Transcendence/Immanence - Religion/Philosophy

I was noticing different ideas about Transcendence & Immanence in Religion & Philosophy (go to the links for more info)

It seems to me that people could believe in Transcendence OR Immanence in either a Religious OR Philosophic sense and that would NOT have to include a belief in God/dess. (Obviously some people would include God in their beliefs and may CALL Transcendence/Immanence God )

What say you?


-------------------------------
Transcendence (religion)

Buddhism
In the various forms of Buddhism--Theravada, Mahayana (especially Pure Land and Zen), and Vajrayana--the notion of transcendence is of more difficult application. Except for Pure Land and Vajrayana (where a certain return to Hindu-like personifications of the spiritual world is countenanced), the role played by transcendent beings is minimal and at most a temporary expedient. The notion closest to transcendence, much in the spirit of Western "theologia negativa", is perhaps that of of shunyata (emptiness, void). Suffice it to say that one of the marks which set Buddhism apart from Hinduism in the beginning, and continues to serve as distinctive, is its reluctance to allow language to approach or speak of transcendence. For many, this appears to amount to atheism; for others, it would be better termed agnosticim. At any rate, for the Buddhist, if anything ultimate or transcendent is to be "known" at all, it would have to be directly experienced and not talked about, and that is the end of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29

Transcendence (philosophy)

Here transcendent means that God is completely outside of and beyond the world, as contrasted with the notion that God is manifested in the world. This meaning originates both in the Aristotelian view of God as the prime mover, a non-material self-consciousness that is outside of the world, and in the Jewish and Christian idea of God as a being outside of the world who created the world out of nothingness (creatio ex nihilo). In contrast, philosophies of immanence such as stoicism, Spinoza, Deleuze or pantheism maintains that God is manifested in and fully present in the world and the things in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)


Immanence in philosophy

The term "immanence" is usually understood to mean that the divine force, or the divine being, pervades through all things that exist, and is able to influence them. Such a meaning is common in pantheism & panpsychism, and it implies that divinity is inseparably present in all things. In this meaning immanence is distinct from transcendence, the latter being understood as the divinity being set apart from or transcending the World (an exception being Giovanni Gentile's "Actual Idealism" wherein immanence of subject is considered identified with transcendence over the material world). Giordano Bruno, Baruch Spinoza and, it may be argued, Hegel's philosophy were philosophies of immanence, as well as stoicism, versus philosophies of transcendence such as thomism or Aristotelian tradition. Gilles Deleuze qualified Spinoza as the "prince of philosophers" for his theory of immanence, which Spinoza resumed by "Deus sive Natura" ("God is Nature"). Such a theory considers that there is no transcendent principle or external cause to the world, and that the process of life production is contained in life itself. <1>

When compounded with Idealism, the immanence theory qualifies itself away from "the world" to there being no external cause to one's mind.
In the context of Kant's theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience.

The French 20th century philosopher Gilles Deleuze used the term immanence to refer to his "empiricist philosophy", which was obliged to create action and results rather than establish transcendentals. His final text was titled Immanence: a life..., spoke of a plane of immanence.<2> Similarly, Giorgio Agamben writes in The Coming Community (1993) : "There is an effect something that humans are and have to be, but this is not an essence nor properly a thing: It is the simple fact of one's own existence as possibility or potentiality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

-----------------

The Need for Transcendence in the Postmodern World

by Vaclav Havel

...A modern philosopher once said: "Only a God can save us now."

Yes, the only real hope of people today is probably a renewal of our certainty that we are rooted in the earth and, at the same time, in the cosmos. This awareness endows us with the capacity for self-transcendence. Politicians at international forums may reiterate a thousand times that the basis of the new world order must be universal respects for human rights, but it will mean nothing as long as this imperative does not derive from the respect of the miracle of Being, the miracle of the universe, the miracle of nature, the miracle of our own existence. Only someone who submits to the authority of the universal order and of creation, who values the right to be a part of it and a participant in it, can genuinely value himself and his neighbors, and thus honor their rights as well.

It logically follows that, in today's multicultural world, the truly reliable path to coexistence, to peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation, must start from what is at the root of all cultures and what lies infinitely deeper in human hearts and minds than political opinion, convictions, antipathies, or sympathies - it must be rooted in self-transcendence:

• Transcendence as a hand reached out to those close to us, to foreigners, to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the universe.
• Transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be in harmony even with what we ourselves are not, what we do not understand, what seems distant from us in time and space, but with which we are nevertheless mysteriously linked because, together with us, all this constitutes a single world.
• Transcendence as the only real alternative to extinction.
•
http://www.newciv.org/whole/havelspeech.html

To paraphrase slightly:
At any rate, for the Buddhist, if anything is to be "known" at all, it would have to be directly experienced and not talked about, and that is the end of it.

And not exactly "not talked about". If you've had a mystical experience, it is extremely difficult to talk about it; at least it is for me. This is because the very nature of the experience is beyond that which we usually have.

how much of what we think of as religion is about that which we can't put into words.

It seems that there are a lot of things that we can't put into words very well. Like feelings - and anything that is not a tangible thing.

is about a walled town. All the people stayed within the walls, though occassionally some brave one would climb over the wall, never to be seen again. Finally, the town fathers decided to discover what was so attractive that no one came back. They tied a rope around a volunteer, who climbed over the wall. After a time, they hauled him back. They were bursting with questions, but the man had lost the power of speech; all he could do was smile.

then one may also believe that the message of Jesus was that we are able to transcend the "props" of this world and see the spiritual realities of this world.

Transcendent -

3. Philosophy
a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.

4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

----------------------------------

immanent -

philosophy - the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

immanent, subjective - of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition is an immanent act of mind"

----------------------------------

It sounds to me that Transcendent is referring to what is usually thought of as "God/dess" - but may also include that which we can't understand or can't explain - or haven't understood yet - not enough information.

Whereas Immanent - which is used in regards to Pantheism (as well as other things) deals with that which can be known. That which is experienced as well as that which is within the mind.

This explains it better - esp. the difference bwtween "transcendent"& “atheistic or immanent" pantheism...

The doctrine of Pantheism, however, is much more ancient than the name which is used to identify it. Because of Pantheism’s long history, one must therefore distinguish among the diverse meanings it assumed throughout the ages.The first meaning of pantheism refers to “transcendent pantheism”, a quite general idea according to which the world is considered to be a mere manifestation of God. This form of pantheism sees the divine only in the innermost parts of things, and in particular in the soul. As a result, the creature can “become” God only insofar as it liberates itself from the material shell of sensitiveness. This vision dates way back in time to the Vedanta doctrines of India and found its highest expression in Western Neo-Platonism.

The second meaning of pantheism is an “atheistic or immanent pantheism” (or monism) and considers the divine as a “vital energy” which animates the world from within, thereby leading to naturalistic and materialistic consequences. Finally, pantheism also assumes the meaning of a “transcendent-immanent pantheism”, according to which God not only reveals himself, but also realizes himself in all things. Such is the pantheism for example of Spinoza, and that which, in diverse forms, will be of interest to various idealistic currents of Modern Age.

http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/92.asp

_________________________________________________________________

I disagree with this writer - because I see pantheism as not having a transcendent view of God. But I include it just to add to the discussion.

________________________
7. Transcendence

Like the notions of "Unity" and "Divinity," understanding transcendence and immanence is essential to any account of pantheism. A defining feature of pantheism is allegedly that God is wholly immanent. However, what is actually (or mostly) involved in this claim is that pantheism denies the theistic view that God transcends the world. Pantheism clearly does not claim that God in the theistic sense is immanent in the world since it denies such a God — transcendent or immanent — exists. According to pantheism it is (of course) the pantheistic "God" (i.e. the all-inclusive divine Unity) that is immanent, not the theistic one. Theists and pantheists do not differ as to whether the theistic God is immanent or transcendent, but whether the theistic God exists. So to differentiate between them on the basis of one's affirming and the other denying immanence is utterly confused.

Many of the difficulties associated with theistic transcendence are not dissipated for the pantheist when relevantly adjusted. For example, theistic transcendence presents prima facie difficulties concerning knowledge of and relations with God. The pantheist is part of the Unity, but both the nature of Unity, and its practical implications must be determined. In the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius this appears as much a problem for pantheists, if Aurelius is one, as knowing and relating to God is for theists.

In a sense, the Unity in pantheism is wholly immanent, but this is bare ontological immanence that follows from the Unity's all-inclusiveness (i.e. there is nothing else). Yet even this overstates the pantheistic commitment to immanence. Aspects of the Unity or the unifying principle often have a transcendent aspect to them. Unity is "all-inclusive" but with the possible exception of Spinoza, pantheists generally deny complete immanence. Thus, the metaphysical Tao informs everything and is part of the all-inclusive Unity, but it does have a transcendent aspect to it. It does transcend the phenomenal world of "myriad things." The same is true of Hegel's Geist, the Plotinian "One," and Presocratic unifying principles as well. So the claim that pantheists deny "God's" transcendence is altogether misleading on several counts unless taken to mean what it usually does mean when asserted by theists — which is that pantheists deny the transcendence of a theistic God....

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
---------