Was Robert Monroe a pantheist or a panentheist?

He believed in a Creator, but there is a difference between pantheism and panentheism.

I'm not saying either or both are right or wrong, but what did Robert Monroe believe?

Here is a little on what he wrote:

"the flow, look at the flow . . . all moving in the same direction, from all dimensions . . . must join in before
I fall asleep again . . . the dream . . . parts keep coming back . . .
. . . must stay moving with the others . . . but they are all so much larger than I am . . . I'm just a speck . . . so small .
You are indeed, little one. Stay with me. I will help you.
. . . the one next to me, yes . . . so big I cannot see it all . . . a strong surge of energy coming down to me . . .good, that does help . . . my consciousness is filling out more . . . remembering how it happened . . . yes . . . was part of the Whole . . . one by one, parts were placed here and there, taken from the Whole and placed . . . where?"
" Can't see it clearly . . . the excitement . . . joy at a new adventure . . . one by one, those around me were placed . . . then it was my moment . . . the wrenching (sudden twist, pull) . . . the uncertainty . . . then the Whole was gone . . . what terrible loneliness . . . alone . . . need to get back to the Whole . . . consciousness falling apart . . . fall asleep . . . sleep . . . what is sleep? . . . losing consciousness, falling apart . . . that was it . . .

becoming more intense as we move . . . what joy to return. . .
What gifts do you bring, little one? I perceive none.
. . . Gifts? Gifts? I have only the need to return to the Whole where I belong, where there are others like me . . .
I am what I have always been . . . Gifts? That means more than I am or was . . . there is nothing more . . . only the
dream . . .
There is something different with you. You bring no gifts and you are alone. You are incomplete.
. . . Incomplete? How can that be? I am the same as when I left the Whole . . . I will be complete when I return
. . . I do not understand . . . all I need do is return . . .
You do understand, but you have covered it over. We have reached under the covering. Let us help you remember how it began.
. . . What? Not the dream but connected to it . . . before the dream began. It was good, but the Whole needed
more . . . and the Whole is . . . yes, that is when it happened . . . the Whole distributing parts to grow . . . to reproduce . . . to add to the Whole . . . is that it? Then the gifts would be more of me . . . ? It has to do with the dream . . . something in it, or the entire dream . . . must open my memory of the point when I was not conscious here . . . careful . . . don't want to splinter my consciousness again . . .
That cannot happen.

The physical universe, including the whole of humankind, is an ongoing creative process. There is indeed a Creator. Who or what this Creator is lies beyond the Emitter and the Aperture, and I have not been there,
Therefore, that part I do not know. Not yet. All I have is the overwhelming experience in the ray near the Emitter,
and of the evolving creative process as it takes place in this world and in myself. This I perceive with my Different Overview.
The human mind-consciousness has speculated for aeons as to our Creator beyond that Aperture
I have not been able to engage in this for reasons I now recognize. Because of the continuing use of the label of "God" in a myriad variations, I had resisted any attempt at identification in any descriptive form. The discoloration and misconceptions would be too great. Now I know why I had resisted. The same applies to the word "spiritual" and many other commonly used terms.
These to me are Knowns:
This, our Creator (Creative Force):
• is beyond our comprehension as long as we remain human
• is the designer of the ongoing process of which we are a part
• has a purpose for such action beyond our ability to understand
• makes adjustments, fine tuning, in this process as needed establishes simple laws that apply to everyone and everything
• does not demand worship, adoration, or recognition
• does not punish for "evil" and "misdeeds"
• does not intercede or interdict in our life activity
The desire to return with gifts is an integral part of the design.
Most important, I realized that no words I could write or speak, no music I could compose, would be able to transfer fully such Knowing to another human mind. As a belief it might be possible, but not as a Known. This could come only through direct individual experience. How to provide this was the essential item. Then I became aware that the process of transfer was two-thirds completed—in place and operating within the learning system we had devised at our Institute."
p.226-228
"

So, was he a pantheist or a panentheist? I know he wouldn't have liked titles, but it's easier to understand this way. Cheers..

"This, our Creator (Creative Force):
• is beyond our comprehension as long as we remain human
• is the designer of the ongoing process of which we are a part
• has a purpose for such action beyond our ability to understand
• makes adjustments, fine tuning, in this process as needed establishes simple laws that apply to everyone and everything
• does not demand worship, adoration, or recognition
• does not punish for "evil" and "misdeeds"
• does not intercede or interdict in our life activity"

I think that basically sums up what I believe as well, these are the definitions I found on wikipedia...


Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning ‘all’ and θεός (theos) meaning ‘God’. As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that “God” is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the universe.[1]

Briefly put, in pantheism, "God is the whole"; in panentheism, "The whole is in God." This means that the universe in the first formulation is practically the Whole itself, but in the second the universe and God are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe, some versions positing the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and some forms hold that the universe is contained within God.[2] Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3]


I have not studied Robert Monroe very much so I can't really say what I believe he would be, but I hope these definitions help :D .

Greetings
Exactly what Monroe believed towards the end of his life is subject to conjecture. One thing that is certain is that he lost his belief in the standard view of Christianity. He wrote about this loss of faith in his first book "Journeys out of the Body". I suspect that Monroe kept an open mind and did not hold any rigid views about religion or spirituality. He had a keen mind that seemed to always be open to new experiences. Also his continuing out of body encounters with advanced discarnates must have constantly challenged and altered his thoughts about God/the Creator.

Regards :)
Grey

Like Grey, I would not rush to classify RAM anything in particular in regards to God, because as a panentheist myself, I see some things very differently than he did in regards to God, not necessarily from the list above, but from things I remember reading about in his books about the Source of the Aperture vs. a spiritual idea of what God might be.
I'm not saying he wasn't (I couldn't know even if I knew what he was thinking), but I found the ideas I read about very interesting and different.