Firstly, the idea of the quest for the monotheist unity with God may be viewed not as much based upon desperation as it is upon the fulfillment to be found in the quest itself. The monotheist soul indeed may be seen as finding meaning not only in the inconclusive quest, but also in the moments of closeness to God that may be construed as the highest unity that may be hoped for in this life.
It has been said above that the monotheist view of life is one of struggle for a few moments of union. Death is then almost anticipated with a kind of passion, sensing the impending union with God. In monism, no such struggle is necessary. This, as has been said above, cultivates a fundamental fear of senseless for the monotheist. Life and struggle provides meaning, which would then culminate in the union with God provided by death. The above may be used as a counter-argument for this. The monotheist, it could be held, does not only struggle, but enjoys life at times, just like everyone else. Nonetheless, surely this struggle for union, born from the pain of separation is not pleasant, in the sense that the monist view of life is pleasant. Surely it makes more sense to not struggle in religion, as there is so much else in life that entails struggle. The struggle for a livelihood, to acquire goods, and to raise children are some examples of the difficulty that life already entails. Why then not view God and religion in a way that is helpful, instead of exacerbating the struggle already present in life?
Nonetheless, it is still not, by its own admission, perfect unity. The monotheistic view of unity with God always fails to come to complete fulfillment, especially during life. In monism, as opposed to duality, separation never enters the picture. In this, there is indeed at least some degree of desperation in monotheism. It remains true that unity in its fundamental sense is never achieved with the monotheistic God.
This remains true after the point of death, although some may argue that being "with" God in the physical sense...
The
argument is that the soul, in its non-corporeal nature, has come closer to God than ever during earthly life. However, true though this may be, the fact remains that God and soul are separate personalities. They do not return in true union to the same source, and hence never achieve unity in the sense that they are truly one. This view is opposed by monism that holds the eternal natural unity of all things. As life is permeated by the sense of a central reality from which all things flow, so is the point beyond death. The non-personal concept of God then steers a different sense of
security than is found in the monotheistic moments of closeness experienced during the lifetime. The non-personal God concept provides the security of a sense of the God within all things rather than a distant, albeit personal God. This is the
contrast between the monotheistic fear and the monist sense of security.
It therefore makes more sense to view life from a monist rather than a monotheistic point-of-view. The sense of God as impersonal and all pervasive seems to be much more appropriate for the
twentieth century than the monotheistic point-of-view. As life becomes more stressful, it is hardly necessary for religion to add to an already difficult situation. Instead, a monist view is one of comfort while at the same time providing freedom for humanity to develop as it chooses. While monism and monotheism both advocate unity, they do so from opposing viewpoints. Monism is a movement away from the central point of impersonal reality, while monotheism represents a struggling and desperate search for the existence of and a unity with a personal God. The first, for modern times, appears to make the most sense.
Sources
Khan, Wahiduddin. "Of Monism and Monotheism." The Pioneer, April 27, 1997. Hindunet, Inc. http://www.hvk.org/articles/0597/0036.html
Kazlef, M. Alan. "Varieties of Monism." Kheper.net. 1999. http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/Monism.htm
