Talk:Pantheism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

second paragraph

One way to describe pantheism is to say "you are to God, as an individual blood cell in your vein is to you." While a cell may be aware of its own environs, and even has some choices (freewill) between right and wrong (killing a bacteria, becoming malignant, or perhaps just doing nothing, among countless others) it likely has little conception of the greater being of which it is a part.

Are we to believe that our blood cells are sentient beings? :-\ I'm removing this as nonsense. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yes, we are. Please don't remove large blocks of textprior to discussion. Sam [Spade] 12:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I think a better analogy should be put there. I'm not feeling clever enough at the moment. --Tothebarricades.tk 18:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well I wrote that particular analogy, and it has been proof-read, discussed and edited over the last year or so since I wrote it, so I am unlikely to provide a superior wording. In my experience its a pretty handy way to convey both the relationship between man and an all inclusive, immanant God, and to remove the egocentric and unnecessary asumption of sentience being unique to humanity. My particular POV assumes all things are conscious, every animal, rock and planet and down to every cell and quark, but maybe thats just the pantheist in me. Regardless of the accuracy of this worldview, I think it is a valid and useful method of explaining our relationship to existance. Sam [Spade] 15:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just some fool with his two cents here--I think it's fine. No one's going to be able to come up with a "better" analogy because (I think) there aren't really any microscopic intelligences and the theoretical macroscopic intelligence of, say, corporations or nations is conjectural and could be struck down for the same reason. There's nothing intelligent inside of something else intelligent, as far as we know. Still, a person understands a cell and a person understands a person, and understands the former is a component of the latter. Cell:Human::Human:God --165.134.186.198 20:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Right, God would be the macro-intelligence, and man the micro-intelligence. I understand sentience is a controversial subject, some even doubt their own sentience. I'm pretty sure what I wrote was neutral, and I didn't mean to claim there was proof of conscious cells. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major edits by BM

I don't disagree w your edits generally, but I didn't like the depiction of the contrast between atheist "pantheists", and theist pantheists. This debate is quite signifigant, and has wrecked not just a little havok on this very page in the past. One particularly severe and long term problem (there have been more than one) involved me (a classical pantheist), a naturalistic pantheist, and a peircean cosmotheist all editing simultaneously. Needless to say there was quite a bit of trouble keeping the page clean of POV. The pearcean phreaked out and got got banned, the naturalist largely stopped editing, and I'm still here (not a particularly unusual wiki-tale, I suppose...). Anywho, I welcome additions to the page, but I feel its important to clarify this page has been rather controversial in the past, and therefore NPOV must be stressed. Also, why did you feel the section headers were bad? I largely kept your format, but installed section headers to make it more readable. Thoughts? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mostly, I was just trying to smoothe out the text and perhaps make things a bit more clear. To be honest, I feel this is the main contribution I can make in the Wikipedia, since I couldn't claim to be an expert on many of the topics I'm interested in. My undergraduate degree from Harvard was in Philosophy, and in the 25 years since I graduated I've read widely on these subjects, but I'm not a professional philosopher, and wouldn't push myself forward as an expert.

Regarding the section you mentioned, the main thing in the sentence I was trying to get away from was the word "tautological", since as stated it wasn't very clear what it was that "atheists" were alleging that pantheists were trying to make true by definition. I think the main criticism from atheists especially of "naturalistic or scientific" pantheism is that it is a trival redefinition of terms. The thing about pantheists being "nature-loving atheists" is a bit of wise-crack, I admit, but it isn't original with me, is a reasonable summary of the criticism, does have the virtue of being a memorable sound-bite, and indeed is also mentioned in one of the various "Panentheism" articles. (There are a few of them, somewhat unfortunately, and I forget now which.) If you reckon its too POV and is going to provoke people, though, I'm not wedded enough to it to spend my life trying to keep it in the article.

Concerning the section headers, it is perhaps a prejudice I have, which is that articles invite reading if they *look* short and succinct, and have a crisp style. I especially associate this with encyclopedias. So, if an article is relatively short -- a page or so, or less -- it is better to remove the headers so that the headers (and the resulting table of contents) don't make the article look long and heavy. Of course, once the articles get to be longer than a page or so, the improvement in organization, etc, outweighs the desire to keep them succinct looking. --BM 17:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, Sam, while I have your attention. I know you're a bold kind of guy. Have you considered merging the Pantheism article and the plethora of Panentheism articles? --BM 17:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Hasn't pantheism suffered enough here on Wikipedia? A merge with panentheism would be incredibly inappropriate. Pantheism is distinguishable from panentheism in a number of very important ways. I realize that the bias toward "classical" dualistic pantheism (which is similar to panentheism) is remarkably strong here, but to merge the two subjects would be a colossal error. If you must do it, merge the "classical" articles with panentheism, and leave naturalistic pantheism alone, so that the 75% or more of the modern pantheist community who are naturalistic can be accurately represented. If there can't be a good general-purpose pantheism article, we can at least have one related NPOV article on Wikipedia. --Nat 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My compliments on your on your thoughtful reply to my critique. The "atheism for nature lovers" is definitely not unique to you, I've heard that a few times myself (the above mentioned cosmotheist used it, for example ;). The thing about the section headers is interesting. I'm not sure what to say about that. I ad section headers as often as possible as I think it eases ones ability to locate desired info (not to mention making it much easier to edit). However, I'd be open to some discussion on it, maybe a "rule of thumb" regarding length before sectioning would be handy. The part about tautology is slightly original research, i admit. Atheists have often accused me of tautology (whats so bad about tautology anyhow? ;) for saying "God = Existence". It can be removed if it isn't better explained, since I doubt I can reference it. As far as panentheism... this is a difficult subject. If you provide me a list of the articles in question, I'd be glad to set to work merging them w the panentheism article, but alot of people see panentheism as distinct from pantheism. Indeed, the whole question of atheism is a major factor there, since panentheism seems to rule out an unconscious God, while spinoza (many peoples introduction to pantheism) seemed to think Gods unconsciousness was clear (I never did understand him on that). Glad to have you here, and interested in hearing your reply. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's still POV

The problems discussed in my critique remain largely unaddressed, and there is still a heavy POV bias against naturalistic pantheism. For example, the following:

Their opposite, adherents of Naturalistic Pantheism (such as the World Pantheist Movement), believe in an unconscious, non-sentient universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense. This second group is vigorously criticised both within and outside the pantheist community as being "atheism for nature lovers", with perjoratives such as Pan-Atheism, and Pseudo-pantheism used in their regards.

This sort of biased description makes naturalistic pantheism sound like the "bad seed" and the "black sheep" of pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism is "vigorously criticised both within and outside the pantheist community?" No more so than so-called classical pantheism, which is actually the minority view within the "pantheist community," if the pantheist community is the community of self-declared pantheists. Naturalistic pantheism is by far the dominant view among those who describe themselves specifically as "pantheists."

In addition, "pan-atheism" is a neologism invented by the banned user Paul Vogel, which should have been on VFD ages ago. What's more, pseudo-pantheism once contained a reference to Vogel's Cosmotheism (a true psuedo-pantheism) which was removed by Vogel himself, and ironically, the term is now being used in reference to Naturalistic Pantheism.

Why Sam Spade (a known Vogel sympathizer) is being allowed to do this to pantheism is beyond me. The article is slightly better, but not nearly good enough. It is still both inaccurate and highly POV.

I've indicated that I don't want to rewrite this article in the past, and I still don't want to. However, because I have refused to do so, Wikipedia has had a poor-quality article on pantheism for almost a year now. I don't know how much longer I'll allow it. I may edit soon.

--Nat 14:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I encourage you to edit, but caution you to be aware of your own over-riding POV. For example, I am in no way a "vogel sympathizer", the number of times I reverted him alone should attest to that, much less comments such as this one, where I illustrate why I could not advocate against his being banned. In summary, please do edit, but please don't do so in a hostile or POV manner. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 15:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, everyone has a POV. I am as conscious of the fact as anyone. However, I don't feel that I've ever made blatant POV edits to this article. If you can produce evidence that I have, I'll certainly look at it. Again, I'm not here to promote my POV, but to make the article "fair" to all POVs, including my own. That's my idea of NPOV - not slanted toward any particular POV, and not giving short shrift to any.

If I do edit, I can assure you that I will keep NPOV in mind at all times. I don't think I've ever done otherwise, and if I have, it was certainly not intentional. --Nat 00:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nat, I don't think your comments concerning the paragraph describing the debate between "naturalistic pantheists" and "classical pantheists" was POV. You were right, and you will notice that I reworked this paragraph. I hope it now meets with your approval. What was POV about it in my opinion was that the description of the "naturalistic pantheists" was followed immediately by critiques of the position. If one is going to describe two positions that are in contention, A and B, and one wants to mention what the A's say about the B's, one better mention what the B's say about the A's, or there is an NPOV problem. --BM

Okay, I've done my best.

I've submitted an edit. My goal was to address as many of the problems I saw in the article as I could, while changing as little of the current content as possible. I think I've done my part at compromise. Now, we need to be sure that others can live with the edit. --Nat 02:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, nice job. I definitely think its an improvement, although I haven't considered every word. --BM 02:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I went over your edits and found them to be good over all, altho there were some issues w original research which I removed, especially regarding cosmotheism. I'm pretty sure most of what you wrote in this regards was relating to your own experience w PV, which altho valid, would be Original research by wiki standards, and thus not allowed. However, if you can cite an example of a pantheist organization taking a stand re: cosmotheism, then that would be great. Frankly, I think cosmotheism is way to obcure for very many people to have any opinion about it at all, and it probably isn't worth us giving so much emphasis to. We still disagree about panentheism, but as you can see in my conversations w BM above, I am careful not to do things like merge pantheism w panentheism, which BM somewhat suggested. I agree there is a distinction, where we disagree is if this distinction is useful. Its very much a philosophical matter, altho i agree that the distinction is what allows room for "naturalistic" pantheism. We could talk about the ramifications of panentheism sometime, philosophically I don't really accept that anything, God included, can be outside of, or apart from existence. In any case I'm perfectly willing to discuss my edits, and outside of the the cosmotheism matter, I tried very hard to retain your additions, despite some minimizing of emphasis on a distinct pantheist / panentheist dichotomey. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but I'd like to reproduce one of the portions you removed on this page, so that we can have other opinions as to whether or not it constitutes "original research."

Some Cosmotheists claim that their view is a form of pantheism, citing a 1913 Webster's dictionary definition which lists Cosmotheism as a synonym for pantheism. However, some critics maintain that the view has little do with pantheism, except perhaps the most panentheistic varieties. At present, the controversy is ongoing and has not been resolved to the satisfaction of anyone concerned.

A large majority of modern pantheists maintain that there is no place for the suggestion of racialism or other generally divisive social views in pantheism, basing this contention on the idea that the "all is God" basis of pantheism makes it one of the most egalitarian and democratic of spiritual ideas. However, a significant minority within the pantheistic community, consisting largely of Piercean Cosmotheists and their supporters, maintain that a hierarchical order (which may support racialist contentions) is observable in nature, and therefore must be considered an authentic part of God's design. Despite a history of considerable dialogue encompassing both sides of the issue, it is not yet clear how this deep divide in pantheistic views can be adequately resolved.

I don't see how any of this constitutes "original research." It is all based on the stated views of modern pantheists. If you need testimonials to vouch for the accuracy of this information, I'm sure dozens could be produced if we were to contact pantheist organizations and put the question to them. Once again, my credentials are being dismissed. I have been active in the pantheist community for seven years, so I didn't exactly start doing this yesterday. If I listed my positions and accomplishments yet again, I'd be embarassing myself, not to mention the fact that such facts don't seem to matter much to you.

Also, you claim that you tried to retain most of my changes, but the edit history tells a rather different story. Perhaps 50% or more of what I wrote was chopped out. I waited over a year to make this edit, and you removed a good deal of it just a few hours later. Couldn't you have at least researched my additions? I know you couldn't have done so in a period as short as the few hours my edit lasted.

In addition, you state here that what you removed largely had to do with the alleged "original research," but in reality, the edit history shows that you made no less than six separate edits this morning, on several occassions removing and altering large portions of my text which had nothing to do with the racialism section. I encourage anyone who is curious to look at the edit history and confirm this for themselves.

The situation remains largely as it has always been. You have taken charge of this article in a most self-confident way, and you show little or no hesitation about editing quickly and mercilessly. It was a mistake for me to have edited, I think. There is clearly a perception that this article is yours for you to do with as you please, and you clearly have no intention of allowing me any significant say in the matter, beyond perhaps a token "goodwill gesture" of leaving bits and pieces of my edits untouched. As I've stated before, this may be why no other recognized authority on modern pantheism will touch this article.

On the other hand, one interesting change you made was to describe Cosmotheism as "Neo-Nazi." I wouldn't have gone that far myself, but I am at least glad to see you addressing Cosmotheism in critical terms (assuming that Neo-Nazism is in fact something you view negatively).

Again, I am not against you personally, but I am disappointed in how quickly you nullified a good deal of my edit. I didn't make the edit lightly -- after abstaining from editing this article for an entire year, I had hoped that my edit would last longer than a few hours. I must repeat the idea that you couldn't have adequately researched the statements I made in such a short period. Instead, you simply blotted out what you didn't care for -- something I waited patiently for over a year to do to your edit, and you turned around and did it to mine just hours later.

I'd like to ask other contributors to look at my last edit and compare it to the current revision, and give their own thoughts as to whether the material that was removed was really deserving of deletion. --Nat 13:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find your assessment of my actions innaccurate, but to prove that I am open to outside views (including yours), I offer you these links to solicit it:
I do respect your credentials (as a naturalistic pantheist), but I also question the "offical pantheist stance" bit. Its not terribly important to me however, and since I'm not really all that opposed to original research myself, I will compromise regarding cosmotheism. If you tone down your statements a bit (or reference them) to make it clear that most pantehists have no opinion whatsoever about cosmotheism, because its an extremely obscure form of neo-nazism (even most neo-nazi's probably have never heard of it), but that some naturalistic pantheists who do know about it find it very objectionable, that would be fine. As far as my other edits, I don't think I removed 50% of your additions, compare my edit just before yours w the current version. I moved things around, but went way out of my way to keep your adjustments. I have no desire to keep you or anyone else from editing this article, but I will of course remain involved. Again, I'm glad to have you here, and would hope that you feel the same about my fine self ;) Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 15:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, that seems like a pretty reasonable stance on your part. I appreciate your willingness to consider my views on these matters. I'll give the issues regarding Cosmotheism some thought, and see if I can put something back in that we both can live with, and I am glad we are now talking in terms of compromise and mutual co-operation. --Nat 16:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that the criticism ought to be that this represents original research, since Nat is not advancing these claims as his own findings or as personal testimony. A more apt criticism is that he hasn't cited sources and has used weasel words "Cosmotheists believe...", perhaps relying on these statements being "common knowledge" amongst pantheists. Even that is fine too as long as it goes unchallenged. If no editor questions it, that is reason to believe that it is indeed common knowledge. But once the sources are called for, it is reasonable to expect them to be produced, or else the statements should be removed until someone can produce sources. The weasel words policy is somewhat controversial, and personally I don't object to editors making statements in the articles without weighing them down with constant citation of sources (for example, we don't have the advantage of footnotes); so I don't think the sources need always to be mentioned in the article, but if there is a question, they should be on the Talk page somewhere. --BM 17:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. Cosmotheism is insanely obscure (especially the even more obscure peircean nazi version). Me and nat have spent oodles of time dealing w one particular cosmotheist, named Paul Vogel. The sorts of things nat was mentioning in the article strike me as being based on that experience, esp. the reference to the 1913 Webster's dictionary, something pv found particularly convincing (lord knows why). Anyways, I don't object to the original research (which I suspect it is, since this particular microscopic faith w maybe 100 adherants max gets precious little discussion generally), what I object to is the suggestion that pantheists generally have an opinion about it, since it is so insanely small, and since most pantheists are hindu's, buddhists, jains, hassidic jews, etc..., whom I doubt spend much time arguing w crazed cosmotheist wing-nuts about outdated dictionary entries online ;) Anyways, the important thing is that Nat knows he is wanted here, and that my edits were not ment to be a slap in the face (as a revert would have been) but rather me working with him to make the article better (which I think were doing :). If it helps any, I have been spending alot of time thinking about what you have said about panentheism, Nat, and would like to discuss that w you again sometime. Glad to have you back! Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 22:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It is true that I had never heard of cosmotheism and Peirce before encountering this article, and I consider myself reasonably well-read in this area. Since white separatism is not an especially large movement, I didn't suppose it was very prominent, but I didn't quite realize how small it was. If what Sam says is so, I am starting to wonder whether cosmotheism and Peirce are significant enough to merit a mention at all. If it is mentioned, surely it should be no more than a single sentence, an aside. There seems to be an article on cosmotheism, which might arguably be deleted. Nat, you apparently think this is more noteworthy in the context of pantheism than Sam has indicated. Why is that? Is cosmotheism on the radar of most pantheists or simply a footnote? --BM 22:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've been thinking about what both you and Sam have presented in regard to this issue, and I think you are probably both right. Whether or not my remarks on cosmotheism consituted original research, I tend to agree that the view is a very small and relatively insignificant one, and so I've decided that I really don't have a legitimate objection to the removal of that material. Sam is probably correct in his assesment that my own interactions with Vogel (which go back more than four years) may have influenced me unduly. Note that this is not quite the same as POV bias, but it is a (slightly different) issue of editor bias on my part, having to do more with experiences than with beliefs. Vogel aside, cosmotheism is hardly ever mentioned, and is certainly quite obscure. I am going to try to look at this from a viewpoint outside my own experience, and as Sam points out, the experience of most pantheists most likely does not include the kind of Vogel-antics I have unfortunately had to endure. I only give attention to cosmotheism because Paul Vogel has been pushing it in my face for a very long time, and I have have had to respond to it on many internet forums, starting long before his first appearance here. --Nat 10:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With that in mind, I removed the extra section (which in my view was making us all look bad by association) and left the sentance under debate, which expresses their view neatly, which making it clear they are controvercial, and implying that other pantheists may very well not accept them. What I had ment about original research was simply that you were in part describing your own experiences, not that you had made anything up, or anything of that sort. In any case, I hope this compromise is acceptable to all? For the record I oppose deletion of Cosmotheism, it is a worthwhile article, altho I might agree w nat on pan-atheism. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brahminism

Direct worship of Brahman is most applicable to this article, I believe. Specifics about Hindu faiths which are less pantheistic, focusing on gods other than brahman, is less applicable. Also, I reverted some strange comments by Acidmonkey in the Judaism section. Cheers, [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 01:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. All Hindu faiths that focus on personal God are mostly pantheistic/pannentheistic as there is no difference between Brahman and the personal God. I was born Hindu so I am familiar. Raj2004 17:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

Pantheism in Hinduism

I think we need to be careful to keep this content focused on pantheism. Usage of fire in worship, for example, is not directly applicable to this page. I really think a link to brahminism would be beneficial, but i am willing to wait on that. I disagree that Arya Samaj rejects the formful god, rather they consider both the formful and the formless to be combined in the absolute, unless I am mistaken. 12:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I agrees you can remove the fire usage in worship but that binds all Hindus. I believe you may be confused. Arya Samaj rejects conception of formful God; see, http://www.aryasamaj.com/ten.htm and http://www.swamiagnivesh.com/genuine.htm, rejection of personal God; they consider only worship of the Upanishadic Brahman. Your concepton of God being both formless and formful is found in Advaita theology. Adviata holds personal Gods and Brahman to be the same. (Nirguna Brahman/Saguna Brahman distinction; see Swami Sivananda's All About Hinduism; pleasee see the vedanta and sivananda society links.

Swami Sivananda said in Advaita philosophy, "Sankara’s Supreme Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.

The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.

Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika). " It is important to clarify that pantheism is component of Advaita especially. It is also important to show ista deva is really conceptualizing God with form. Also Hindus use fire and murtis to focus on God. Arya Samaj still needs focus but uses fire only. Again as I said before, no Hindu uses the term Brahmanism which is an antiquated term. Use Smarta which is the Hindu Term or Vedanta. Hope this clarifies.

Raj2004 15:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) Raj2004

I use brahmanism because it clarifies the focus on brahman. What else might you call one who worships brahman directly? Smarta is of course not an acceptable substitute in this case. I am aware of the importance of fire in Hinduism, but I think you understand that this is is not a factor in the discussion of pantheism. If what you seem to be saying about arya samaj is true, that arya samaj does not understand brahman to be both the formful and the formless, than arya samaj is not pantheist at all, and should not be mentioned here. However, that is not how I interpret their doctrines. I wish we had an arya samaj adherant available to ask... [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 17:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Arya samaj belives only in the formful. Advaita, is what you have in mind. It believes Brahman to be formful and formless. So Smarta is a good term. There are Smarta Vedanta monists who worship Brahman directly as Advaita said both are acceptable. The sites speak for itself but if there is an Arya Samaj adherent who has any more insight, that would be great. Raj2004 21:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of "form"

When I say formful in regards to God, I mean this in a pantheist sense, that he has every form, and also in the panentheist sense, that he is also those things which have not form, or have not yet come into being, or were once formful, but have now since dissipated. To say God is only formless is very different from saying God is formless. For example, God = All, but this does not mean that any one part is all of him. My computer (or a rock, or etc...) is one small part of God, but I do not worship my computer, I worship God in his entirety, if you understand. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 17:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.s. I have asked for some additional input @ Talk:Hinduism#Debate_on_Talk:Pantheism, only to ensure all views are represented, and that we might more perfectly express these weighty matters. I hope you do not mind, [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 17:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I completely understand. I don't mind at all. We learn from each other. Your questions only help solidify my knowledge. Advaita is what you have in mind, not Arya Samaj. A similar term would be Vedanta monism. Raj2004 21:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope that nothing that we have said or discussed on this matter has annoyed or offended you in any way. You are one of the most pleasent and agreeable users I have known, and I can say this with confidence because I have spoken to you so often.
When discussing esoteric matters, the reason for difference of opinion is most often definition of terms, IMO. The nature of God, dharma, metaphysics, etc... are very difficult to discuss, and the misunderstandings about them are almopst always semantic. Essentially I doubt we disagree about much of anything, but rather misunderstand one another on certain key terms and doctrines.

"He is Formless" of

2. God is Existent, Intelligent and Blissful. He is Formless, Almighty, Just, Merciful, Unborn, Infinite, Unchallengeable, Beginningless, Incomparable, the Support and Lord of all, Omniscient, Imperishable, Immortal, Fearless, Eternal, Holy and the Maker of the universe. To Him alone worship is due.
from doctrine 2 of arya samaj is where we misunderstand, I feel. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 22:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I am not annoyed at all and I find your questions helpful. I still remember when you and I disagreed with dbachmane about mention of Brahman in the Vedas, and I had to refer him to Sri Rudram which described Lord Siva as Brahman and that chant is at least 3000 years old! and is probably much older as there was extensive oral tradition. Talking about God, as you correctly point out is complicated and difficult to define. As I said, we learn from each other. Many people ask me about Hinduism and I try to explain or refer to good sources. Doctrine 2 is at issue. From my understanding, Arya Samaj believes God has no form and hence does not take form as Saguna Brahman (Vishnu, Siva) nor takes avatars (Krishna, Jesus). For then, it appears to be degrading that God takes form. A strict Hindu theist would say God is gracious and merciful to descend out of His own will. But this does not necessarily contradict panetheism in Arya Samaj. For Arya Samaj, Brahman is everything like most Hindus . However, they disgree with Vedanta (Adviata, etc.) that God ever takes form. So it is a little more limiting than Advaita. Hope this helps. Raj2004 00:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good, I appreciate yopur graciousness, and am only cautious because the subject of religion is so personal, and thus it is easy for many to take offence; I am gladdened that you have not. Now, two particulars from what you have said:
Arya Samaj believes God has no form

and

But this does not necessarily contradict panetheism in Arya Samaj. For Arya Samaj, Brahman is everything like most Hindus.
I am uncertain if both of these can be true. If God has no form at all, how can he be everything (including that with form)? Would it be better to say "For arya samaj, God has no one form"? Cheers, [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 09:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, all Hindus believe that God has no particular form. For example, shaivites and vaishnavites believe Siva and Vishnu has no particular form and can be any form, despite manifesting in a form commonly portrayed. I think Arya Samaj believes that God does not manifest into a form nor incarnates. Raj2004 12:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) This the language from Arya Samaj I find problematic: "An other distinctive feature of the monotheism of the Arya Samaj is that, it does not believe in any physical or personal God. And therefore, there is no question of His residing in heaven or taking birth as an avatar or incarnation. The first principle says that "God is the primary and original source of all true knowledge" and the second principle describes "all the essential characteristics of its conception of God". God is incorporeal and therefore, there is no question of his being a person or having any physical existence or identity. That is why, He is "all pervading" and "free from birth, death, fear, disease or decay."

One may say that if there is a God, He can be only one who has all the characteristics given in this second principle, otherwise, there would be many inconsistencies and contradictions about Him. For example, if He is born, He cannot be immortal. Similarly, if He has a body or an abode in Heaven, He cannot possibly be everywhere or all powerful. If He is just and merciful, He cannot do or undo anything as he likes nor can He be flattered by our prayers or angered by our indifference to Him. In other words, Dayanand has tried to so rationalise the conception of God that while it satisfies the need or urge of man for God, it also makes it possible for him to continue to believe in His existence in spite of the growing advance in science and human knowledge. God is not a person whose existence we can deny or refuse to accept but it is a power, which even those who do not believe in Him." from http://www.swamiagnivesh.com/genuine.htm

This does not conform with Advaita principles which is what I think you have mind. Vishnu is a Person that can manifest in any form. Note that while Vishnu is commonly portrayed with human features, Swami Tapasyananda, in his book, Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, reminds readers that Vishnu pervades everything and is not anthropomorphic. Attributing anthrompormorphic characteristics to Vishnu is a common misconception held by non-Hindus. Vishnu has no particular material form but can manifest in any form, and is a center of all force, power, will, auspiciousness, goodness, beauty, grace, responsiveness, etc. He incarnates out of His own free will. Praying to God is way to seek His grace. He does this in order to help us. Arya Samaj seems non-theistic to me. Raj2004 12:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would agree, if indeed they mean to say he is only formless, but I had assumed they had only ment that he is not anthropomorphic, not a deva, etc... I myself would say that God is every form, and formlesness as well, however I worship him in total, not only one part. Also the absolute has a personal nature with which one can communicate and commune, recieve blessings and give thanxs, etc.. Cheers, [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 17:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, Sam your views seem similar to Advaita philosophy which holds all your beliefs. From what I have read (from those arya samaj web sites), it appears they don't hold all the beliefs that Advaita holds dear, such as the absolute having a personal nature as well. Raj2004 17:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cosmotheism version of God

I wish to propose an entry into pantheism as to how cosmotheists see God, the universe and Nature as not only one, but one process towards a final outcome. I propose this because in pantheism, it says cosmothiests dont have a clear picture of what their god is, or what god is. I am here to tell you that is wrong, cosmotheism has a precise understanding of what god is. I ask you to consider this and allow it to be added to cosmotheism. Here is goes....

Cosmotheism, is a small and controversial racialist group which considers itself a form of pantheism. Through a big picture lens, Cosmotheism has a Transhumanist interpretation of God as the final product of self-directed racial, creative and conscious evolution. God is thus the final stage of a pantheist universe which does not exist at present, but will exist in the future. Cosmotheism sees the pantheist universe of the present and past as a kind of metaphorical pre-programmed blind and brute force mathematical equation unravelling as a cosmic process and transformation which unconsciously is going through stages of development towards an end point of God. More importantly, God in cosmotheism is not only an end point, but how one gets there is an extremely important, specific and precise path. Taking a step back and looking into the past, cosmotheists see life coming into existence as a product of purpose from this blind and unconscious cosmic evolution of the pantheist universe. During unconscious lifes explosion of variety and brute force evolution over time, at some point life as a whole crosses a stage where a sub set combination occurs within its variation possessing iminent consciousness - or sentience. Cosmotheism thus sees as the present embodiment of the divine purpose and highest stage of consciousness in life within the European people. More specifically, Cosmotheists believe that only special racially awakened members within the descendents of Europe reflect the universes highest level of the creative and continued urge towards Godhood. Racism is then perceived in this racialist version of pantheism as the necessary force to create a distinct speciation or narrow evolutionary path towards the universe continuing its conscious evolution towards Godhood. Thus with this new divine awareness, self-chosen racialists members of the white race use their racist consciousness as a community to see the once dark maze no longer blind or in darkness. With illumination and foresight, the divinely awakened exit the blind maze and then see a clear path, one which directs them into a prescient future of conscious evolution to achieve ever higher states of physical, mental and spiritual being. The higher states of being are stepping stones towards a final omega point of absolute, total and infinite universal consciousness. God in the cosmotheist vision is then the end stage of a pantheist universe attaining a state of absolute, infinite and perfect self-awareness of itself in totality through racist conscious evolution. At this final and completed stage, Godhood in cosmotheism is the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresence consciousness which bridges, merges and converges all the knowledge in the universe, time and space, and the past and future as the one eternal presence of consciousness.


Here is my proposal

Dnagod 00:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/n/Talk%7EPantheism_Archive_3_804a.html"