of great importance in the development of a modern Hindu self-understanding and in formulating the West's view of Hinduism."{{sfn|Flood|1996|p=257}} Central to his philosophy is the idea that the divine exists in all beings, that all human beings can achieve union with this "innate divinity",{{sfn|Flood|1996|p=258}} and that seeing this divine as the essence of others will further love and social harmony.{{sfn|Flood|1996|p=258}} According to Vivekananda, there is an essential unity to Hinduism, which underlies the diversity of its many forms.{{sfn|Flood|1996|p=258}} According to Flood, Vivekananda's view of Hinduism is the most common among Hindus today.{{sfn|Flood|1996|p=259}} This monism, according to Flood, is at the foundation of earlier Upanishads, to theosophy in the later Vedanta tradition and in modern Neo-Hinduism.{{sfn|Flood|1996|p=85}}

Buddhism

According to the Pāli Canon, both pluralism (nānatta) and monism (ekatta) 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).^[33] 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

Within Buddhism, a rich variety of philosophical{{sfn|Williams|1994}} and pedagogical models{{sfn|Buswell|1994}} 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.{{sfn|Liang-Chieh|1986|p=9}} 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:

This question is answered in such schemata as the Five Ranks of Tozan,{{sfn|Kasulis|2003|p=29}} the Oxherding Pictures, and Hakuin's Four ways of knowing.{{sfn|Low|2006}}

Sikhism

Sikhism complies with the concept of Priority Monism. Sikh philosophy advocates that all that our senses comprehend is an illusion; God is the sole reality. Forms being subject to time shall pass away. God's Reality alone is eternal and abiding.^[35] The thought is that Atma (soul) is born from, and a reflection of, ParamAtma (Supreme Soul), and "will again merge into it", in the words of the Tenth guru of Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, "just as water merges back into the water."^[36]

His light blends into the Light.|sign=SGGS. Pg 278|source=https://www.searchgurbani.com/guru-granth-sahib/ang-by-ang}}

God and Soul are fundamentally the same; identical in the same way as Fire and its sparks. "Atam meh Ram, Ram meh Atam" which means "The Ultimate Eternal reality resides in the Soul and the Soul is contained in Him". As from one stream, millions of waves arise and yet the waves, made of water, again become water; in the same way all souls have sprung from the Universal Being and would blend again into it.^[37]

Abrahamic faiths

Judaism

Jewish thought considers God as separate from all physical, created things (transcendent) and as existing outside of time (eternal).{{refn|group=note|For a discussion of the resultant paradox, see Tzimtzum.}}{{refn|group=note|See also Negative theology.}}

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:

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,^[39] 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.{{refn|group=note|See the "Guide for the Perplexed", especially chapter I:50.}}

Christianity

Creator–creature distinction

Christianity strongly maintains the creator–creature distinction as fundamental. 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). Although, there is growing movement to have a "Christian Panentheism".^[40] Even 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

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.^[41] 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 that God allows.^[42]

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Theosis

In Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, 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.{{citation needed|date=April 2016}} 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.{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}

However, in Eastern Orthodoxy creation is united to God by grace and not by nature. This is what is known as the Essence-Energies distinction, while in union with God, Orthodox Christians believe, the human person retains its individuality and is not swallowed up by the Monad.

Christian Monism

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.{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}.

Latter-day Saint view (Mormonism)

Islam

Quran

Sufism

Sufi mystics advocate monism. One of the most notable being the 13th-century Persian poet Rumi (1207–73) in his didactic poem Masnavi espoused monism.^[46]^[47] Rumi says in the Masnavi,

The most influential of the Islamic monists was the Sufi philosopher Ibn Arabi (1165–1240). He developed the concept of 'unity of being' (Arabic: waḥdat al-wujūd), a pantheistic monoist philosophy. Born in al-Andalus, he made an enormous impact on the Muslim world, where he was crowned "the great Master". In the centuries following his death, his ideas became increasingly controversial.

Bahá'í

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.^[48] 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 which is observed. This is not a 'higher truth/lower truth' position. God is unknowable. For man it is impossible to acquire any direct knowledge of God or the Absolute, because any knowledge that one has, is relative.^[49]

Non-dualism

According to nondualism, many forms of religion are based on an experiential or intuitive understanding of "the Real".{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=59}} Nondualism, a modern reinterpretation of these religions, prefers the term "nondualism", instead of monism, because this understanding is "nonconceptual", "not graspable in an idea".{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=59}}{{refn|group=note|In Dutch: "Niet in een denkbeeld te vatten".{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=59}}}}{{refn|group=note|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.{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=59, p.285 note 17}} According to Renard, Alan Watts has been one of the main contributors to thepopularisation of the notion of "nondualism".{{sfn|Renard|2010|p=59}}}}

To these nondual traditions belong Hinduism (including Vedanta^[50], some forms of Yoga, and certain schools of Shaivism), Taoism^[51]^[52], Pantheism^[53], Rastafari^[54] and similar systems of thought.

See also

Notes

1. ^Strawson, G. (2014 in press): "Nietzsche's metaphysics?". In: Dries, M. & Kail, P. (eds): "Nietzsche on Mind and Nature". Oxford University Press. [https://www.academia.edu/3051045/Nietzsches_Metaphysics_2015 PDF of draft]
2. ^jrank.org, Monism
3. ^¹"monism", Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition. Retrieved 29 October 2014.
4. ^{{cite book |editor1=RC Olby |editor2=GN Cantor |editor3=JR Christie |editor4=MJS Hodges |title= Companion to the History of Modern Science |publisher=Taylor and Francis |year= 1996 |pages= 702–11 |isbn=0415145783 |chapter=The mind-body problem |url=http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/pap102h.html |author= Robert M. Young |edition=Paperback reprint of Routledge 1990}}
5. ^{{cite web |author=Robinson, Howard |title=Dualism |work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition) |editor=Edward N. Zalta |url = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/dualism/ |date=Nov 3, 2011}}
6. ^{{cite book |title= Forming the Mind: Essays on the Internal Senses and the Mind/Body Problem from Avicenna to the Medical Enlightenment |publisher= Springer Science+Business Media |year= 2010 |edition=Paperback reprint of 2007 |isbn= 9048175305 |chapter=Introduction |page=3 |author=Henrik Lagerlund |editor= Henrik Lagerlund |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IV-dcQAACAAJ}}
7. ^¹²Schaffer, Jonathan, Monism: The Priority of the Whole, http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/monism.pdf
8. ^Schaffer, Jonathan, "Monism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/monism/
9. ^¹²³⁴{{cite web|url=https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_monism.html|title=Monism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy|website=Philosophybasics.com|accessdate=24 January 2019}}
10. ^{{Cite book|title=Materialism and Empirio-criticism|last=Lenin|first=Vladimir|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House|year=1909|isbn=|location=World Socialist Web Site|pages=|quote=|via=}}
11. ^De la causa, principio e Uno, London, 1584
12. ^De monade (De monade, numero et figura liber consequens quinque de minimo magno et mensura), Frankfurt, 1591
13. ^[https://books.google.com/books?id=pFJvtfRaM48C Wonders of Life] by Ernst Haeckel.
14. ^[https://books.google.com/books?id=RdsdAAAAMAAJ The Evolution of Man: A Popular Scientific Study, Volume 2] by Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel.
15. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.ft.com/content/ae962862-03fc-11e3-8aab-00144feab7de|title=Review: Giacomo Leopardi’s ‘Zibaldone’|date=2013-08-16|website=Financial Times|language=en-GB|access-date=2018-05-05}}
16. ^{{Cite book|title = Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. Paul Edwards |publisher=Macmillan and Free Press |year = 1967 |location = New York|pages=34}}
17. ^{{Cite book | title = The New Oxford Dictionary Of English | publisher = Clarendon Press|year = 1998 | location = Oxford | pages = 1341|isbn = 0-19-861263-X}}
18. ^{{cite book|last=Picton|first=James Allanson|title=Pantheism: its story and significance|year=1905|publisher=Archibald Constable & CO LTD.|location=Chicago|isbn=978-1419140082|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-_yjarZwEhoC&pg=PP8}}
19. ^¹{{cite book|last=Plumptre|first=Constance|title=General sketch of the history of pantheism, Volume 2|year=1879|publisher=Samuel Deacon and Co|location=London|isbn=9780766155022|pages=3–5, 8, 29}}
20. ^{{cite book|last=Shoham|first=Schlomo Giora|title=To Test the Limits of Our Endurance|year=2010|publisher=Cambridge Scholars|isbn=1443820687|pages=111}}
21. ^H. P. Owen, 1971, p.65
22. ^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}}.
23. ^¹{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=sCY4sAjTGIYC&pg=PA21|title= The Encyclopedia of Christianity pg. 21|publisher= Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|author1=Erwin Fahlbusch |author2=Geoffrey William Bromiley |author3=David B. Barrett |year = 1999|isbn = 0-8028-2416-1}}
24. ^ Britannica - Pantheism and Panentheism in non-Western cultures
25. ^Whiting, Robert. [https://books.google.com/books?id=_UfRgCZThWYC&pg=PR8&dq=shakti+panentheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jz7nT6-kF8P3rQejn_GDCQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=shakti%20panentheism&f=false Religions for Today] Stanley Thomes (Publishers) Ltd. P. VIII. {{ISBN|0-7487-0586-4}}.
26. ^{{cite book|title= The History of Science: A Beginner's Guide p. 90 |author = Sean F. Johnston |year = 2009 |ISBN = 1-85168-681-9}}
27. ^Alex Ashman, BBC News, "Metaphysical Isms".
28. ^Wilhelm Halbfass (1995), Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791425824}}, pages 137-143
29. ^Jeaneane Fowler (2012), The Bhagavad Gita: A Text and Commentary for Students, Sussex Academic Press, {{ISBN|978-1845193461}}, page xxviii
30. ^Brodd, Jeffrey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. {{ISBN|978-0-88489-725-5}}.
31. ^James Swartz, What is Neo-Advaita?
32. ^¹²³advaita-vision.org, Discrimination
33. ^David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, page 88. The passage is SN 2.77.
34. ^Welwood, John (2000). The Play of the Mind: Form, Emptiness, and Beyond, accessed January 13, 2007
35. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikhism-articles/the-idea-of-the-supreme-being-god-in-sikhism|title=The Idea Of The Supreme Being (God) In Sikhism - Sikhism Articles - Gateway to Sikhism|last=User|first=Super|work=Gateway to Sikhism|access-date=2017-12-14|language=en-gb}}
36. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/metaphysics/atma|title=ATMA,|last=Gujral|first=Maninder S|work=The Sikh Encyclopedia -ਸਿੱਖ ਧਰਮ ਵਿਸ਼ਵਕੋਸ਼|access-date=2017-12-14|language=en-gb}}
37. ^{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rFm9_Jc1ykcC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=atma+merges+in+parmatma+sikhism&source=bl&ots=J6IZOPhwEm&sig=8tR_60YjFaze5uFWZ7YNeTBHOiw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj30oOY7ITYAhUMQo8KHXHCA8wQ6AEISDAF#v=onepage&q=atma%20merges%20in%20parmatma%20sikhism&f=false|title=A Complete Guide to Sikhism|last=Singh|first=Jagraj|date=2009|publisher=Unistar Books|year=|isbn=9788171427543|location=|pages=266|language=en}}
38. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7988/jewish/Chapter-2.htm|title=Chapter 2|website=Chabad.org|accessdate=24 January 2019}}
39. ^See Foundations of the Law, Chapter 1
40. ^{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53880197|title=In whom we live and move and have our being : panentheistic reflections on God's presence in a scientific world|last=1956-|first=Clayton, Philip,|last2=Robert)|first2=Peacocke, A. R. (Arthur|date=2004|publisher=William B. Eerdmans Pub|isbn=0802809782|oclc=53880197}}
41. ^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
42. ^Boyd, Gregory. A, "God at War" (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1971) p. 185
43. ^{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/869757526|title=Wrestling the angel : the foundations of Mormon thought : cosmos, God, humanity|last=Terryl,|first=Givens,|isbn=9780199794928|location=Oxford|oclc=869757526}}
44. ^Parley P. Pratt, “Materiality,” The Prophet (New York, New York), May 24, 1845,
45. ^{{cite book |last1=Yusuf |first1=Hamza |title=The Creed of Imam al-Tahawi |date=2009 |url=https://www.amazon.com/Creed-Imam-al-Tahawi-Hamza-Yusuf/dp/097028439X}}
46. ^¹Reynold Nicholson Rumi {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061017141204/http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/rumi/intro_nicholson.html |date=2006-10-17 }}
47. ^{{Cite web |url=http://www.rumi.org.uk/sufism/persian_sufism.htm |title=Cyprian Rice (1964) The Persian Sufism George Allen, London |access-date=2008-07-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516025909/http://www.rumi.org.uk/sufism/persian_sufism.htm |archive-date=2008-05-16 |dead-url=yes |df= }}
48. ^{{Cite book|year = 1992|contribution = The Bahá'í Faith|title = Britannica Book of the Year|isbn = 0-85229-486-7|editor1=Daphne Daume |editor2=Louise Watson |publisher = Encyclopædia Britannica|location = Chicago | ref = harv }}
49. ^{{cite book | last =Momen | first = Moojan |year = 1988 | title = Studies in the Bábí and Bahá’í Religions vol. 5, chapter: A Basis For Bahá’í Metaphysics | publisher = Kalimat Press | pages = 185–217 | url = http://bahai-library.com/momen_relativism_bahai_metaphysics | isbn = 0-933770-72-3 |ref=harv}}
50. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/pantheism-and-panentheism|title=Pantheism and Panentheism {{!}} Encyclopedia.com|website=Encyclopedia.com|access-date=2019-01-19}}
51. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/pere_wis.htm|title=Perennial Wisdom|website=Theosociety.org|access-date=2019-01-19}}
52. ^{{Cite web|url=http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/60780.htm|title=Loving the World as Our Own Body: The Nondualist Ethics of Taoism, Buddhism and Deep Ecology|website=enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw|access-date=2019-01-19}}
53. ^{{Cite web|url=https://pantheism.com/pantheism-applied-non-duality/|title=Pantheism = Applied Non-Duality|last=Noesta|first=Waldo|date=2017-09-19|website=Pantheism.com|language=en-US|access-date=2019-01-19}}
54. ^{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CpJFAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=rastafari+dualism&source=bl&ots=bLZ8NViy-Y&sig=ACfU3U0vvIvq1WVeo03UxuzW4MN5Z_Bh1g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiso9vN-frfAhVNJt8KHWNBC_sQ6AEwDnoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=rastafari%20dualism&f=false|title=Rastafari Reasoning and the RastaWoman: Gender Constructions in the Shaping of Rastafari Livity|last=Christensen|first=Jeanne|date=2014-02-14|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=9780739175743|language=en}}