![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
This is from the Pantheism page on New World Encyclopedia":
Url address: < http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pantheism>
This is from the Pantheism page at plato.standford.edu:
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
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)
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:
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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--
--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.
Here the encyclopedia clarifies that in panentheism God transcends the universe. In pantheism God is only the universe.
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.)
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.
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.
Here the encyclopedia is careful to stress that pantheists reject ascribing personal attributes to God only generally - it is not a universally-shared perspective.
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.
In a system of pantheism, God may be personified or be understood anthropomorphically.
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fully agreed, and thanks for informing. Bladesmulti ( talk) 09:01, 28 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:-
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)
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.
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)
You probably haven't read properly. [15] explains a lot. Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:31, 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)
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)
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)
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):
...and on and on. NaturaNaturans ( talk) 19:51, 5 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:
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. [1] 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. [2] 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." [3]
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
Bladesmulti: Lets start:
If someone don't like them or lack access, then read these reliable refs, supporting same information. For 1st ref. [7] 2nd ref [8] 3rd ref. [9] Nothing is fringe in my opinion. Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |Author=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)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)
Hi FMMonty, NaturaNaturans, and Bladesmulti. Some responses by me.
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]
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)
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)
I've noted a few questions/notes from you guys which I can help answer.
Anyway, the new paragraph looks good to me. Thanks for the solution. NaturaNaturans ( talk) 10:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
This is from the Pantheism page on New World Encyclopedia":
Url address: < http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pantheism>
This is from the Pantheism page at plato.standford.edu:
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
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)
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:
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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--
--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.
Here the encyclopedia clarifies that in panentheism God transcends the universe. In pantheism God is only the universe.
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.)
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.
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.
Here the encyclopedia is careful to stress that pantheists reject ascribing personal attributes to God only generally - it is not a universally-shared perspective.
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.
In a system of pantheism, God may be personified or be understood anthropomorphically.
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fully agreed, and thanks for informing. Bladesmulti ( talk) 09:01, 28 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:-
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)
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.
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)
You probably haven't read properly. [15] explains a lot. Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:31, 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)
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)
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)
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):
...and on and on. NaturaNaturans ( talk) 19:51, 5 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:
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. [1] 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. [2] 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." [3]
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
Bladesmulti: Lets start:
If someone don't like them or lack access, then read these reliable refs, supporting same information. For 1st ref. [7] 2nd ref [8] 3rd ref. [9] Nothing is fringe in my opinion. Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |Author=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)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)
Hi FMMonty, NaturaNaturans, and Bladesmulti. Some responses by me.
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]
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)
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)
I've noted a few questions/notes from you guys which I can help answer.
Anyway, the new paragraph looks good to me. Thanks for the solution. NaturaNaturans ( talk) 10:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)