Pan(en)theism and Pantheism Differences

[idav]

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.

En adds to the 'god is "in" everything'.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

That would still fall under the system, just something we don't understand very well at this point. By transcendence, in the sense I mean it it would be comparable to the Buddhist idea of Emptiness. "It" is not 'part of the system', but is the condition on which all systems, including the universe system exist.

Think of it in terms of the piece of paper on which something is drawn. That which is drawn or formed is nothing without the paper. But anything can be drawn on the paper, any system. But the paper is before and beyond, say transcends, the drawing(s). It is not "outside the drawing" separate from it. It is the Existence of which all things that exist are "one" with.

Pantheism would equate the drawing with the paper and the paper with the drawing. Panentheism sees the drawing and the paper together, each knowable through each other. Even then transcendence is itself a dualistic concept, making it other to the manifest world. But it then makes it as I said, and impossible to hold dualistically. It has to be held paradoxically, which is what nonduality does.

 

[idav]

That would still fall under the system, just something we don't understand very well at this point. By transcendence, in the sense I mean it it would be comparable to the Buddhist idea of Emptiness. "It" is not 'part of the system', but is the condition on which all systems, including the universe system exist.

Think of it in terms of the piece of paper on which something is drawn. That which is drawn or formed is nothing without the paper. But anything can be drawn on the paper, any system. But the paper is before and beyond, say transcends, the drawing(s). It is not "outside the drawing" separate from it. It is the Existence of which all things that exist are "one" with.

Pantheism would equate the drawing with the paper and the paper with the drawing. Panentheism sees the drawing and the paper together, each knowable through each other. Even then transcendence is itself a dualistic concept, making it other to the manifest world. But it then makes it as I said, and impossible to hold dualistically. It has to be held paradoxically, which is what nonduality does.

Pantheism just has a mechanism to explain omnipresence, panentheism has to assume some connection through supernatural means. Pantheism stops at the spiritual aspects and says you already found god and is part of everything which panentheism agrees with. I think what science is clarifying is that the spirit is everything not just in everything, "in" everything is what creates the duality and tries to negate monism a is b.

 

[soulsurvivor]

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

As I understand it:

Pantheism - is the belief that the universe Is God. - most pagan religions

Panentheism - is the belief that the universe is within (or part of) God. - Hinduism.

 

[siti]

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.

I agree with that. I think the point of the pan- prefix is non-duality - the duality that is being denied in this case being god/not-god. I.e. in both cases there is nothing that is "not-god". This is where they differ most (in my estimation) from theism which has an essential creator/creation dichotomy which is mirrored in the spirit/body duality of created beings. The difference between the two seems to me to be more about whether one is prepared to accept the ontological reality of non-physical things. In a way, I think panentheism is really saying that there is only one substance - god-stuff - and physical reality is made of some of that, whereas pantheism says there is only physical stuff and god is made of all of it.

 

[BSM1]

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.

Well then what's the difference between pantheism and panentheism?

 

[BSM1]

En adds to the 'god is "in" everything'.

I think that God is "in" everything refers more to pantheism as a opposed to the idea that God "is" everything. The latter concept, to me, is panentheism. If God could be viewed as in everything then there is a possibility that God could be out of something, either by choice or design thereby creating a duality. But if God is everything then there is no duality.

 

[siti]

I think that God is "in" everything refers more to pantheism as a opposed to the idea that God "is" everything. The latter concept, to me, is panentheism. If God could be viewed as in everything then there is a possibility that God could be out of something, either by choice or design thereby creating a duality. But if God is everything then there is no duality.

In pan-en-theism, its not that God is in everything but that everything (pan) is in (en) God (theos). In pantheism everything IS God and God IS everything.

 

[idav]

I agree with that. I think the point of the pan- prefix is non-duality - the duality that is being denied in this case being god/not-god. I.e. in both cases there is nothing that is "not-god". This is where they differ most (in my estimation) from theism which has an essential creator/creation dichotomy which is mirrored in the spirit/body duality of created beings. The difference between the two seems to me to be more about whether one is prepared to accept the ontological reality of non-physical things. In a way, I think panentheism is really saying that there is only one substance - god-stuff - and physical reality is made of some of that, whereas pantheism says there is only physical stuff and god is made of all of it.

Your description here was good. When your saying panentheism and substance there still remains the question of gods mind which is what creates the duality that is common to panentheism. Ontologically what your saying would make Spinoza panentheist, maybe he was sometimes, his distinction lied in unifying gods mind and substance.

Check this chart out.

 

[Windwalker]

Pantheism just has a mechanism to explain omnipresence, panentheism has to assume some connection through supernatural means.

I think you have underscored the difference here. I said in a previous post that panentheism does not seek to provide an answer to the puzzle, which is yet another form of dualism and dialectical thought with a thesis, antithesis, and a synthesis. You are trying to "explain" omnipresence scientifically, that everything is of one "substance"; a sort of spiritual reductionism, if you will.

What I like about panentheism is that it allows for differentiation and non-differentiation or fusion, simultaneously. It's not "All is One", to the exclusion of "All is Many'. It is rather like this, "From the One to the Many, from the Many to the One". Again, nonduality does not exclude, whereas monism does.

Pantheism stops at the spiritual aspects and says you already found god and is part of everything which panentheism agrees with. I think what science is clarifying is that the spirit is everything not just in everything, "in" everything is what creates the duality and tries to negate monism a is b.

I don't believe panentheism says that spirit is "in" everything. To quote from Buddhist thought, "Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form." There is both uniqueness, 100%, and sameness, 100%. It's like the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. In the truest sense it is Mystery, or Paradox, as another word. It is self-contradictory. You can't have 200% of a single thing. Transcendence and immanence, not 50/50, nor 0/100, but 100/100. Like the Trinity, 1+1+1=1

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that God is "in" everything refers more to pantheism as a opposed to the idea that God "is" everything. The latter concept, to me, is panentheism. If God could be viewed as in everything then there is a possibility that God could be out of something, either by choice or design thereby creating a duality. But if God is everything then there is no duality.

Based on the definition provided you have the two definitions reversed.

"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."

From: Pantheism and Panentheism - Dictionary definition of Pantheism and Panentheism | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary

"PANTHEISM AND PANENTHEISM . In Greek pan means "all," theos means "god," and en means "in." Pantheism means that all is God; panentheism, that all is in God. ... Nevertheless, the most usual form of Western theology, sometimes called classical theism, holds or implies that the world of creatures is outside God."

 

[idav]

I think you have underscored the difference here. I said in a previous post that panentheism does not seek to provide an answer to the puzzle, which is yet another form of dualism and dialectical thought with a thesis, antithesis, and a synthesis. You are trying to "explain" omnipresence scientifically, that everything is of one "substance"; a sort of spiritual reductionism, if you will.

What I like about panentheism is that it allows for differentiation and non-differentiation or fusion, simultaneously. It's not "All is One", to the exclusion of "All is Many'. It is rather like this, "From the One to the Many, from the Many to the One". Again, nonduality does not exclude, whereas monism does.


I don't believe panentheism says that spirit is "in" everything. To quote from Buddhist thought, "Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form." There is both uniqueness, 100%, and sameness, 100%. It's like the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. In the truest sense it is Mystery, or Paradox, as another word. It is self-contradictory. You can't have 200% of a single thing. Transcendence and immanence, not 50/50, nor 0/100, but 100/100. Like the Trinity, 1+1+1=1

The trinity brings a good analogy, gods mind are all still one substance while still maintaining the creator creation duality where the Gnostic approach could be seen as monistic and pantheistic.

 

[idav]

As I understand it:

Pantheism - is the belief that the universe Is God. - most pagan religions

Panentheism - is the belief that the universe is within (or part of) God. - Hinduism.

Can you explain how you see pagans as Pantheism, I take it you mean some sort of animism, and how does that compare to the Hindu view?

 

[siti]

Your description here was good. When your saying panentheism and substance there still remains the question of gods mind which is what creates the duality that is common to panentheism.

Perhaps, but the way I read panentheism for the most part (and perhaps a bit simplistically) is that "god's mind" is the substance of which the manifest world is ultimately made - I suppose that is a kind of idealism - except that its God's mind that makes up reality not ours so we can still consider the physical world as objectively real from our viewpoint (if that makes sense). Another way to put it is that God is Mind and reality is a manifestation of that. Anyway, my point is there is no duality because God's mind never exists apart from reality, it merely transcends reality. To illustrate, imagine a road that goes from point A to point C via point B. Just because we have only ever traveled between A and B doesn't mean that there are two roads - B to C is just part of the same road that we have never traveled. Likewise God's mind - just because there are things in it that are beyond what is manifest in physical reality doesn't make it dualistic.

Ontologically what your saying would make Spinoza panentheist, maybe he was sometimes, his distinction lied in unifying gods mind and substance.

I suppose - but Spinoza can be read in different ways and everyone from pantheists and deists to out and out atheists want to claim him. I think Spinoza was a Spinozist.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Can you explain how you see pagans as Pantheism, I take it you mean some sort of animism, and how does that compare to the Hindu view?

Not necessarily animism. Many pagans are nature worshippers, who believe Nature itself is God.

Hindus see divinity in Nature too, but also believe that God exists independent of nature.

 

[Nous]

I agree with that. I think the point of the pan- prefix is non-duality - the duality that is being denied in this case being god/not-god. I.e. in both cases there is nothing that is "not-god". This is where they differ most (in my estimation) from theism which has an essential creator/creation dichotomy which is mirrored in the spirit/body duality of created beings.

I agree with you. As I recall, the early criticism of self-avowed pantheists in the West was about the sacrilegious denial of some such duality between God and the world (or between God and the pantheist). In contrast, it seems that pantheism has a long and distinguished history among Eastern religions.

The difference between the two seems to me to be more about whether one is prepared to accept the ontological reality of non-physical things. In a way, I think panentheism is really saying that there is only one substance - god-stuff - and physical reality is made of some of that, whereas pantheism says there is only physical stuff and god is made of all of it.

I don't see why the sophisticated panentheist would need to say anything about physical or non-physical things that would be freakishly inconsistent with anything that one can find in the current scientific literature.

 

[idav]

I agree with you. As I recall, the early criticism of self-avowed pantheists in the West was about the sacrilegious denial of some such duality between God and the world (or between God and the pantheist). In contrast, it seems that pantheism has a long and distinguished history among Eastern religions.

I don't see why the sophisticated panentheist would need to say anything about physical or non-physical things that would be freakishly inconsistent with anything that one can find in the current scientific literature.

It wouldn't be inconsistent. Pantheism just thinks you don't have to even go beyond regular ole nature to get there.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

My perspective has been that Panentheisim implies dualism, whereas Pantheism implies non-dualism.

It is akin to comparing and contrasting dvaita and advaita in Hindu philosophy.

 

[BSM1]

In pan-en-theism, its not that God is in everything but that everything (pan) is in (en) God (theos). In pantheism everything IS God and God IS everything.

Could you elaborate?

 

[idav]

My perspective has been that Panentheisim implies dualism, whereas Pantheism implies non-dualism.

It is akin to comparing and contrasting dvaita and adviata in Hindu philosophy.

Yes agreed, it has a lot to do with approach to the higher deity or lack of.