Pantheism vs Panentheism

[The Sum of Awe]

That isn't the actual definition of panentheism. That is pantheism. There are good definitions of Panentheism on the net, just read those to understand it, that's my advice.

I've never heard of any other definitions. All of the time I've only seen it used to describe a God transcending the pan (the all).

 

[Windwalker]

Not to be rude, but I think this pretty much circled around the question. I could be wrong. Any clearer wording?

Well, it's paradoxical. You want it to be not paradoxical? I'll put it this way, it's like defocusing the eyes from staring at a single object and taking it all in without looking a single thing. It is it both one and many.

To those who experience this paradox, how I described it in contradictory terms, is apparent it's not a contradiction at all, but expresses that paradoxical nature.

I'm recalling something I saved somewhere spoken by a Buddhist monk describing the nondual (which is paradoxical). In a recorded interview:

Apprentice: With my mind, I ‘understand’ that this cannot be rationally comprehended but only hinted at, so it is way over my head since I have had limited experience of it.

Rinpoche: It seems to me that people can rationally comprehend it, but yes, realizing it’s lived meaning is something else altogether. The key seems to be not taking the aggressive approach of doing away with or denying duality. Instead dualistic conceptions are rendered unproblemeatic. They are only problematic as long as they are taken as definite reference points. When they are experienced as opened ended reflections or “appearances,” then they can simply arise and dissolve as one aspect of the texture of experience. If we do not grasp onto dualistic conceptions, if we do not revolve around them, if we do not identify with them, if we do not build our world around them, then they are not problematic. The practices of our path aim at getting to know the non-dual texture of experience within which dualistic conceptions arise. The more we are able to communicate with that non-dual texture then the less problematic dualistic conceptions are. They can simply come and go. They can impart their intelligence and even reflect non-duality more starkly by indicating it to us when we have trained.


It is a more ambiguous space to allow dualistic conception to exist than is monism. In monism everything is defined, tidy, captured in exalted spiritual language. In non-duality, both monism and dualism exist as temporary partial reflections of reality - flavors of the moment.
The key seems to be meditation practice, there is the experience where non-dual experience and dualistic conceptions could take place simultaneously and non-problematically, the situation is self-liberated.
​

What this is saying is what I'm trying to say about defocusing on reality, as a single object. He says it "they are only problematic when taken as definitite reference points". That's key, right there. We create an unreality by trying to define it as this or that. But that is our minds categorizing things, objects. It's not reality itself. Reality is nondual. It is both and neither. And so, when we speak of God, same thing! That's why the paradoxical nature of panentheism is to me a consistent way to speak positively of God in a nondualistic reality.

I'll ask if this makes sense, but it won't. At least not until you defocus.

 

[Willamena]

If "all" is in God, it implies there is more than "all", and thus contradicts that it is "all". I still can't help but find panentheism as one hell of a paradox.

It's even more paradoxical, because while the world is "in God," "God" is in the world.
(Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))

Immanence is the immediate presence of "God" in all things, including the person and the thoughts that define their being. So while we strive to define "God" in thought, god is in those very thoughts and definitions.