"Being prisoners of words and translation" is my pet project.*

The term “pantheism” may be classified as an Indo-European noun, but it is not a Sanskrit word. There is no direct equivalent for it in Sanskrit that I can translate. In ancient times, it referred to a temple for all gods: the Pantheon. This was the case with the Greeks as well as the Romans. The word “pantheism” sprouted from this concept. Later, as the world became disenchanted —gods losing their credibility— they were abandoned, and only one remained: the Supreme.

The word “pantheism” itself was coined¹ during this historical shift to denote an impersonal concept: gods (or God) were no longer seen as persons but as symbols at best. For instance, “God” was replaced by “Nature,” equated with the universe or the material world. Consider Louis XV of France, who built the Church of Sainte-Geneviève² in the 18th century, prior to the Revolution. Doing so, he may have followed the ancient traditions of dedicating a city’s temple to a local deity. This was viewed as idolatry by other religious groups, particularly Jews and Muslims, who strongly disapproved of such worship.  

After the Revolution, when the king was beheaded, the religious monument was repurposed as a secular mausoleum for distinguished French citizens. It became the Panthéon, in the image of the initial structure. From then on, the original meaning of “pantheism” —rooted in its etymology— faded. 

Today, it refers to the belief that God is immanent in and identical to the universe, a definition largely shaped by Spinoza’s philosophy. Thus, for him God and Nature are identical (Deus sive Natura), with no transcendent or personal deity beyond the material world. He rejected the existence of any separate spiritual realms or supernatural planes; reality is a singular, infinite substance, expressed through its attributes (like thought and extension).

While Spinoza was excommunicated by his Jewish community for his unorthodox views, he retained a radicalized interpretation of divine immanence, rejecting the notion of an otherworldly realm beyond material reality and the idea of a transcendental God. His God is not a person, a mind, or a being with intentions, but rather the impersonal, necessary, and all-encompassing system of Nature itself: an indivisible, self-caused totality governed by eternal laws. To call this 'God' is to invoke an abstract, non-anthropomorphic concept, one that dissolves the distinction between creator and creation."

Returning to my pet project: While Spinoza’s pantheism merges God into the material world, Vaishnava philosophy offers a nuanced middle path. I use “pantheism” not in Spinoza’s sense but according to its etymology: God is everywhere (but everything is not God). Vaishnava philosophy names this as acintya bedabeda tatva, simultaneously one and different. It means although God is present in each atoms of the universe, these atoms or objects in the universe are only his attributes, infinitesimal part of his Being; they don't comprise Him. This universe that Spinoza is considering as object of his philosophy, is only one among illimited ones in the creation. That's what the Puranas tell us.

By turning to Sanskrit, I’ve broken the cultural chains that trap the mind through language. This verse from the Isha Upanishad beautifully expresses the concept of the completeness of the Supreme Being and the interconnectedness of all creation:

"The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance." Translation by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.³ 

________________________

* in the preceding article -Choosing the perfect fruit without being obsessed- I speak about the langage and how it formats the consciousness. "Now, I have always felt" writes Raymond Aron "that the ability to speak freely in two different languages gives you a sort of freedom in relation to oneself that no other means can provide. When I speak English or German, I think somewhat differently than in French. As a result, I am not a prisoner of my own words. One of the qualities I attribute to myself, let's say with vanity, is the ability to understand others, and this ability to understand others' ways of thinking, I owe it in part to the possible detachment from my own thoughts, from my words, to the ability to change words. By shifting from French vocabulary to German or English vocabulary, I am somewhat freer than many others who are truly prisoners of their thought system as well as their words." —in "Le spectateur engagé," Julliard Edition. AI translation. 

1. The term "pantheism" was coined in the 17th century, specifically in 1705, by the Irish writer John Toland in his work titled "Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist."

2. According to tradition and legend, during the Siege of Paris in 451, Geneviève, only 28 years old, used her strength of character to convince the inhabitants of Paris not to abandon their city to the Huns. She encouraged the Parisians to resist the invasion with her famous words:

"Let the men flee if they will, if they are no longer capable of fighting. We women shall pray to God so fervently that He will hear our supplications."

Indeed, Attila avoided Lutetia (Paris). Later, Louis XV built a church in her honor, as popular belief held that devotion to her, through images depicting her, had brought about a miracle. In fact, an epidemic had ceased after a procession of the saint’s relics, further strengthening the Parisians' devotion to her.

3. Srila Prabhupada: "The Supreme Lord is one, and His expansions are various. He is therefore the Supersoul of everything. When a man sees anything, he must know that his seeing is secondary and the Lord's seeing is primary. One cannot see anything without the Lord's having first seen it. That is the instruction of the Vedas and the Upaniṣads. So whatever we see or do, the Supersoul of all acts of seeing or doing is the Lord. This theory of simultaneous oneness and difference between the individual soul and the Supersoul is propounded by Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva. The viraṭ-rupa, or the gigantic feature of the Supreme Lord, includes everything materially manifested, and therefore the virat or gigantic feature of the Lord is the Supersoul of all living and nonliving entities." [---]

"It has been explained that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, like the root of a tree, is the original cause of everything. It was also explained how the Supreme Personality of Godhead is all-pervasive. He is present within everything in this material manifestation. Since the energy of the Supreme Lord is nondifferent from Him, this material cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from Him, although it appears different. The sunshine is not different from the sun itself, but it is simultaneously also different. One may be in the sunshine, but he is not on the sun itself. Those who live in this material world are living on the bodily rays of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but they cannot see Him personally in the material condition." ■