More Contradictions in Religion...

[Gandalf]

Hello folks, nice to be back. Hello Mustardseed and Beth!

Somebody said 'Pantheism as discussed in that link and others is a relatively new and western concept.'

I'm not convinced by this line. The thing is, the label 'pantheism' has several interpretations or flavours, but I would not say that in its various forms it is a 'modern concept'.
As Beth says, the Greek 'Logos' is a version of this concept.

The Stoics definitely believed in a 'pantheistic' vision of the universe. In neoplatonism and various classical pagan philosophies, the gods are better imagined as avatars or personifications of this cosmic totality which we can use to identify and communicate with the All, as to try to comprehend the All in its totality is impossible.

The Neoplatonists had a chain of being that went all the way down from the totality to the various individual gods. The simple peasants 'pagani' may not be aware of all this high philosophy of course, but high minded individuals like Emperor Julian, everyone's favourite pagan hero, got the idea.

A very pantheistic concept can also be found in Indian philosophy/religion. There are various branches of Hindu belief of course so we can't make sweeping statements, but one major strand views all the gods as avatars or means by which we can approach the unknowable divine All.
However, other branches of Hinduism state that we can indeed approach the divine all or 'Brahman' itself. In this later strain, 'Brahman' is personified to allow this to happen (as 'Brahma'), although this Hindu branch also continues to worship other gods as lessor aspects of Brahma.

The first strain of Hinduism is pretty much the stance of modern neo-paganism: where the divine All is unknowable (Brahman) and all personifications of this force via the various gods are equally valid means (indeed essential means) to communicate with it and for it to communicate with us.
The Christians were deeply influenced by Neoplatonic belief here as the figure of Jesus Christ can simply be viewed as another personified 'aspect' or way to approach the unknowable god, but pagans would say, why stop at him? There are lots of gods to choose from.

Within pantheistic thought there is a debate about whether the divine All is conscious of itself or whether it has no awareness as we understand it.
For those who say it is aware and intelligent, and  is therefore able to inspect its various parts objectively while still being part of them, this theory is sometimes refereed to as panENtheism, ie the total is more than the sum of its parts, but i would still class this as a variant of pantheism really.  The stoics certainly believed the Universe was aware, not that we could comprehend this consciousness of course.