19:20 Fun story: IP published a video on "Palamite Panentheism" in ~2016 that sent me down a rabbit hole in which I thought I had found the true metaphysics that satisfied objections from my nondualist Vedantic and Zen friends. IIRC, Arthur Peacocke and Philip Clayton edited a book on panentheism in which the breadth yet difficulty of the term was a constant throughout the whole volume. But in that rabbit hole I also came across a newly published paper called "The Difficulty of Demarcating Panentheism." I only found out within the last year or two that Ryan was the author of that paper lol. Cool little synchronicity that blew my mind at first
The argument Ryan brings up starting at 12:20 can be answered by adopting a non-meticulous model of divine providence. The problem Ryan raises turns on the idea that theism is incompatible with "gratuitous evils," i.e., evils that are not _individually necessary_ for a greater good. Meticulous models of providence like theistic determinism and Molinism are normally developed in a way that entails that idea. This is because, if God is perfectly good and specifically ordains "whatsoever comes to pass," then whatever evils come to pass were specifically ordained by God, presumably for a greater good. Non-meticulous models of providence like open theism would, however, normally reject that idea. For, on these models, God does not specifically ordain whatsoever comes to pass but, in some cases, _merely permits_ something to occur that God does not _want_ to occur. In other words, God wills the _possibility_ of (some) evils for a greater good, but does not will their _actuality_. These evils would therefore qualify as "gratuitous" by the usual definition.
So if an atheist believes that life is evidence of natural selection, he or she has a problem to explain the existence of good? But biologist Peter Kropotkin proposed an answer to Darwin in his book Mutual Aid. He theorised the evolutionary benefits of cooperation, and gave examples of beneficial cooperation in nature. For me becoming a Christian was the only solution to realistic despair.
The only issue i struggle with is animal suffering aswell as deaths due to bad design in the human body like wisdom teeth or death in childbirth etc. is there any good material on this? Great video btw!
Yeah! Read something about evolution, it's the answer to suffering. Wisdom teeth issues are I direct example of evolution taking generations as our jaws shrink to accommodate standing up and bigger skulls for bigger brains. Child birth is due to standing up to. All explained by science, science that debunks the bible.
@@OrthodoxJoker It's a fact so it applies regardless of your denial. The reason for suffering is explained by evolution by natural selection accepted by most Christians and Jews and non religious/atheist. It's the cornerstone of modern biology and underpins our whole understanding of modern medicine. Theistic evolution isn't a thing, it's desperately trying to make things fit myths.
Consider longevity. I recently reviewed the data on a survey regarding longevity. It seems a minority of people less than 10% would not increase their life expectancy a vast majority would increase their life expectancy eternally. Smaller percentages would increase 20 years or some 10 to 20 years. This suggests that life is so good despite all of the suffering many with people with endured even more suffering. Furthermore the suffering of all the animals that has ever existed is worth the life expectancy increase that would benefit humans. So all animals suffering all human suffering is simply placing a false presumption to an argument people generally accept as reasonable.
@@ExploringReality I used to follow the longevity space. This was a study/survey they’d refer in efforts gain financial support. I don’t have it readily available. Eventually I may get around to it. However consider simply asking people you know. I am in the medical field. People will be in deaths door for months and still refuse a DNR. I dare say that if someone is otherwise healthy that they would sign a DNR.
@@ExploringReality society assumes that you want to live longer; we don’t ask people to sign a please resuscitate. We have them sign a do not resuscitate. DNR can be viewed as a rough equivalent to people wanting to live longer. Even when great physical damage is done people most often prefer to live.
That probabilistic question was annoyingly interesting and good. It's interesting that arguments that exist as a statement, or assume a description, seem to almost necessarily appeal to a realist description or has this justification which at least covers why we apply it to the real world. There's also seemingly this layer of intuition, where we see a statement about earthquakes, and just know, "I can see and observe these, there's more literature about this," and maybe a more challenging intuitional claim, "it doesn't appear god deeply has to do with the relevant category of 'earthquakes' when we talk about observable or studyable." Shrug. It's hard, it at least is easy to beg the question, what definitions or clarification is needed, when we ask about what concepts are meant to be ideal versus material, or cognitivist versus some other way of knowing. There's maybe also this other weird idea. And sorry for setting too much out there, but the author or agents argument necessarily has epistemic content based on the person speaking. And so part of the sort of space opening, is figuring out what we can talk about. Maybe something about intention or meaning. Also just this other idea. Where the idea that intuition grabs at this, almost shows that the argument both can and can't be contained within the specific framework in which the topic is evoked. It may even be undermining language to say that it's possible to have strict discourse without the broader discussion, and so then it also begs (sorry fellow atheists) why it may be compelling to someone like Plantinga, if we can speak coherently about God, and it's intuitional and there's these necessary propositions referencing God, then what reason we have for evoking nontheistic descriptions. The obvious rebuttal is at least saying, "well we're just expanding what a testimony is to the metaethical or normative epistemic space," and so there's no more validity, intuition just isn't for whatever reason, negating a concept, but it's still necessarily externally referencing or the conversation is meaningless." But then finally this discussion or concept term or idea about the nature of linguistic emergence, or the emergence of meaning that happens, cognitively what's happening.
I've though about the problem, but free will always just made it make sense to me I guess. Doesn't mean I don't still find it hard to accept some things. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
I am sorry, but this is incredibly weak. None of you have really studied evolution to an significant degree that much is clear. Though, it must be stated that evolution does not commit one to athiesm outright. Evolution has no particular axiological claim. It simply demands that replicators will tend to find means to replicate. There are many means for replicators to increase their prevalence through coordination with other replicators (e.g. commensulism, mutualism, etc.) This problem has been solved for humans with his theory of obligate cooperative foraging, which incentivized the creation of moral emotions and systems of ethics.
I dont see that theist will be more even after this arguments.If the athiest come up with explanation why there are optimists ang pesimist, the theist must explain why there are pesimists, why greatly loving god would created people who cannot think optimisticly -> living more stressful life. And there is still big question about presented problem of natural disasters, childs born with cancer etc. AND unneeded suffering of animals, why there is unneed suffering of animals which cannot even go to heaven? You are talking about evolution is one big suffering, atheist dont say it must be nice, this is on side of theist and their claim there is one greatly loving god.
When do they get to the point, because I'm 15 mins in and theists feel notoriously bad at ever actually getting to the meat of the conversation. I mean dwelling on the Problem of Evil for theism is of course fantastic. After all clearly an *all-knowing God* would know every consequence of every way reality might be, and so if that God *creates everything* then every consequence *was intentional.* So then it's a contradiction to call that god "all-good". But I'm very willing to hear out a problem of evil regarding atheism, it's just that it feels like it takes theists eons to ever get to the point about anything (and yeah it's very possible I just have less patience for them; but it's also possible that quite a lot of theist content I see will label something "evidence of god" and then not even have the barest argument for the existence of a god, and so I've been burned several times before waiting for theists to get to the point). In short: _anyone gotta timestamp?_
You’re not going to find anything in this video. The most that happens is that it is said the problem exists for various points of view, but this isn’t claimed as evidence for theism so much as it is staged as an applicable problem more broadly. Quite disappointingly, it is also conceded that this problem doesn’t exist for pessimistic atheists. It is claimed that most atheists don’t fall in this camp, but I’m not sure how true that is; although either way, it doesn’t matter, it would only indicate we overestimate the quality of our lives and instead should become pessimistic atheists rather than theists.
It really starts @36:00 His argument is that pain and suffering is inherent to the system of the natural world because it's baked into evolution and natural selection therefore the world is systemically evil, and since he says because many (most) atheists are generally optimists and think the world is generally not bad that this creates an "axiological expectation mismatch" and this is apparently a problem for atheists, because reasons.
@@Capt.Fail. I heard that part, but I'm still not sure what he even means by pessimistic atheist. Is that just a variation on hard/soft atheist? (ie belief no gods exist vs. no belief in gods)
@@tonygoodkind7858 No, I think what is meant is something along the lines of thinking life is good on average vs bad on average. I think his argument boils down to if you think life is good on the whole, why is there evil? Which doesn’t apply if you think life is fundamentally uncaring or bad on the whole. I’m sure this is an oversimplified version of the argument, as almost nothing was stated in detail in the video. But that’s what I gathered.
This is just hard philosophy in general, they are making all sorts of points within the first 15 minutes. If you want a soundbite that is not philosophy that is rhetoric. There are very technical fields of logic and argumentation. If you do not address the way the field of philosophy is at now then it will not be taken seriously. Take the New Atheists, not one of them has added a single argument to the landscape of philosophy in 30 years. They are polemicists of really bad repute in academic philosophy circles. So 30 years to not make a single point is a counter argument against theists having this problem.
If you really adhere to atheism, you have no adequate explanation for either good or evil. Your concept of both will be arbitrary and subjective. In fact, pure atheism is a non-moral stance. Nothing is either good or bad; phenomena happen or they don't happen, due to cause and effect. That is all you can say. First I have heard of Dr. Nagasawa. Brilliant man.
To be an atheist is just a position on god. That said atheists tend to understand nature better and our heritage to it, that explains good and evil. You don't get it from a fictional immoral dictator 😂
@@anthonydesimone502 , there are THOUSANDS of scholarly articles online which point out that atheism is inherently non-moral, also that it has no adequate explanation for good and evil. Yes, we know that atheists deny this, but when they are pushed to explain their concepts of good, evil, morality, etc, these are always quite arbitrary and subjective. Try reading Dr. Nagasawa's books on the subject. I am sure he cites extensively from such books and articles.
@mysotiras21 atheism is a single belief that, I agree, makes no moral claims. That, in no way, means that it entails arbitrary and subjective morality. If you want to just gesture in the direction of "thousands of articles", I can just point out the thousands of professional philosophers who are atheists and moral realists. But if this is such an established idea, I would think you'd have at least one argument readily available to demonstrate it.
@@anthonydesimone502 , fine. Choose any atheist explanation for good/evil and morality that you fancy. It is easy to demonstrate that they are all subjective and arbitrary, matters of personal opinion.
"Panentheism is going to steal all these metaphors that you guys came up with?" Given that most of eastern philosophy is Panentheism, who stole what metaphors? Am I missing a reference here? It's an emanation theory not a creation theory. Brahman/Vishnu/Shiva (depending on the tradition) is the source of all energies some are permanent some are manifest and unmanifest. Or the Panen-atheism is that the ultimate causal source of energy is: Void, Material and etc. With all sorts of technical details depending on the theistic/atheistic conscious/unconscious school of philosophy. God/Brahman/the source of energy (theistic or non theistic) doesn't have to create it/he just is. The word create is not really a valid claim. Why does the ultimate source of energy have this as part of it's reality? Given that Panentheism is over 3000 years old what metaphors did they steal?
The Aristotelian argument from change would be reasonable to say the ultimate source of reality (God) creates. God creates by His power as the the one who is, as the unactualized actualizer. All things that are are because of God’s actualizing, creating and sustaining powers and energies.
@@sillythewanderer4221 Thanks :) I am aware of this argument but we are talking about a philosopher who existed at the time just before the Greek invasions of north India. In fact the teacher of the Invader of north west India. My question is how does a philosophy that predates that by at least 1200 years steal metaphors from Greece and Post Greek Christian Philosophy. The unmoved mover is already a concept in the earliest start of Vedic literature which is Panentheistic. E.G. The Isopanishad which is part of the Yajurveda. Which is a description of the paradox of the unmoved mover that is also everywhere and faster than anything and etc.
@@sillythewanderer4221 A few quotes in english: The Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance. Mantra Four: Although fixed in His abode, the Godhead is swifter than the mind and can overcome all others running. The powerful demigods cannot approach Him. Although in one place, He controls those who supply the air and rain. He surpasses all in excellence. Mantra Five: The Supreme walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.
19:20 Fun story: IP published a video on "Palamite Panentheism" in ~2016 that sent me down a rabbit hole in which I thought I had found the true metaphysics that satisfied objections from my nondualist Vedantic and Zen friends. IIRC, Arthur Peacocke and Philip Clayton edited a book on panentheism in which the breadth yet difficulty of the term was a constant throughout the whole volume. But in that rabbit hole I also came across a newly published paper called "The Difficulty of Demarcating Panentheism." I only found out within the last year or two that Ryan was the author of that paper lol. Cool little synchronicity that blew my mind at first
One of the best feature of Yujin hands down.
The argument Ryan brings up starting at 12:20 can be answered by adopting a non-meticulous model of divine providence. The problem Ryan raises turns on the idea that theism is incompatible with "gratuitous evils," i.e., evils that are not _individually necessary_ for a greater good.
Meticulous models of providence like theistic determinism and Molinism are normally developed in a way that entails that idea. This is because, if God is perfectly good and specifically ordains "whatsoever comes to pass," then whatever evils come to pass were specifically ordained by God, presumably for a greater good.
Non-meticulous models of providence like open theism would, however, normally reject that idea. For, on these models, God does not specifically ordain whatsoever comes to pass but, in some cases, _merely permits_ something to occur that God does not _want_ to occur. In other words, God wills the _possibility_ of (some) evils for a greater good, but does not will their _actuality_. These evils would therefore qualify as "gratuitous" by the usual definition.
Best part starts at 29:00
Awesome discussion , very interesting stuff
Glad you enjoyed it!
The divine council response sounds similar to the fallen angel theodicy. I think Job is a perfect example to justify that theodicy
@@truthovertea it’s something I’ve been playing around with. I’m just not sure what to do with the priors here yet
Parkers pensees beat you to it but Ill watch again
@@nyxhighlander9894 appreciate the support 😂
So if an atheist believes that life is evidence of natural selection, he or she has a problem to explain the existence of good?
But biologist Peter Kropotkin proposed an answer to Darwin in his book Mutual Aid. He theorised the evolutionary benefits of cooperation, and gave examples of beneficial cooperation in nature.
For me becoming a Christian was the only solution to realistic despair.
You gotta fix the description of the video man
I’m working on it. I’m sick and moving slow 😂
The only issue i struggle with is animal suffering aswell as deaths due to bad design in the human body like wisdom teeth or death in childbirth etc. is there any good material on this?
Great video btw!
@@OrthodoxJoker Trent Dougherty’s book on animal suffering is a MUST read
@@ExploringReality thanks bro
Yeah!
Read something about evolution, it's the answer to suffering.
Wisdom teeth issues are I direct example of evolution taking generations as our jaws shrink to accommodate standing up and bigger skulls for bigger brains.
Child birth is due to standing up to.
All explained by science, science that debunks the bible.
@@jameswright... I’m a theistic evolutionist. Your argument doesn’t apply.
@@OrthodoxJoker
It's a fact so it applies regardless of your denial.
The reason for suffering is explained by evolution by natural selection accepted by most Christians and Jews and non religious/atheist.
It's the cornerstone of modern biology and underpins our whole understanding of modern medicine.
Theistic evolution isn't a thing, it's desperately trying to make things fit myths.
Consider longevity.
I recently reviewed the data on a survey regarding longevity. It seems a minority of people less than 10% would not increase their life expectancy a vast majority would increase their life expectancy eternally. Smaller percentages would increase 20 years or some 10 to 20 years. This suggests that life is so good despite all of the suffering many with people with endured even more suffering. Furthermore the suffering of all the animals that has ever existed is worth the life expectancy increase that would benefit humans. So all animals suffering all human suffering is simply placing a false presumption to an argument people generally accept as reasonable.
@@MS-od7je can you link survey?
@@ExploringReality I used to follow the longevity space. This was a study/survey they’d refer in efforts gain financial support.
I don’t have it readily available.
Eventually I may get around to it.
However consider simply asking people you know.
I am in the medical field. People will be in deaths door for months and still refuse a DNR.
I dare say that if someone is otherwise healthy that they would sign a DNR.
@@ExploringReality society assumes that you want to live longer; we don’t ask people to sign a please resuscitate. We have them sign a do not resuscitate.
DNR can be viewed as a rough equivalent to people wanting to live longer. Even when great physical damage is done people most often prefer to live.
There is only a problem of evil because God chose to create. If there's no creation then no sin, suffering or evil would exist.
That probabilistic question was annoyingly interesting and good.
It's interesting that arguments that exist as a statement, or assume a description, seem to almost necessarily appeal to a realist description or has this justification which at least covers why we apply it to the real world.
There's also seemingly this layer of intuition, where we see a statement about earthquakes, and just know, "I can see and observe these, there's more literature about this," and maybe a more challenging intuitional claim, "it doesn't appear god deeply has to do with the relevant category of 'earthquakes' when we talk about observable or studyable."
Shrug. It's hard, it at least is easy to beg the question, what definitions or clarification is needed, when we ask about what concepts are meant to be ideal versus material, or cognitivist versus some other way of knowing.
There's maybe also this other weird idea. And sorry for setting too much out there, but the author or agents argument necessarily has epistemic content based on the person speaking. And so part of the sort of space opening, is figuring out what we can talk about. Maybe something about intention or meaning.
Also just this other idea. Where the idea that intuition grabs at this, almost shows that the argument both can and can't be contained within the specific framework in which the topic is evoked. It may even be undermining language to say that it's possible to have strict discourse without the broader discussion, and so then it also begs (sorry fellow atheists) why it may be compelling to someone like Plantinga, if we can speak coherently about God, and it's intuitional and there's these necessary propositions referencing God, then what reason we have for evoking nontheistic descriptions.
The obvious rebuttal is at least saying, "well we're just expanding what a testimony is to the metaethical or normative epistemic space," and so there's no more validity, intuition just isn't for whatever reason, negating a concept, but it's still necessarily externally referencing or the conversation is meaningless."
But then finally this discussion or concept term or idea about the nature of linguistic emergence, or the emergence of meaning that happens, cognitively what's happening.
I've though about the problem, but free will always just made it make sense to me I guess. Doesn't mean I don't still find it hard to accept some things.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
I am sorry, but this is incredibly weak. None of you have really studied evolution to an significant degree that much is clear. Though, it must be stated that evolution does not commit one to athiesm outright.
Evolution has no particular axiological claim. It simply demands that replicators will tend to find means to replicate. There are many means for replicators to increase their prevalence through coordination with other replicators (e.g. commensulism, mutualism, etc.) This problem has been solved for humans with his theory of obligate cooperative foraging, which incentivized the creation of moral emotions and systems of ethics.
Nah... evolution mean to survive. Why? No idea why it designed that way. But how? By brutaly killing & enslaved the weak.
There you go.
I dont see that theist will be more even after this arguments.If the athiest come up with explanation why there are optimists ang pesimist, the theist must explain why there are pesimists, why greatly loving god would created people who cannot think optimisticly -> living more stressful life. And there is still big question about presented problem of natural disasters, childs born with cancer etc. AND unneeded suffering of animals, why there is unneed suffering of animals which cannot even go to heaven? You are talking about evolution is one big suffering, atheist dont say it must be nice, this is on side of theist and their claim there is one greatly loving god.
He just doesn't have a clue. There is no "problem" with atheists being optimistic.
So, this is just an ad hominem argument directed at atheists and not an actual argument against atheism?
When do they get to the point, because I'm 15 mins in and theists feel notoriously bad at ever actually getting to the meat of the conversation.
I mean dwelling on the Problem of Evil for theism is of course fantastic.
After all clearly an *all-knowing God* would know every consequence of every way reality might be, and so if that God *creates everything* then every consequence *was intentional.* So then it's a contradiction to call that god "all-good".
But I'm very willing to hear out a problem of evil regarding atheism, it's just that it feels like it takes theists eons to ever get to the point about anything (and yeah it's very possible I just have less patience for them; but it's also possible that quite a lot of theist content I see will label something "evidence of god" and then not even have the barest argument for the existence of a god, and so I've been burned several times before waiting for theists to get to the point).
In short: _anyone gotta timestamp?_
You’re not going to find anything in this video. The most that happens is that it is said the problem exists for various points of view, but this isn’t claimed as evidence for theism so much as it is staged as an applicable problem more broadly.
Quite disappointingly, it is also conceded that this problem doesn’t exist for pessimistic atheists. It is claimed that most atheists don’t fall in this camp, but I’m not sure how true that is; although either way, it doesn’t matter, it would only indicate we overestimate the quality of our lives and instead should become pessimistic atheists rather than theists.
It really starts @36:00
His argument is that pain and suffering is inherent to the system of the natural world because it's baked into evolution and natural selection therefore the world is systemically evil, and since he says because many (most) atheists are generally optimists and think the world is generally not bad that this creates an "axiological expectation mismatch" and this is apparently a problem for atheists, because reasons.
@@Capt.Fail. I heard that part, but I'm still not sure what he even means by pessimistic atheist. Is that just a variation on hard/soft atheist? (ie belief no gods exist vs. no belief in gods)
@@tonygoodkind7858 No, I think what is meant is something along the lines of thinking life is good on average vs bad on average. I think his argument boils down to if you think life is good on the whole, why is there evil? Which doesn’t apply if you think life is fundamentally uncaring or bad on the whole.
I’m sure this is an oversimplified version of the argument, as almost nothing was stated in detail in the video. But that’s what I gathered.
This is just hard philosophy in general, they are making all sorts of points within the first 15 minutes. If you want a soundbite that is not philosophy that is rhetoric. There are very technical fields of logic and argumentation. If you do not address the way the field of philosophy is at now then it will not be taken seriously.
Take the New Atheists, not one of them has added a single argument to the landscape of philosophy in 30 years. They are polemicists of really bad repute in academic philosophy circles.
So 30 years to not make a single point is a counter argument against theists having this problem.
If you really adhere to atheism, you have no adequate explanation for either good or evil. Your concept of both will be arbitrary and subjective. In fact, pure atheism is a non-moral stance. Nothing is either good or bad; phenomena happen or they don't happen, due to cause and effect. That is all you can say.
First I have heard of Dr. Nagasawa. Brilliant man.
To be an atheist is just a position on god.
That said atheists tend to understand nature better and our heritage to it, that explains good and evil.
You don't get it from a fictional immoral dictator 😂
Do you have an actual argument for that? Because none of what you described is an entailment of atheism.
@@anthonydesimone502 , there are THOUSANDS of scholarly articles online which point out that atheism is inherently non-moral, also that it has no adequate explanation for good and evil. Yes, we know that atheists deny this, but when they are pushed to explain their concepts of good, evil, morality, etc, these are always quite arbitrary and subjective. Try reading Dr. Nagasawa's books on the subject. I am sure he cites extensively from such books and articles.
@mysotiras21 atheism is a single belief that, I agree, makes no moral claims. That, in no way, means that it entails arbitrary and subjective morality. If you want to just gesture in the direction of "thousands of articles", I can just point out the thousands of professional philosophers who are atheists and moral realists. But if this is such an established idea, I would think you'd have at least one argument readily available to demonstrate it.
@@anthonydesimone502 , fine. Choose any atheist explanation for good/evil and morality that you fancy. It is easy to demonstrate that they are all subjective and arbitrary, matters of personal opinion.
"Panentheism is going to steal all these metaphors that you guys came up with?" Given that most of eastern philosophy is Panentheism, who stole what metaphors? Am I missing a reference here? It's an emanation theory not a creation theory. Brahman/Vishnu/Shiva (depending on the tradition) is the source of all energies some are permanent some are manifest and unmanifest. Or the Panen-atheism is that the ultimate causal source of energy is: Void, Material and etc.
With all sorts of technical details depending on the theistic/atheistic conscious/unconscious school of philosophy. God/Brahman/the source of energy (theistic or non theistic) doesn't have to create it/he just is.
The word create is not really a valid claim. Why does the ultimate source of energy have this as part of it's reality?
Given that Panentheism is over 3000 years old what metaphors did they steal?
P.S. which are these papers he is referencing, would love to read.
The Aristotelian argument from change would be reasonable to say the ultimate source of reality (God) creates. God creates by His power as the the one who is, as the unactualized actualizer. All things that are are because of God’s actualizing, creating and sustaining powers and energies.
@@sillythewanderer4221 Thanks :) I am aware of this argument but we are talking about a philosopher who existed at the time just before the Greek invasions of north India. In fact the teacher of the Invader of north west India.
My question is how does a philosophy that predates that by at least 1200 years steal metaphors from Greece and Post Greek Christian Philosophy.
The unmoved mover is already a concept in the earliest start of Vedic literature which is Panentheistic. E.G. The Isopanishad which is part of the Yajurveda. Which is a description of the paradox of the unmoved mover that is also everywhere and faster than anything and etc.
@@sillythewanderer4221 A few quotes in english:
The Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
Mantra Four: Although fixed in His abode, the Godhead is swifter than the mind and can overcome all others running. The powerful demigods cannot approach Him. Although in one place, He controls those who supply the air and rain. He surpasses all in excellence.
Mantra Five: The Supreme walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.
Most eastern philosophies are pantheistic, as far as I can see. A very different proposition.