Talk:Pantheism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Introductory description for Pantheism is wrong

The current introductory description for Pantheism is wrong.

The second sentence reads: "Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god."

This statement is wrong and is not consistent with prominent, external sources. It needs to be edited or removed promptly!

Thank you.

-Perezchica (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please list these prominent, external sources here and let's review them because a pantheist that believes in a distinct personal god is news to me. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This is from the Pantheism page on New World Encyclopedia":

Pantheism . . . refers to the religious and philosophical view that everything in existence is of an all-encompassing immanent God, or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent . . . There are two types of pantheism: "classical" and "naturalistic" pantheism. In equating the universe with God, classical pantheism does not strongly redefine or minimize either term, still believing in a personal God, while naturalistic pantheism redefines them, treating God as rather impersonal, as in the philosophy of Spinoza. In any case, what is stressed is the idea that all existence in the universe . . . is of the same essence as the divine. Pantheists, then, typically deny God's transcendence.

Url address: <http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pantheism>

This is from the Pantheism page at plato.standford.edu:

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.

However, given the complex and contested nature of the concepts involved, there is insufficient consensus among philosophers to permit the construction of any more detailed definition not open to serious objection from some quarter or other.

Url address: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/>

Now, I'm sure you have a personal opinion of what pantheism is to you. But in the larger scholastic world, the statement

"Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god"

is incorrect and needs to be edited or removed. It is misleading and contributes to audience ignorance.

-Perezchica (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple points: the newworldencyclopedia.org source is not a credible source. It is based on a 2006 Wikipedia entry. Your second source does not state that the statement in question is wrong. In fact, it confirms "rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." A "distinct personal or anthropomorphic god" constitutes as a view that considers God as distinct from the universe. NaturaNaturans (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, actually there are several dozen sources on google that assert the description of Pantheism as given by the other two sources above.

You said:

"Your second source does not state that the statement in question is wrong. In fact, it confirms 'rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.' A 'distinct personal or anthropomorphic god' constitutes as a view that considers God as distinct from the universe."

No, quite wrong. The second source does not permit a definition of pantheism as you are attempting. There are in fact pantheistic beliefs that subscribe to a personal God; these include Animism, Tao, Shinto, and Shamanism which believe that a conscious world intentionally engages with humankind.

I believe that books, and multiple online sources are more reliable than an opinion on this.

-Perezchica (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided any useful sources at all. Google and old versions of Wikipedia articles are not sources. Also, I think you may be confused about what personal god means. There's nothing about animism or Taoism in the article about the personal god. Perhaps you should try adding that there or discuss at that Talk page and see what reactions you get.

More importantly, I added the word "distinct" based on your earlier changes because you are correct that "All is a (personal) God" can be technically argued to be a kind of fringe pantheism. But pointing out that pantheists do not believe in a "distinct personal God" is absolutely accurate and mentioned everywhere. If you need sources, I can provide them. NaturaNaturans (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I will now disregard anything you have to say from this point onward. You are defending a personal view of pantheism which is not supported by university professors or professional philosophers. Your views are not reliable.

-Perezchica (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and disregard me, but the Stanford Encyclopedia source you cite (and every source I know of) directly contradicts your position. Go ahead and bang your head against the wall. NaturaNaturans (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Perezchica -- You seem to confuse Pantheism with some other formulation -- is it Panentheism? Some species of Pandeism? The fundamental essence of Pantheism is outright rejection of a 'personal god.' it is nonnegotiable. It is core. Consider, Pantheism explicitly teaches that all things are one; and so, whatever 'god' there is, we are part of it, and there is nothing more to it than our Universe? How could any 'god' be personal to parts of itself? Schizophrenically, perhaps, but Pantheism does not teach of a schizophrenic god. What sources have you from identified theological experts offering the sort of definitions you claim for Pantheism? DeistCosmos (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@ DeistCosmos:

No. I'm referring to Pantheism. The inaccurate statement I'm referring to is inconsistent with the descriptions of Pantheism as provided by more than a dozen respected, external sites.

I definitely do not regard the introductory description of Pantheism as currently presented on Wikipedia as educational. Yes, there some factual information there. But I wouldn't let my child rely on the description to educate him about pantheism in general.

The current description is flagrantly and embarrassingly misleading.

-Perezchica (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

But again, according to the published determinations of which expert recognized into the field? DeistCosmos (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it's quite obvious you have a strong bent toward the current description. Thank goodness there are people like me who respect genuine knowledge enough - well-published, university knowledge - so as to try to correct the unfiltered opinions that regularly get endorsed on this site. I'll stop there.

-Perezchica (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful!! I see I am proved entirely right in my contention that you could identify no published expert who shares the error you seek to press here. Your confession by silence is accepted. Your position is surrendered. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to step in here (if that's all right), as this debate seems to be getting a bit heated and personal. Sarcastic and condescending remarks (on either side) aside, the consensus — among Wikipedians and experts in the field — is that pantheism does not encompass personal/anthropomorphic gods. If you can provide an example of a notable theological expert stating otherwise, Perezchica, and not just vague references to Google searches, then your argument is valid. However, Wikipedia serves to report facts stated by experts and outside sources, rather than the personal beliefs of its users. The sentence stating that pantheists do not believe in personal gods is cited directly to a reliable source, unlike any contrary claims. That said, this argument is becoming a bit uncivil. ~ Boomur [talk] 04:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

At Boomur:

The quote:

"They deny that God is 'totally other' than the world or ontologically distinct from it"

is a reference to the non-transcendental nature of God. God is nothing else except the universe. It does not reject the view of an anthropomorphic and personal God; it is cited on the Pantheism page of Wikipedia incorrectly, and this is precisely what I mean about the misleading, falsely-educational practices of Wikipedia editors. The fact that it's done here and so plainly is pretty alarming.

The two sources I present above indicate that Pantheism is a philosophy with a specific definition, but with a lot of variation. The specific definition is:

Pantheism . . . refers to the religious and philosophical view that everything in existence is of an all-encompassing immanent God, or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent . . . what is stressed is the idea that all existence in the universe . . . is of the same essence as the divine. Pantheists, then, typically deny God's transcendence. (Pantheism. newworldencyclopedia.org)

What remains is attributed to the large variation found in Pantheism. What is labeled "Classical Pantheism" (there is more than one system of categorization) includes (but is not exclusive to) Animism, Shinto, Tao, and Shamanism, and all of these subscribe to the view that the universe intentionally engages with humankind. God is therefore a personal deity. Any anthropomorphic qualities credited to God come from God's interaction with man.

The category of Pantheism described in the introductory description only presents one category of Pantheism, when in fact there are many.

I therefore do not regard the description as informative or accurate. The fact that a variety of other encyclopedic sites agree with me indicates I am not alone.

-Perezchica (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, please note that the New World Encyclopedia is a mirror of an old version of Wikipedia. The entries are nit written by professionals, and may not have been properly cited at the time. Either way, Wikipedia is not a suitable citation for itself. ~ Boomur [talk] 04:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

But the Pantheism page on plato.standford.edu is not an old wikipedia page. It's definition of pantheism is consistent with New World Encylopedia.org's . . . and with the definition of Pantheism provided in www.britanica.com (Pantheism: see Immanence or transcendence). All of these agree with a precise definition of pantheism - which does not reject a personal or anthropomorphic view of God.

-Perezchica (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is cleverly veiled Christian propaganda -- it cannot be expected to be accurate when it is secretly and maliciously trying to push a point of view opposed to that of Pantheism. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

lol, DeistCosmos. I wouldn't cite http://everything2.com/title/Stanford+Encyclopedia+of+Philosophy as a reliable source, certainly not to discredit The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. No sane person would believe the encyclopedia was created to push Christian beliefs on people. It's a university project with a lot of oversight.

-Perezchica (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

But it matters, I think, where a representative of the project itself is directly quoted confessing that it really is a 'Christian' philosophy encyclopedia.... DeistCosmos (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The pantheism entry in Stanford's page is by M. Levine who wrote a philosophy book on the subject of pantheism. He spends an awful lot of time discussing pantheism as it relates to theism and cites mostly theists rather than pantheists. He also states that he himself is not a pantheist but never states his particular belief. I'm inclined to believe he tries to be impartial, but I find his deep interest in pantheism as it relates to theism rather peculiar. NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I should add, I find nothing in Levine's Stanford entry supporting Perezchica's argument. I'm frankly baffled by the argument altogether. 'Pantheism is not theism' is basically what we're wasting time discussing. NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. In the coming days I'm going to alter some information on the Pantheism page, to make it more agreeable with consensus and the full scholarly description of Pantheism. I do not mind one bit if some of my edits are altered; in fact I expect them to be so that they better reflect the great diversity of pantheistic history and thought. But the current page has a few falsely-educational viewpoints that simply cannot be permitted in a respected online encyclopedia.

-Perezchica (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Perezchica: Based on what I've read in this conversation already, I don't think you're in a position to edit anything on this article. The "consensus" on this talk page disagrees with your viewpoints, so you cannot possibly alter the article "to make it more agreeable with consensus." You have very little experience on wiki so taking on this kind of challenge isn't the best way to start.

Instead, I would recommend first that you spend time doing cleanup on articles in our maintenance category to get an idea of how collaborative editing works on the small scale.

When you have your academic sources together, post on this talk page which sources you are looking at and list which specific changes you think need to be made. Academic/scholarly sources can be had from JSTOR and the like. If you don't have access to those journals, I would recommend finding books from reputable authors in a library. Online sources will likely be problematic for the changes you wish to make. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Troutman said: "Based on what I've read in this conversation already, I don't think you're in a position to edit anything on this article." Well that's too bad. I think anyone with a factual, important statement on the topic, that can back it up with a reliable resource, is encouraged to edit these pages. When something is plainly wrong, even when its supported by consensus, it should be changed. Spreading misinformation is something no "encyclopedia" should do.

"When you have your academic sources together, post on this talk page which sources you are looking at and list which specific changes you think need to be made." Agreed. I think this method can be used to everyone's benefit! I will do this.

-Perezchica (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Before you do so you may wish to have a look at WP:RS and WP:UNDUE (everybody gets bludgeoned with these when they begin here). DeistCosmos (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Deist! I checked out a pile of library books yesterday. I'm going to be posting quite a bit of book excerpts with their respective sources on this subject very soon.

-Perezchica (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll be posting the excerpts tonight/early tomorrow morning. I have a fairly long list.

-Perezchica (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Article on Sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perezchica (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Besides the two online sources I quoted above (The New World Encyclopedia andThe Standford Encyclopedia of Philosohpy), which both agree to this general description of pantheism--

"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe."

"However, given the complex and contested nature of the concepts involved, there is insufficient consensus among philosophers to permit the construction of any more detailed definition not open to serious objection from some quarter or other." (<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/>)

--there are also these sources, which describe pantheism in a way consistent with the statements I posted on the wikipedia Pantheism page two weeks ago:

Doniger, Wendy. (1999). Pantheism. In Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. (p. 389). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

"Doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe. The . . . doctrine of panentheism [however] asserts that God includes the universe as a part though not the whole of his being."

Here the encyclopedia clarifies that in panentheism God transcends the universe. In pantheism God is only the universe.

"There are several types of pantheism, ranging from the attribution of consciousness to nature as a whole (panpsychism) to the interpretation of the world as merely an appearance and ultimately unreal (acosmic pantheism), and from the rational Neoplatonic, or emanationistic, strain to the intuitive, mystical strain."

Here the encyclopedia explicates that there are different pantheistic schools of thought, some of which even attribute consciousness to the entire cosmos. (I'm astonished that this detail is completely ignored in the wikipedia article, and that it was deleted when I alluded to it in my edits of the wikipedia page.)

"Numerous Greek philosophers, notably Xenophanes, Heracleitus, Anaxogoras, Plato, Plutonius, and the proponents of Stoicism, contributed to the foundations of Western Pantheism. Through Neoplatonism and Judeo-Christian Mysticism the tradition was continued in the medieval and Renaissance periods by John Scotus Erigena, Master Eckhard, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, and Jakob Bohme."

"The Jewish rationalist Benedict Spinoza (1632-77) formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic system . . ."

Here the encyclopedia insinuates that though Spinoza constructed a system of pantheism that is by far the most impressively detailed, it isn't the only pantheistic system. Spinoza did an impressive job of popularizing his views at the time, but there are various pantheisms out there.

"Pantheism has traditionally been rejected by orthodox Christian Theologians because it is interpreted to obliterate the distinction between the creator and the creation, to make God impersonal . . . "

This view of pantheism arises out of the traditional Christian belief of a deeply-personal, loving God. As other excerpts will clarify, pantheistic Gods can still be personal.

Flinn, F. K. (2007). Encyclopedia of Catholicism. (pp. 497-498). New York, NY: Facts on File.

"Christianity has also usually affirmed a 'personal' God, while pantheists generally deny the appropriateness of ascribing personal attributes to God.

Here the encyclopedia is careful to stress that pantheists reject ascribing personal attributes to God only generally - it is not a universally-shared perspective.

"Panentheism, like pantheism, affirms that the Godhead includes and is present in the cosmos but goes beyond pantheism by also affirming that God transcends the world."

As in the previous encyclopedia quoted, this encyclopedia also clarifies that in panentheism God transcends the universe. In pantheism God is only the universe.

Higginbotham, Joyce & River. (2002). Paganism: An Introduction To Earth-Centered Religions. (pp. 78-79). St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications.

"A pantheist believes that all the created world together equals Deity. There is a little bit of the Divine in your arm, some more in the grass, and so on, and when combined all together, it adds up to Deity. In these systems, Deity may or may not exist as a . . . personality."

In a system of pantheism, God may be personified or be understood anthropomorphically.

"Many pagans we know are indeed polytheistic, but some are monotheistic, some are a unique blend of pantheism and animism, and others avoid Deity concepts altogether."

My original quote indicating that versions of Paganism also subscribe to pantheistic views was deleted two weeks ago. I consider that action equal to the burning of a book!

(I'm still posting more right now.)

-Perezchica (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Article on Sources (continued). Here are more sources that attribute to pantheistic Gods anthropomorphic attributes:

Parrinder, Geoffrey. (1984). World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present. New York, NY: Facts on File.

"The Stoics were pantheist; the end of the first book of Pope's Essay on Man is a magnificent exposition of Stoic doctrine:

All are parts of one stupendous whole,

Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.

'Would you call him Fate?' asks Seneca. 'You will not be wrong . . . Would you call him providence? You will be right . . . Would you call him nature? You will not be speaking falsely . . . Would you call him Universe? You will not be deceived.' The favorite name was Zeus: under this name the most religious of the Stoics, Cleanthes (331-232 BC), hymned him" (p. 160).

The Greek Stoics were pantheists and attributed to the universe anthropomorphic qualities. Contrary to popular misconception, the pantheon of Greeks Gods were not genuine figures, were actually personifications of nature, and were in fact one cohesive entity.

"Stoic leaders include slaves like Epictetus and emperors like Marcus Aurelius (AD 120-180) . . . Epicurus (341-270 BC) attacked superstition and the evils it counseled, but he was a religious man. His fourfold prescription for health ran: god is not to be feared; death is not to be felt; good can easily be attained; evil can be easily endured. The Epicureans held to the mortality of the soul, which is an atomic structure, dissolved with the body" (p. 161).

Greek stoics believed that God interacted in the affairs of humans.

There are several things I failed to better cover here, which includes panpsychism and a variety of other issues, but pantheism is larger than what the current wikipedia page on the issue conveys.

Pantheistic Gods have been perceived to engage in the personal affairs of man. The idea that pantheistic Gods are necessarily unconscious, impersonal, and non-anthropomorphic is not one fully endorsed by academic scholars - a view well-represented in the Pantheism article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and elsewhere.

-Perezchica (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I like the addition of the panpsychism reference at the bottom of the pantheism page! The view that the universe possesses consciousness is something shared by many pantheists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Perezchica (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

-Perezchica (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I added panpsychism as a result of your previous edit. I also added the word "distinct" in the lead paragraph as a result of your previous edit, so I don't know what you're arguing about anymore. Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal god. There is no academic who will argue against that and there is an endless amount of scholars who have said that and more. The key word is distinct and it was missing before. You can try and make the case that a miniscule minority of pantheists believe that the whole of the universe lies within a 'personal god', but that is not denied by the article because it says pantheists do not believe in a DISTINCT personal god. Do you get the difference?

I'll add that even without the word "distinct" your argument is a fringe argument. Pantheism is not theism. Pantheism is not deism. Pantheism is pantheism. But you are trying to make a case that pantheism is a form of theism - a belief in a personal god - which I have never seen before, not a single example. Furthermore, the sources you cite leave open possibilities, which you seem to be using to fill in with your point of view. That goes against Wikipedia policy. But IN ANY CASE, the word "distinct" was added and that should have already solved your dispute so I am unclear why you are still writing about this. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans,I'm not going to disagree with that wording, because I can see how it can still consider the versions of pantheism that do subscribe to personifications and anthropomorphization of the universe, if that is in fact what you intended to do with that statement. However, I also believe it would be right to amend the page so that additional views of pantheism are added. The Greek stoics, for example, did personify the universe - giving it human qualities. They also subscribed to a view that Zeus favored certain ancient persons over others, for a variety of reasons, which made God an engaging participant.

My contention is that the page needs to be better developed to reflect these diverse pantheistic views.

-Perezchica (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can add content that is not fringe material, that is more than welcome for continued development of the page. But just because some ideologies which are considered somewhat pantheistic have in some instances personified God, does not mean that personifying God itself has much at all to do with pantheism. Maybe you are thinking more along the lines of panentheism? NaturaNaturans (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not conveying panentheism because I communicated the difference multiple times with my sources. And the anthropomorphization of the universe in pantheistic religions is more common than you think, as it's done in relevant Eastern, Western and developing religions.

You also stated this: "If you can add content that is not fringe material, that is more than welcome for continued development of the page." I agree with this comment if what you're communicating is that material from a questionable source should not be permitted. Obviously not all sources out there will be reliable and communicate genuine, credible information. These should be excluded, hands down.

However, if what you imply is fringe groups, as in groups without large numbers of adherents, here I will disagree. I believe incorporating such groups and beliefs depends on how critical they are to demonstrating the various categories of pantheisms that exist. Though I will firmly admit that small groups that are unestablished (as in not socially recognized) should be ignored.

-Perezchica (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Bladesmulti's "Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology" paragraph be included in the Hinduism section in the Pantheism article

I have reverted the recent addition of what I believe is controversial and unhelpful material to the article - a specific paragraph as follows from user Bladesmulti, which he keeps bringing back:

"In Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology Brahm/Parabrahma is the one unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all things in this Universe.[56] If one adds two whole parts the result is one whole and if one whole is subtracted from another whole the result is another whole – it means there is one whole universe and it is all pervaded by Trimurti. Since the universe has come forth from the Divine, all things and beings are sacred and must be treated so in human thought and action. The Divine sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals and thinks in humans.[57]"

I have reverted these edits and requested discussion but Bladesmulti puts back the material and falsely claims it is "agreed upon changes". This has gotten obnoxious and will require an administrator to help us if it continues. My reasoning for reverting was that "Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology" is extremely obscure and its presence in this article would be giving it undue weight. Furthermore, the explanation adds nothing to this article on the Hinduism/pantheism relationship that I can discern or that Bladesmulti has explained. After reading the source, it appears the addition is being justified by original research and/or some kind of synthesis. Also, Bladesmulti should not misstate issues and title a talk section "Removal of Hinduism" when no such attempt was made. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Find me one source that contradict the information? Apart from Wikipedia:I just don't like it I see nothing from you. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources you are putting up do not back the paragraph material. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You must be viewing in different language then. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Shinto

Mason says exactly the opposite of what is ascribed to him: "Nor is Shinto pantheistic for Shinto does not regard an omnipotent logical principle as identifying itself with the universe, but sees divine spirit as living reality self-creating itself as the universe." The Meaning of Shinto. p. 78. You way want to interpret the second clause as pantheism, but that's obvious original research. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite the source itself said that religion is pantheistic in it's own sense, What is Shintoism Must be read. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

[6], [7](last paragraph especially). Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WiseGeek is an obviously unreliable source, and so is a book on urban planning and a study of military occupation operations. All of these are obviously going to be trumped by books (and especially academic works) specifically on Shinto. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I know wisegeek is not a reliable source, it was only for reading. But you can post any of the academic work, that opposes the notable connection of pantheism with Shintoism. As we got about 4 sources now, in total, that suggest Shintoism to be pantheistic. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No you don't; you have one source, and it says it's not pantheistic. My quick Google look suggested that some Japanese Buddhist sects have pantheistic elements and have absorbed ideas from Shinto, but I haven't found anything substantive that says that Shinto itself is pantheistic. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"very much on the plural for it is a polytheistic and pantheistic belief.", "Shinto refers to an assortment of beliefs and practices that are pantheistic in nature", "Shintoism combined a pantheistic worship of nature with deification of the emperor, who was the living kami", "It stands to reason that pantheism should have a more powerful attraction for the Shinto of the future than monotheism". Indeed 4 sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no!!!! The first "two" sources are from the same urban planning book I already said was not acceptable, and the third is from a book on the American immigrant experience. Come on, figure it out: these are obviously not authoritative books about religion, for crying out loud! If you cannot see the difference, it's time for you to step away from editing this article.

The last one is more interesting, but the very passage you linked to, again, implies the opposite of what you are trying to claim. I note particularly the passage which says "Should Shinto imperceptibly change from pan-kami-ism to pantheism..." which implies that Shinto is not now pantheistic. I have some experience with study of Shinto, so let me try to lay this out for you: it's not a religion in which the notion of "god" really makes sense, and it's decidedly unsystematic. Kami are everywhere, but they aren't identified as places, nor do they emanate from a common ground spirit. Japanese religion is very flexible and within its own confines syncretic, so that one finds Buddhist elements popping up in what most people do, and a lot of Buddhist sects go off in the direction of something pantheistic (though Buddhism itself needn't have anything like the divine in it either). A lot of people leap from the notion of "spirits everywhere" to a notion of nature worship which capitalizes Nature and thus sees an unified Divine being worshipped; but that's not, as far as I understand things as a gaijin, the way they really think. It's a projection of the way modern westerners think about religion. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither sources can be disregarded. And commonly, it will be regarded as religion here, even Judaism can be argued if it's religion or not, but it's useless to bring. Other than that, the worship of everything is associated with Shinto. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course these other sources can be disregarded, because they are people who lack expertise. Look, I'm getting the impression that you've decided that Shinto is pantheistic and that it's just a matter of pushing it through with some source, any source. You've picked a bunch of non-expert sources who agree with you, and when you point to expert sources, they disagree with you. Isn't the message obvious? When the expert say "it is not so", it's time for you to back down. You've got one explicit statement from an expert to that effect, and another implying the same. Your personal statement of "worship of everything is associated with Shinto" is, from what I can see, just not true. It's time for you to get on the right side of this and revise your views according to the experts. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You tell me if any expert disagree then? I already asked before in previous comment, you haven't showed any yet. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Are you all seriously going to argue about every single religion in regards to this article? (BTW, Bladesmulti, when you list a dispute at WP:3, you're supposed to sign with five tildes, not four.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Fully agreed, and thanks for informing. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, finding sources that back your claim requires more than a Google Books word search. You have been adding sources that are wasting people's time and not backing your claims. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Mangoe will ever back up a source that would decline the evidence of pantheism in Shinto.. So your baseless raging is not gonna help. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you to back up your claim, not for the person whose time you are seemingly wasting. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Kindly stress your eyeball a bit more, at least 4 reliable sources have been given above. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, I actually read the source material. You apparently do not. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How about these?

• "very much on the plural for it is a polytheistic and pantheistic belief."
• "Shinto refers to an assortment of beliefs and practices that are pantheistic in nature",
• "Shintoism combined a pantheistic worship of nature with deification of the emperor, who was the living kami",
• "It stands to reason that pantheism should have a more powerful attraction for the Shinto of the future than monotheism". Bladesmulti (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are exactly the same references you provided earlier, and they are exactly as insufficient as before. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Other guy seemed to be having hard time reading, so I had to copy+paste it again for his comfort. Anyways, some more sources:-

• "the polytheistic phase of Shintō gradually passes into a pantheism. "As we have just seen, although the animistic polytheism of original Shintō evolves into naturalistic pantheism.."
• "I conclude that the religion we need to embrace now is pantheism, as exemplified in Shinto,..."
• "All of nature is animated by the kami—including things such as rocks, trees, or streams—making Shinto a combination of polytheism and pantheism..." Bladesmulti (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) (Non expert) A claim of including an entire religion into Pantheism seems to be a large claim, and so requires at least one solid source. Using a book on urban design and a book on immigration hints at cherry-picking. "[S]tands to reason... should have... attraction...of the future" is not a statement of actuality. Three sources do not make "often", and the nature of the sources allow doubt of their interpretation (see The Essence of Shinto: Japan's Spiritual Heart). [Full disclosure: I've had prior interaction with Bladesmulti ].Roguetech (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Spirit of the Environment is better (though when they misspell the title of the book in the summary, my inclination is to toss it!) Not being an expert in pantheism or religious philosophy, I'm refraining from going any further than "better". Christianity, Cults and Religions seems as if it may be biased, in purporting to "compare 20 Religions and Cults with Biblical Christianity" (emphasis added), but I haven't read it. If all you have at your disposal is the Preview on Google, I'd wouldn't trust it.Roguetech (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I usually search the credibility of the references, and the amount of books the writers have written, before I add them anywhere, I also check about the publisher. But here the point is different, because this is just a talk page, where I am adding the sources only for explaining that how common and recognized it is, to connect/applaud the doctrine of pantheism, when describing Shinto religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit as written does not support that statement. It had two sources supplied. One contains such a vague statement as to be useless, and the other is a book on effects of immigration. Seems to me that's the point of Talk so far; the sources provided don't bear the weight of the claim (Spirit of the Environment possibly aside). I certainly could understand how a laundry list of semi-random sources in Talk could support a claim of "often", but without a fundamentally solid source, it doesn't really help. More to the point, "often" is a statement of relative frequency, and two or three sources making the claim out of 748,000 books referencing "Shinto" on Google Books alone is "not often". As it stands, I'm in agreement the sources provided are not sufficient, so find better. If you find one that states "often", use it. Even if you find one that makes the claim of Shintoism = Pantheism, "often" is still not justified; rather "it is claimed". Roguetech (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

[8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Check. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to substantiate Shintoism = Pantheism? If so, one or two solid sources is enough. I would suggest you keep looking, and present the two or three best sources, and reedit (or present for discussion). The issue was your sources were weak, so find stronger ones. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies does not display the author - without that, it's useless. The others are still weak (in comparison to the scope of the claim). I do not know the credentials of the author (基央·山蔭), but at face value it appears the book I cited may be sufficient: The Essence of Shinto: Japan's Spiritual Heart. What do others think of it?

If you are trying to substantiate "often", then you'll either need to cite a substantial portion of 748,000 books (and I for one am not checking them!!), OR a substantial portion of the (however many) text-book grade sources on Shintoism (which I personally don't have the knowledge to verify). Both of which would run afoul of original research. So find a source that states the claim is made "often/many times/a lot/common/etc". Otherwise, I don't see the specific wording of your claim as ever being verifiable. And I'm being nit-picky - it doesn't appear the original argument is over the word "often". Just replace "often" with "has been".

Either way, presenting books a few at a time, of mixed credibility and covering a wide range of topics is wasting time, and reeks of cherry-picking. Clearly, a book on Roman Catholicism is not germane to Shintoism and Pantheism.Roguetech (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thorougly looking about it, but at least we can agree that there are reliable sources(more than 2) for adding that Shinto is Pantheism. Interestingly Zoroastrianism, Buddhism are also pantheistic. Major opposition with pantheist possibly took place after Judaism, Christianity, Islam got popular. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't agree that there are any reliable sources for this claim. The passage from The Essence of Shinto is incorrect: kami are NOT manifestations of "the spirit" but are instead individual and distinct spirits.

Furthermore, a quick GBook search for "Zoroastrianism pantheism" gives multiple hits on the first page specifically for the statement that Zoroastrianism is NOT pantheistic. I am losing patience here as it seems to me that you have a desire to see pantheism as a nearly omnipresent aspect of non-semitic religion which is interfering with your reading of the sources. Your repetition of plainly unsuitable sources and the way you keep trying to put words in our mouths is also out of line. It really is time for you to concede that you don't know the material, and for you to take direction from people who know better about how to do research. As it is you are wasting everyone's time on this. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Still haven't saw single source from you, that would deny shinto not being pantheism. Now because "i don't believe shinto as pantheism", is probably not a legible argument. Sources have directly asserted the religion to be pantheistic. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe - Is The Essence of Shinto a credible source in general? If so, the statement made in it is still credible, since it does in fact state that Shintoism is, by some standard, Pantheism. If there are equally credible sources disputing that, then why not present both in the article? If the source in general is not credible, why not?

My quick impression from this book, looking at the head matter, is that it is a devotional book about practicing/reviving Shinto rather than an academic study. We are also reading it in translation, so it's possible that there are some inaccuracies introduced that way. For example, the key sentence is this; "From a Western point of view this way of perception is called pantheism or animism, which means a way that perceives the spirit in every living organism or natural formation." (my emphasis) But animism is not a synonym for pantheism, and if "the spirit" should really be translated as "a spirit", then we are more clearly talking animism. And my understanding (which is I think consistent with other works) is that the spirits are plural and individual, and that they adhere to each place or thing or animal or whatever. This whole passage doesn't describe pantheism the way our text describes it (which description is reasonably accurate), so it's not a good idea to take that identification as authoritative, especially since we have other works (already mentioned) which are academic, published originally in English, and which specifically deny that Shinto is pantheistic. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that being translated is an issue, since the only single word that mistranslated could result in error would be "pantheism". Since it's the key for the sentiment of the statement, I doubt mistranslation took place, but I have no clue what "pantheism" might be in Japanese (e.g. if there's an distinct translation or not). I think the key there is not "the spirit" or "a spirit", but rather numerous spirits, which are practically the same ("from a Western point of view") as a single encompassing group of spirits, but it seems to this non-expert that's the whole point of the statement. If it's a devotional rather than academic description, then it's kind of getting into a grey area out of my depth. If 基央·山蔭 is considered by Shinto followers to be an expert on Shintoism, then he is an expert, just as if [insert popular evangelic Christian] made the statement on behalf of Christianity. In short, I'm not qualified to answer that. Roguetech (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous sources testifying to the animistic component of Shinto; pretty much every academic (and especially historic) analysis uses the term. When you start looking for pantheism in these books, however, as a rule they don't mention it at all. Yamakage's definition of pantheism is just wrong: it doesn't "feel and perceive various kinds of spirits," but fundamentally one unified spirit. Also, what he says needs to be considered in light of his condemnation of western, theistic religion in what immediately follows: the contrast is with religions whihc don't see nature spirits at all.

Also, this is falling again into the trap of concentrating on one source when there are dozens upon dozens. Basic academic analysis of the character of Shinto is quite plentiful, so if we get one outlier there's no reason to sink our teeth into it and hold it against every other work. There is a very strong pattern here of non-academic works saying "pantheism" and academic works saying "animism" and sometimes even "not pantheism". The reasonable conclusion is that the academics are right and that the others are mistaken to some degree or another. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti - Sources stating it is not Pantheistic is not the point (except as stated above). The burden of evidence lies on the one making the claim. I'm unclear on what was agreed was a second source of strong standing? (And not being an expert, for all I know The Essence of Shinto is a pile of rubbish - but that's up to others to assert and support.) Roguetech (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I think a problem you're encountering is that Shinto is pan-kami-ism, monotheism and pantheism depending on the practitioner. This is rather like trying to define Islam or Christianity without realising that there are vastly differing beliefs within a broad brush of each (many of whom think the others are heretics). I can't give a neutral 3rd opinion here as I know Bladesmulti from previous "discussions", but you're kind of all correct, which should make for a bit of fun. What will make it even more interesting is the syncretism inherent in Shinto.FMMonty (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering that Mangoe is doubting the references, sources. The issue has been removed from Wikipedia:Third opinion, and added to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that DRUIDRY should be included in the list of 'other religions'.

In the UK (the geographical and spiritual home of Druidry), Druidry is now an 'officially' recognized religion. Although the religion does not maintain a specific set of required beliefs it is predominantly characterized by a recognition that all living things (and all things that have lived) can, or are, a channel of all 'spirit'. The notion of 'spirit' is often used to identify individual deities with Anthropomorphism and reverse Anthropomorphism (human represented as non human) - sorry I don't know the correct term) qualities. However, these individual deities are also recognized as individualized parts of a greater (THE greater) 'spirit' or substance of ALL things). Druidry is definitely a religion with a Pantheist core set of values.

Removal of Hinduism

NaturaNaturans should stop removing Hinduism because it has been over listed for many years already, and even more importantly, its reliably sourced material. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is removing Hinduism? You are trying to put Hinduism as a lead picture in a pantheism article, and you are adding a paragraph that others have complained about in the past. NaturaNaturans (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply no one has complained about Hinduism in this whole talk page, not even once. I only see you being complaining about it, once "unsourced", then "advertising", "advertising", In fact you needed 2 accounts at one stage. As long as the plant's(Tulsi) importance is coherent with Pantheism, there's no reason to remove the photo either. But you have raised this issue after you performed 3 reverts without providing legit reason. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's what you have attempted to add and I have reverted:

1) Lead Picture: "The sacred Tulsi plant in front of the house, common among the followers of Hinduism."

-Is this edit even serious? This is an article about pantheism, not about an obscure symbol of Hinduism

2) Additional paragraph in Hinduism section: "In Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology Brahm/Parabrahma is the one unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all things in this Universe.[56] If one adds two whole parts the result is one whole and if one whole is subtracted from another whole the result is another whole – it means there is one whole universe and it is all pervaded by Trimurti. Since the universe has come forth from the Divine, all things and beings are sacred and must be treated so in human thought and action. The Divine sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals and thinks in humans.[57]"

-First of all, "Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology" is extremely obscure and its presence in this article would be giving it undue weight. Furthermore, the explanation adds nothing to this article on pantheism that I can discern. After reading the source, it appears you are doing original research and synthesis in order to add this paragraph. An article about pantheism needs a more broad understanding of Hinduism's relationship with pantheism. Thanks. NaturaNaturans (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Article is about Pantheism, so a photo of one sacred plant fits the page. Similar to the pic of Paul Henri Thiry in Atheism.

2. Same as above.

3. As long as it's sourced and common knowledge, there's simply no reason that it should be removed. It's description about the religion that how commonly they have recognized the role of nature with the world. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1, perhaps you can present multiple sources that link the plant to the philosophy of pantheism and demonstrate how it is notable enough to be in the article and be pictured as a lead picture. 2, same as above. 3, please refer to NPOV and undue weight about what's appropriate for an article like this. Also, to clear up what happened in the past, someone wrote this in the Hinduism section in April 2013: "This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Written in a way unclear to anyone not familiar with Hindu texts. Please help improve this section if you can. (April 2013)" I removed the unsourced material in September. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The section required references, nothing else. And they have been given, it's not like I had referenced the 100% section, I removed some myself, but rest is obviously needed. Tulsi is pantheistic, see[13], [14]. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your sources do not link pantheism and this plant. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably haven't read properly. [15] explains a lot. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Explains a lot? The text has a single mention of a plant and it's relationship with Hinduism. Are you playing some kind of joke? NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Doctrine that the universe is God and, conversely, that there is no god apart from the substance, forces, and laws manifested in the universe. Pantheism characterizes many Buddhist and Hindu doctrines and can be seen in such Hindu works as the Vedas and the Bhagavadgita. Numerous Greek philosophers contributed to the foundations of Western pantheism. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the tradition was continued in Neoplatonism and Judeo-Christian mysticism. In the 17th century Benedict de Spinoza formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic philosophical system, arguing that God and Nature are merely two names for one reality."[16]

Coherent to the real meaning of Pantheism. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all disputing this quote. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Then what is "The text has a single mention of a plant and it's relationship with Hinduism", when the whole summary is under the section "Pantheism and polytheism". Bladesmulti (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly appropriate for the article to discuss the pantheistic elements of Hinduism, since there is so much agreement that they are there. At this point I'm reserving judgement over exactly how much it needs to say, though I would tend to think that more than a single passing sentence is in order. On the other hand, I just don't see the fight over the bush. How does that plant have anything to do with the question of pantheism in Hinduism? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. Is there some image of Trimurti or something similar that illustrates it? Perhaps something related to the Bhagavad Gita? Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's Ocimum tenuiflorum, and it can be read here Tulsi in Hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)(Not an expert in pantheism or Hinduism) Seems the section should stay, based on that it is a controversy (as Mangoe stated). Assuming all facts are true, I see no controversy whether it is Pantheistic. The photo of the plant is appropriate. As Bladesmulti pointed out, there is an article unto itself describing the plant's importance to Hinduism. In addition, assuming the claim is true, since "Hindu religious texts are the oldest known literature containing pantheistic ideas" a symbol of Hinduism may deserve prominent position, but due to ignorance, I can't assert a relevant position about prominence (i.e. very weak support for prominence). I think the section text does need to be simplified, with the aim of stating how it is Pantheistic, rather than a description of a Hindu belief. It's a bit cumbersome.Roguetech (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the tulsi plant sacred to pantheistic Hindus?Roguetech (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You can read the article and see that it is sacred to the cult of a particular deity. It would be like heading up the article on Judaism with a picture of an etrog. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes the tulsi plant is sacred to Hindus. And Mangoe, in your own words you confirmed that a plant is sacred to Hinduism, it's not that it has to do with only deity, in fact every plant is sacred, You want me to name all? It's Neem(Azadirachta indica),[17], Coconut,[18], Betel leaf,[19], and many others. Ocimum tenuiflorum was just one name, because I found it's picture. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing pantheism and nature worship. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"All is god", includes nature worship. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about pantheism. The picture of the plant says nothing about pantheism, and the article on the plant says nothing about pantheism. One might as well have a picture of a cow, or the Ganges, or Shiva Nataraja. Someone looking at the plant says, "what does this have to do with pantheism?" and the answer is, at the moment, "nothing." If someone can come up with a religious image of how Brahman is identified with existence, I think that would be a good image; but I don't know of any such, and indeed that article is completely devoid of any imagery. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I will further look into article once again, and remove the images if they contradict this agreement. And if you go deeper, you will find that the supreme God is actually Narayana, his depiction, rest are the forms. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)(Non expert!) That's what I was wondering. It seems on the surface the plant represents some god, and therefore would not apply specifically to "Sanatana Dharma theology", and perhaps even contradict Pantheism. If Pantheistic Hindus also hold the plant as sacred (for reasons beyond basic Hindu tradition), then it I'd think it would be perfectly appropriate.Roguetech (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct, I may wait for some more 3rd opinions in this regard. No hurries about it, when it comes to adding pic of Ocimum tenuiflorum. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but I have some knowledge about this nevertheless. Ancient Hinduism had some, if not entirely, pantheistic views which one would find in ancient Hindu scripts as Bladesmulti rightly mentioned. (However modern Hinduism is both polytheistic and pantheistic.) Hinduism earns a place in this topic. However, I believe that as far as this page is concerned, Hinduism is only a sub topic in the broad perspective of Pantheism. So the question of placing Tulsi as the lead picture does not even arise. Pantheism has a rich history of which Hinduism is only a part of. So placing Tulsi as the lead picture would colour the entire topic wrong.

I understand the sentiments of Tulsi being a very sacred. While that is true, it is one among many herbs that are treated sacred due to its medicinal properties. Contradicting to the beliefs of Pantheism which treats all elements of the universe equal contributors to the Divine, one sacred plant cant be given more importance! Interestinglyinquisitive (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

English usage

If you "some do" and list some specific examples, you do not say "and others" because the latter is implied by "some". Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

obviously agreed NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Some eastern religions have highlighted the importance of pantheism"

This statement recently added in the lead paragraph is not sourced nor is it explained in the article. I tried to change it to "Some eastern religions have been regarded as pantheistic" (which is a true statement) but was (again) reverted by bladesmulti. Also, "Hinduism" is a big word containing elements of panentheism, monotheism, polytheism, etc. It is contentious to affiliate it with pantheism without qualification as many will argue it is not pantheism. Further, it is irrelevant (and meaningless) to suggest 'the importance of pantheism' to Hinduism because it can be argued that pantheism is 'highly important' to every religious and spiritual idea. It goes into the realm of philosophical speculation not encyclopedic accuracy. Some sources (there are dozens):

• Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism are panentheism, not pantheism - Four Ages of Understanding By John Deely (noted philosopher)
• "Hinduism...is not pantheism" Sarasvati Chennakesavan (Indian philosopher) A critical study of Hinduism, p 97 1980
• "Vedic God-hood is not pantheism" Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, Volume 7 p 2043
• Companion encyclopaedia of Hindu philosophy - Page 193 - Hinduism not pantheism but panentheism
• The Indian Review - Volume 23 - Page 104 - "Hinduism ... is not pantheism"

...and on and on. NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism doesn't have 1 book, nor just few verses. Read List of Hindu scriptures, there are many, actually more than any other religion, so it can be matter of opinion sometimes to call Hinduism other than pantheism, monotheism, polytheism, atheism, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is reading "just a few verses"; in fact, nobody should be reading any verses at all. I cannot make sense of your response.

The more I look at these issues, the more it is clear that there isn't a one of these eastern religion cases where there aren't strongly conflicting views. It isn't helped by various authors who don't seem to have a good grasp on what pantheism is either, what with the constant equation of pantheism with nature worship. Pantheism is a western idea, and it's being identified (or seen to be not present) from a western analytic POV, but I have yet to come across a statement of pantheism in these religions, as opposed to a great deal of inference. I'm increasingly inclined to grouping these all together and addressing the dispute as a whole rather than extended discussion of each individual religious system. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There will always be conflicting views when it comes to beliefs. To be able to say a religion is definitely not pantheism is very difficult as you have both conflicting views of what Pantheism is, and conflicting views of what the core of each religion is. It is also a bad idea to demand a statement of pantheism from a religion. The term is very modern (as "religious" terms go), and while Spinoza is regarded as an advocate of Pantheism he didn't ever mention the term (as it was invented after his death). It would be more sensible to say most religions can be seen as being a form of pantheism, and then detail schools of thought within those religions that are closest to pantheism. FMMonty (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I should have made this more direct. Please review the article and weigh in on the question of what's best and most accurate for the lead:

• "Some eastern religions have highlighted the importance of pantheism" versus
• "Some eastern religions have been regarded as pantheistic" NaturaNaturans (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

First one, because both taoism and hinduism are not just pantheism, but covers other religious forms as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Second one, because it's true. The first one is unsourced and inaccurate. NaturaNaturans (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You read Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH properly? "Hinduism is also pantheism", is correct statement, not anything like "hinduism is pantheism", otherwise other editor would interrupt saying "but vedas are monotheism", "purana are polytheism", and so on.. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't usually the entire religion that is Pantheistic, but sects (probably need a better word than sect) within each religion that can be considered Pantheism.FMMonty (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now if we go deeper, we find that hinduism got no sects either, its just some people got their own favorite gods, who are after all form of one god called Narayana like noted above. Sect is usually those like Shia & Sunni for Islam, Prost and Catholic for Christians, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, your syntax here in talk is being a problem, and when you write like this in the article I'm going to have to respond there simply for the sake of maintaining a text that other people can read and understand.

The phrasing "have highlighted the importance of" is never going to stand, no matter what we decide about the conflicting claims about the presence of pantheistic elements in these various religions. It is simply not encyclopedic language; it's the kin of language used by people who want to push pantheism as an appropriate spiritual response.

It's increasingly clear that this section is almost certainly going to end up discussing western interpretation of eastern religion, and that (mostly) eastern religions do not directly step up to the issue. We don't have major Hindu, Buddhist, or Shinto authorities coming out to say, "yes, we have a pantheist view of the world." And it's also clear that in some of these cases there is a lot of at least superficial conflict. In the case of Shinto I'm of the opinion that the best authorities say that it is not pantheistic. I received a book just the other day which specifically says that shrine kami are not to be identified with the shrine location, and that the kami are not present there until they are summoned though Shinto rites, and that when the rites are over, they leave. That's not a pantheistic way of dealing with the spiritual. So I could go with a text that says "Shinto is often held to be pantheistic, but the best authorities disagree, and here's why." This is just one example of what we're up against: the situation with Hinduism and Buddhism is bigger and more complex because they each very much are not one single thing with one single spirituality. The most classical Buddhism ignores this kind of spiritualism, so it cannot be said to be pantheistic; but there are a lot of Buddhisms.

BladesMulti, you need to quit with these simplistic responses. I've had to tell you at least four times now that several of your preferred sources are no good because they do not come from experts on religion or indeed from works on religion at all. The fact of sources of some authority which disagree with you position you are pushing is incontrovertible. We may not end up saying that these religions are not pantheistic, but it's certainly clear we aren't going to end up saying flatly that they are pantheistic. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Without reading the book myself I can't actually comment what you have read. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You can make a really good argument that Shinto isn't even a religion, although that is more because in Japanese the word religion basically means "sect teaching" (which Shinto isn't). Can I suggest two academic rather than vague books, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BKAhUVqKFhgC&pg for the pantheism discussion, and http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yA3_QqC6pPgC for clarity on the Way. They are both from a mainly Western point of view (and the same author), however since Pantheism is a Western philosophical concept it'd be a little weird otherwise. BladesMulti, the reason I wanted to avoid the word sect is that "belief stream" or maybe "viewpoint on" would be clearer. I agree with Mangoe by the way, "highlighted the importance of" means that those religions have stated how important pantheism is. That is really not a good argument. Can I suggest that we use "Eastern religions are often considered to be panthistically inclined."FMMonty (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Most notably Hinduism and Taoism religions are often considered to share pantheistic elements." will be some good. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How about "Eastern religions are sometimes considered to be pantheistically inclined." As for getting more specific, with Hinduism, there are branches of Hinduism that are completely opposite and in opposition to pantheism. Taoism is a much better fit, which makes putting those two religions together a problem, but even Taoism has a major religious branch that is considered not pantheistic. Best to keep the statement non specific and discuss Hinduism and Taoism in the body of the article (currently the weakest part of this article in my view). NaturaNaturans (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Hinduism Paragraph

The paragraph

"In Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology Brahm/Parabrahma is the one unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all things in this Universe. If one adds two whole parts the result is one whole and if one whole is subtracted from another whole the result is another whole – it means there is one whole universe and it is all pervaded by Trimurti. Since the universe has come forth from the Divine, all things and beings are sacred and must be treated so in human thought and action. The Divine sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals and thinks in humans."

Is viewed by NaturaNaturans as being fringe. I can't be certain that it is or isn't, however I do know that there has been a level of edit warring on here in the past, and it might be sensible to get agreement on removing it before doing so. User:FMMonty Revision as of 11:50, 29 January 2014

I should have explained this edit before I made it. I have looked into "Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology" and it is an extremely obscure reference whose presence in this article section about Hinduism would be giving it undue weight. The sources for the rest of this paragraph were very recently added and have *nothing* at all to do with the sentences. Please review them yourself. As a side note, the user who added the sources and was edit warring with me has developed a of a reputation for adding bunk sources. I had removed the unsourced paragraph in September 2013 after the section was tagged for a clean up in April 2013. Bladesmulti brought it back in December and added irrelevant sources. NaturaNaturans (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that this was discussed before, and I am not willing to get involved in judging an editor based on anything other than their current edit. Why do you consider the reference obscure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"Sanatana Dharma theology" is a phrase that has never been used in any book, ever, according to Google Scholar, Google Books, etc. Sanatana Dharma is a rarely used blanket phrase used to describe different orthodox groups of Hindus. NaturaNaturans (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source he added, page 254: [20] NaturaNaturans (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti: Lets start:

• ""Hindu philosophy is the assertion that there is something beyond the physical body and mind, which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman."...... And "but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. Wit hthe realization of the Atman come universal compassion, love, and the awareness of the oneness of all things(higher knowledge). This brings Ananda(Inner Joy or Peace).""

• "If one adds two whole parts the result is one whole and if one whole is subtracted from another whole the result is another whole – it means there is one whole universe and it is all pervaded by Trimurti."

• "The Divine sleeps minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals and thinks in humans. "

If someone don't like them or lack access, then read these reliable refs, supporting same information. For 1st ref. 2nd ref 3rd ref. Nothing is fringe in my opinion. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

References

I believe the term Sanatana Dharma theology would be the same as writing Hindu theology. Also as for fringe there are quite a lot of Hindus, and a huge number of beliefs within that grouping. I think that we are looking at one belief strand, but I'm not sure we could call it fringe. I would probably change 'Sanatana Dharma theology' to something like 'some Hindus believe'. FMMonty (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, why do you think that "Shivendra Kumar Sinha" is a reliable source? And not that you are saying it is, but many BBC pages are not reliable sources. The one mentioned about "Hinduism: beliefs about God" is an example of the sort of things to avoid. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree about BBC, but this edit was simply an explanation to the removed content, that no sources were misused. I agree about Sinha too. This one can be used instead, if it will be needed: [[21] Handbook of Religion and Health]. Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

And FMMonty, remember that these are orthodox theories, that is why it was mentioned on the page itself as "theology", tag can be removed too I guess. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is the breadth of the phrase In Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology, as I believe that makes it seem a universal belief (if I were to say in Christian theology Christ was considered the Son of God that would be a universal belief, however the theological doctrine of the assumption of Mary would not (although it is very dominant as a belief)). I do know that Hindu belief is very scattered, however I don't know if there is a core of belief that is common to all strands. FMMonty (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that our article on Sanatana Dharma is quite divergent with the current Encyclopedia Britannica online article, and other searches lead me to distrust it as well. In the context of this article I'm not sure that the notion of "orthodoxy" expressed in that article is relevant. Most sources I'm finding are tending to the view that Hinduism at a theological level isn't pantheistic in the western sense, but that popular religious thinking often is pantheistic. I'm also concerned as to what we would use as a Sanatani authority anyway. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, finding reliable sources for an unsourced paragraph is more than locating random related word content in Google Books and then automatically entering in the reference page number without actually reading and understanding the content. The paragraph is saying something that NONE of the sources are saying. The paragraph is discussing a specific theological position. The third source says, "An old Sanskrit saying goes, 'God sleeps in the minerals, awakens in the plants..." it doesn't say Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology says that nor does it even say, some Hindus believe... That would be a different statement and a different paragraph. IMO, even trying to modify this paragraph will inevitable lead to synthesis and original research. The sources you added do not back up the paragraph claim. The better thing to do is remove it and stop trying to justify sources that are not saying what the paragraph is saying. There is plenty of content that link some forms of Hinduism and pantheism and can be added to enrich the section about Hinduism's relationship with pantheism, rather than trying to justify fringe entered material with improper sources. Must I repeat that "Hindu Sanatana Dharma theology" gets ZERO results everywhere. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans, Sanatana Dharma theology in my understanding is the same as writing Hindu theology. As such searching for Hindu (Hindu) theology would be kind of weird. The other problem of course is that until recently theology basically meant Christian Theology as it was the Christian West who applied Greek ideas to Christianity. This means you're not going to get much historical material on Hindu theology (made worse since commonly using the Indian term Sanatana Dharma instead of the Persian term Hindu is relatively new). To be honest I'd be inclined to heavily water this paragraph down as I don't think it can be justified, however I would like you to be a little more polite to Bladesmulti. You are accusing a person of justifying their position through poorly understood google books searches whilst refuting their position with poorly understood google searches. FMMonty (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the phrase "Hindu theology" gets plenty of book results. The other phrase gets zero. Sorry if I was impolite to someone who over and over again for the past couple months, maybe even willfully, wastes other people's time. If you put up lazy and clearly improper sources and want to debate nonstop about it, I may sound impolite to you as well. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, we are probably done. FMMonty, I believe that tag can be removed from section. And NaturaNaturans, if I had to interpret the whole book, it will become WP:UNDUE. It would be better to make whole new article then. But then again, it is not certainly needed, at least not now. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be WP:FRINGE, however I do believe it needs a significant rewrite. I hope we can all work together on that and put the past where it should be. FMMonty (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi FMMonty, NaturaNaturans, and Bladesmulti. Some responses by me.

• I've copy-edited the thread, trying to follow the line of argument, due to "my" "mentoring" of Bladesmulti. I've got a personal note to add too: I find the Hinduism-paragraph unreadable. I don't understand at all what it's about. So, I agree it needs a rewrite.
• I've just been trying to find sources on Hinduism & pantheism; difficult.
  • Even the "The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism" (redaction Gavin Flood) gives only one hit.
  • Doniger, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions:

"Polytheism begins to be replaced by a sacrificial pantheism of Prajapati ("Lord of the creatures"), who is the All. In the Upanishads Prajapati merges with the concept of Brahman" (p.440)

• @Bladesmulti:maybe you could start with reading Encyclopedia Britannica, stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], and Encyclopedia.com.
  • Britannica:

"In the Tiantai school of Chinese Buddhism founded by Zhiyi, as in earlier forms of Mahayana Buddhism, the elements of ordinary existence are regarded as having their basis in illusion and imagination. What really exists is the one Pure Mind, called True Thusness, which exists changelessly and without differentiation. Enlightenment consists of realizing one’s unity with the Pure Mind. Thus, an additional Buddhist school, Tiantai, can be identified with acosmic pantheism.

Indeed, although a mingling of types is discernible in the cultures directly influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism, acosmic pantheism would seem to be the alternative most deeply rooted and widespread in these traditions." [22]

(Not very convincing, I think; the term "pantheism" is not really appropriate here, since this is not about theism. But that's my personal thought.)

• @FMMonty and NaturaNaturans, here are some more thoughts by me on the topic itself. God/The One/Brahman is transcendent and immanent, according to "mainstream" Hindu thought, as far as I know? That's not pantheism, as far as I can see. Advaita Vedanta also isn't pantheism, since it regards this reality ultimately to be an illusion. And Dvaita Vedanta surely isn't. I suspect, but that's a thought that just pops up now, that any pantheistic Hindu thought is very recent, under influence of contemporary western thinking. It's a sign that religious thought keeps changing, that Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan also aren't the final articulation of Hinduism, etc. But, that's just my thought. I don't have any source for that. Food for thought and research here, I guess.
• The whole subsection can be reduced to the following, I think:

"The branches of Hinduism teaching forms of pantheism are known as non-dualist schools. (Bhaskarananda (1994)page-number?!?) All Mahāvākyas (Great Sayings) of the Upanishads, in one way or another, seem to indicate the unity of the world with the Brahman. (Klostermaier p. 201)"

And I'm not even sure about Klostermaier; does he say that this pantheism? It's outdated, by the way; the third edition is from 2007. It mentions "pantheism" only one time, citing a negative western publication on Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, the problem I find is that rather than a nice clear set of beliefs (or group of sets of beliefs) Hinduism is instead a bunch of philosophies / practices / beliefs that may or may not be tied to a set of 'scriptures'. Tie that to the fuzzy range of definitions for Pantheism and you're in for a wonderful time. For instance your view of Advaita Vedanta not being pantheistic is the direct opposite of the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (not suggesting either is correct, just that opposite viewpoints are easily drawn). Interestingly my research area is how people understand complex information, and more importantly share that understanding, hence my growing interest in the interplay between Indian and Western philosophy.

I do prefer your simplified paragraph. FMMonty (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm triggered by your research area! The interplay between Indian and Western philosophy is indeed fascinating. Did you read King, "Orientalism and religion"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not yet, in the real world I work with how to relate conflicting strands of government strategic policy, in the research world with cancer patient education, and for a new hobby I'm trying to get my head around > a few thousand years of Indian thought. I'll add it to my reading list though. FMMonty (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, "cancer patient education". Relates to my work. Here's some more reading tips:

• Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press
• Nicholson, Andrew J. (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press
• Rambachan, Anatanand (1994), The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press

For an influential modern Hindu point of view, see Rajiv Malhotra, especially Being Different; see also Hindu studies and Wendy Doniger.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: Pantheism seems to be more applicable to Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm chasing a copy of

• Halbfass, Wilhelm . (1988), India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding, State University of New York Press

as I'm told it is an excellent work. Cheers, FMMonty (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Had discussed about Panentheism before too. It doesn't distract, nor differentiate. If you go further, you will certainly need to create whole new page like "Pantheism in Hinduism". But it was discussed with JJ, much before, see.[23] But if you still want, starting with a sandbox, would be great idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

But is "monotheism" the same as "pantheism"? And I'm afraid that there is almost nothing to find on "Pantheism in Hinduism", so there's no need for a separate page on it. It's simply not an issue in Hnduism, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Pantheism didn't really start as a neatly defined school of philosophy, and Toland was a rather complex character. Toland called himself a "True Christian", a "Nazarein" and "pantheist" amongst others. I feel more comfortable with the definition (vaguely stated) that God is not separate to the universe, but IS the universe, and I'm not so sure about the definition of tolerating worshipping all gods Roman style (but it is an accepted definition). Anyway it is reasonable (but unusual) to believe in a monotheistic personal god that is the universe and also identify as a pantheist. More usual is simply that the universe is god(s). What isn't reasonable is to believe that god (the universe) isn't worthy of worship / awe, which is (amusingly for the lead paragraph) why Spinoza can't be a pantheist any more than an atheist can. FMMonty (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Flood (1996) has a short remark on Hinduism and pantheism, stating that it were westerners who figured Hinduism to be pantheistic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua JonathanIt would at first have been Westerners as pantheism was not a Hindu philosophy. If you'd like I can open another section on "Is Hinduism Pantheistic", as I'm quite enjoying the discussion. In terms of shared understanding I (maybe wrongly) believe that you firmly view Hinduism as Monotheistic. I quite like the quote ...it is not possible to make any statement which may be generally applicable to Hinduism as a whole. For, Hinduism is by no means a homogeneous entity. Sectarianism is the very essence of Hinduism, and, when any general statement regarding Hinduism is made, one or the other of its sects is bound to prove an exception to that statement. so we're in danger of talking past each other a fair bit if that is the case. That quote comes from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41694270 by the way. FMMonty (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noted a few questions/notes from you guys which I can help answer.

• Pantheism is and is not a form of "monotheism" depending on how that word is defined. Usually, monotheism suggests a personal god, which would not be a form of pantheism. But a broader definition of monotheism as one monistic god would include pantheism.
• Advaita Vedanta IS noted as a form of pantheism in many places. Further, pantheism takes no definite position on reality being an illusion. In fact, many (and perhaps most) notable pantheists subscribe to panpsychism, everything being consciousness, which opens the door to the possibility of all being an illusion of sorts.
• Pantheism also does not necessarily "deny" transcendence by supporting immanence. Some people feel that that is implied, but philosophers generally point out that that is NOT a necessary or logical implication. When it is implied by some that pantheism "denies" transcendence, it leads to some pantheists controversially being called panentheists for opening the door to potentially transcendent-like qualities such as infinity or unknowable attributes (Spinoza). But pantheism, like monism and non-dualism, does not necessarily acknowledge these types of distinctions in the first place, which blurs the line between pantheism and panentheism. Yet, panentheism is a more specific philosophy which *requires* both immanence and transcendence.
• Pantheism does not necessarily imply "worship" at all.

Anyway, the new paragraph looks good to me. Thanks for the solution. NaturaNaturans (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This is of course the game with real world fuzzy definitions, and why brawls break out :) FMMonty (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@ FMMonty: no, I don't intend at all to say that hinduism is monotheistic. I totally agree with your quote (and the fact that you use WP:RS). I'm trying to find some sources on Hinduism and pantheism, but so far, it's almost nihil. Persoanlly, I also think that it's not very relevant, whether or not Hinduism is pantheistic. At best, we may say, maybe, "This or that author made this or that statement rgerading Hinduism and pantheism." Maybe. Anyway, I'm not at all an expert, or even a beginner, on pantheism and panentheism, so I'm quite happy to limit my contribution here to providing a few sources, if I can find them, and give a modest input to the discussion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)