IV.1.1 Pantheism and Panentheism

According to what we have introduced above, the Oneness of Being is often confused with Pantheism or Panentheism, the first means that the universe, conceived of as a whole, is identical with God, while the other asserts that God includes the universe as a part though not the whole of His Being. Both of these doctrines stress the all-embracing inclusiveness of God, as compared with His separateness emphasized in many traditional theistic doctrines.

Pantheism was popularized in Western culture as a theology and philosophy based on the work of Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), particularly his book: Ethics, but the term itself was coined two decades later. Although the terms are recent, Pantheism and Panentheism have been applied retrospectively to some ancient philosophical traditions. Einstein is regarded as pantheist, where he explicitly wrote: We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal. [18, p. 51].

Some scholars and critics of the Oneness of Being wrongly consider Ibn al-Arabi as pantheist, observing the obvious connections and similarities between many of the ideas and concepts that Spinoza developed in his Ethics and that of Ibn al-Arabi s. For both Ibn al-Arabi and Spinoza there is no ultimate existence to anything other than God [32, Prop. xiv. xv.], and they both believe the immanence of God and that He is not outside or separate from the Universe, but many pantheists then went on to imagine God as non-anthropomorphic and non-personal or non-personified being and that he has no will and no ability or power over the world.

Therefore, in spite of captivating most of their philosophical conceptions from the Oneness of Being, both Pantheism and Panentheism overlooked the core aspects of God, namely the four fundamental Attributes: Living, Knowing, Ability and Will; that are necessary and sufficient for Godship. Only with these four fundamental Attributes, from which many other Attributes also follow, as we shall discuss further in section IV.1.3, the doctrine may become coherent and comprehensive, because half knowledge is double ignorance. No proper doctrine could possibly be held true without taking into account all these divine Attributes, which then require the acceptance of divine Omnipotence, Supremacy and Influence, and basically all other theological descriptions introduced by the main religions, including the believe in messengers and their authentic divine messages in general.

Moreover, in addition to its uncompromising adherence to the absolute Oneness and Transcendence of God, no matter how much it considers the creations to be intimately interrelated to Him, the most obvious distinguishing feature of the Oneness of Being is its dualistic view of the creation. Created entities have various categorized forms of existence, ranging from the outward physical complexion, confined in the geometrical dimensions of space and time, to the highest spiritual presences that may be transcendent and even eternal, but on top of all that, there is always the innermost divine aspect that cannot be differentiated from God. When we look at their outward forms of existence, the creations are obviously not God, and not even real, but if we consider their innermost level, of being, they are not other than God. In Ibn al-Arabi s own words, the things are: He/not He [Futuhat: II.168.23, II.343.28, II.379.9, II.444.16, II.501.4, III.343.23, III.471.13] or : they are not Him, and they are not other than Him [Futuhat: I.42.21, I.204.12, I.284.32, I.680.7, III.275.32, IV.46.6, IV.129.31, IV.228.12, IV.236.15]. For if we say the things are God, this means confining Him in objects and dimensions, and yet if we say that they are not Him, then this implies the assertion of other separate and self-subsistent existents. Therefore, the forms do not have any real independent existence, but they exist by and through God, not by themselves. For Ibn al-Arabi, this is the secret of sincerity , which is also the secret of destiny that makes clear the fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creation, the Eternal and the created. He explains that this secret has been hidden from most people [Futuhat: III.182.11].

In general, Pantheism and Panentheism can be explored in comparison with traditional theistic views according to their various standpoints regarding immanence or transcendence, monism, dualism, or pluralism, or also regarding the relation to time and eternity, or weather the world is sentient, real or illusory, in addition to other issues such as freedom, determinism and secularism.

Generally, classical theism holds to the transcendence of God, but also His existence over and beyond the Universe, while also recognizing that if the separation between God and the world becomes too extreme, humanity risks the loss of communication with Him. Panentheism, however, maintains that the divine can be both transcendent and immanent at the same time, while Pantheism holds only to the divine immanence, and it is typically monistic, with some intuition of personal union with God. Panentheism is monistic in holding to the unity of God and the world, but dualistic in urging the separateness of God s essence from the world, and pluralistic in taking seriously the multiplicity of the kinds of beings and events making up the world. On the other hand, most forms of Pantheism understand the eternal God to be in intimate juxtaposition with the world, thus minimizing time or making it illusory. In Panentheism, the temporality of the world is not canceled out, and time retains its reality.

For both pantheism and classical theism, God is absolute; and for many forms of pantheism, the world, since it is identical with God, is likewise absolute, unlike classical theism, which envisages a separation between God and the world, thus considering God is absolute but the world relative. For Panentheism, however, God can be absolute and relative, cause and effect, actual and potential, active and passive, according to the different levels of the divine nature; both extremes can be attributed to God without inconsistency. Pantheism also rejects the idea of a personal entity of God and that He is transcendent, and since He doe not have a will He cannot act in or upon the universe.

In recent centuries, pantheism became the viewpoint of many leading writers and philosophers, such as William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge in Britain; Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Schelling and Hegel in Germany; Knut Hamsun in Norway; and Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau in the United States. In 1864, it was formally condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.