• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pan(en)theism and Pantheism Differences

idav

Being
Premium Member
What are the differences between Panentheism and Pantheism and why it does matter? One difference I see is that of monists beliefs vs a dualist type belief. Dualism being something that separates the body from the mind. The Panentheists would be claiming a mind body duality of God.

Here are their definitions:

Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally “all in God”) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
Panentheism - Wikipedia

Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
Pantheism - Wikipedia
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Here is some more information on the subject. The article suggests Christianity veers toward dualism to reconcile the problem of good and evil.

The tolerance of dualism ranges widely among the different Christian traditions. As a monotheistic religion, the conflict between dualism and monism has existed in Christianity since its inception.[7] The 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia describes that, in the Catholic Church, "the dualistic hypothesis of an eternal world existing side by side with God was of course rejected" by the thirteenth century, but mind-body dualism was not.[8] The problem of evil is difficult to reconcile with absolute monism, and has prompted some Christian sects to veer towards dualism.
Dualism - Wikipedia
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
One difference I see is that of monists beliefs vs a dualist type belief. Dualism being something that separates the body from the mind. The Panentheists would be claiming a mind body duality of God.
There are many types of dualism. Mind/body dualism is a Cartesian dualism that Descartes speaks of. When you get to nondualism in other contexts, it really has more to do with the separation of anything from anything else. The tree is not the rock and vise versa. You versus me, is a duality. Light versus dark, good versus evil, and so forth. That's what most discussion of duality center around. All language for instance is dualistic, in that it places a boundary around all objects. There is inside and outside, and so forth. That's dualism, and hence why the use of any words to speak of nonduality is mismatched at the outset. Anything that is defined as a "thing" becomes a dualistic statement.

As far as Panentheism being dualism, I would disagree with that understanding. By definition Panentheism is a paradoxical understanding of God, saying that God is both wholly transcendent, as in theism which is dualistic, and wholly immanent, as in pantheism which is monistic - all is one and not two (which itself is a form of "subtle dualism" making a division between "this and not that", as Nagarjuna pointed out. Panentheism on the other hand is nondualistic, which allows for duality to exist as part of reality, understanding God or Reality as paradoxical, self-contradictory understandings of the mind to exist simultaneously. Panentheism is not logically possible, but it is nondualisitically possible.

Here are their definitions:

Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally “all in God”) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
Panentheism - Wikipedia
Yes, hence it is a paradoxical view, which nonduality holds unproblematically while it jars against logic and reason.

Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
Pantheism - Wikipedia
Yet it negates transcendence, saying all is this (immanent) and not that (transcendent). "This and not that" is a dualistic statement.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My understanding of those two terms is that pantheists believe that physical reality is all that exists, and it is a god, whereas the panentheist also accepts that physical reality is divine, but that there is more to god than physical reality.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What are the differences between Panentheism and Pantheism and why it does matter? One difference I see is that of monists beliefs vs a dualist type belief. Dualism being something that separates the body from the mind. The Panentheists would be claiming a mind body duality of God.

Here are their definitions:

Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally “all in God”) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
Panentheism - Wikipedia

Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
Pantheism - Wikipedia

I consider that there is a distinct difference. Pantheism is a romantic atheism where the universe is God. There are no separate spiritual realms outside the physical universe. It is not a dualism belief of any sort.

Actually, panentheism describes a form Theism and an intimate involvement of God in the universe, and does not limit God to this intimate involvement. In fact describing God as intimately involved in and of itself describes a form of Dualism. I acknowledge that panentheism involves a range of possible beliefs, but nonetheless it is distinct from pantheism
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
There are many types of dualism. Mind/body dualism is a Cartesian dualism that Descartes speaks of. When you get to nondualism in other contexts, it really has more to do with the separation of anything from anything else. The tree is not the rock and vise versa. You versus me, is a duality. Light versus dark, good versus evil, and so forth. That's what most discussion of duality center around. All language for instance is dualistic, in that it places a boundary around all objects. There is inside and outside, and so forth. That's dualism, and hence why the use of any words to speak of nonduality is mismatched at the outset. Anything that is defined as a "thing" becomes a dualistic statement.

As far as Panentheism being dualism, I would disagree with that understanding. By definition Panentheism is a paradoxical understanding of God, saying that God is both wholly transcendent, as in theism which is dualistic, and wholly immanent, as in pantheism which is monistic - all is one and not two (which itself is a form of "subtle dualism" making a division between "this and not that", as Nagarjuna pointed out. Panentheism on the other hand is nondualistic, which allows for duality to exist as part of reality, understanding God or Reality as paradoxical, self-contradictory understandings of the mind to exist simultaneously. Panentheism is not logically possible, but it is nondualisitically possible.


Yes, hence it is a paradoxical view, which nonduality holds unproblematically while it jars against logic and reason.


Yet it negates transcendence, saying all is this (immanent) and not that (transcendent). "This and not that" is a dualistic statement.
Are you saying a creator creation relationship is a false dichotomy for explaining existence and how does non-dualism solve the mind body problem any differently?

Non-dualism does not negate monism.

Pantheism doesn't negate transcendence, it's just part of the system.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
There does seem to be only a subtle difference in dualism and nondualism.
Early Vedantic thought implies panentheism in non-Advaita forms that understand non-dualism as inclusive of differences. Although there are texts referring to Brahman as contracted and identical to Brahman, other texts speak of Brahman as expanded. In these texts, the perfect includes and surpasses the total of imperfect things as an appropriation of the imperfect. Although not the dominant interpretation of the Upanishads, multiple intimations of panentheism are present in the Upanishads (Whittemore 1988, 33, 41–44). Hartshorne finds additional religious concepts of God that hold the unchanging and the changing together in a way that allows for the development and significance of the non-divine in Lao-Tse (fourth century BCE) and in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (1953, 32–38).
Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
My understanding of those two terms is that pantheists believe that physical reality is all that exists, and it is a god, whereas the panentheist also accepts that physical reality is divine, but that there is more to god than physical reality.
Yes though if there is more to God there must be more to what exists. Makes me wonder if God includes himself as a creation, that would be a main difference. Neither disagree there is a greater reality but only pantheism counts God in with 'everything' that just so happens to exist.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I consider that there is a distinct difference. Pantheism is a romantic atheism where the universe is God. There are no separate spiritual realms outside the physical universe. It is not a dualism belief of any sort.

Actually, panentheism describes a form Theism and an intimate involvement of God in the universe, and does not limit God to this intimate involvement. In fact describing God as intimately involved in and of itself describes a form of Dualism. I acknowledge that panentheism involves a range of possible beliefs, but nonetheless it is distinct from pantheism
Agreed those are some good points.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
What are the differences between Panentheism and Pantheism and why it does matter? One difference I see is that of monists beliefs vs a dualist type belief. Dualism being something that separates the body from the mind. The Panentheists would be claiming a mind body duality of God.

Here are their definitions:

Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally “all in God”) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
Panentheism - Wikipedia

Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
Pantheism - Wikipedia

Id say pantheism is all the universe "is" god; no heirarchy or duality

Panthenism is god is "in" all things. Duality is between creator and creation but its not common theism because the creator is within his creation not separate from it.

Outside note.

By the way, atheism believes in no gods. So an atheist cant be either by definition of both terms.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
My simple take on the matter is that Pantheism is God is in everything (thus a duality), whereas Panentheism is that God is everything, including this conversation.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
My simple take on the matter is that Pantheism is God is in everything (thus a duality), whereas Panentheism is that God is everything, including this conversation.
That's an interesting note. With regards to God having conversations, a pantheistic god would be having individual conversations, where with panentheism this conversation is a dream of a larger encompassing deity.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What are the differences between Panentheism and Pantheism and why it does matter? One difference I see is that of monists beliefs vs a dualist type belief. Dualism being something that separates the body from the mind. The Panentheists would be claiming a mind body duality of God.

Here are their definitions:

Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally “all in God”) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
Panentheism - Wikipedia

Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
Pantheism - Wikipedia
I think most people who would identify as panentheists or panentheistic would disagree that they are espousing a form of dualism. When I say that the entirety of my body is not exhausted by an inventory of my internal organs, I am not implying a dualism.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
That's an interesting note. With regards to God having conversations, a pantheistic god would be having individual conversations, where with panentheism this conversation is a dream of a larger encompassing deity.

To me, panentheism includes not only the actual conversation but the idea, subject, sound, and the very concept of a conversation.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Are you saying a creator creation relationship is a false dichotomy for explaining existence
Dualism has it's place and is a valid perception of Reality. It does not define what Reality is however. It's not "false", it's just not the singular way to perceive and hold reality. If one wants to imagine God as Creator and the universe as Creation, that's fine. Panentheism allows for that. Nonduality allows for that.

and how does non-dualism solve the mind body problem any differently?
Again, the dualism I am speaking of is subject/object duality, not the mind/body problem. But if I were to look at that specifically, I would answer it renders it unproblematic. It doesn't seek to answer it. Nonduality holds paradoxes and doesn't try to find a synthesis between thesis and thesis. It is non-dialectical. It doesn't seek answers to puzzles. It doesn't divide.

Non-dualism does not negate monism.
It doesn't. It includes it as it transcends it. It holds monism and dualism as equally true, and equally untrue. It doesn't concern itself with dualistic efforts to resolve tensions to one side or the other. It's aperspectival in that way.

Pantheism doesn't negate transcendence, it's just part of the system.
I don't think that's quite right. If it's part of the system, it's cannot be transcendent. Monism deals with transcendence by denying it. There is no transcendence to it, and hence no paradox. Monism is an answer to the nature of reality that the mind can wrap itself around as a scientific statement. Nonduality on the other hand embraces paradox.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My simple take on the matter is that Pantheism is God is in everything (thus a duality), whereas Panentheism is that God is everything, including this conversation.

The definition of pantheism is God is everything, and our physical existence and God are one and the same. God is in everything, and as the panentheism definition describes 'God as pervading and interpenetrates everything. This would indicate a personal involvement with everything, and not a part of everything,
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
The definition of pantheism is God is everything, and our physical existence and God are one and the same. God is in everything, and as the panentheism definition describes 'God as pervading and interpenetrates everything. This would indicate a personal involvement with everything, and not a part of everything,

Not to be argumentative but I believe, or have been led to believe, that Pantheism means God is in everything. I know this is a subtle difference but in your definition I don't see a difference in Pantheism and Panentheism.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Dualism has it's place and is a valid perception of Reality. It does not define what Reality is however. It's not "false", it's just not the singular way to perceive and hold reality. If one wants to imagine God as Creator and the universe as Creation, that's fine. Panentheism allows for that. Nonduality allows for that.


Again, the dualism I am speaking of is subject/object duality, not the mind/body problem. But if I were to look at that specifically, I would answer it renders it unproblematic. It doesn't seek to answer it. Nonduality holds paradoxes and doesn't try to find a synthesis between thesis and thesis. It is non-dialectical. It doesn't seek answers to puzzles. It doesn't divide.


It doesn't. It includes it as it transcends it. It holds monism and dualism as equally true, and equally untrue. It doesn't concern itself with dualistic efforts to resolve tensions to one side or the other. It's aperspectival in that way.


I don't think that's quite right. If it's part of the system, it's cannot be transcendent. Monism deals with transcendence by denying it. There is no transcendence to it, and hence no paradox. Monism is an answer to the nature of reality that the mind can wrap itself around as a scientific statement. Nonduality on the other hand embraces paradox.
Even within any given system, things don't just lend themselves to being omnipresent, spooky actions at a distance is sciences way of showing a type of space transcendence.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I like this definition, in this movie the character calls the singularity transcendence.

 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Not to be argumentative but I believe, or have been led to believe, that Pantheism means God is in everything. I know this is a subtle difference but in your definition I don't see a difference in Pantheism and Panentheism.

It is not my definition:

From: Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe."

When words have similar and some may view as overlapping or conflicting I prefer to cut the Gordian not and go with the simpler most specific definition.
 
Top