A theophany might define essential donative, communicative, participative & liberative aspects of human-divine relations. It would preclude all fatalism & determinism, include a robust conception of agency & proper conception of freedom.
Would any of those dogmatic essentials necessarily be threatened in a theo-ontology that
pan-entheistically employs an ontological distinction between humans & God, where God donates & communicates creatively as we participate & are liberated imitatively?
panen-theistically employs a mereological distinction between humans & God, where God donates & communicates diffusively as we participate & are liberated substratively?
From lengthy, depthful discussions with a friend who followed Aurobindo & a limited study of Rāmānuja, all which evoked anew my own resonances with Pseudo-Dionysius, I would answer — no.
Of special interest, see:
After writing this, I came across this: Dionysian Ponderings: The God Who is Theophany by Fr Aidan Kimel
I heartily commend that whole series.
tags: creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex deo, creatio ex profundis, creatio ex amore, efficient & exemplary causes,