Pantheism vs Panentheism

[The Sum of Awe]

Both pantheism and panentheism imply set theory. You can see that well in Post #2 from John. They are ways of organizing and ordering the world (the information).

Mysticism, to me as idealist, is the step beyond the set theory. It begins with the recognition that, "The information 'seen' is the information 'seeing'," describes reality (is seen).

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the 2nd post It doesn't exactly explain how creation and God can be both the same and different at the same time

You spoke about objective reason, I think you were talking about what I would call axioms, the statements whose truth we cannot deny. Would that be correct?

Yes, and I actually prefer that term better, I did feel uncomfortable saying "objective" because of my complex views on objective vs subjective reality which is an entirely different subject

 

[Ouroboros]

1. I ask again... Pan means "everything" so, how can "everything" be in God, wouldn't that imply there is more than everything, in which case it never really was everything in the first place?

2. Would you say it is pantheistic or panentheistic to believe that the All is God's body and there is only One Consciousness which pertains to the All together? (however this all can be and is, by perception, infinitely divided)

The way I see it is that the little infix -en- in panentheism isn't really referring to the concepts of everything, nothing, etc, but that rather our understanding of everything is limited. The term pan tends to refer to a more materialistic view of what everything means, while the -en- points to that everything isn't just materialistic but something more than what we commonly understand.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The way I see it is that the little infix -en- in panentheism isn't really referring to the concepts of everything, nothing, etc, but that rather our understanding of everything is limited. The term pan tends to refer to a more materialistic view of what everything means, while the -en- points to that everything isn't just materialistic but something more than what we commonly understand.

This makes sense. So would you say Panentheism can be described as a dualistic pantheism?

 

[idav]

Even with dualism it is awkward, for the other substance is something and thus part of everything.

I agree. The seperation aspect of reality can be rather convincing.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I agree. The seperation aspect of reality can be rather convincing.

Convincing for what? Also, I do hold the common three-sided dualistic approach to reality, but I think the mental is an offspring of physical and the spiritual is an offspring of mental, so it can all be traced back to one substance. This further insists on a reality that is non-separate.

 

[Ouroboros]

This makes sense. So would you say Panentheism can be described as a dualistic pantheism?

Yes and no.

The infinite set of whole numbers is a set that can't exist without it's parts. The parts, the whole numbers, can't exist without it being an infinite set. They're two and one. They're just two sides of the same equation: I = { 1, 2, 3, ...}

 

[idav]

Convincing for what?

That the self is a separate part of itself.

Also, I do hold the common three-sided dualistic approach to reality, but I think the mental is an offspring of physical and the spiritual is an offspring of mental, so it can all be traced back to one substance. This further insists on a reality that is non-separate.

I dont even know that it would be that seperate. The unseen is the fundamental building blocks of the seen. Christains do something similar with the trinity insisting three seperate aspects are one, I guess just getting into mechanics of a single system.

 

[Windwalker]

This makes sense. So would you say Panentheism can be described as a dualistic pantheism?

Pantheism is actually dualistic. It says there is no separation, which itself separates. I've quoted this elsewhere, but I think it explains this well. Not Duality Is Not Non-Duality | Ngakpa International

Yes I have been calling monism “not-duality” because it seems to be the first place spiritual people like to go when departing from duality. In an effort to get away from the limitations of dualistic paradigms, they flee to the limitation of monism. It is prettier, but it is still a partial description of reality. Not-duality and non-duality are not the same things. Not-duality obliterates duality, which is actually only dualism disguised in self-denying tendencies.​

From the same link, which you should read in entirety if you wish to see what nonduality really means (which is not what pantheism is), he speaks about that paradox, which is expressed panetheism.

Many new-age religious people and lots of Indian traditions go the direction of Monism. It is all one, but that is only ever a partial description of reality. It is also two, and three and four. Holding to both the oneness and multiplicity of existence takes greater spiritual maturity; it requires being present with the moment with all it’s paradox and radicalness.
​

So again, pantheism is monism. Panentheism is closer to nonduality in that it embraces the paradox.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Pantheism is actually dualistic. It says there is no separation, which itself separates. I've quoted this elsewhere, but I think it explains this well. Not Duality Is Not Non-Duality | Ngakpa International

Yes I have been calling monism “not-duality” because it seems to be the first place spiritual people like to go when departing from duality. In an effort to get away from the limitations of dualistic paradigms, they flee to the limitation of monism. It is prettier, but it is still a partial description of reality. Not-duality and non-duality are not the same things. Not-duality obliterates duality, which is actually only dualism disguised in self-denying tendencies.​

From the same link, which you should read in entirety if you wish to see what nonduality really means (which is not what pantheism is), he speaks about that paradox, which is expressed panetheism.

Many new-age religious people and lots of Indian traditions go the direction of Monism. It is all one, but that is only ever a partial description of reality. It is also two, and three and four. Holding to both the oneness and multiplicity of existence takes greater spiritual maturity; it requires being present with the moment with all it’s paradox and radicalness.
​

So again, pantheism is monism. Panentheism is closer to nonduality in that it embraces the paradox.

This too is a contradition

 

[Ouroboros]

This too is a contradition

I like your tagline: "Cognum Opus: Reality is however you perceive it."

In a sense you can also say, "everything" is understood by you. What you perceive as reality and what you think is "everything" is very personal. It's almost like you're the one who creates reality, your reality. You're God. But obviously, you, specifically, didn't exist before you existed, so you didn't create yourself. You're essentially the contradiction of existence. You're the merging point of infinity and finite. Where eternity meets now. No one of us can claim to know everything about what everything is. So in the end, -en- only signifies your attitude towards the term "pan" (everything). Is it one? Is it two? Is it three and more? It's all that.

 

[Willamena]

This separation into parts does not create multiple entities...

The parts might be inclined to disagree with you.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The parts might be inclined to disagree with you.

If 1 whole is split into 1/4, there is not five different things, simply different measurements of the same amount.

 

[Windwalker]

This too is a contradition

How is it a contradiction? I point out that monism is actually dualism in disguise. So when I say pantheism is dualistic, it is because pantheism is monism which is dualism in disguise. That is not a contradiction.

From the article again, "Not-duality and non-duality are not the same things. Not-duality obliterates duality, which is actually only dualism disguised in self-denying tendencies." It is dualism in self-denial, because it still sees that there is also two, and three, and four, yet is unable to integrate it. Monism is a higher realization than a 'radical dualism', but it is itself still dualistic on a subtle level, as the great realizers of the past pointed out beginning with Nagarjuna in the 3rd century.

 

[idav]

How is it a contradiction? I point out that monism is actually dualism in disguise. So when I say pantheism is dualistic, it is because pantheism is monism which is dualism in disguise. That is not a contradiction.

From the article again, "Not-duality and non-duality are not the same things. Not-duality obliterates duality, which is actually only dualism disguised in self-denying tendencies." It is dualism in self-denial, because it still sees that there is also two, and three, and four, yet is unable to integrate it. Monism is a higher realization than a 'radical dualism', but it is itself still dualistic on a subtle level, as the great realizers of the past pointed out beginning with Nagarjuna in the 3rd century.

A naturalist pantheist would likely have an atheistic ontology. The separateness is an illusion, it never was seperate and came integrated already.

 

[Windwalker]

A naturalist pantheist would likely have an atheistic ontology. The separateness is an illusion, it never was seperate and came integrated already.

I addressed this in a later edit to my post which we apparently cross-posted as you were responding while I was editing. What I added which I'll put here instead was this:

Monism is subtle dualism because it creates a dichotomy between samsara and Nirvana, between the phenomenal world and ultimate reality. They are still separated. That's the point. It's not integrating them, which is what nonduality does.

So yes, they "deal" with phenomenal reality by calling it an illusion of form. That is what makes it a subtle dualism, as Nagarjuna pointed out. It doesn't address the relationship between form and formless, between emptiness and the phenomenal world, between the relative and the Absolute. It simply calls the phenomenal world false. Thereby creating a dichotomy, and hence it is dualistic, True/False.

Nonduality on the other hand says "True/True/False/False", or something like that. The absolute and the relative are both true at the same moment. It embraces both monism and dualism as true, and themselves only partial descriptions of ultimate reality.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, and I actually prefer that term better, I did feel uncomfortable saying "objective" because of my complex views on objective vs subjective reality which is an entirely different subject

A computer has BIOS that controls the way that it "thinks." BIOS is not the programs that you load and execute, that produce useful output for human consumption. Instead, BIOS makes it possible for the computer to execute those programs. Axioms are not a glimpse of reality or truth, they are just a glimpse of the foundational programming that allows us to think.

 

[Willamena]

Convincing for what? Also, I do hold the common three-sided dualistic approach to reality, but I think the mental is an offspring of physical and the spiritual is an offspring of mental, so it can all be traced back to one substance. This further insists on a reality that is non-separate.

Reduction to one substance is not the same as actually understanding all three to be of one substance (which points at neutral pantheism).

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I researched in my own time today and I think I get it now. It's actually how I understood it at first; God is the universe but there is more to it than that (characteristically speaking). I can see now how that makes sense, I was just taking it to mean there was physically more.

I still am confused with even this explanation though. I don't see how the greatness is a separate aspect. For example, I always considered the fantastic taste of an Oreo cookie to be part of the cookie itself, not more than the cookie.

 

[Ouroboros]

I researched in my own time today and I think I get it now. It's actually how I understood it at first; God is the universe but there is more to it than that (characteristically speaking). I can see now how that makes sense, I was just taking it to mean there was physically more.

I still am confused with even this explanation though. I don't see how the greatness is a separate aspect. For example, I always considered the fantastic taste of an Oreo cookie to be part of the cookie itself, not more than the cookie.

The fantastic taste of Oreo Cookie is the interaction between cookie and you, the experience in space and time, and not just something in the cookie. Think of this. Steak and baked potato is really tasty. If it's just the components, then just put it in a blender and try the soup... does it taste as yummy? No. There's more to it than just a blend of components. It's structure, texture, and much more.

Take your screen name. Sum of Awe. Isn't that just Awe? Or is the sum of awe something more than just a bunch of awe? If it's just the same as awe then what difference is it to sum of awe?

 

[Willamena]

Take your screen name. Sum of Awe. Isn't that just Awe? Or is the sum of awe something more than just a bunch of awe?

I, for one (namely me), sincerely believe it is.

You can add up the parts
You won't have the sum
You can strike up the march;
There is no drum
(Leonard Cohen)