Since Swami Vivekananda presented, through Advaita Vedanta, an impersonal monistic picture of Hinduism at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1893, most Hindu (Sanātana Dharma) traditions imported to the West have been panentheistic ones.

Be it Advaita, any type of Yoga, or the esoteric Western traditions influenced by those (such as Theosophy, the precursor of the New Age movement), the fact is that, unconsciously or premeditatedly, theistic Hinduism was never given the spotlight in the West. This can give us an erroneous impression that most Hindus believe in an impersonal First Principle as ultimate reality. This is not the case, however. In India, theistic devotional worldviews (Bhakti marga) such as Vaishnavism (e.g., Krishnaism), Shaivism and Shaktism have always enjoyed a stronger following than impersonal worldviews.

In Ramanuja´s theistic tradition, Moksha or liberation means, as in all Dharmic religions, the release from Samsara or the Cycle of Rebirths. The aim is to unbound the individual (jivas) from their state of bondage and ignorance. This is achieved through devotional (Bhakti) Yoga (total surrender to God), which is different from the meditation techniques popular in the West, based mostly on Raja or Kundalini Yoga (meditation by emptying the mind and energetic visualizations, respectively).

It is important, however, to note that Vishishtadvaita Vedanta is also different from Abrahamic Monotheism in one crucial aspect: the adepts, when they achieve liberation, acquire the knowledge that the deity has always been their true inner Self.

The aim of the devotee, then, is to lead a life worthy of an instrument of the deity (Vishnu, Narayana), offering to Him all his thoughts, words and deeds and seeing Him in everything and everything in Him. This is Vishishtadvaita´s solution to the problem of Unity and Multiplicity.

Similar to Christianity, it allows a plurality of individual beings in communion between themselves through being united with God.

In contrast with Christianity, however, there is also a real identity between God´s Essence and each person´s true Self. The “unity” achieved, then, is a type of Modalism where God sees Himself through the plurality of masks that the totality of individual beings provide. Even though a real solution to the problem of the One and the Many is outlined, given that each of us is also ultimately God, the apparent plurality present in Vaikuntha ends up being eventually ontologically illusory, collapsing again into absolute Monism.

In comparison with the Orthodox Christian view of Theosis, instead of each person freely partaking of the totality of God´s Uncreated Energies or attributes through becoming a temple for the Holy Spirit while retaining their own particular deified soul, Vishishtadvaita devotees discover that they were always a particular mode of existence of Vishnu Himself.

Therefore, instead of being a representative of classic Monotheism, this worldview can be instead classified as an exponent of theistic Panentheism (Monism).

Contrary to impersonal Hindu philosophies, Vishishtadvaita believes in a personal God. Contrary to classical Monotheism, however, we are all  believed to ultimately be this one God Himself.

Vishishtadvaita´s interpretation of Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1 (“All this is Brahman”) was used as the basis for an ontology of reality that consists of:

• Ishvara or Para-Brahman (God).

• Particular beings (Jivas): sentient beings as conscious modes of existence of Brahman.

• Matter / Universe (Jagat): non-conscious modes of existence of Brahman.

Brahman is seen as the composite whole, the totality, of the above mentioned triad, with the last two categories forming God´s own body. Creation, contrary to Advaita, is real and not illusory, being the expansion or emanation of God´s intelligenge.

Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 (“the Self is Brahman”) and Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 (“Thou art that”) were interpreted by Ramanuja as the absolute identity between Brahman and particular individual souls (Ātman). The former being the common underlying substratum and ultimate unity of all beings in Ishvara (Para-Brahman), the Cosmic Spirit of the Universal Body consisting of all inert matter and sentient beings alike.

Katha Upanishad was also interpreted in the same manner:

“A man who has discrimination for his charioteer and holds the reins of the mind firmly, reaches the end of the road; and that is the supreme position of Vishnu.”

― Katha Upanishad, 1.3.9

“Beyond the senses are the objects; beyond the objects is the mind; beyond the mind, the intellect; beyond the intellect, the Great Atman; beyond the Great Atman, the Unmanifest; beyond the Unmanifest, the Purusha. Beyond the Purusha there is nothing: this is the end, the Supreme Goal.”

― Katha Upanishad, 1.3.10, 1.3.11

This, in turn, is similar to other theistic / panentheistic Hindu traditions such as Kashmir (or Trika) Shaivism, where all things are believed to be a manifestation of Universal Consciousness (Cit or Brahman; Self-recognition philosophy).

The notion of a personal God in systems that define Him as Consciousness is ambiguous, however, since not a few of them interpret such a concept not as a real Person but as a personification of an impersonal Principle or Force.

As in all theologies that define ultimate reality or God as the Absolute, Ramanuja also conceptualized Brahman as the Unity of Opposites.

This can be clearly seen in his notion that Brahman is formed by both the Supreme God Narayana and the Supreme Goddess Lakshmi together, with them being the polarized, indivisible, co-eternal and co-absolute male / female personifications of God, respectively.

This is similar to other Hindu devotional traditions such as Shaivism, Shaktism and other tantric schools, were the Godhead is defined as the union of the masculine principle (Shiva: passive, transcendent) and the feminine one (Shakti: active, immanent, temporal; the energetic aspect of God). In other words, God is dialectically understood as the Androgyne, the Absolute, the Union and interplay of Consciousness and Energy.

This, furthermore, seems just another way of describing the notion present in most, if not all, ancient mythological cosmogonies regarding the existence of a conquering God or civilizing Hero (Consciousness, Order) subduing chaotic Matter (usually represented by a serpent or dragon).

Sikhism, as another major exponent of theistic Panentheism, believes in One Universal God (Ik Oankar)²Wilkinson, Philip (2008). Religions. Dorling Kindersley. pp. 209, 214–215. who can be defined as “the one Supreme Reality, Creator and all-pervading Spirit”, highlighting his unity with creation³Singh, Dr Jasraj (2009). A Complete Guide to Sikhism. Unistar Books, p. 182..

Like in theistic / panentheistic Hinduism, as we just saw, God (who has no gender), is metaphorically represented as masculine (Father) in His Essence and feminine (Mother) in His Power.

Also, as in all systems that view God as the Absolute, this All-Possibility is “incarnated” in many worlds (All-Actuality, the Multiverse).

However, the concept of Maya or the unreality of the Universe, contrary to Advaita Vedanta, is not defined as the ultimate illusoriness of any multiplicity, but as the unreality of worldly values that take us away from God.

According to Guru Nanak, the ultimate aim of human life is to reconnect with Akal (“The Timeless One”) through the elimination of egotism attained by remembering the Name of the Lord (Nām).⁴Pruthi, Raj (2004). Sikhism and Indian Civilization. Discovery Publishing House, p. 204.⁵McLean, George (2008). Paths to the Divine: Ancient and Indian. Council for Research in Values & Philosophy, p. 599.

Furthermore, a clear example of Sikhism´s Panentheism can be seen in the meaning of the word Guru (“teacher”)⁶Singh, Nirmal (2008). Searches in Sikhism. New Delhi: Hemkunt Press, p. 122., which means the internal voice of the Spirit⁷Parrinder, Geoffrey (1971). World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present. London: Hamlyn, pp. 254–256. in each person and is identical with Akal, the universally immanent God⁸Singh, R.K. Janmeja (2013). Gurbani’s Guidance and the Sikh’s ‘Destination’. The Sikh Review, 8. 61 (716): 27–35.. Ultimately, the seeker attains the realization that his own consciousness is the true Guru, following the same “Atman equals Brahman” formula present in Hinduism.

In reaching this insight, and given this God-in-general understanding of God common to all panentheistic traditions (even to theistic Panentheism), the seeker ends up seeing all religions as conveying the same message, just as Perennialism does.⁹Dhillon, Sukhraj Singh (2004). Universality of the Sikh Philosophy: An Analysis. The Sikh Review.

For Sikhism, the final state of being of those who achieve liberation is not found in a heavenly realm, but on the spiritual union with God (the Akal), which results in salvation or enlightenment / liberation within one’s lifetime (Jivanmukti), thus exhausting one´s Karma and ending the cycle of rebirths through God´s grace.¹⁰Grewal, J. S. (1998). The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–36.¹¹Singh, H. S. (2000). The Encyclopedia of Sikhism. Hemkunt Press, p. 80.

This is only natural for worldviews which, confronted with the dialectical problem between Unity and Plurality, make the decision to follow the One.

Summarizing these last two articles, we have seen that Non-Trinitarian Monotheism still shows a dialectical thought and uneasy tension between its main exoteric religions (Judaism and Islam) and their respective esoteric mystical schools (Kabbalah and Sufism):

• The former are followers of pure Monism (doctrine of the One), and necessarily picture an eschatological reality of plurality where saved souls are, even then, just creatures who cannot bridge the abyss between them and their Creator. The Godhead does not transcend the dialectic between the One and the Many, either, as to do so it would depend on creation as the source of multiplicity.

• The latter, in turn, tend to panentheistic Monism and the aspiration of being absorbed into God or fused with Him through the extinction of the otherness of the self. God is many times conceptualized as an impersonal ultimate reality, contradicting thus their parent exoteric traditions. There is no real appreciation of multiplicity in these worldviews, neither in this current life, nor in the “world to come”.

Monotheistic Panentheism (e.g., Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, Sikhism), even though it sometimes apparently embraces plurality in the Eschaton instead of the monistic absorption of competing schools such as Advaita Vedanta, maintains no real difference between a personal God and creation.

The presence of different modes of existence of God in the Eschaton speaks of an underlying identity, not just union through communion, between saved souls and God. Therefore, this modalistic interpretation prevents a real embrace of plurality and tends towards Absolute Monism, as all Panentheism does. Multiplicity is accepted because, eventually, it is discovered to be unreal.

Comparing this doctrine to the Orthodox Christian one of Theosis or divinization, Vishishtadvaita´s vision is that of God looking at different uniquely limited versions of Himself through many souls, while that of Christianity is the elevation of each unique person into the fullness of divinity, while still being “other” and maintaining a loving relationship with God. Instead of loving Himself through us, the Tri-Une God, thanks to His transcendence of the One and the Many dialectic, loves us.

Furthermore, as we have seen, the core doctrines of non-theistic Panentheism, such as the view of God as the Absolute, which in turn implies doctrines such as Complementary Dualism (the Unity of Opposites), Emanationism and the existence of many universes (Multiverse), can also be found in these worldviews, even if they conceive God as personal.

Given all the above, it seems clear that pure Monism, even in its monotheistic forms, is still stifled by a dialectical thinking that cannot transcend the problem of the One and the Many on its own. Therefore, it also cannot offer satisfactory metaphysical grounds for expecting the (deified) subsistence of our own unique personal existence in the coming eschatological reality.

Either we are God, or we are nothing compared to Him. This is, apparently, the only conclusion that human reason can reach on its own, as shown by the multiple worldviews that decided that this position could explain the internal mystical experiences they achieved.

This leaves us with only revealed Christianity, a monotheistic bot non-monistic (because it is Tri-Une) faith, as the only exponent of the theistic Mysticism of Union (see HERE) that does not revert back to the philosophy of the One in one way or another, thus proposing a real and unique solution to the problem of Unity and Multiplicity.

Upon analysis, it can be seen that the solution provided by the Tri-Une God is the only metaphysical ground that truly allows and embraces unique particularity.

This is a different doctrine than those of all previous philosophical thought, focused on union through merging and absolute identity. At the same time, it crosses the abyss between creature and Creator by promising deification (Theosis), the full participation in the Uncreated Energies of God (or what He is), without becoming Him in His Essence. The Trinitarian God, because of who He is, can love us in such a way that He gives us what He is, without ceasing to love us for being us.

For the author of this website, as it will have become sufficiently clear by now, the supernatural self-consistency shown by all Christian doctrines in their absolute rejection of dialectical thought¹²Most clearly exemplified in the two united but non-fused (or confused) Natures of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Logos., as well as the fact that these doctrines had to be revealed (a necessary condition to know any truth that transcends our current plane of existence), is compelling evidence of the truth of its claims.

GENERAL 

1. The One and the Many. R.J. Rushdoony (discusses the differences between Trinitarian Monotheism and Monotheistic Monism).

VISHISHTADVAITA VEDANTA

1. Advaita and Visistadvaita: A Study Based on Vedanta Desika’s Satadusani. S.M. Srinivasa Chari.
2. The Philosophy Of Visistadvaita. P.N. Srinivasachari.
3. Tattva Trayam of Lokacharya Pillai: The Triad of Reality in Ramanuja Philosophy. Shraddhesh Chaturvedi.

SIKHISM

1. A Critical Study of The Life and Teachings of Sri Guru Nanak Dev: The Founder of Sikhism. Sewaram Singh Thapar.
2. Hymns of the Sikh Gurus. Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh.

1. Tapasyananda, Swami. Bhakti Schools of Vedanta; pp. 54-83.
2. Wilkinson, Philip (2008). Religions. Dorling Kindersley. pp. 209, 214–215.
3. Singh, Dr Jasraj (2009). A Complete Guide to Sikhism. Unistar Books, p. 182.
4. Pruthi, Raj (2004). Sikhism and Indian Civilization. Discovery Publishing House, p. 204.
5. McLean, George (2008). Paths to the Divine: Ancient and Indian. Council for Research in Values & Philosophy, p. 599.
6. Singh, Nirmal (2008). Searches in Sikhism. New Delhi: Hemkunt Press, p. 122.
7. Parrinder, Geoffrey (1971). World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present. London: Hamlyn, pp. 254–256.
8. Singh, R.K. Janmeja (2013). Gurbani’s Guidance and the Sikh’s ‘Destination’. The Sikh Review, 8. 61 (716): 27–35.
9. Dhillon, Sukhraj Singh (2004). Universality of the Sikh Philosophy: An Analysis. The Sikh Review.
10. Grewal, J. S. (1998). The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–36.
11. Singh, H. S. (2000). The Encyclopedia of Sikhism. Hemkunt Press, p. 80.
12. Most clearly exemplified in the two united but non-fused (or confused) Natures of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Logos.