The pantheistic view of creation, namely that ‘All is God’ (or ‘The Way’), is fair and generous in that it gives all actual life forms virtual equality both in creative ability. Pantheism does not distinguish (i.e. differentiate), hence cannot decide (and thereby generate real identity), consequently has no political leverage, therefore has no practical value for deciding action in the actual everyday world.


What, for instance are the ramifications of the pantheistic view (even given the fact that no one has a clue as to the basic functions of God, should he or she exist)? What is God’s (i.e. the initial algorithm as Turing Machine’s) primary function, therefore also my purpose in life as its localised elaboration? How do I (who am God) decide what to do vis-à-vis you (and everyone else) who is also God? What action is meaningful to God or to me as God? Can God’s action be meaningless? Are all God’s actions meaningful? How does God decide good and bad if all actions are God’s. If both predator and prey are God, how do I (as God) respond as predator or prey? Can I (i.e. as a God fractal elaboration) both hate and love, create and destroy God (as alternate fractal elaboration)? In short, all the foregoing boil down to the question: What is the function of life in general? …. and mine (i.e. my elaboration) in particular? Pantheism leaves the last question undecided. Indecision (to wit, locality) results in uncertainty, which in turn reduces actual local survival capacity, hence failure to be a true God elaboration.


The medieval Brahmin scholar/priest Shankara, and who commented/elaborated the pantheism of the Upanishads (i.e. as Vedanta) with dodgy metaphors and verbal analogies, thus reversing Occam’s Razor, shied away from asking and resolving the above questions. Shankara was a politically minded Brahmin priest on a religious power trip, a verbose and wholly goal oriented commentator/persuader, not a critic in search of the truth. His (selective, therefore political) ‘take’ on the Upanishads (i.e. as selective speculation) was a fascinating but flaky commentary or yarn (Sanskrit: sutra), to wit, a ‘just so’ story that was designed to lead into a favoured Brahmin cul-de-sac rather than enunciate and decide the implications and ramifications of ‘open space’ Upanishadic pantheism.


Pantheism is a genteel political cop-out, a smart way of avoiding contention by eliminating actual (or mundane, meaning local) difference (i.e. actual content). However, by eliminating difference it also eliminates identity, thus causing serious grief to actual living systems, such as the human. To avoid that grief humans invent particular gods, i.e. specific law givers or rulers, such as Yahweh, to decide (i.e. limit) their personal (therefore God) actions (Sanskrit: dharma) and reward and punish according to the level of perfection, hence survival capacity, of action execution.


‘The One is the many’

The urge-to-life = God = Brahman