Pantheism vs Panentheism

[Treks]

I guess a panentheist would say that if the universe ceased to exist, God would still be there. But a pantheist would say that if the universe ceased to exist, so would God. Thoughts?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I guess a panentheist would say that if the universe ceased to exist, God would still be there. But a pantheist would say that if the universe ceased to exist, so would God. Thoughts?

Yeah, I'd sorta agree. Perhaps panentheists would be more lenient to saying God doesn't physically transcend the universe - but God is physically all but is a lot more.

 

[Windwalker]

I guess a panentheist would say that if the universe ceased to exist, God would still be there. But a pantheist would say that if the universe ceased to exist, so would God. Thoughts?

I think the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is that though that God is immanent within the world, God is not synonymous with the world. The rock is the rock, the tree is the tree, you are you, and I am me. But the divine is within all, and all radiates and expresses God.

The theist, be that monotheism or polytheism, sees the divine as existing outside creation, outside you and me, though it acts in intervention within creation supernaturally. In this intervention, it cannot be said that it is wholly immanent. The rock is the rock, but God is God distinct from the rock which God may or may not choose to act upon in the world. It is in the same sense that the rock is acted upon by me, being seen as "outside" of me, even though I can interact with it. To pantheist sees the rock and myself as ultimately one and the same (monism). The panenthiest sees the rock as the rock and me as me (dualism), as well as one and the same (monism). It is the paradoxical nature of panentheism which lands it ultimately closer to a nondual perspective. Both pantheism and theism are dualistic.

 

[idav]

I think the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is that though that God is immanent within the world, God is not synonymous with the world. The rock is the rock, the tree is the tree, you are you, and I am me. But the divine is within all, and all radiates and expresses God.

The theist, be that monotheism or polytheism, sees the divine as existing outside creation, outside you and me, though it acts in intervention within creation supernaturally. In this intervention, it cannot be said that it is wholly immanent. The rock is the rock, but God is God distinct from the rock which God may or may not choose to act upon in the world. It is in the same sense that the rock is acted upon by me, being seen as "outside" of me, even though I can interact with it. To pantheist sees the rock and myself as ultimately one and the same (monism). The panenthiest sees the rock as the rock and me as me (dualism), as well as one and the same (monism). It is the paradoxical nature of panentheism which lands it ultimately closer to a nondual perspective. Both pantheism and theism are dualistic.

To me the separate creator aspect creates the duality. Pan and panen both can be monotheistic and ultimately nondual. Some panentheists believe a sort of imminance that is more omnipresent or something similar. A main difference is god is its creation in pantheism, transcends itself so if creation didn't exist neither would existence.

 

[Windwalker]

To me the separate creator aspect creates the duality.

The separate creator expresses a dualistic perception. It doesn't create it, per se. As a symbol, it can reinforce dualistic thought, or it can also lead to transcending duality. But is duality itself something bad, or is it simply a partial way to understand reality, just as monisim is?

Pan and panen both can be monotheistic and ultimately nondual.

How does pantheism ultimately embrace nonduality while it rejects dualism? If it cannot embrace dualities, then it is it monism, not nonduality. Not-duality and nonduality are not the same things. Not-duality obliterates duality, which is actually only dualism disguised in self-denying tendencies. In nonduality, both monism and dualism exist as temporary partial reflections of reality, flavors of the moment as someone once called them. Hence why I say panentheism, as a 3rd person perspective of God, embraces both and hence is a nondual perspective.

Some panentheists believe a sort of imminance that is more omnipresent or something similar. A main difference is god is its creation in pantheism, transcends itself so if creation didn't exist neither would existence.

Your wording was unclear here.

 

[idav]

The separate creator expresses a dualistic perception. It doesn't create it, per se. As a symbol, it can reinforce dualistic thought, or it can also lead to transcending duality. But is duality itself something bad, or is it simply a partial way to understand reality, just as monisim is?


How does pantheism ultimately embrace nonduality while it rejects dualism? If it cannot embrace dualities, then it is it monism, not nonduality. Not-duality and nonduality are not the same things. Not-duality obliterates duality, which is actually only dualism disguised in self-denying tendencies. In nonduality, both monism and dualism exist as temporary partial reflections of reality, flavors of the moment as someone once called them. Hence why I say panentheism, as a 3rd person perspective of God, embraces both and hence is a nondual perspective.


Your wording was unclear here.

Nondual means simply not dual.

I have heard panentheists describe creation as the body of god while the mind is separate yet part of. Similar to the mind body problem it creates the duality aspect of mind over matter.

 

[Windwalker]

Nondual means simply not dual.

No, actually it doesn't. There are entire nondual schools that arose historically where the distinction comes from. It is only a popular misunderstanding of what nonduality is that conflates it with "not-duality", or monism. Not-duality rejects dualism, whereas nonduality has no issue with it.

I'll quote from an excerpt of a book dealing with Dzogchen of the Tibetan Buddhist thought, which explains nonduality.

"The Dzogchen teaching on emptiness is that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. “Not-duality” is a way of saying that duality is emptiness. It is a reversal of the usual mindset because most people think reality in terms of Duality and that reality is form; that is the ordinary mindset. The ordinary mindset is that form is all there is and that any emptiness that pokes out can be avoided, ignored, or fixed through some strategy. Monism is a way of saying that Duality is empty, that form is empty. That would be the equivalent of Sutra; Sutra is the path of establishing that form is empty. Then Tantra establishes that emptiness is form. Dzogchen is the recognition that form is emptiness and emptiness is form.

.........


The key seems to be not taking the aggressive approach of doing away with or denying duality. Instead dualistic conceptions are rendered unproblematic. 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.
​

So, as you can see nonduality is not a definition of reality. It is not a scientific statement, which monism is. Nagarjuna recognized that saying emptiness, or the "not-dual" was ultimate reality, was itself a form of duality. This gave rise to the nondual schools.

You can read the entire excerpt here to get a better picture of what the nondual actually expresses: Not Duality Is Not Non-Duality | Ngakpa International

I have heard panentheists describe creation as the body of god while the mind is separate yet part of. Similar to the mind body problem it creates the duality aspect of mind over matter.

I myself wouldn't use that analogy.

 

[idav]

No, actually it doesn't. There are entire nondual schools that arose historically where the distinction comes from. It is only a popular misunderstanding of what nonduality is that conflates it with "not-duality", or monism. Not-duality rejects dualism, whereas nonduality has no issue with it.

I'll quote from an excerpt of a book dealing with Dzogchen of the Tibetan Buddhist thought, which explains nonduality.

"The Dzogchen teaching on emptiness is that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. “Not-duality” is a way of saying that duality is emptiness. It is a reversal of the usual mindset because most people think reality in terms of Duality and that reality is form; that is the ordinary mindset. The ordinary mindset is that form is all there is and that any emptiness that pokes out can be avoided, ignored, or fixed through some strategy. Monism is a way of saying that Duality is empty, that form is empty. That would be the equivalent of Sutra; Sutra is the path of establishing that form is empty. Then Tantra establishes that emptiness is form. Dzogchen is the recognition that form is emptiness and emptiness is form.

.........


The key seems to be not taking the aggressive approach of doing away with or denying duality. Instead dualistic conceptions are rendered unproblematic. 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.
​

So, as you can see nonduality is not a definition of reality. It is not a scientific statement, which monism is. Nagarjuna recognized that saying emptiness, or the "not-dual" was ultimate reality, was itself a form of duality. This gave rise to the nondual schools.

You can read the entire excerpt here to get a better picture of what the nondual actually expresses: Not Duality Is Not Non-Duality | Ngakpa International


I myself wouldn't use that analogy.

I will keep that in mind. Thanks for the info.

I am just going by my own understanding. The way I see it is the thing that transcends, the quantum realm, is the fabric that makes up existence of the material. Everything is ultimately of one "substance" from my view.

 

[Desert Snake]

Everything is ultimately of one "substance" from my view.

That's basically pantheism. That's different from panentheism. There are panentheists from various religions.
It's a descriptive term.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are different types of panentheism, however they all differ similarly to pantheism.

 

[idav]

That's basically pantheism. That's different from panentheism. There are panentheists from various religions.
It's a descriptive term.

Yet there are panentheist monists.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yet there are panentheist monists.

It's interesting. That should be another thread for sure.
I think it's a little confusing because most people don't seem to be coming from pan or panen backgrounds, so they're getting definitions from the net etc,. which are good, was reading some earlier, but, sometimes it's just easier to ask people who are coming from that aspect of religion whatever, just to get the basics.
Most pans or panens aren't going to be referring to themselves as such, like it's the label of their religion, but some other religion.

 

[Windwalker]

The way I see it is the thing that transcends, the quantum realm, is the fabric that makes up existence of the material. Everything is ultimately of one "substance" from my view.

The quantum realm does not transcend anything. It is dualistic. To say the quantum potential gives rise to this electron over here, automatically makes this dualistic. Pure emptiness on the other hand doesn't give rise to anything. The nondual doesn't cause anything to do anything. It is the Is'ness, or the Such'ness of everything simultaneously. Pure emptiness leaves everything exactly the way it finds it. It doesn't push or pull anything, because it's not separate from anything. Wetness does not give rise to the Ocean. It does not give rise to the waves. It is not the quantum potential.

Plus you have the quantum potential itself being plugged into strings, and strings into now 11 dimensions. But this too is all dualistic, form giving rise to form. Don't confuse Oneness, with atomism.

 

[idav]

The quantum realm does not transcend anything. It is dualistic. To say the quantum potential gives rise to this electron over here, automatically makes this dualistic. Pure emptiness on the other hand doesn't give rise to anything. The nondual doesn't cause anything to do anything. It is the Is'ness, or the Such'ness of everything simultaneously. Pure emptiness leaves everything exactly the way it finds it. It doesn't push or pull anything, because it's not separate from anything. Wetness does not give rise to the Ocean. It does not give rise to the waves. It is not the quantum potential.

Plus you have the quantum potential itself being plugged into strings, and strings into now 11 dimensions. But this too is all dualistic, form giving rise to form. Don't confuse Oneness, with atomism.

I'm not really understanding what your getting at. I don't see duality in those things, just by conceptualizing it. I see things that are often confused and dual when there is only oneness. The duality is created when a being can look in the mirror into itself, but the looking in shows as a duality where none exist.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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.

 

[Windwalker]

I still can't help but find panentheism as one hell of a paradox.

This is good. Then you're getting it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This is good. Then you're getting it.

How can you believe in what is contradicting in itself?

 

[Windwalker]

How can you believe in what is contradicting in itself?

Now you're getting even closer. You don't believe in it. You don't understand a paradox with reason. You live it, taste it, experience it. And then you understand it through your being. You know, beyond reason. It is both, it is neither.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

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.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Now you're getting even closer. You don't believe in it. You don't understand a paradox with reason. You live it, taste it, experience it. And then you understand it through your being. You know, beyond reason. It is both, it is neither.

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