-
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!
Pantheism vs Panentheism
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Which falls under what I said before as a 'subtle' dualism. From that Wiki article, "Rather, neutral monism claims the universe consists of only one kind of stuff". That's reductionism, not nonduality. It makes everything "one" by crushing the many into one "thing" to the exclusion of all the other. That's still dualism.
Dualism and pantheistic. It is compatible depending on how you view the ontology.
That sounds very circumstancial.
Nonduality does not deny duality--to deny is duality. But it's also not something other than duality--other is duality.
In argument, the world is being reduced to language. Semantics is inevitable.
What do you mean by, "it's just always been?" Are you talking about a difference between permanence and imminence?
Well, yes.That sounds very circumstancial.
Nonduality does not deny duality--to deny is duality. But it's also not something other than duality--other is duality.
I'm still mystified as to what your image of panentheism is.
I've given several explanations of it in this thread. See post 23 for one. Maybe we should start with what yours is? I'll see if I can't expand that then to explain mine better.
My apologies--I didn't go past the first paragraph of 23. I'll review it.
Post 23 seems to be gone, but nevertheless, from what I've gathered you conflate pantheism with duality/monism and describe only that, and conflate panentheism with non-duality and describe only that. Are they the same things for you?
For me, pantheism and panentheism are ontological models that address theistic images of the imminent god.
Pantheism draws an image of the named (poetically, the "light," the "earth," the "creation") with the implication that god, the unnamed/unnamable, is present and integral as each known/named thing. God effectively does not differ from creation (as a parallel, one might point to "emptiness does not differ from form").
Panentheism, in retaining an image of god as transcendent, retains the name of god, alternately acknowledging that the name is not the named, the 'image of god' is not god, or asserting that god is named.
For me, pantheism and panentheism are ontological models that address theistic images of the imminent god.
Pantheism draws an image of the named (poetically, the "light," the "earth," the "creation") with the implication that god, the unnamed/unnamable, is present and integral as each known/named thing. God effectively does not differ from creation (as a parallel, one might point to "emptiness does not differ from form").
Panentheism, in retaining an image of god as transcendent, retains the name of god, alternately acknowledging that the name is not the named, the 'image of god' is not god, or asserting that god is named.
Last edited:
Frubals for making too much sense Willamena!
That's odd. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3767382-post23.html
No, not exactly. I see them as more parallels, but not the same. Panentheism is a positive face to speak about God. That is not the same as nonduality, which would not exclude the negative.
True, except in the latter it also embraces the transcendent theist God, whereas the former rejects it.
And that's the fine point of distinction. It equates emptiness with form, reducing it to form, disallowing duality. Which when done, is itself a form of duality saying it is "this and not that". It is "One and not two". That's duality.
Yes. The important part of it that like pantheism or theism, panentheism is a positive statement of a 3rd person perspective, and none of this would qualify as nonduality proper. None of these include 2nd or 1st person perspectives, nor apophatic or negative views. I just find that the paradoxical nature of panentheism would more closely follow a positive expression of the nature of nonduality. Pantheism really does not embrace the paradox of "not one, not two". It simply says "One, not two".
This is true yet I find there are paradoxes in the reality we can actually detect without needing to go to the "outside" of reality. So in that sense I can see where panentheism is coming from but I see it as a trick a misrepresentation of what reality really is.
If you have defined reality it is a reality of your definitions.
I've just not seen any evidence to convince me to split reality into two.
Don't you live in a world of duality? But again, what is reality?
No I don't think we do but I can see how someone might view it as such.
Existence which is there in its true form no matter how we decide to label it.