Category Archives: Pantheism

Kedo Peseyie

Shiv Kheras popularity in Nagaland is evident. There are people I know who consider his book You Can Win an indispensable guide in life. Some Christians have even referred to it as their second bible. Even the Government of Nagaland paid him several lakhs of rupees some years back just to hear him harp on his principles, some taken straight from the Bible and others from Hinduism, monism, pantheistic, humanism, and other (God knows from where else) philosophies. A loosely structured network of all of these belief systems is what many people today call The New Age which promises unparalleled spiritual advancement in the spiritual nature of humans, health, stress-free world, ecological balance, a new earth, a new heaven, a new humanity, etc. Shiv Khera is a thoroughly New Age writer.

With due apology and respect to a best selling author such as Shiv Khera, I must say that I have never been attracted to the book You Can Win. Last week out of curiosity I pick up this book in a library and read a chapter on values. I was thoroughly amused, especially with his value test questions. You have to read it yourself to believe it. He calls them the ultimate value test. The first ultimate test is called the Mama Test. Wherever you are or whatever you may be doing, if your values are in question, according to Khera, you must ask yourself the question, If my Mama were to see me doing what I am doing right now, would she be proud of me and say, Attaboy! or would she hang her head in shame? He promises that our values would be clarified rather quickly.

If this Mama Test is not enough, dont fret. There is another ultimate test called the Baba Test. If values are in question again, you can ask yourself the question, If my children were to see me doing what I am doing right now, would I want them to see it, or would I be embarrassed? Again he promises that the clouds would clear very quickly and we would get our answers.

There seem to be nothing seriously wrong with these questions. But to call them ultimate value tests is to say that humans are autonomous in nature with no need for a reference point, namely God. We create our own values, our own meaning and purpose in life, and we create our own realities. I detect in these questions a humanism that totally pushes God out of the picture. In such a picture, humans have the autonomy to decide what is good and bad, right and wrong. And so, many Naga students along with the consent of their Mamas and Babas apply for scholarships with false income certificates because, given the situation, that seems to be the right and acceptable thing to do. And there are many Babas and Mamas who would unscrupulously buy (bribe) a job or a college seat for their children. If individuals are to learn their values from the Babas and Mamas of this materialistic frenzy age, and be held accountable only to them, then I guess You Can Win only means having a Government job, driving cars and building mansions while the poorer sections of the society are being systematically cut off from the privileges of a democracy. (The Ultimate Test: whose Baba and Mama anyway?)

Clearly there are many other religious beliefs and philosophies influencing the New Age writers like Shiv Khera, Deepak Chopra, et al. I am not educated enough to know them and name even a few. But some of them are as follows: monism, pantheism, Hinduism, humanism and even Christianity. A very loosely structured network of these, along with many others, is what people call the New Age Movement.

Scholars say that the New Age movement cannot be defined accurately. But they agree that at its doctrinal core, the New Age movement is Hinduism put in western terminology. C.S. Lewis considered Hinduism and Christianity as the two most advanced religious systems. But the major difference between them is important. Hinduism can accommodate all other religions within it while Christianity, at its purest form, has to exclude all other religions. It does not mean that Christianity is intolerant. It simply means that Christianity is uncompromising in its affirmation that Jesus Christ is the only way that leads to God. The question is: which would you rather believe? One that says all hundred answers could be true, or the one that say that there is only one answer and I know it is true?

Before you call a book your indispensable guide in life and give it the place of the Bible, you must see what the book is all about, what religious philosophy is influencing it and whether it is compatible and healthy to our faith in the Biblical Jesus of orthodox Christianity. (And of course, you are welcome to put the Bible into test too, if you have to.)

Monism: One view that seems to stand out among them is Monism (one-ism). I believe this quote succinctly sum up this view for us, All is one. One is all. All is God. And we are God. Compare this with the famous saying of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Youre God. You know it. Im God. I know it. So let us play. They believe that there is ultimately only one substance and the differences and distinctions we see around us are only illusions. There is no you or me, and there is no distinction between God and me. And therefore, I am God. This is why they talk about concepts like attaining divinity, self-realisation, self-actualisation, self-confidence, positive thinking to counter negative force, inner power, personal transformation, unlimited human potential, etc with gusto and often they are very convincing. And the logical outworking of this view is that a person who says there is no God would still be considered a believer because truth and reality is what we create for ourselves (because we are God).

Pantheism says that God is in everything and everything is in God. The Bible clearly teaches that God is separate from His creations and humans stand above His created things. Genesis 1 tells us that God is not a part of the created things, but He is the one who created all things that exists.

Illusions: Both monism and pantheism lead to the same conclusion: all is God, God is all, we are God, and everything else is an illusion. History is an illusion. Our problems, sin, evil and the Devil are all illusions. But again the Bible clearly mentions the Devil as a real threat and not an illusion. Jesus, in His temptation, spoke with the Devil, was tempted by him, and overcame him. Jesus didnt meditate so that this illusion would go away. He confronted the Devil like we confront a dog chasing our chickens. And we must still do as Jesus did if we want our chickens.

Salvation: In New Age thought there is no heaven to desire and no hell to fear. Salvation for the New Ager is not about being saved from a great danger of eternal death, but it is merely about being rescued from the ignorance of our godhood. They save themselves. The only thing to be done is to look within us and realise our divinity, which, according to them, is the highest form of intelligence.

But the problem is this. Any person who looks within his/her own heart and does not find a thought or a motive which is totally hostile to the notion that we are essentially good and that we are God, is not honest and sincere enough to be divine let alone be called even a small god. For that is the condition of the human heart. Jeremiah called the human heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.

Conclusion: These philosophies, neatly disguised in attractive stress-relief courses, yoga and breathing exercises, self-improvement books, and the positive thinking gurus are already creating strongholds in our supposedly 99% Christian state. And mind you they are not illusions. They are not threats. They need Jesus as much as we do. All these are attempts to escape from the craziness of the world. Maybe we can begin by saying that all the craziness in our world are not illusions. They are very, very real. And thats why we need to point them to a greater reality and a greater craziness: the craziness of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary!

Read the original post:
Shiv Khera and the Ultimate Value Test | MorungExpress ... - Morung Express

Is what I thought when the hummingbird buzzed behind me in the garden, The beating of its wings tickling my ears and seizing my heart as I wondered at the sound, Me on my knees with my hands in the earth, caught unaware by the flicker of its jeweled collar As it flashed in the sunlight, disappearing into a zipper in the sky Before I could catch my breath and behold its beauty.

I am eager for it to reappear, but only catch glimpses before I decide That the only way it will come to me is if I am still. That is the only way to gain its trust. I force myself to slow, to slow and wait, and my mind wanders

To that mysterious creature, and I wonder if this is indeed the fairy of lore That appeared to simple minds as they walked through the forest in search of Berry treasure while ever wary of danger, or if these were the spirits Like the kind worshiped in the days of pantheism and ritual sacrifice, Or even the era of spontaneous generation, When one saw flickers of sparks pass by and swore it must be magic, but

Perhaps the angel Gabriel was in fact a hummingbird, and when he spoke to Mary It was not with words but the beating of wings, humming a song, a promise, a secret, The same way that a hummingbird whispers new blessings into the ear of each and every Flower blossom it visits

But as I consult the internet during my meditation, I am informed that there are no hummers at all in the Middle East, Though their closest counterpart might be the Palestine Sunbird, Which hovers to sip nectar but is not at all as graceful

Though this does not deter my theory, but instead makes it all the more spectacular, And therefore, all the more believable, That God sent a tiny angel with a chinstrap made of feathered jewels, Shimmering there in the candlelight As it divulged to one girl The greatest secret in the universe

Follow this link:
'She was startled by what the angel said and tried to figure out what ... - America: The Jesuit Review

Different types of religions in the modern nation of India

Religion in India is characterised by a diversity of religious beliefs and practices. The Indian subcontinent is the birthplace of four of the world's major religions; namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The preamble of Indian constitution states that India is a secular state.[2][3] Throughout India's history, religion has been an important part of the country's culture. Religious diversity and religious tolerance are both established in the country by the law; the Constitution of India has declared the right to freedom of religion to be a fundamental right.[4]

According to the 2011 census, 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism, 14.2% adheres to Islam, 2.3% adheres to Christianity, 1.7% adheres to Sikhism, 0.7% adheres to Buddhism and 0.4% adheres to Jainism. Zoroastrianism, Sanamahism and Judaism also have an ancient history in India, and each has several thousands of Indian adherents. India has the largest population of people adhering to Zoroastrianism (i.e. Parsis and Iranis) and Bah' Faith in the world, even though these religions are otherwise largely exclusive to their native Persia.

The Constitution of India, declares India to be a secular state with no state religion.[6] However, at a same time, "the Republic of India privileges Hinduism as state sponsored religion" through constitutionally, legislatively and culturally.[7][8] The original copy of Indian constitution have the illustration of Lord Ram, Sita, and Lakshman in Part III on Fundamental Rights and Lord Rama have been considered as true guardian of people's rights.[9] Article 343 (1) of the Indian Constitution also state that, "The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script".[10] Also Article 48 of Indian constitution, prohibits the slaughter of cows or calf (a sacred animal in Hinduism) and is illegal criminal offense in most of the states of India.[11][12] India is a secular state by the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976, asserting Preamble to the Constitution of India as secular[13] by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed who was pressured by Indira Gandhi, during the leadup to the Emergency.

However, the Supreme Court of India in the 1994 case S. R. Bommai v. Union of India established the fact that India had been secular since the formation of the republic on 26 January 1950.[14] Secularism in India is understood to mean not a separation of religion from state, but a state that supports or participates in a neutral manner in the affairs of all religious groups and as well as atheism.[15]

Secularism is defined as a basic structure doctrine of the constitution through the argument of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, that cannot be removed or amended by any means.[16] However, there is no mention of the term Basic Structure anywhere in the Constitution of India. The idea that the Parliament cannot introduce laws that would amend the basic structure of the constitution have been evolved judicially over time and many cases.[17]

The particular provisions regarding secularism and freedom of religion in India in the constitution are:

1. "Article 14": grants equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all.[18]

2. "Article 15": enlarges the concept of secularism to the widest possible extent by prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.[19]

3. "Article 25": Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of any religion.[20]

4. "Article 26": Freedom to manage religious affairs.[21]

5. "Article 27": Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.[22]

6. "Article 28": Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.[23]

7. "Article 29" and "Article 30": provides cultural and educational rights to the minorities.[24][25]

8. "Article 51A": i.e. Fundamental Duties obliges all the citizens to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood and to value and preserve the heritage of the country's composite diverse culture.[26]

Evidence attesting to prehistoric religion in the Indian "subcontinent" derives from scattered Mesolithic rock paintings depicting dances and rituals.[27] Neolithic pastoralists inhabiting the Indus Valley buried their dead in a manner suggestive of spiritual practices that incorporated notions of an afterlife.[28] Other South Asian Stone Age sites, such as the Bhimbetka rock shelters in central Madhya Pradesh and the Kupgal petroglyphs of eastern Karnataka, contain rock art portraying religious rites and evidence of possible ritualised music.[29]

The Harappan people of the Indus Valley Civilisation, which lasted from 3300 to 1400 BCE and was centered on the Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra river valleys, may have worshiped an important mother goddess symbolising fertility.[30] Excavations of Indus Valley Civilisation sites show seals with animals and "firealtars", indicating rituals associated with fire.[31] A Shivlinga of a type similar to that which is now worshiped by Hindus has also been found,[30] however this interpretation has been disputed by Srinivasan [32]

Hinduism is often regarded as the oldest religion in the world,[33] with roots tracing back to prehistoric times, over 5,000 years ago.[34] Hinduism spread through parts of Southeastern Asia, China, and Afghanistan. Hindus worship a single divine entity (paramatma, lit."first-soul") with different forms.[35]

Hinduism's origins include the cultural elements of the Indus Valley Civilisation along with other Indian civilisations.[36] The oldest surviving text of Hinduism is the Rigveda, produced during the Vedic period and dating to 17001100 BCE.[][37] During the Epic and Puranic periods, the earliest versions of the epic poems, in their current form including Ramayana and Mahabharata were written roughly from 500 to 100 BCE,[38] although these were orally transmitted through families for centuries prior to this period.[39]

After 200 BCE, several schools of thought were formally codified in the Indian philosophy, including Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva-Mimamsa, and Vedanta.[40] Hinduism, otherwise a highly theistic religion, hosted atheistic schools and atheistic philosophies. Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as orthodox include Samkhya and Mimamsa.[41]

The ramaa tradition includes Jainism,known endonymically as Jain Dharm, and Buddhism[43] known endonymically as Bauddh Dharm, and others such as the jvikas, Ajanas, and others.[44][45]

The historical roots of Jainism in India have been traced to the 9th century BCE with the rise of Parshvanatha, the 23th Tirthankar, and his Jain philosophy, and to Mahavira (599527 BCE), the 24th Jain Tirthankara. Jainism traces its roots further back to the first Tirthankara, Rishabhanatha. Mahavira stressed on the five vows.

Gautama Buddha, who founded Buddhism, was born to the Shakya clan just before Magadha (which lasted from 546 to 324 BCE) rose to power.[citation needed] His family was native to the plains of Lumbini, in what is now southern Nepal. Indian Buddhism peaked during the reign of Ashoka the Great of the Mauryan Empire, who patronised Buddhism following his conversion and unified the Indian subcontinent in the 3rd century BCE.[48] He sent missionaries abroad, allowing Buddhism to spread across Asia.[49] Indian Buddhism declined following the loss of royal patronage offered by the Kushan Empire and such kingdoms as Magadha and Kosala.

The decline of Buddhism in India has been attributed to a variety of factors, which include the resurgence of Hinduism in the 10th and 11th centuries under Sankaracharya, the later Turkish invasion, the Buddhist focus on renunciation as opposed to familial values and private property, Hinduism's own use and appropriation of Buddhist and Jain ideals of renunciation and ahimsa, and others. Although Buddhism virtually disappeared from mainstream India by the 11th century CE, its presence remained and manifested itself through other movements such as the Bhakti tradition, Vaishnavism, and the Bauls of Bengal, who are influenced by the Sahajjyana form of Buddhism that was popular in Bengal during the Pala period.

During the 14th17th centuries, when North India was under Muslim rule, the Bhakti movement swept through Central and Northern India. The Bhakti movement actually started in the eighth century in south India (present-day Tamil Nadu and Kerala), and gradually spread northwards. It was initiated by a loosely associated group of teachers or saints. Dnyaneshwar, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Vallabhacharya, Surdas, Meera Bai, Kabir, Tulsidas, Ravidas, Namdeo, Eknath, Ramdas, Tukaram, and other mystics were some of the saints in the North. They taught that people could cast aside the heavy burdens of ritual and caste and the subtle complexities of philosophy, and simply express their overwhelming love for God. This period was also characterized by an abundance of devotional literature in vernacular prose and poetry in the ethnic languages of the various Indian states or provinces. The Bhakti movement gave rise to several different movements throughout India

During the Bhakti movement, many Hindu groups regarded as outside the traditional Hindu caste system followed Bhakti traditions by worshipping/following saints belonging to their respective communities. For example, Guru Ravidas was a Chamar of Uttar Pradesh; Guru Parsuram Ramnami was a Chura[dubious discuss] of Chhattisgarh, and Maharishi Ram Naval was a Bhangi of Rajasthan. In their lifetimes, several of these saints even went to the extent of fighting conversion from foreign missionaries, encouraging only Hinduism within their communities. In Assam for example, tribals were led by Gurudev Kalicharan Bramha of the Brahmo Samaj; in Nagaland by Kacha Naga; and in Central India by Birsa Munda, Hanuman Aaron, Jatra Bhagat, and Budhu Bhagat.

The Kabir Panth is a religious movement based on the teachings of the Indian poet saint Kabir (13981518).[51]

Kabir sermonized a monotheism that appealed clearly to the poor and convinced them of their access to god with no liaison. He denied both Hinduism and Islam, as well as meaningless religious rituals, and condemned double standards.[52] This infuriated the orthodox aristocracy. No one could frighten Kabir who was bold enough to stand up for himself and his beliefs.[53]

The Kabir Panth considers Kabir as its principal guru or even as a divinitytruth incarnate. Kabir's influence is testimony to his massive authority, even for those whose beliefs and practices he condemned so unsparingly. For Sikhs he is a forerunner and converser of Nanak, the originating Sikh Guru (spiritual guide). Muslims place him in Sufi (mystical) lineages, and for Hindus he becomes a Vaishnavite with universalist leanings.[54]

Guru Nanak Dev Ji (14691539) was the founder of Sikhism, known endonymically as Sikh Dharm.[55][56] The Guru Granth Sahib was first compiled by the fifth Sikh guru, Guru Arjan Dev, from the writings of the first five Sikh gurus and others saints who preached the concept of universal brotherhood, including those of the Hindu and Muslim faith. Before the death of Guru Gobind Singh, the Guru Granth Sahib was declared the eternal guru.[57] Sikhism recognises all humans as equal before Waheguru,[58] regardless of colour, caste, or lineage.[59] Sikhism strongly rejects the beliefs of fasting (vrata), superstitions, idol worship,[60][61] and circumcision.[62][63] The Sikhs believe in one eternal god and follow the teachings of the 10 gurus, the 5 K's of Sikhism, the hukums of Guru Gobind Singh, Sikh Rehat Maryada, and Nitnem.

Jews first arrived as traders from Judea in the city of Kochi, Kerala, in 562 BCE.[64] More Jews came as exiles from Israel in the year 70 CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple.[65]

Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle (a direct disciple of Jesus Christ),[66] who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 CE and proselytized natives at large, who are known as Saint Thomas Christians (also known as Syrian Christians or Nasrani) today. India's oldest church, the world's oldest existing church structure and built by Thomas the Apostle in 57 CE, called Thiruvithamcode Arappally or Thomaiyar Kovil as named by the then Chera king Udayancheral, is located at Thiruvithamcode in Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu, India. It is now declared an international St. Thomas pilgrim center.[67] There is a general scholarly consensus that Christianity was rooted in India by the 6th century CE, including some communities who used Syriac liturgically, and it is a possibility that the religion's existence in India extends to as far back as the 1st century.[68][69][70] Christianity in India has different denominations like Syrian Orthodox, Catholicism, Protestantism, Oriental Orthodox and others.

Most Christians reside in South India, particularly in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Goa.[71][72] There are also large Christian populations in the North-east Indian states.[73]Christianity in India was expanded in the 16th century by Catholic Portuguese expeditions and by Protestant missionaries in the 18th and 19th centuries.[74]

Islam is the second largest religion in India, with 14.2% of the country's population or roughly 172 million people identifying as adherents of Islam (2011 census).[75][76][77][78][79][80] It makes India the country with the largest Muslim population outside Muslim-majority countries.[81]

Though Islam came to India in the early 7th century with the advent of Arab traders in Malabar coast, Kerala, it started to become a major religion during the Muslim rule in the Indian subcontinent.[82] The Cheraman Juma Mosque is the first mosque in India located in Methala, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur District in Kerala.[83] A legend claims that it was built in 629 CE, which makes it the oldest mosque in the Indian subcontinent which is still in use.[83] It was built by Malik Deenar, Persian companion of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, on the orders of the successor of Cheraman Perumal, the Chera King of modern-day Kerala.[84] Islam's spread in India mostly took place under the Delhi Sultanate (12061526) and the Mughal Empire (15261858), greatly aided by the mystic Sufi tradition.[85]

Hindu

Muslim

Christian

Sikh

Buddhist

Other

There are six religions in India which have been awarded "National minority" statusMuslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians (Parsis).[87][88]

The following is a breakdown of India's religious communities:

Note: When compared with 2001, India's population rose by 17.7% in 2011 with an average sex ratio of 943 and a literacy rate of 74.4%. The average work participation stood at 39.79%.

Religion in India (1947)[96][97]

others (0.6%)

India just after independence and partition in 1947 had over 330 million inhabitants.[98] According to statistics, just after the partition of the nation, India had an overwhelming Hindu majority of 85% with a significant minority of 9.1% of Muslims scattered throughout the nation, and other religious minorities such as the followers of Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, and animist religions, together constituting 5.9% of the country's population.[99][100]

India had a population of 330 million in 1947.[102]

Hinduism is an ancient religion with the largest religious grouping in India, with around 966 million adherents as of 2011, composing 79.8% of the population.[89] Hinduism is diverse, with monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, atheism, animism, agnosticism, and gnosticism being represented.[103][104][105][106][107] The term Hindu, originally a geographical description, derives from the Sanskrit, Sindhu, (the historical appellation for the Indus River), and refers to a person from the land of the river Sindhu.[108] Hindus following the traditional religion call it Sanatana Dharma (or "Eternal Way").[109] The adherents of Sanatana Dharma call themselves as "Sanatani", the original word for the adherents of Sanatana Dharma. Hindu reformist Sects such as the Arya samaj do not use the term Sanatani.

Islam is a monotheistic religion centered on the belief in one God and following the example of Muhammad; it is the largest minority religion in India. About 14.2% of the country's population or approx. 172.2 million people identify as adherents of Islam (2011 census).[86][110][111][112] Out of 172.2 million Muslims in India as per 2011 census, it was found that more than 100 million of them are from low caste converts specially Dalits.[113][114] The Islamic Invasion during Medieval Era has obtained the religion a significant population of adherents. The religion is regarded as "Minority religion" and the adherents are given "Special privileges".[citation needed][clarification needed] It makes India the country with the largest Muslim population outside Muslim-majority countries. Muslims are a majority in states Jammu and Kashmir and Lakshadweep,[115] and live in high concentrations in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, and Kerala.[115][116] There has been no particular census conducted in India with regards to sects, but sources suggest the largest denomination is Sunni Islam[117] with a substantial minority of Shia Muslims and Ahmadiyya Muslims. Indian sources like Times of India and DNA reported the Indian Shiite population in mid-20052006 to be between 25% and 31% of entire Muslim population of India, which accounts them in numbers between 40 and 50 million.[118][119][117][120]

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centred on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament. It is the third largest religion of India, making up 2.3% of the population. St. Thomas is credited with introduction of Christianity in India. He arrived on the Malabar Coast in 52 CE.[121][122][123] The tradition of origin among Saint Thomas Christians relates to the arrival of Saint Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus at the ancient seaport Muziris on the Kerala coast in 52 CE. The families Sankaramangalam, Pakalomattam, Kalli, and Kaliyankal were considered particularly preeminent, and historically the most aristocratic Syriac Christian families tended to claim descent from these families.

It is also possible for Aramaic-speaking Jews from Galilee to make a trip to Kerala in the 1st century. The Cochin Jews are known to have existed in Kerala around that time. The earliest known source connecting the apostle to India is the Acts of Thomas, likely written in the early 3rd century, perhaps in Edessa.

Marth Mariam Syro-Malabar Catholic Forane Church, Arakuzha was founded in 999

The text describes Thomas' adventures in bringing Christianity to India, a tradition later expanded upon in early Indian sources such as the "Thomma Parvam" ("Song of Thomas"). Generally he is described as arriving in or around Maliankara and founding Seven Churches and half churches, or Ezharapallikal: Kodungallur, Kollam, Niranam, Nilackal (Chayal), Kokkamangalam, Kottakkavu, Palayoor, Thiruvithamcode Arappalli and Aruvithura church (half church). A number of 3rd- and 4th-century Roman writers also mention Thomas' trip to India, including Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome, and Ephrem the Syrian, while Eusebius of Caesarea records that his teacher Pantaenus visited a Christian community in India in the 2nd century. There came into existence a Christian community who were mainly merchants.

Christianity expanded in the rest of India during the period of British colonial rule. Christians comprise the majority of natives of Nagaland and Mizoram as well as of Meghalaya and have significant populations in Manipur, Goa, Kerala and Mumbai.

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion began in fifteenth-century Punjab with the teachings of Guru Nanak and nine successive Sikh gurus. As of 2011, there were 20.8 million Sikhs in India. Punjab is the spiritual home of Sikhs, and is the only state in India where Sikhs form a majority. There are also significant populations of Sikhs in neighboring Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, and Haryana. These areas were historically a part of Greater Punjab. However, there is no data for specific number of Nanak followers (Nanakpanthis) in India, but they are believed to be in crores somewhere around 14 crores.[124][125][126] Karnail Singh Panjoli, member, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, says that there are several communities within the term Nanakpanthis too. There are groups like Sikhligarh, Vanjaarey, Nirmaley, Lubaney, Johri, Satnamiye, Udaasiyas etc. who call themselves Nanakpanthis. They follow guru Nanak and Sri Guru Granth Sahib.[127][128]

Buddhism is an Indian, transtheistic religion and philosophy. Around 8.5 million Buddhists live in India, about 0.7% of the total population.[129] Buddhism as a religion is practised mainly in the foothills of the Himalayas and is a significant religion in Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Darjeeling in West Bengal, and the Lahaul and Spiti districts of Himachal Pradesh. Besides, a significant number of Buddhists reside in Maharashtra. They are the Buddhists or Navayana Buddhists who, under the influence of B. R. Ambedkar embraced Buddhism in order to escape the casteist practices within Hinduism. Ambedkar is a crucial figure, along with Anagarika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka and Kripasaran Mahasthavira of Chittagong behind the revival of Buddhism in India in the 19th and 20th centuries. The escape of the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzing Gyatso to India fleeing Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1959 and the setting up of the Tibetan Government in Exile at Dharamshala in Mcleodganj in Himachal Pradesh has also accelerated the resurgence of Buddhism in India. The effective religion in Sikkim, which joined the Indian Union in 1975 (making it India's 22nd state) remains Vajrayana Buddhism, and Padmasambhava or Guru Ugyen is a revered presence there.

Jainism is a non-theistic Indian religion and philosophical system originating in Iron Age India. Jains compose 0.4% (around 4.45 million) of India's population, and are concentrated in the states of Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan.[115]

Also present in India, Judaism is a monotheistic religion from the Levant. There is today a very small community of Indian Jews. There were more Jews in India historically, including the Cochin Jews of Kerala, the Bene Israel of Maharashtra, and the Baghdadi Jews near Mumbai. Since Indian independence, two primarily proselyte Indian Jewish communities have developed in India: the Bnei Menashe of Mizoram and Manipur, and the Bene Ephraim, also called Telugu Jews. Of the approximately 95,000 Jews of Indian extraction, fewer than 20,000 remain in India. Some parts of India are especially popular with Israelis, swelling local Jewish populations seasonally.[citation needed]

As of the census of 2001, Parsis (followers of Zoroastrianism in India) represent approximately 0.006% of the total population of India,[130] with relatively high concentrations in and around the city of Mumbai. Parsis number around 61,000 in India.[131] There are several tribal religions in India, such as Donyi-Polo. Santhal is also one of the many tribal religions followed by the Santhal people who number around 4 million but only around 23,645 follow the religion.[citation needed]

It is difficult to establish the exact numbers of Bahs in India. The religion came to India from Iran in about 1850 and gained some converts from the Muslim population of India. The first Sikh and Hindu converts came by 1910, and in 1960 there were fewer than 1,000 Bahs in all of India. Beginning in 1961, large numbers from scheduled castes became Bahs, and by 1993 Bahs reported about 2.2 million members, though later sources have claimed 2 million, or "more than 1 million".

Around 2.9 million people in India did not state their religion in the 2001 census and were counted in the category, "religion not stated". They were 0.24% of India's population. Their number have significantly increased 4 times from 0.7 million in 2001 census at an average annual rate of 15%.[134] K. Veeramani, a Dravidar Kazhagam leader, said that he believed that the number of atheists in India was actually higher as many people don't reveal their atheism out of fear.[135]

According to the 2012 WIN-Gallup Global Index of Religion and Atheism report, 81% of Indians were religious, 13% were non-religious, 3% were convinced atheists, and 3% were unsure or did not respond.[136]

The preamble to the Constitution of India proclaims India a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic". The word secular was inserted into the Preamble by the Forty-second Amendment Act of 1976. It mandates equal treatment and tolerance of all religions. India does not have an official state religion; it enshrines the right to practice, preach, and propagate any religion. No religious instruction is imparted in government-supported schools. In S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India held that secularism was an integral tenet of the Constitution and that there was separation of state and religion.[137]

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right according to the Indian Constitution. The Constitution also suggests a uniform civil code for its citizens as a Directive Principle.[138] This has not been implemented until now as Directive Principles are Constitutionally unenforceable. The Supreme Court has further held that the enactment of a uniform civil code all at once may be counter-productive to the unity of the nation, and only a gradual progressive change should be brought about (Pannalal Bansilal v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996).[139] In Maharishi Avadesh v Union of India (1994) the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the government to introduce a common civil code, and thus laid the responsibility of its introduction on the legislature.[140]

Major religious communities not based in India continue to be governed by their own personal laws. Whilst Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Jews have personal laws exclusive to themselves; Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are governed by a single personal law known as Hindu personal law. Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India states that references to Hindus include "persons professing the Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist religion".[141] Furthermore, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines the legal status of Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs as legal Hindus but not "Hindus by religion".[142] Supreme Court in 2005 gave verdict that Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhist are part of broader Hindu fold, as they are Indic religions and interconnected to each other, though they are distinct religions.[143]

Religion plays a major role in the Indian way of life.[144] Rituals, worship, and other religious activities are very prominent in an individual's daily life; it is also a principal organizer of social life. The degree of religiosity varies amongst individuals; in recent decades, religious orthodoxy and observances have become less common in Indian society, particularly amongst young urban-dwellers.[citation needed]

The vast majority of Indians engage in religious rituals daily.[145] Most Hindus observe religious rituals at home.[146] Observation of rituals vary greatly amongst regions, villages, and individuals. Devout Hindus perform daily chores such as worshiping puja, fire sacrifice called Yajna[citation needed] at the dawn after bathing (usually at a family shrine, and typically includes lighting a lamp and offering foods before the images of deities), recitation from religious scripts like Vedas, and Puranas singing hymns in praise of gods.[146]

A notable feature in religious ritual is the division between purity and pollution. Religious acts presuppose some degree of impurity, or defilement for the practitioner, which must be overcome or neutralized, before or during ritual procedures. Purification, usually with water, is thus a typical feature of most religious action.[146] Other characteristics include a belief in the efficacy of sacrifice and concept of merit, gained through the performance of charity or good works, that will accumulate over time and reduce sufferings in the next world.[146]

Muslims offer five daily prayers at specific times of the day, indicated by adhan (call to prayer) from the local mosques. Before offering prayers, they must ritually clean themselves by performing wudu, which involves washing parts of the body that are generally exposed to dirt or dust. A recent study by the Sachar Committee found that 34% of Muslim children study in madrasas (Islamic schools).[147]

Dietary habits in India are significantly influenced by religion. According to a survey, 31% of Indian population claims to be vegetarian,and mainly practice lacto-vegetarianism.[148][149][150] Vegetarianism is less common among Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Bah's, Parsis, and Jews.Despite the majority of population having no objection to meat consumption, globally India has the lowest meat consumption per capita.[151] Non-vegetarian Indians mostly prefer poultry, fish, other seafood, goat, and sheep as their sources of meat.[152] Hinduism forbids beef whilst islam forbids pork. The smaller populations of christians, tribals, and some dalit communities have no objection to eating either beef or pork.[153] Jainism requires followers, from all its sects and traditions, to be vegetarian. Furthermore, the religion also forbids Jains from eating any vegetable that involves digging it from the ground. This rule, therefore, excludes all Root vegetables such as potatoes, sweet potatoes, ginger, carrots, garlic, radishes, etc. from a Jain diet.

Occasions like birth, marriage, and death involve what are often elaborate sets of religious customs. In Hinduism, major life-cycle rituals include annaprashan (a baby's first intake of solid food), upanayanam ("sacred thread ceremony" undergone by boys belonging to some upper-castes such as Brahmin and Kshatriya only), and shraadh (paying homage to a deceased individual).[154][155] According to the findings of a 1995 national research paper, for most people in India, a betrothal of a young couple placing an expectation upon an exact date and time of a future wedding was a matter decided by the parents in consultation with astrologers.[154] A significant reduction in the proportion of arranged marriages has however taken place since 1995, reflecting an incremental change.[citation needed]

Muslims practice a series of life-cycle rituals that differ from those of Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists.[156] Several rituals mark the first days of lifeincluding the whispering call to prayer, first bath, and shaving of the head. Religious instruction begins early. Male circumcision usually takes place after birth; in some families, it may be delayed until after the onset of puberty.[156]

Marriage requires a payment by the husband to the wife, called Meher, and the solemnization of a marital contract in a social gathering.[156] After the burial of the dead, friends and relatives gather to console the bereaved, read and recite the Quran, and pray for the soul of the deceased.[156] Indian Islam is distinguished by the emphasis it places on shrines commemorating great Sufi saints.[156]

Many Hindu families have their own family patron deity or the kuladevata. This deity is common to a lineage or a clan of several families who are connected to each other through a common ancestor. The Khandoba of Jejuri is an example of a Kuladevata of some Maharashtrian families; he is a common Kuladevata to several castes ranging from Brahmins to Dalits. The practice of worshipping local or territorial deities as Kuladevata began in the period of the Yadava dynasty. Other family deities of the people of Maharashtra are Bhavani of Tuljapur, Mahalaxmi of Kolhapur, Renuka of Mahur, and Balaji of Tirupati.

India hosts numerous pilgrimage sites belonging to many religions. Hindus worldwide recognise several Indian holy cities, including Allahabad (officially known as Prayagraj), Haridwar, Varanasi, Ujjain, Rameshwaram, and Vrindavan. Notable temple cities include Puri, which hosts a major Jagannath temple and Rath Yatra celebration; Tirumala - Tirupati, home to the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple; and Katra, home to the Vaishno Devi temple.

Badrinath, Puri, Dwarka, and Rameswaram compose the main pilgrimage circuit of Char Dham (four abodes) hosting the four holiest Hindu temples: Badrinath Temple, Jagannath Temple, Dwarkadheesh Temple and Ramanathaswamy Temple, respectively. The Himalayan towns of Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri compose the smaller Chota Char Dham (mini four abodes) pilgrimage circuit. The Kumbh Mela (the "pitcher festival") is one of the holiest of Hindu pilgrimages that is held every four years; the location is rotated amongst Allahabad (Prayagraj), Haridwar, Nashik, and Ujjain. The Thalaimaippathi at Swamithope is the leading pilgrim center for the Ayyavazhis.

Seven of the Eight Great Places of Buddhism are in India. Bodh Gaya, Sarnath, and Kushinagar are the places where important events in the life of Gautama Buddha took place. Sanchi hosts a Buddhist stupa erected by the emperor Ashoka. Many Buddhist monasteries dot the Himalayan foothills of India, where Buddhism remains a major presence. These include the Rumtek Monastery, Enchey Monastery, and Pemayangtse Monastery in Sikkim, the Tawang Monastery in Arunachal Pradesh, the Kye Monastery and Tabo Monastery in Spiti, the Ghum Monastery in Darjeeling, and Durpin Dara Monastery in Kalimpong, the Thikse Monastery in Leh, the Namgyal Monastery in Dharamshala, among many others.

For Sunni Muslims, the Dargah Shareef of Khwaza Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer is a major pilgrimage site.[162] Other Islamic pilgrimages include those to the Tomb of Sheikh Salim Chishti in Fatehpur Sikri, Jama Masjid in Delhi, and to Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai. Dilwara Temples in Mount Abu, Palitana, Pavapuri, Girnar, and Shravanabelagola are notable pilgrimage sites (tirtha) in Jainism.

The Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar is the most sacred gurdwara of Sikhism.[163]

Relatively new pilgrimage sites include the samadhi of Meher Baba in Meherabad, which is visited by his followers from around the world[164] and the Saibaba temple in Shirdi.[165]

Hinduism contains many different sub-cultures just like most other religions. The major aspects outlined above hold true for the majority of the Hindu population, but not all. Just as each state is home to an individual language, Hinduism harbors various sub-cultures whose traditions may or may not be shared by other Indians. A sect from Gujarat called the Prajapatis for example, holds water as the sacred ornament to every meal. Before and after a meal, an individual is expected to pour water in the palms of their right hand and sip the water three times.[166] This is often seen as a purification gesture: food is regarded as being holy and every individual must purify themselves before touching their food.

Other minor sects in India carry no specific name, but they are uniquely identified by the last names of each family. This convention is used more frequently in South India than in North India. For example, a relatively prominent sect in southern India prohibits making important decisions, commencing new tasks, and doing other intellectually or spiritually engaged actions after sunset. Historians believe that this tradition was derived from the concept of Rahukaalam, in which Hindus believe that a specific period of the day is inauspicious. Stringent family beliefs are thought to have led to the development of a more constrained religious hierarchy.[167] Over time, this belief was extended to discourage taking major actions and even staying awake for long periods after sunset. Examples of families which follow this tradition include Gudivada, Padalapalli, Pantham, and Kashyap.[166]

Religiosity among Indians (2012 Survey)[136]

Not stated (3%)

India has a population of 123 crore per a 2012 demographic survey by Indian government.[168] According to the 2012 WIN-Gallup Global Index of Religion and Atheism report, 81% of Indians were religious, 13% were non-religious, 3% were convinced atheists, and 3% were unsure or did not respond.[136]

Cambridge University Press in 2004 demographic study, have found that there are 102.87 million atheists and agnostics living in India, thus constituting 9.1% of the total population, out of total 1.1296 billion people respectively.[169][170]

Religious politics, particularly that expressed by the Hindutva movement, has strongly influenced Indian politics in the last quarter of the 20th century. Many of the elements underlying India's casteism and communalism originated during the colonial era, when the colonial government frequently politicized religion in an attempt to stave off increasing nationalistic sentiments in India.[171] The Indian Councils Act 1909 (widely known as the Morley-Minto Reforms Act), which established separate Hindu and Muslim electorates for the Imperial Legislature and provincial councils, was particularly divisive, increasing tensions between the two communities.[172]

Due to the high degree of oppression faced by the lower castes, the Constitution of India included provisions for affirmative action for certain sections of Indian society. Many states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) introduced laws that made conversion more difficult; they assert that such conversions are often forced or allured.[173] The BJP, a national political party, also gained widespread media attention after its leaders associated themselves with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and other prominent religious issues.[174]

A well-known accusation that Indian political parties make for their rivals is that they play vote bank politics, meaning give political support to issues for the sole purpose of gaining the votes of members of a particular community. Both the Congress Party and the BJP have been accused of exploiting the people by indulging in vote bank politics. The Shah Bano case, a divorce lawsuit, generated much controversy when the Congress was accused of appeasing the Muslim orthodoxy by bringing in a parliamentary amendment to negate the Supreme Court's decision. After the 2002 Gujarat violence, there were allegations of political parties indulging in vote bank politics.[175]

Caste-based politics is also important in India; caste-based discrimination and the reservation system continue to be major issues that are hotly debated.[176][177]

Political parties have been accused of using their political power to manipulate educational content in a revisionist manner. The BJP-led NDA government was accused of teaching history from a Hindutva outlook in public schools by the opposition parties.[178] The next government, formed by the UPA and led by the Congress Party, pledged to undo this and reinstate the secular form of thought in the Indian educational system.[179] Hindu groups allege that the UPA promote Marxist theories in school curricula.[180][181]

Communalism has played a key role in shaping the religious history of modern India. After Indian independence in 1947, India was partitioned along religious lines into two statesthe Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan (comprising what is now the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) and the Hindu-majority Union of India (later the Republic of India). The partition led to rioting amongst Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs in Punjab, Bengal, Delhi, and other parts of India; 500,000 died as a result of the violence. The twelve million refugees that moved between the newly founded nations of India and Pakistan composed one of the largest mass migrations in modern history.[][182] Since its independence, India has periodically witnessed large-scale violence sparked by underlying tensions between sections of its majority Hindu and minority Muslim communities. The Republic of India is secular; the Indian government recognizes no official religion.

Communal conflicts have periodically plagued India since it became independent in 1947.[185] The roots of such strife lie largely in the underlying tensions between sections of its majority Hindu and minority Muslim communities, which emerged under the Raj and during the bloody Partition of India. Such conflict also stems from the competing ideologies of Hindu nationalism versus Islamic fundamentalism; both are prevalent in parts of the Hindu and Muslim populations. This issue has plagued India since before independence. The lack of education among the masses and the ease with which corrupt politicians can take advantage of the same has been attributed as the major reason for religious conflicts in India. Even though Freedom of religion is an integral part of the India constitution, the inability to hold a communal mob accountable for its collectove actions has limited the exercise of religious freedom in India.

Alongside other major Indian independence leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and his Shanti sainiks ("peace soldiers") worked to quell early outbreaks of religious conflict in Bengal, including riots in Calcutta (now in West Bengal) and Noakhali District (in modern-day Bangladesh) that accompanied Muhammad Ali Jinnah's Direct Action Day, which was launched on 16 August 1946. These conflicts, waged largely with rocks and knives and accompanied by widespread looting and arson, were crude affairs. Explosives and firearms, which are rarely found in India, were far less likely to be used.[186]

Major post-independence communal conflicts include the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, which followed Operation Blue Star by the Indian Army; heavy artillery, tanks, and helicopters were employed against the Sikh partisans inside the Harmandir Sahib, causing heavy damage to Sikhism's holiest Gurdwara. According to the Indian government estimates, the assault caused the deaths of up to 100 soldiers, 250 militants, and hundreds of civilians.[187]

This triggered Indira Gandhi's assassination by her outraged Sikh bodyguards on 31 October 1984, which set off a four-day period during which Sikhs were massacred; The Government of India reported 2,700 Sikh deaths however human rights organizations and newspapers report the death toll to be 10,00017,000. In the aftermath of the riot, the Government of India reported 20,000 had fled the city, however the PUCL reported "at least" 50,000 displaced persons.[188]

The most affected regions were neighbourhoods in Delhi. Human rights organisations and the newspapers believe the massacre was organised.[189] The collusion of political officials in the massacres and the failure to prosecute any killers alienated normal Sikhs and increased support for the Khalistan movement. The Akal Takht, the governing religious body of Sikhism, considers the killings to be a genocide.[190]

Other incidents include the 1992 Bombay riots that followed the demolition of the Babri Mosque as a result of the Ayodhya debate, and the 2002 Gujarat violence where 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed and which was preceded by the Godhra Train Burning.[191] Lesser incidents plague many towns and villages; the representative was the killing of five people in Mau, Uttar Pradesh during Hindu-Muslim rioting, which was triggered by the proposed celebration of a Hindu festival.[191]

Many Right Wing Hindu organisations have demanded that India should be declared a "Hindu nation" by constitution.[192][193][194] As far citizens concerned, only 3/10th Indian hindus are in the favour of making India as Hindu Rashtra.[195]

Read more:
Religion in India - Wikipedia

Philosophical treatise written by Spinoza

Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order (Latin: Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata), usually known as the Ethics, is a philosophical treatise written in Latin by Baruch Spinoza (Benedictus de Spinoza). It was written between 1661 and 1675[1] and was first published posthumously in 1677.

The book is perhaps the most ambitious attempt to apply the method of Euclid in philosophy. Spinoza puts forward a small number of definitions and axioms from which he attempts to derive hundreds of propositions and corollaries, such as "When the Mind imagines its own lack of power, it is saddened by it",[2] "A free man thinks of nothing less than of death",[3] and "The human Mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the Body, but something of it remains which is eternal."[4]

The first part of the book addresses the relationship between God and the universe. Spinoza was engaging with a tradition that held: God exists outside of the universe; God created the universe for a reason; and God could have created a different universe according to his will. Spinoza denies each point. According to Spinoza, God is the natural world. Spinoza concludes the following: God is the substance comprising the universe, with God existing in itself, not somehow outside of the universe; and the universe exists as it does from necessity, not because of a divine theological reason or will.

Spinoza argues through propositions. He holds their conclusion is merely the necessary logical conclusion from combining the provided Definitions and Axioms. He starts with the proposition that "there cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute."[5] He follows this by arguing that objects and events must not merely be caused if they occur, but be prevented if they do not. By a logical contradiction, if something is non-contradictory, there is no reason that it should not exist. Spinoza builds from these starting ideas. If substance exists it must be infinite,[6] because if not infinite another finite substance would have to exist to take up the remaining parts of its finite attributes, something which is impossible according to an earlier proposition. Spinoza then uses the Ontological Argument as justification for the existence of God and argues that God (which should be read as "nature", rather than traditional deity) must possess all attributes infinitely. Since no two things can share attributes, "besides God no substance can be granted or conceived."[7]

As with many of Spinoza's claims, what this means is a matter of dispute. Spinoza claims that the things that make up the universe, including human beings, are God's "modes". This means that everything is, in some sense, dependent upon God. The nature of this dependence is disputed. Some scholars say that the modes are properties of God in the traditional sense. Others say that modes are effects of God. Either way, the modes are also logically dependent on God's essence, in this sense: everything that happens follows from the nature of God, just like how it follows from the nature of a triangle that its angles are equal to two right angles. Since God had to exist with the nature he has, nothing that has happened could have been avoided, and if God has fixed a particular fate for a particular mode, there is no escaping it. As Spinoza puts it, "A thing which has been determined by God to produce an effect cannot render itself undetermined."

The second part focuses on the human mind and body. Spinoza attacks several Cartesian positions: (1) that the mind and body are distinct substances that can affect one another; (2) that we know our minds better than we know our bodies; (3) that our senses may be trusted; (4) that despite being created by God we can make mistakes, namely, when we affirm, of our own free will, an idea that is not clear and distinct. Spinoza denies each of Descartes's points. Regarding (1), Spinoza argues that the mind and the body are a single thing that is being thought of in two different ways. The whole of nature can be fully described in terms of thoughts or in terms of bodies. However, we cannot mix these two ways of describing things, as Descartes does, and say that the mind affects the body or vice versa. Moreover, the mind's self-knowledge is not fundamental: it cannot know its own thoughts better than it knows the ways in which its body is acted upon by other bodies.

Further, there is no difference between contemplating an idea and thinking that it is true, and there is no freedom of the will at all. Sensory perception, which Spinoza calls "knowledge of the first kind", is entirely inaccurate, since it reflects how our own bodies work more than how things really are. We can also have a kind of accurate knowledge called "knowledge of the second kind", or "reason". This encompasses knowledge of the features common to all things, and includes principles of physics and geometry. We can also have "knowledge of the third kind", or "intuitive knowledge". This is a sort of knowledge that, somehow, relates particular things to the nature of God.

In the third part of the Ethics, Spinoza argues that all things, including human beings, strive to persevere their perfection of power in being unaffected.[8] Spinoza states that virtue is equal to power (i.e., self-control).[9]

Spinoza explains how this desire ("conatus") underlies the movement and complexity of our emotions and passions (i.e., joy and sadness that are building blocks for all other emotions).[10] Our mind is in certain cases active, and in certain cases passive. In so far as it has adequate ideas it is necessarily active, and in so far as it has inadequate ideas, it is necessarily passive.

(+) refers to pleasure [...] (-) refers to pain [...] (f) and (i) refer respectively, to feeling and imagining [...]

Proposition 19 would translate:

He who imagines that the loved object (+) is being destroyed (-) feels pain (-). If the loved object (+) is preserved (+), he will feel pleasure (+). Symbolically, this reduces to two equations:

1) [(+) (i)] (-) = [(f) (-)];

2) [(+) (i)] (+) = [(f) (+)].[11]

Ian S. Miller

The fourth part analyzes human passions, which Spinoza sees as aspects of the mind that direct us outwards to seek what gives pleasure and shun what gives pain. The "bondage" he refers to is domination by these passions or "affects" as he calls them. Spinoza considers how the affects, ungoverned, can torment people and make it impossible for mankind to live in harmony with one another.

The fifth part argues that reason can govern the affects in the pursuit of virtue, which for Spinoza is self-preservation: only with the aid of reason can humans distinguish the passions that truly aid virtue from those that are ultimately harmful. By reason, we can see things as they truly are, sub specie aeternitatis, "under the aspect of eternity," and because Spinoza treats God and nature as indistinguishable, by knowing things as they are we improve our knowledge of God. Seeing that all things are determined by nature to be as they are, we can achieve the rational tranquility that best promotes our happiness, and liberate ourselves from being driven by our passions.

According to Spinoza, God is Nature and Nature is God (Deus sive Natura). This is his pantheism. In his previous book, Theologico-Political Treatise, Spinoza discussed the inconsistencies that result when God is assumed to have human characteristics. In the third chapter of that book, he stated that the word "God" means the same as the word "Nature". He wrote: "Whether we say... that all things happen according to the laws of nature, or are ordered by the decree and direction of God, we say the same thing." He later qualified this statement in his letter to Oldenburg[12] by abjuring materialism.[13] Nature, to Spinoza, is a metaphysical substance, not physical matter.[14] In this posthumously published book Ethics, he equated God with nature by writing "God or Nature" four times.[15] "For Spinoza, God or Naturebeing one and the same thingis the whole, infinite, eternal, necessarily existing, active system of the universe within which absolutely everything exists. This is the fundamental principle of the Ethics...."[16]

Spinoza holds that everything that exists is part of nature, and everything in nature follows the same basic laws. In this perspective, human beings are part of nature, and hence they can be explained and understood in the same way as everything else in nature. This aspect of Spinoza's philosophy his naturalism was radical for its time, and perhaps even for today. In the preface to Part III of Ethics (relating to emotions), he writes:

Most writers on the emotions and on human conduct seem to be treating rather of matters outside nature than of natural phenomena following nature's general laws. They appear to conceive man to be situated in nature as a kingdom within a kingdom: for they believe that he disturbs rather than follows nature's order, that he has absolute control over his actions, and that he is determined solely by himself. However, my argument is this. Nothing comes to pass in nature, which can be set down to a flaw therein; for nature is always the same, and everywhere one and the same in her efficacy and power of action; that is, nature's laws and ordinances, whereby all things come to pass and change from one form to another, are everywhere and always the same; so that there should be one and the same method of understanding the nature of all things whatsoever, namely, through nature's universal laws and rules.

Therefore, Spinoza affirms that the passions of hatred, anger, envy, and so on, considered in themselves, "follow from this same necessity and efficacy of nature; they answer to certain definite causes, through which they are understood, and possess certain properties as worthy of being known as the properties of anything else". Humans are not different in kind from the rest of the natural world; they are part of it.[17]

Spinoza's naturalism can be seen as deriving from his firm commitment to the principle of sufficient reason (psr), which is the thesis that everything has an explanation. He articulates the psr in a strong fashion, as he applies it not only to everything that is, but also to everything that is not:

Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non-existence e.g. if a triangle exists, a reason or cause must be granted for its existence; if, on the contrary, it does not exist, a cause must also be granted, which prevents it from existing, or annuls its existence.

And to continue with Spinoza's triangle example, here is one claim he makes about God:

From God's supreme power, or infinite nature, an infinite number of things that is, all things have necessarily flowed forth in an infinite number of ways, or always flow from the same necessity; in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity and for eternity, that its three interior angles are equal to two right angles.

Spinoza rejected the idea of an external Creator suddenly, and apparently capriciously, creating the world at one particular time rather than another, and creating it out of nothing. The solution appeared to him more perplexing than the problem, and rather unscientific in spirit as involving a break in continuity. He preferred to think of the entire system of reality as its own ground. This view was simpler; it avoided the impossible conception of creation out of nothing; and it was religiously more satisfying by bringing God and man into closer relationship. Instead of Nature, on the one hand, and a supernatural God, on the other, he posited one world of reality, at once Nature and God, and leaving no room for the supernatural. This so-called naturalism of Spinoza is only distorted if one starts with a crude materialistic idea of Nature and supposes that Spinoza degraded God. The truth is that he raised Nature to the rank of God by conceiving Nature as the fulness of reality, as the One and All. He rejected the specious simplicity obtainable by denying the reality of Matter, or of Mind, or of God. The cosmic system comprehends them all. In fact, God and Nature become identical when each is conceived as the Perfect Self-Existent. This constitutes Spinoza's Pantheism.[17][18]

According to Spinoza, God has "attributes". One attribute is 'extension', another attribute is 'thought', and there are infinitely many such attributes. Since Spinoza holds that to exist is to act, some readers take 'extension' to refer to an activity characteristic of bodies (for example, the active process of taking up space, exercising physical power, or resisting a change of place or shape). They take 'thought' to refer to the activity that is characteristic of minds, namely thinking, the exercise of mental power. Each attribute has modes. All bodies are modes of extension, and all ideas are modes of thought.[18]

Spinoza's ideas relating to the character and structure of reality are expressed by him in terms of substance, attributes, and modes. These terms are very old and familiar, but not in the sense in which Spinoza employs them. To understand Spinoza, it is necessary to lay aside all preconceptions[19] about them, and follow Spinoza closely.[18][20] Spinoza found it impossible to understand the finite, dependent, transient objects and events of experience without assuming some reality not dependent on anything else but self-existent, not produced by anything else but eternal, not restricted or limited by anything else but infinite. Such an uncaused, self-sustaining reality he called substance. So, for instance, he could not understand the reality of material objects and physical events without assuming the reality of a self-existing, infinite and eternal physical force which expresses itself in all the movements and changes which occur, as we say, in space.

This physical force he called extension, and described it, at first, as a substance, in the sense just explained. Similarly, he could not understand the various dependent, transient mental experiences with which we are familiar without assuming the reality of a self-existing, infinite and eternal consciousness, mental force, or mind-energy, which expresses itself in all these finite experiences of perceiving and understanding, of feeling and striving. This consciousness or mind-energy he called thought, and described it also, at first, as a substance.[21] Each of these "substances" he regarded as infinite of its kind (that is, as exhaustive of all the events of its own kind), and as irreducible to the other, or any other, substance. But in view of the intimate way in which Extension and Thought express themselves conjointly in the life of man, Spinoza considered it necessary to conceive of Extension and Thought not as detached realities, but as constituting one organic whole or system. And in order to express this idea, he then described Extension and Thought as attributes, reserving the term Substance for the system which they constitute between them. This change of description was not intended to deny that Extension and Thought are substances in the sense of being self-existent, etc. It was only intended to express their coherence in one system. The system of course would be more than any one attribute. For each attribute is only infinite of its kind; the system of all attributes is absolutely infinite, that is, exhausts the whole of reality. Spinoza, accordingly, now restricted the term "substance" to the complete system, though he occasionally continued to use the phrase "substance or attribute", or described Extension as a substance.[21]

As commonly used, especially since the time of Locke, the term substance is contrasted with its attributes or qualities as their substratum or bearer. But this meaning must not be read into Spinoza. For Spinoza, Substance is not the support or bearer of the Attributes, but the system of Attributes he actually uses the expression "Substance or the Attributes."[18] If there is any difference at all between "Substance" and "the Attributes", as Spinoza uses these terms, it is only the difference between the Attributes conceived as an organic system and the Attributes conceived (but not by Spinoza) as a mere sum of detached forces. Something is still necessary to complete the account of Spinoza's conception of Substance. So far only the two Attributes have been considered, namely, Extension and Thought. Spinoza, however, realised that there may be other Attributes, unknown to man. If so, they are part of the one Substance or cosmic system. And using the term "infinite" in the sense of "complete" or "exhaustive", he ascribed to Substance an infinity of Attributes, that is, all the attributes there are, whether known to man or not.[18][21]

Now reality, for Spinoza, is activity. Substance is incessantly active, each Attribute exercising its kind of energy in all possible ways. Thus the various objects and events of the material world come into being as modes (modifications or states) of the attribute Extension; and the various minds and mental experiences come into being as modes of the attribute Thought (or Consciousness). These modes are not external creations of the Attributes, but immanent results they are not "thrown off" by the Attributes, but are states (or modifications) of them, as air-waves are states of the air. Each Attribute, however, expresses itself in its finite modes not immediately (or directly) but mediately (or indirectly), at least in the sense to be explained now. Galilean physics tended to regard the whole world of physical phenomena as the result of differences of motion or momentum. And, though erroneously conceived, the Cartesian conception of a constant quantity of motion in the world led Spinoza to conceive of all physical phenomena as so many varying expressions of that store of motion (or motion and rest).

Spinoza might, of course, have identified Extension with energy of motion. But, with his usual caution, he appears to have suspected that motion may be only one of several types of physical energy. So he described motion simply as a mode of Extension, but as an infinite mode (because complete or exhaustive of all finite modes of motion) and as an immediate mode (as a direct expression of Extension). Again, the physical world (or "the face of the world as a whole", as Spinoza calls it)[21] retains a certain sameness in spite of the innumerable changes in detail that are going on. Accordingly, Spinoza described also the physical world as a whole as an infinite mode of extension ("infinite" because exhaustive of all facts and events that can be reduced to motion), but as a mediate (or indirect) mode, because he regarded it as the outcome of the conservation of motion (itself a mode, though an immediate mode). The physical things and events of ordinary experience are finite modes. In essence each of them is part of the Attribute Extension, which is active in each of them. But the finiteness of each of them is due to the fact that it is restrained or hedged in, so to say, by other finite modes. This limitation or determination is negation in the sense that each finite mode is not the whole attribute Extension; it is not the other finite modes. But each mode is positively real and ultimate as part of the Attribute.[18][21]

In the same kind of way the Attribute Thought exercises its activity in various mental processes, and in such systems of mental process as are called minds or souls. But in this case, as in the case of Extension, Spinoza conceives of the finite modes of Thought as mediated by infinite modes. The immediate infinite mode of Thought he describes as "the idea of God"; the mediate infinite mode he calls "the infinite idea" or "the idea of all things". The other Attributes (if any) must be conceived in an analogous manner. And the whole Universe or Substance is conceived as one dynamic system of which the various Attributes are the several world-lines along which it expresses itself in all the infinite variety of events.[18][22]

Given the persistent misinterpretation of Spinozism it is worth emphasizing the dynamic character of reality as Spinoza conceived it. The cosmic system is certainly a logical or rational system, according to Spinoza, for Thought is a constitutive part of it; but it is not merely a logical system it is dynamic as well as logical. His frequent use of geometrical illustrations affords no evidence at all in support of a purely logico-mathematical interpretation of his philosophy; for Spinoza regarded geometrical figures, not in a Platonic or static manner, but as things traced out by moving particles or lines, etc., that is, dynamically.[21][23]

Without intelligence there is not rational life: and things are only good, in so far as they aid man in his enjoyment of the intellectual life, which is defined by intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's perfecting of his reason, and capability to enjoy the rational life, are alone called evil.

For Spinoza, reality means activity, and the reality of anything expresses itself in a tendency to self-preservation to exist is to persist. In the lowest kinds of things, in so-called inanimate matter, this tendency shows itself as a "will to live". Regarded physiologically the effort is called appetite; when we are conscious of it, it is called desire. The moral categories, good and evil, are intimately connected with desire, though not in the way commonly supposed. Man does not desire a thing because he thinks it is good, or shun it because he considers it bad; rather he considers anything good if he desires it, and regards it as bad if he has an aversion for it. Now whatever is felt to heighten vital activity gives pleasure; whatever is felt to lower such activity causes pain. Pleasure coupled with a consciousness of its external cause is called love, and pain coupled with a consciousness of its external cause is called hate "love" and "hate" being used in the wide sense of "like" and "dislike". All human feelings are derived from pleasure, pain and desire. Their great variety is due to the differences in the kinds of external objects which give rise to them, and to the differences in the inner conditions of the individual experiencing them.[18]

Spinoza gives a detailed analysis of the whole gamut of human feelings, and his account is one of the classics of psychology.[24] For the present purpose the most important distinction is that between "active" feelings and "passive" feelings (or "passions"). Man, according to Spinoza, is active or free in so far as any experience is the outcome solely of his own nature; he is passive, or a bondsman, in so far as any experience is due to other causes besides his own nature. The active feelings are all of them forms of self-realisation, of heightened activity, of strength of mind, and are therefore always pleasurable. It is the passive feelings (or "passions") which are responsible for all the ills of life, for they are induced largely by things outside us and frequently cause that lowered vitality which means pain. Spinoza next links up his ethics with his theory of knowledge, and correlates the moral progress of man with his intellectual progress. At the lowest stage of knowledge, that of "opinion", man is under the dominant influence of things outside himself, and so is in the bondage of the passions. At the next stage, the stage of "reason", the characteristic feature of the human mind, its intelligence, asserts itself, and helps to emancipate him from his bondage to the senses and external allurements. The insight gained into the nature of the passions helps to free man from their domination. A better understanding of his own place in the cosmic system and of the place of all the objects of his likes and dislikes, and his insight into the necessity which rules all things, tend to cure him of his resentments, regrets and disappointments. He grows reconciled to things, and wins peace of mind. In this way reason teaches acquiescence in the universal order, and elevates the mind above the turmoil of passion. At the highest stage of knowledge, that of "intuitive knowledge", the mind apprehends all things as expressions of the eternal cosmos. It sees all things in God, and God in all things. It feels itself as part of the eternal order, identifying its thoughts with cosmic thought and its interests with cosmic interests. Thereby it becomes eternal as one of the eternal ideas in which the Attribute Thought expresses itself, and attains to that "blessedness" which "is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself", that is, the perfect joy which characterises perfect self-activity. This is not an easy or a common achievement. "But", says Spinoza, "everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare."[18][25][26]

Shortly after his death in 1677, Spinoza's works were placed on the Catholic Church's Index of Banned Books. Condemnations soon appeared, such as Aubert de Vers's L'impie convaincu (1685). According to its subtitle, in this work "the foundations of [Spinoza's] atheism are refuted". In June 1678 just over a year after Spinoza's deaththe States of Holland banned his entire works, since they contain very many profane, blasphemous and atheistic propositions. The prohibition included the owning, reading, distribution, copying, and restating of Spinoza's books, and even the reworking of his fundamental ideas.[27]

For the next hundred years, if European philosophers read this so-called heretic, they did so almost entirely in secret. How much forbidden Spinozism they were sneaking into their diets remains a subject of continual intrigue. Locke, Hume, Leibniz and Kant all stand accused by later scholars of indulging in periods of closeted Spinozism.[28] At the close of the 18th century, a controversy centering on the Ethics scandalized the German philosophy scene.

The first known translation of the Ethics into English was completed in 1856 by the novelist George Eliot, though not published until much later. The book next appeared in English in 1883, by the hand of the novelist Hale White. Spinoza rose clearly into view for anglophone metaphysicians in the late nineteenth century, during the British craze for Hegel. In his admiration for Spinoza, Hegel was joined in this period by his countrymen Schelling, Goethe, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. In the twentieth century, the ghost of Spinoza continued to show itself, for example in the writings of Russell, Wittgenstein, Davidson, and Deleuze. Among writers of fiction and poetry, the influential thinkers inspired by Spinoza include Coleridge, George Eliot, Melville, Borges, and Malamud.

The first published Dutch translations were by the poet Herman Gorter (1895)[29] and by Willem Meyer (1896).[30]

Spinoza's contemporary, Simon de Vries, raised the objection that Spinoza fails to prove that substances may possess multiple attributes, but that if substances have only a single attribute, "where there are two different attributes, there are also different substances".[31] This is a serious weakness in Spinoza's logic, which has yet to be conclusively resolved. Some have attempted to resolve this conflict, such as Linda Trompetter, who writes that "attributes are singly essential properties, which together constitute the one essence of a substance",[32] but this interpretation is not universal, and Spinoza did not clarify the issue in his response to de Vries.[33] On the other hand, Stanley Martens states that "an attribute of a substance is that substance; it is that substance insofar as it has a certain nature"[34] in an analysis of Spinoza's ideas of attributes.

Schopenhauer claimed that Spinoza misused words. "Thus he calls 'God' that which is everywhere called 'the world'; 'justice' that which is everywhere called 'power'; and 'will' that which is everywhere called 'judgement'."[35] Also, "that concept of substance...with the definition of which Spinoza accordingly begins...appears on close and honest investigation to be a higher yet unjustified abstraction of the concept matter."[36] In spite of his repeated objections and critical remarks, Schopenhauer incorporated some of Spinoza's fundamental concepts into his system, especially concerning the theory of emotions; there was also a striking similarity between Schopenhauer's will and Spinoza's substance.[37]

In fact, within the German philosophical sphere, Spinoza's influence on German idealism was remarkable.[38] He was both a challenge and inspiration for the three major figures of this movement: Hegel, Schelling and Fichte who all sought to define their own philosophical positions in relation to his. Schopenhauer, who detested these three philosophers to varying degrees of intensity,[39] also had a similarly ambivalent relation to the Dutch philosopher. How Spinoza came to influence Schopenhauer is not clear, but one might speculate: it could have come from his exposure to Fichte's lectures, from his conversations with Goethe or simply from being caught up in the post-Kantian attempt to rethink the critical philosophy. Still, his engagement with Spinozism is evident throughout his writings and attentive readers of his chief work may indeed note his ambivalence toward Spinoza's philosophy. He sees in Spinoza an ally against the feverish culture of the West. For example, in the context of a rather favourable account of "the standpoint of affirmation" he notes that "[T]he philosophy of Bruno and that of Spinoza might also bring to this standpoint the person whose conviction was not shaken or weakened by their errors and imperfections".[40] Moreover, in discussing Spinoza and Giordano Bruno, Schopenhauer also affirms that:

They do not belong either to their age or to their part of the globe, which rewarded the one with death, and the other with persecution and ignominy. Their miserable existence and death in this Western world are like that of a tropical plant in Europe. The banks of the Ganges were their spiritual home; there they would have led a peaceful and honoured life among men of like mind.

Given Schopenhauer's respect for Hindu philosophy, comments like these indicate that he too felt intellectual kinship with Spinoza. Elsewhere, Schopenhauer points to more fundamental affinities, but he also criticizes Spinoza. These criticisms deal with fundamental disagreements about the ultimate nature of reality and whether it is to be affirmed or denied.[41]

Go here to read the rest:
Ethics (Spinoza book) - Wikipedia

Why do pantheists believe in pantheism?What's the evidence for pantheism? How do you know the universe is worthy of reverence?If I accept pantheism, what difference would it make?Is pantheism just theism in disguise?Is Pantheism just atheism or humanism in disguise?What is the difference between pantheism and panentheism?Does pantheism have anything to do with pantheon or polytheism?What is the relationship between paganism and pantheism?Has pantheism got anything to do with animism?Does pantheism believe that all things are one?Does pantheism believe that humans are one with nature and the cosmos?If you revere everything, then surely all actions are good, and there is no distinction between good and evil?Does Pantheism believe in an afterlife for the individual soul?Without the hope of heaven, what incentive is there to morality?If there is no personal creator God, wouldn't the universe and human life have no meaning or purpose?Nature and the universe are changeable, and sometimes hostile. Doesn't that mean they are not worthy of reverence?How can we feel gratitude or love or worship towards impersonal matter?How can we pray to the universe and nature?Isn't it idolatry to worship the creation and not the Creator?

There are several compelling reasons.

1. Most traditional religions have elements which are hard to believe or to reconcile with common sense, evidence or modern science. Most pantheists are reared in another religion, and as they mature come to question what they have been taught. This leads many people to atheism or humanism.

2. Atheism and humanism don't suffer from the logical or empirical problems of traditional religions - but many people find them too cold and dry. They don't provide a sense of positive belonging to nature and the universe. In themselves, they merely state negatives: a disbelief or doubt in relation to the God or gods of other religions.

3. Nearly everyone feels deeply awed or moved when looking at nature or the night sky. Most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children.

Scientific pantheism proposes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion: they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings. They are a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

Scientific pantheism takes those feelings as its basic foundation.

We choose to regard the universe with awe, reverence, love, feelings of belonging and a recognition of tremendous power, beauty and mystery. This is an aesthetic/emotional choice and basically lies beyond any challenge from logic or evidence. Not everyone shares those feelings - but there's no basis to deny these choices to the people that feel this way.

In fact most people regard the universe or nature in that way but many are mislead by traditional religious teachings into seeing these things as evidence for deities they read about in their ancient scriptures.

We need no faith, no ancient books, no preachers ior gurus to reveal these feelings and experiences to us. The visions are right in front of our eyes, the feelings are in our hearts. We only need to recognize them frankly to accept the universe and nature as primal focus.

The evidence for this approach is infinitely stronger than for belief in a personal creator God.

You would acquire the most positive attitude to existence on earth in a human body that any spirituality can offer. You would focus your spiritual interests on nature and the universe. Instead of admiring these as evidence of a creator God's glory, you would love them for themselves. You would gain a much stronger basis for concern about the environment than any Western religion can offer.

You would overcome all sense of separation from the earth and from your own body. If you belong to a traditional religion, you would replace faith with common sense and science, and reconcile the spiritual and the everyday parts of your thinking.

No. Theism means belief in a personal God who is greater and older than the universe. This God may or may not be present in the universe.

Scientific Pantheism says simply that the Universe is worthy of the deepest reverence. This is a statement about the attitude we should adopt towards the universe and nature - an attitude which is fostered when we open our eyes to the full awe and beauty and mystery of reality.

The universe has some features in common with the God of traditional religions - its power, immensity, and mystery. But the Universe is not personal. It has no mind apart from the minds of intelligent species within it. It is neither loving nor vengeful. It does not demand worship or obedience. It is not watching you. It is not eavesdropping on your every thought. It will not judge you. It will not punish you or reward you.

Again: no. Like atheism and humanism, scientific pantheism does not believe in a personal God separate from the Universe. Like them it is critical of beliefs that depend onfaithin impossibilities, or unproven revelations in ancient books.

But atheism is essentially defined by a single proposition. It states that there is no creator God, and no other supernatural gods, and nothing more.Usually atheism implies respect for certain approaches, for example realism, physicalism, demand for very strong evidence of improbable claims, rejection of scriptural or priestly authority claims as a source of truth.All of these are valid and valuable. But these are the ways in which people arrive at atheism - they don't constitute part of the definition of atheism. Atheism does not claim to be a comprehensive philosophy. You can be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, or the law of attraction, or crystal healing, or be skeptical of all of these. You can be an atheist and love nature, or detest nature, love life or hate it.In other words, atheism is like a starting point: if you want a system of ethics and attitudes to life, you have to add them on top, and from other sources.

Humanism has tried to develop a positive philosophy and ethics, but sometimes this has been too anthropocentric, too confident of human superiority, too nervous of appearing even remotely like anything called "religion" or spirituality.

Scientific pantheism goes beyond atheism in offering a positive approach to the world and a a reverent attitude towards nature and the universe. It affirms our unity with these, and rejects the idea of human mastery over nature or human pre-eminence in the cosmos. It takes our relationship to nature and to the universe as the center of our religion, our ethics and our aesthetics.

Panentheists and pantheists share the view that the universe and every natural thing in it is in some sense worth of reverence.

However, pan-en-theos means "all-in-God" - that is, the universe is contained within God, not God in the universe. Panentheists believe in a God who is present in everything but also extends beyond the universe. In other words, God is greater than the universe. Often they also believe that this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally.

Pantheists believe that the universe itself is the prime focus for reverence. They do not believe in personal or creator gods.

Only the etymology. In Greekpanmeans all,theosmeans god, whilepolymeans many.

POLYTHEISM is belief in many gods.

The PANTHEON (=all gods) is the collection of classical deities like Zeus, Hera and so on, or a building in which they are worshipped.

PANTHEIST (all=god) is a term coined in 1705 by John Toland, for someone who believes that there is only one eternal being - the Universe. On this basis in 1732 the Christian apologist Daniel Waterland used the noun "PANTHEISM" for the first time, condemning the belief as "scandalously bad scarce differing from Atheism."

Very confusingly, many dictionaries give an alternative definition of pantheism as "belief in all the gods." However, this use is based on a nineteenth century misunderstanding. Pantheism was first recorded in this erroneous sense in 1837 - one hundred and five years after its first use in the original sense - by Francis Palgrave. Palgrave wrote: "The great proportion of the Tartar tribes professed a singular species of Pantheism, respecting all creeds, attached to none." Probably Palgrave had heard the word pantheism and confused it with the word "pantheon" - a temple erected to all the Gods. Other people repeated his mistake, and their usage was recorded in the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (published between 1884 and 1928).

It's important to note that this second "meaning" is almost never used today. It it incompatible with and contradictory to the original meaning. It's also useful to note that "belief in all the gods" is not the same as "POLYTHEISM" which means belief in many gods.

Polytheism usually means belief in the several gods of a particular national culture. Pantheism in its second sense means belief in all the gods of ALL the nations. This second meaning of pantheism is never used today in books on religion or philosophy. It only persists in dictionaries because it crept into the OED, the mother of all dictionaries, consulted by every new dictionary-compiler. And it only crept into the OED because of a mistaken use of the word!

There are many points in common between paganism and Pantheism. Most pagans say they are pantheists. They too revere Nature and the Universe and regard them as in some sense unified wholes. They too celebrate solstices, equinoxes and other natural passages. They too have a strong environmental ethic and a deep love of nature.

Many pagans are basically pantheists, using the gods and spirits of paganism as a metaphoric way of expressing their reverence for the Universe and Nature. Some people feel the need for symbols and personages to mediate their relationship with nature and the cosmos. There is no harm in this, as long as the symbols help us to connect to Reality and do not block or distort our view of Reality.

Most scientific pantheists relate directly to the universe and to nature, without the need for any intermediary symbols or deities. The cosmos manifests itself directly to us in nature and the night sky.

However, many pagans are literal polytheists, they believe the the existence of gods and spirits, and often believe in magic, reincarnation, and the irrational. Scientific pantheists are not polytheists, and do not believe in magic, or disembodied spirits. Most of them do not believe in a personal afterlife, whether through reincarnation or transport to any kind of non-material "heaven."

Animism is the belief that every living thing in nature - including trees, plants and even rocks or streams - has its own spirit or divinity. In primitive societies animism often requires that before anyone can kill an animal or fell a tree, its natural spirit must be placated.

Pantheism is in a sense a natural development of animism. Pantheism celebrates the "numinosity" or awesomeness of the whole of the universe and nature. This whole possesses the power, the creativity, the awe and mystery that we need for a focus of our spiritual feelings.

However, the whole exists through and in its parts. Every natural thing from the sun to a grain of sand, from a giant sequoia to a bacterium, is a part of the whole. Every natural thing has the quality of being a distinctive organization of matter with its own unique character and dignity.

Only animals have nervous systems. But all living things have communication systems, through which information about the external world is transmitted by way of chemical and electrical messages. Even inanimate objects are shaped by and shape their environment and in that sense are responsive.

The scientific pantheist attitude to all individual natural phenomena is one of appreciation of beauty, quiet and respectful observation, love and care. Since it is impossible for us to perceive or grasp the whole universe or the whole of nature at once, we can revere it in and through its constituent parts.

Most modern pantheists are monists in the sense that they believe there is only onebasic typeof substance - matter - rather than two different and distinct types, spirit and matter. They believe that all individual things have a common origin with humans, and are closely interlinked and interdependent in many ways. They and we interconnect through social systems and ecosystems and the greater system of Gaia, as well as through gravity and the universe-wide spread of signals and impacts.

Anyone with eyes can see that matter in the universe is arranged into distinct individual things: galaxies, stars, planets, trees, people. This diversity is an essential part of the beauty of nature and the night sky. Without diversity everything would be drably monotonous.

Attempts to deny diversity usually end up in claiming that the visible world is mere illusion. Scientific pantheism believes the universe is vibrantly real.

So things are one in some senses, and many in other senses. They are linked in some senses, and separate in others. Anyone who claims that things are totally united, or totally separate, is flying in the face of everyday experience and of scientific evidence.

Yes, there is a fundamental underlying unity. Humans are made of the same substance as the rest of the universe. We don't have any magic spiritual ingredient just for ourselves.

We developed as part of nature, and remain part of local and global ecosystems.

However, humans do have consciousness, and that can be a blessing or a curse. The conscious mind evolved to help survival, and it can help us to relate to nature and the universe through love, appreciation, study and action.

But consciousness also means awareness of one's own individuality, so it can also give us a misleading sense of separation from and radical difference from the world. Our ideas can also develop out of tune with reality and with nature.

So it is important not just to state that there is a unity, but to learn to perceive that unity, to understand it, and to act upon it.

This is a misconceived Christian criticism of pantheism. Certainly a few sects of Pantheists (likeTantric Buddhistsand somepantheistic Christian heresies)have believed this.

But remember that scientific pantheism does not say that "God is everything", but rather that the universe is worthy of the most profound reverence. Within the overall whole of Nature, it is possible for intelligent species or individuals to become separated from the whole and to act in conflict with it, by harming nature or other people.

Modern pantheists are not amoral. They have strong ideas about right and wrong in relation to environmental ethics and social justice. They would consider environmentally destructive or unjust and oppressive actions as "evil."

Some pantheists, likeSpinozaandEinstein, have believed this. Some atheists and scientific pantheists believe this.

But there is no logical link between scientific pantheism and determinism. Many pantheists have not been determinists, and many believe in free will. You can take your pick.

Some idealistic versions of pantheism - such asneo-PlatonismorHinduismhave held such beliefs.

No-one could completely exclude this possibility. But there is no scientific evidence for such beliefs. People who have died medically and have been revived do have mental experiences, because parts of the brain continue to function or resume when the heart is restarted. But that does not mean that their spirit was separated from their body during the "dead" interlude.

Most modern Pantheists believe that the mind is an aspect of the body, and at death dissolves with the body to merge into the elements from which it was formed. If there is any validity at all to near-death experiences, then this is what they are expressing.

For environmental as well as religious reasons, Pantheism strongly prefers natural burials in special woodlands, at sea, or in other natural areas, where the individual can be reabsorbed into the nature of which they were, are and always will be a part.

The idea that the hope of heaven is the only guarantee of moral behaviour is absurd. Highly ethical behavior is found among peoples who do not believe in heaven - for example, many Chinese, or Japanese. Conversely, crime and corruption are rife in many Christian societies. Nowhere was the hope of heaven stronger than in medieval Europe - yet few places on earth have seen injustice, oppression, and violence on such a scale, much of it in the name of Christianity.

The strongest stimuli to moral behaviour in all human societies are parental and social discipline, either externally imposed, or internalized. Plus the direct rewards for good behavior - love and social recognition. These factors ensure that we are often punished and rewarded for our deeds before we die - though chance and social injustice can often distort the outcome.

Of course, religion can provide support for ethics, and but scientific pantheism can provide better support than religions which believe in heaven.

Pantheism believes that we live on in some senses, thiough not as conscious persons. Our elements are re-absorbed in Nature. Memories of us persist in the minds of people we have known and in the achievements we leave behind. Therefore we have a powerful incentive to be good and kind to people, and to achieve lasting good in our lives. The kinder we are, the more good we do, the longer will be our "afterlife" in people's memories. If we do harm, then our memory will be execrated.

Contrast this with the God of Christianity who forgives mortal sins even on the deathbed and can reward mass murderers with heaven if they are truly penitent. What kind of incentive for lifelong morality is that?

There are two meanings for the word purpose. One is purpose in relation to something external. By definition the Universe comprises all that exists: there is no outside in relation to which it could have purpose. If God existed, we could include him/her in this All, and in that case the totality "God plus universe" would have and could have no conceivable purpose. Theists claim that God is self sufficient and can exist without purpose. So why can't the universe?

But wecanhave purpose in the second sense: purpose and goals for our lives which we freely choose for ourselves, in the light of the needs of others humans, animals and ecosystems.

The fact that our lives have no external purpose designed by some dictator in the sky liberates us to create our own purposes! For the pantheist, the purpose of life is to connect more deeply and harmoniously with the universe, nature and other humans, and to help others to do so.

Finally consider the so-called "purpose" the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam has planned for us: to struggle through a miserable brief spell on a stage designed as a testing ground for eternity, obey and worship this huge invisible entity known as "God", and prove to it that we are good enough to get into the real show which only starts when we're dead. Is that a worthy purpose for a life? What on earth would be "God"'s purpose in setting up such a show, creating little puppets and seeing whether they're good enough and burning the ones that aren't for all eternity?

Change and flux are facts of life throughout the cosmos. So are the risks on earth of disease, accident, collision with meteorites and so on. [SeeGod and Reality]

It is true that these attributes of the universe and nature are not compatible with pre-conceived ideas about God as an unchanging, loving being. But scientific pantheism does not believe in such a God. It accepts the universe as it is - wonderful, mysterious, creative, exuberant, joyful, and yet also at times chaotic and destructive.

Evil and pain exist for theists too, and they are extremely difficult to reconcile with the idea of an omnipotent, yet loving God. Christian apologetics have still not come up with any satisfactory explanation of why God should have created them.

Matter is not impersonal: for each of us it is our very substance. If we cannot love matter, then we cannot love ourselves as we are. Almost everyone loves nature, even though it is impersonal, and often seems indifferent or cruel. We can feel gratitude, too, to nature and the universe, for giving us the privilege of conscious life. People love mountains, oceans, stars - even though they know these things are material and impersonal and cannot love them in return.

Consider the reverse of the coin: how can Christians feel love and gratitude towards an all-powerful God who has created disease and pain; a God who has given humans the free-will to do evil, and then if they use it punishes them for all eternity; a God who is planning to wrap up creation, destroy the earth violently, and create a new heaven and a new earth?

The short answer is that we can't. But can we pray to a God and realistically hope that out of nearly six billion humans in an immense universe he will come to our personal assistance? Could we really expect any kind of just God to alter his decisions and laws simply because we asked him to do us a favor?

Apart from outside forces, it is we ourselves - our thoughts, our feelings, our determination, our action - who decide what happens to us. We can think about the right course of action, and pray to ourselves, to summon up the determination to act.

We can also meditate on nature, and achieve states of mentalunionwith nature and the universe akin to mystical states.

This is a common Christian accusation against pantheism.But it is not idolatry at all if there is no Creator.

Pantheists believe that the universe created itself [seeThe Self-existent Cosmos] and designed itself [seeThe Self-organizing Cosmos.

If this is the case then the true idolatry is to worship an imaginary Creator rather than the visible and vibrant reality that surrounds us.

Here is the original post:
Scientific Pantheism: Frequently Asked Questions

Pantheism is the belief that God is everything and everything is God.

Pantheism is the belief that God and the Universe are identical, and that there is no difference between God and the World. One rationale for pantheism, as opposed to monotheism, is that, for the human practical sense of the physical world, there seems no possibility of God's omnipresence in the Creation unless God is identical to the Creation.Pantheism therefore holds all things to be divine; but, this view was rejected by Saint Augustine because this view would mean that even sin was divine. Historically some philosophers, such as John Toland, have used pantheism to mean the equivalent of atheism, denying that the world is the product of divine creation, denying any guidance of God, and even denying the existence of sin. Or alternatively, by saying everything is divine, ultimately, nothing is. This can be demonstrated with the super heroes metaphor: If you assume a place where everyone has special powers, no one is special, hence, no superheroes.

Some pantheistic ideas were bandied about as early as the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, who felt that everything in the Universe was made from the same divine substance. Pantheism resurfaced in the 1700s from the writing of Benedict Spinoza, who laid out certain philosophical justifications for the idea. Two refinements of pantheism developed in the 1800s, panentheism and pandeism. Panentheism tried to bring pantheism back into monotheism by describing the Universe as one part of God existing at the same time as a transcendent part of God existed apart from it. Pandeism tried to combine pantheism with deism, which was then at the height of its popularity, by describing a process in which God became the Universe and in that process ceased to act as God.

Modernly, pantheism has declined from the level of popularity achieved in Spinoza's day.

View post:
Pantheism - Conservapedia

Academic analyses of Avatar

The 2009 American science fiction film Avatar has provoked vigorous discussion of a wide variety of cultural, social, political, and religious themes identified by critics and commentators, and the film's writer and director James Cameron has responded that he hoped to create an emotional reaction and to provoke public conversation about these topics.[1] The broad range of Avatar's intentional or perceived themes has prompted some reviewers to call it "an all-purpose allegory"[2][3] and "the season's ideological Rorschach blot".[4] One reporter even suggested that the politically charged punditry has been "misplaced": reviewers should have seized on the opportunity to take "a break from their usual fodder of public policy and foreign relations" rather than making an ideological battlefield of this "popcorn epic".[5]

Discussion has centered on such themes as the conflict between modern human and nature, and the film's treatment of imperialism, racism, militarism and patriotism, corporate greed, property rights, spirituality and religion. Commentators have debated whether the film's treatment of the human aggression against the native Na'vi is a message of support for indigenous peoples today,[6] or is, instead, a tired retelling of the racist myth of the noble savage.[7][8] Right-wing critics accused Cameron of pushing an anti-American message in the film's depiction of a private military contractor that used ex-Marines to attack the natives, while Cameron and others argued that it is pro-American to question the propriety of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The visual similarity between the destruction of the World Trade Center and the felling of Home Tree in the film caused some filmgoers to further identify with the Na'vi and to identify the human military contractors as terrorists. Critics asked whether this comparison was intended to encourage audiences to empathize with the position of Muslims under military occupation today.[9][10]

Much discussion has concerned the film's treatment of environmental protection and the parallels to, for example, the destruction of rainforests, mountaintop removal for mining and evictions from homes for development. The title of the film and various visual and story elements provoked discussion of the film's use of Hindu iconography, which Cameron confirmed had inspired him.[11][12] Christians, including the Vatican, worried that the film promotes pantheism over Christian beliefs, while others instead thought that it sympathetically explores biblical concepts. Other critics either praised the film's spiritual elements or found them hackneyed.[13]

"Avatar is a science fiction retelling of the history of North and South America in the early colonial period. Avatar very pointedly made reference to the colonial period in the Americas, with all its conflict and bloodshed between the military aggressors from Europe and the indigenous peoples. Europe equals Earth. The native Americans are the Navi. Its not meant to be subtle."

James Cameron on Avatar[14]

Avatar describes the conflict by an indigenous people, the Na'vi of Pandora, against the oppression of alien humans. Director James Cameron acknowledged that the film is "certainly about imperialism in the sense that the way human history has always worked is that people with more military or technological might tend to supplant or destroy people who are weaker, usually for their resources."[7] Critics agreed that the film is "a clear message about dominant, aggressive cultures subjugating a native population in a quest for resources or riches."[15] George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, asserted that conservative criticism of Avatar is a reaction to what he called the film's "chilling metaphor" for the European "genocides in the Americas", which "massively enriched" Europe.[16] Cameron told National Public Radio that references to the colonial period are in the film "by design".[17] Adam Cohen of The New York Times stated that the film is "firmly in the anti-imperialist canon, a 22nd-century version of the American colonists vs. the British, India vs. the Raj, or Latin America vs. United Fruit."[18]

Saritha Prabhu, an Indian-born columnist for The Tennessean, wrote about the parallels between the plot and how "Western power colonizes and invades the indigenous people (native Americans, Eastern countries, you substitute the names), sees the natives as primitives/savages/uncivilized, is unable or unwilling to see the merits in a civilization that has been around longer, loots the weaker power, all while thinking it is doing a favor to the poor natives."[20] David Brooks, in The New York Times, criticized what he saw as the "White Messiah complex" in the film, whereby the Na'vi "can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration."[21] Others disagree: "First off, [Jake is] handicapped. Second off, he ultimately becomes one of [the Na'vi] and wins their way."[22]

Many commentators saw the film as a message of support for the struggles of native peoples today. Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defense of nature".[19] Others compared the human invaders with "NATO in Iraq or Israel in Palestine",[9] and considered it reassuring that "when the Na'vi clans are united, and a sincere prayer is offered, the... 'primitive savages' win the war."[23] Palestinian activists painted themselves blue and dressed like the Na'vi during their weekly protest in the village of Bilin against Israel's separation barrier.[24][25] Other Arab writers, however, noted that "for Palestinians, Avatar is rather a reaffirmation and confirmation of the claims about their incapability to lead themselves and build their own future."[26] Forbes columnist Reihan Salam criticized the vilification of capitalism in the film, asserting that it represents a more noble and heroic way of life than that led by the Na'vi, because it "give[s] everyone an opportunity to learn, discover, and explore, and to change the world around us."[27] Si Sheppard on the other hand praised the film for drawing parallels between the corporate imperialism of the fictional RDA and its historical equivalents of the pre-industrial era (specifically the East India Company, which maintained its own private army in order to impose profit-driven territorial sovereignty on the Indian subcontinent).[28]

Cameron stated that Avatar is "very much a political film" and added: "This movie reflects that we are living through war. There are boots on the ground, troops who I personally believe were sent there under false pretenses, so I hope this will be part of opening our eyes."[29] He confirmed that "the Iraq stuff and the Vietnam stuff is there by design",[17] adding that he did not think that the film was anti-military.[30] Critic Charles Marowitz in Swans magazine remarked, however, that the realism of the suggested parallel with wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan "doesn't quite jell" because the natives are "peace-loving and empathetic".[31]

Cameron said that Americans have a "moral responsibility" to understand the impact of their country's recent military conflicts. Commenting on the term "shock and awe" in the film, Cameron said: "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America."[32] Christian Hamaker of Crosswalk.com noted that, "in describing the military assault on Pandora, Cameron cribs terminology from the ongoing war on terrorism and puts it in the mouths of the film's villains... as they 'fight terror with terror'. Cameron's sympathies, and the movie's, clearly are with the Na'viand against the military and corporate men."[33] A columnist in the Russian newspaper Vedomosti traced Avatar's popularity to its giving the audience a chance to make a moral choice between good and evil and, by emotionally siding with Jake's treason, to relieve "us the scoundrels" of our collective guilt for the cruel and unjust world that we have created.[34][35] Armond White of New York Press dismissed the film as "essentially a sentimental cartoon with a pacifist, naturalist message" that uses villainous Americans to misrepresent the facts of the military, capitalism, and imperialism.[36] Answering critiques of the film as insulting to the U.S. military, a piece in the Los Angeles Times asserted that "if any U.S. forces that ever existed were being insulted, it was the ones who fought under George Armstrong Custer, not David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal."[5] Other reviews saw Avatar as "the bubbling up of our military subconscious... the wish to be free of all the paperwork and risk aversion of the modern Armymuch more fun to fly, unarmored, on a winged beast."[37]

A critic writing in Le Monde opined that, contrary to the perceived pacifism of Avatar, the film justifies war in the response to attack by the film's positive characters, particularly the American protagonist who encourages the Na'vi to "follow him into battle.... Every war, even those that seem the most insane [are justified as being] for the 'right reasons'."[10] Ann Marlowe of Forbes saw the film as both pro- and anti-military, "a metaphor for the networked military".[37]

Many reviewers perceived an anti-American message in the film, equating RDA's private security force to American soldiers.[38] Commentator Glenn Beck on his radio show said that Avatar was "an antiU.S. human thing".[39] Russell D. Moore in The Christian Post stated that, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects" and criticized Cameron for what he saw as an unnuanced depiction of the American military as "pure evil".[40] John Podhoretz of The Weekly Standard argued that Avatar revealed "hatred of the military and American institutions and the notion that to be human is just way uncool."[41] Charles Mudede of The Stranger commented that with the release of the film "the American culture industry exports an anti-American spectacle to an anti-American world."[42] Debbie Schlussel likewise dismissed Avatar as "cinema for the hate America crowd".[43]

Cameron argued that "the film is definitely not anti-American"[44] and that "part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas."[29] Eric Ditzian of MTV concurred that "it'd take a great leap of logic to tag 'Avatar' as anti-American or anti-capitalist."[45] Ann Marlowe called the film "the most neo-con movie ever made" for its "deeply conservative, pro-American message".[37] But Cameron admitted to some ambiguity on the issue, agreeing that "the bad guys could be America in this movie, or the good guys could be America in this movie, depending on your perspective",[7] and stated that Avatar's defeat at the Academy Awards might have been due to the perceived anti-U.S. theme in it.[30]

The destruction of the Na'vi habitat Hometree reminded commentators of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center,[37] and one commentator noted Cameron's "audacious willingness to question the sacred trauma of 9/11".[36][46] Cameron said that he was "surprised at how much it did look like September 11", but added that he did not think that it was necessarily a bad thing.[32] A French critic wrote: "How can one not see the analogy with the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center? Then, after that spectacular scene, all is justified [for the unified] indigenous peoples (the allied forces)... to kill those who [are] just like terrorists."[10] Another writer noted that "the U.S.' stand-ins are the perpetrators, and not the victims" and described this reversal as "the movies most seditious act".[46]

Commentators around the world sought to interpret the relationship between the Na'vi and humans in the film, mostly agreeing with Maxim Osipov, who wrote in the Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald: "The 'civilised humans' turn out as primitive, jaded and increasingly greedy, cynical, and brutaltraits only amplified by their machinerywhile the 'monkey aliens' emerge as noble, kind, wise, sensitive and humane. We, along with the Avatar hero, are now faced with an uncomfortable yet irresistible choice between the two races and the two worldviews." Osipov wrote that it was inevitable that the audience, like the film's hero, Jake, would find that the Na'vi's culture was really the more civilized of the two, exemplifying "the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature."[47][48] Echoing this analysis, psychologist Jeffery Fine in The Miami Herald urged "every man, woman and child" to see the film and wake up to its message by making the right choice between commercial materialism, which is "steamrolling our soul and consciousness", and reconnection with all life as "the only... promise of survival" for humanity.[49] Similarly, Altino Matos writing for Journal de Angola saw the film as a message of hope, writing, "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life."[50] Cameron confirmed that "the Na'vi represent the better aspects of human nature, and the human characters in the film demonstrate the more venal aspects of human nature."[29]

Conversely, David Brooks of The New York Times opined that Avatar creates "a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism", an offensive cultural stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic and that illiteracy is the path to grace.[21] A review in the Irish Independent found the film to contrast a "mix of New Age environmentalism and the myth of the Noble Savage" with the corruption of the "civilized" white man.[51] Reihan Salam, writing in Forbes, viewed it as ironic that "Cameron has made a dazzling, gorgeous indictment of the kind of society that produces James Camerons."[27]

Many critics saw racist undertones in the film's treatment of the indigenous Na'vi, seeing it as "a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people", which reinforces "the White Messiah fable", in which the white hero saves helpless primitive natives,[52][53] who are thus reduced to servicing his ambitions and proving his heroism.[26] Other reviews called Avatar an offensive assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades,[21] and "a self-loathing racist screed" due to the fact that all the "human" roles in the film are played by white actors and all the Na'vi characters by African-American or Native American actors.[dubious discuss][54][55]

Mori academic Rawiri Taonui agreed that the film portrays indigenous people as being simplistic and unable to defend themselves without the help from "the white guys and the neo-liberals."[56] Another author remarked that while the white man will fix the destruction, he will never feel guilty, even though he is directly responsible for the destruction."[26] Likewise, Josef Joffe, publisher-editor of Die Zeit in Germany, said the film perpetuates the myth of the "noble savage" and has "a condescending, yes, even racist message. Cameron bows to the noble savages. However, he reduces them to dependents."[57] Slavoj iek argued that "the film enables us to practise a typical ideological division: sympathising with the idealised aborigines while rejecting their actual struggle."[58] The Irish Times carried the comment that "despite all the thematic elements from Hinduism, one thing truly original is the good old American ego. Given its Hollywood origins, the script has remained faithful to the inherent superiority complex, and has predictably bestowed the honor of the 'avatar' not on the movies native Navis, but on a white American marine."[59] Similarly, positing that "the only good humans [in the film] are deador rather, resurrected as 'good Navi'", a writer in The Jerusalem Post thought that the film was inadvertently promoting supremacy of one race over another.[60]

On the Charlie Rose talk show, Cameron acknowledged parallels with idea of the "noble savage", but argued: "When indigenous populations who are at a bow and arrow level are met with technological superior forces, [if] somebody doesn't help them, they lose. So we are not talking about a racial group within an existing population fighting for their rights."[1] Cameron rejected claims that the film is racist, asserting that Avatar is about respecting others' differences.[52] Adam Cohen of The New York Times felt similarly, writing that the Na'vi greeting "I see you" contrasts with the oppression of, and even genocide against, those who we fail to accept for what they are, citing Jewish ghettos and the Soviet gulags as examples.[18]

Avatar has been called "without a doubt the most epic piece of environmental advocacy ever captured on celluloid.... The film hits all the important environmental talking-pointsvirgin rain forests threatened by wanton exploitation, indigenous peoples who have much to teach the developed world, a planet which functions as a collective, interconnected Gaia-istic organism, and evil corporate interests that are trying to destroy it all."[61] Cameron has spoken extensively with the media about the film's environmental message, saying that he envisioned Avatar as a broader metaphor of how we treat the natural world.[8][62][63] He said that he created Pandora as "a fictionalised fantasy version of what our world was like, before we started to pave it and build malls, and shopping centers. So it's really an evocation of the world we used to have."[64] He told Charlie Rose that "we are going to go through a lot of pain and heartache if we don't acknowledge our stewardship responsibilities to nature."[1] Interviewed by Terry Gross of National Public Radio, he called Avatar a satire on the sense of human entitlement: "[Avatar] is saying our attitude about indigenous people and our entitlement about what is rightfully theirs is the same sense of entitlement that lets us bulldoze a forest and not blink an eye. It's just human nature that if we can take it, we will. And sometimes we do it in a very naked and imperialistic way, and other times we do it in a very sophisticated way with lots of rationalizationbut it's basically the same thing. A sense of entitlement. And we can't just go on in this unsustainable way, just taking what we want and not giving back."[17] An article in the Belgium paper De Standaard agreed: "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn't his."[65]

Commentators connected the film's story to the endangerment of biodiversity in the Amazon rainforests of Brazil by dam construction, logging, mining, and clearing for agriculture.[66] A Newsweek piece commented on the destruction of Home Tree as resembling the rampant tree-felling in Tibet,[67] while another article compared the film's depiction of destructive corporate mining for unobtainium in the Na'vi lands with the mining and milling of uranium near the Navajo reservation in New Mexico.[68] Other critics, however, dismissed Avatar's pro-environmental stance as inconsistent. Armond White remarked that, "Camerons really into the powie-zowie factor: destructive combat and the deployment of technological force.... Cameron fashionably denounces the same economic and military system that make his technological extravaganza possible. Its like condemning NASAyet joyriding on the Mars Exploration Rover."[36] Similarly, an article in National Review concluded that by resorting to technology for educating viewers of the technology endangered world of Pandora, the film "showcases the contradictions of organic liberalism."[63]

Stating that such a conservative criticism of his film's "strong environmental anti-war themes" was not unexpected, Cameron stressed that he was "interested in saving the world that my children are going to inhabit",[69] encouraged everyone to be a "tree hugger",[29] and urged that we "make a fairly rapid transition to alternate energy."[70] The film and Cameron's environmental activism caught the attention of the 8,000-strong Dangaria Kandha tribe from Odisha, eastern India. They appealed to him to help them stop a mining company from opening a bauxite open-cast mine, on their sacred Niyamgiri mountain, in an advertisement in Variety that read: "Avatar is fantasy... and real. The Dongria Kondh... are struggling to defend their land against a mining company hell-bent on destroying their sacred mountain. Please help...."[71][72] Similarly, a coalition of over fifty environmental and aboriginal organizations of Canada ran a full-page ad in the special Oscar edition of Variety likening their fight against Canada's Alberta oilsands to the Na'vi insurgence,[73] a comparison the mining and oil companies objected to.[74] Cameron was awarded the inaugural Temecula Environment Award for Outstanding Social Responsibility in Media by three environmentalist groups for portrayal of environmental struggles that they compared with their own.[75]

The destruction of the Na'vi habitat to make way for mining operations has also evoked parallels with the oppressive policies of some states often involving forcible evictions related to development. David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute wrote in Los Angeles Times that the film's essential conflict is a battle over property rights, "the foundation of the free market and indeed of civilization."[76] Melinda Liu found this storyline reminiscent of the policies of the authorities in China, where 30 million citizens have been evicted in the course of a three-decade long development boom.[67][77] Others saw similar links to the displacement of tribes in the Amazon basin[66] and the forcible demolition of private houses in a Moscow suburb.[78]

Avatar comes from a childhood sense of wonder about nature... You fly in your dreams as a child, but you tend not to fly in your dreams as an adult. In the Avatar state, [Jake] is getting to return to that childlike dream state of doing amazing things.

James Cameron[17]

David Quinn of the Irish Independent wrote that the spirituality depicted "goes some way towards explaining the film's gigantic popularity, and that is the fact that Avatar is essentially a religious film, even if Cameron might not have intended it as such."[51] At the same time, Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online objected to what he saw in the film reviews as "the norm to speak glowingly of spirituality but derisively of traditional religion."[79]

James Cameron has said that he "tried to make a film that would touch people's spirituality across the broad spectrum."[64] He also stated that one of the film's philosophical underpinnings is that "the Na'vi represent that sort of aspirational part of ourselves that wants to be better, that wants to respect nature, while the humans in the film represent the more venal versions of ourselves, the banality of evil that comes with corporate decisions that are made out of remove of the consequences."[17][29][44] Film director John Boorman saw a similar dichotomy as a key factor contributing to its success: "Perhaps the key is the marine in the wheelchair. He is disabled, but Mr Cameron and technology can transport him into the body of a beautiful, athletic, sexual, being. After all, we are all disabled in one way or another; inadequate, old, broken, earthbound. Pandora is a kind of heaven where we can be resurrected and connected instead of disconnected and alone."[51]

Reviewers suggested that the film draws upon many existing religious and mythological motifs. Vern Barnet of the Charlotte Observer opined that Avatar poses a great question of faithshould the creation be seen and governed hierarchically, from above, or ecologically, through mutual interdependence? He also noted that the film borrows concepts from other religions and compared its Tree of Souls with the Norse story of the tree Yggdrasil, also called axis mundi or the center of the world, whose destruction signals the collapse of the universe.[80] Malinda Liu in Newsweek likened the Na'vi respect for life and belief in reincarnation with Tibetan religious beliefs and practices,[67] but Reihan Salam of Forbes called the species "perhaps the most sanctimonious humanoids ever portrayed on film."[27]

A Bolivian writer defined "avatar" as "something born without human intervention, without intercourse, without sin", comparing it to the births of Jesus, Krishna, Manco Cpac, and Mama Ocllo and drew parallels between the deity Eywa of Pandora and the goddess Pachamama worshiped by the indigenous people of the Andes.[9] Others suggested that the world of Pandora mirrored the Garden of Eden,[81] and reminded that in Hebrew Na'vi is the singular of Nevi'im which means "Prophets".[82] A writer for Religion Dispatches countered that Avatar "begs, borrows, and steals from a variety of longstanding human stories, puts them through the grinder, and comes up with something new."[83] Another commentator called Avatar "a new version of the Garden of Eden syndrome" pointing to what she viewed as phonetic and conceptual similarities of the film's terminology with that of the Book of Genesis.[84]

The Times of India suggested Avatar was a treatise on Indianism "for Indophiles and Indian philosophy enthusiasts", starting from the very word Avatar itself.[85] A Houston Chronicle piece critiqued the film in terms of the ancient Hindu epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, commenting on the Na'vi visual similarity with Rama and Krishnaavatars central to the respective epics and traditionally depicted with blue skin, black hair, and a tilak mark on the forehead.[86] Another critic found that elements of the film's plot resembled such teachings and concepts of Hinduism as reincarnation of the soul, ecological consciousness, and incarnations of deities on Earth, commending Avatar and its director for "raising the global stature of Hinduism... in months", while criticizing them for substantiating the western reluctance to accept anything oriental in its pristine form.[59]

Cameron calls the connection a "subconscious" reference: "I have just loved... the mythology, the entire Hindu pantheon, seems so rich and vivid." He continued, "I didn't want to reference the Hindu religion so closely, but the subconscious association was interesting, and I hope I haven't offended anyone in doing so."[12] He has stated that he was familiar with a lot of beliefs of the Hindu religion and found it "quite fascinating".[64]

Answering a question from Time magazine in 2007, "What is an Avatar anyway?" James Cameron replied, "It's an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body."[87] In 2010, Cameron confirmed the meaning of the title to the Times of India: "Of course, that was the significance in the film, although the characters are not divine beings. But the idea was that they take flesh in another body."[64]

Following the film's release, reviewers focused on Cameron's choice of the religious Sanskrit term for the film's title. A reviewer in the Irish Times traced the term to the ten incarnations of Vishnu.[59] Another writer for The Hindu concluded that by using the "loaded Sanskrit word" Cameron indicated the possibility that an encounter with an emotionally superiorbut technologically inferiorform of alien may in the future become a next step in human evolutionprovided we will learn to integrate and change, rather than conquer and destroy.[88]

Maxim Osipov of ISKCON argued in The Sydney Morning Herald that "Avatar" is a "downright misnomer" for the film because "the movie reverses the very concept [that] the term 'avatar'literally, in Sanskrit, 'descent'is based on. So much for a descending 'avatar', Jake becomes a refugee among the aborigines."[48] Vern Barnet in Charlotte Observer likewise thought that the title insults traditional Hindu usage of the term since it is a human, not a god, who descends in the film.[80] However, Rishi Bhutada, Houston coordinator of the Hindu American Foundation, stated that while there are certain sacred terms that would offend Hindus if used improperly, 'avatar' is not one of them.[86] Texas-based filmmaker Ashok Rao added that 'avatar' does not always mean a representative of God on Earth, but simply one being in another formespecially in literature, moviemaking, poetry and other forms of art.[86]

Explaining the choice of the color blue for the Na'vi, Cameron said "I just like blue. It's a good color... plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually."[11] Commentators agreed that the blue skin of the Na'vi, described in a New Yorker article as "Vishnu-blue",[89] "instantly and metaphorically" relates the film's protagonist to such avatars of Vishnu as Rama and Krishna.[59][90] An article in the San Francisco Examiner described an 18th-century Indian painting of Vishnu and his consort Laksmi riding the great mythical bird Garuda as "Avatar prequel" due to its resemblance with the film's scene in which the hero's blue-skinned avatar flies a gigantic raptor.[91] Asra Q. Nomani of The Daily Beast likened the hero and his Na'vi mate Neytiri to images of Shiva and Durga.[92]

Discussing explicit or implicit similarities between the film and the philosophy of Hinduism, reviewers suggested that, just as Hindu gods, particularly Vishnu, become avatars to save the order of the universe, the films avatar must descend to avert impending ultimate doom, effected by a rapacious greed that leads to destroying the world of nature and other civilizations.[59][80][90] Maxim Osipov observed that the film's philosophical message was consistent overall with the Bhagavad Gita, a key scripture of Hinduism, in defining what constitutes real culture and civilization.[47][48]

Critics saw an "undeniably" Hindu connection between the film's story and the Vedic teaching of reverence for the whole universe, as well as the yogic practice of inhabiting a distant body by ones consciousness[59] and compared the film's love scene to tantric practices.[92] Another linked the Na'vi earth goddess Eywa to the concept of Brahman as the ground of being described in Vedanta and Upanishads and likened the Na'vi ability to connect to Eywa with the realization of Atman.[93] One commentator noted the parallel between the Na'vi greeting "I see you" and the ancient Hindu greeting "Namaste", which signifies perceiving and adoring the divinity within others.[94] Others commented on Avatar's adaptation of the Hindu teaching of reincarnation,[95][96]a concept, which another author felt was more accurately applicable to ordinary human beings that are "a step or two away from exotic animals" than to deities.[31]

Writing for the Ukrainian Day newspaper, Maxim Chaikovsky drew detailed analogies between Avatar's plot and elements of the ancient Bhagavata Purana narrative of Krishna, including the heroine Radha, the Vraja tribe and their habitat the Vrindavana forest, the hovering Govardhan mountain, and the mystical rock chintamani.[97][98] He also opined that this resemblance may account for "Avatar blues"a sense of loss experienced by members of the audience at the conclusion of the film.[98][99]

Some Christian writers worried that Avatar promotes pantheism and nature worship. A critic for LOsservatore Romano of the Holy See wrote that the film "shows a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature, a fashionable pantheism in which creator and creation are mixed up."[8][100] Likewise, Vatican Radio argued that the film "cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium. Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship."[100] According to Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, these reviews reflect the Pope's views on neopaganism, or confusing nature and spirituality.[100] On the other hand, disagreeing with the Vatican's characterization of Avatar as pagan, a writer in the National Catholic Reporter urged Christian critics to see the film in the historical context of "Christianity's complicity in the conquest of the Americas" instead.[101]

Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist of The New York Times, called Avatar "the Gospel According to James" and "Cameron's long apologia for pantheism [which] has been Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now."[13] Replying to him, Jay Michaelson of the HuffPost wrote "The Meaning of Avatar: Everything is God (A Response to Ross Douthat and other naysayers of pantheism)".[102] In The Weekly Standard, John Podhoretz criticized the film's "mindless worship of a nature-loving tribe and the tribe's adorable pagan rituals."[41] Christian critic David Outten disputed that "the danger to moviegoers is that Avatar presents the Na'vi culture on Pandora as morally superior to life on Earth. If you love the philosophy and culture of the Na'vi too much, you will be led into evil rather than away from it."[103] Outten further added: "Cameron has done a masterful job in manipulating the emotions of his audience in Avatar. He created a world where it looks good and noble to live in a tree and hunt for your food daily with a bow and arrow.... Cameron said, 'Avatar asks us to see that everything is connected, all human beings to each other, and us to the Earth.' This is a clear statement of religious belief. This is pantheism. It is not Christianity."[104] The deleted scene "The Dream Hunt", which is included in the DVD extras, shows elements that reminded Erik Davis and others of ayahuasca experiences.

Other Christian critics wrote that Avatar has "an abhorrent New Age, pagan, anti-capitalist worldview that promotes goddess worship and the destruction of the human race"[33][105] and suggested that Christian viewers interpret the film as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar".[9][106] Some of them also suspected Avatar of subversive retelling of the biblical Exodus,[82] by which Cameron "invites us to look at the Bible from the side of Canaanites."[107] Conversely, other commentators concluded that the film promotes theism[81] or panentheism[93] rather than pantheism, arguing that the hero "does not pray to a tree, but through a tree to the deity whom he addresses personally" and, unlike in pantheism, "the film's deity does indeedcontrary to the native wisdom of the Na'viinterfere in human affairs."[81] Ann Marlowe of Forbes agreed, saying that "though Avatar has been charged with "pantheism", its mythos is just as deeply Christian."[37] Another author suggested that the film's message "leads to a renewed reverence for the natural worlda very Christian teaching."[93] Saritha Prabhu, an Indian-born columnist for The Tennessean, saw the film as a misportrayal of pantheism: "What pantheism is, at least, to me: a silent, spiritual awe when looking (as Einstein said) at the 'beauty and sublimity of the universe', and seeing the divine manifested in different aspects of nature. What pantheism isn't: a touchy-feely, kumbaya vibe as is often depicted. No wonder many Americans are turned off." Prabhu also criticized Hollywood and Western media for what she saw as their generally poor job of portraying Eastern spirituality.[20]

Read the rest here:
Themes in Avatar - Wikipedia

Belief in the existence of at least one deity; the opposite of atheism

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) or gods found in polytheistic religionsa belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.[3][4]

Atheism is commonly understood as non-acceptance or rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods.[5][6] The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[7][8]

The term theism derives from the Greek [9] (thes) or theoi meaning "god" or "gods". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (16171688).[10] In Cudworth's definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things".[11]

Monotheism (from Greek ) is the belief in theology that only one deity exists.[12] Some modern day monotheistic religions include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bah Faith, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, some Sects of Hinduism, and Eckankar.

Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one god.[13]In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities.

Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties[citation needed]:

Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded:

The distinction between these two beliefs may be ambiguous and unhelpful, or a significant point of division.[15] Pantheism may be understood a type of Nontheism, where the physical universe takes on some of the roles of a theistic God, and other roles of God viewed as unnecessary.[16]

Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.[18]

Autotheism is the viewpoint that divinity, whether also external or not, is inherently within 'oneself' and that one has the ability to become godlike. Indian religions like Buddhism and Jainism are Autotheistic. This can be in a selfless way, a way following the implications of statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders (such as Mahavira).

Autotheism can also refer to the belief that one's self is a deity, within the context of subjectivism. Hindus use the term, "aham Brahmsmi" which means, "I am Brahman".[19]

Mormons teach a type of Autotheism called Exaltation, where humans can attain godhood.[20]

Non-theism is the belief in no gods or god.

Atheism is the lack of belief in supernatural powers such as deities, gods/goddesses, or messiahs. Some atheists express an active disbelief or rejection of the existence of such entities.

See original here:
Theism - Wikipedia

Religious belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence

Animism (from Latin: anima, 'breath, spirit, life')[2] is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Potentially, animism perceives all thingsanimals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and perhaps even wordsas animated and alive. Animism is used in the anthropology of religion, as a term for the belief system of many Indigenous peoples,[7] especially in contrast to the relatively more recent development of organized religions.[8] Animism focuses on the metaphysical universe, with a specific focus on the concept of the immaterial soul.[9]

Although each culture has its own mythologies and rituals, animism is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual" or "supernatural" perspectives. The animistic perspective is so widely held and inherent to most indigenous peoples, that they often do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even "religion");[10] the term is an anthropological construct.

Largely due to such ethnolinguistic and cultural discrepancies, opinions differ on whether animism refers to an ancestral mode of experience common to indigenous peoples around the world, or to a full-fledged religion in its own right. The currently accepted definition of animism was only developed in the late 19th century (1871) by Sir Edward Tylor. It is "one of anthropology's earliest concepts, if not the first".[11]

Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no categorical distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world, and that soul, spirit, or sentience exists not only in humans, but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree spirits, etc. Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names, or metaphors in mythology. Some members of the non-tribal world also consider themselves animists (such as author Daniel Quinn, sculptor Lawson Oyekan, and many contemporary Pagans).[12]

Sir Edward Tylor had initially wanted to describe the phenomenon as spiritualism, but realized that such would cause confusion with the modern religion of spiritualism, which was then prevalent across Western nations. He adopted the term animism from the writings of German scientist Georg Ernst Stahl, who had developed the term animismus in 1708, as a biological theory that souls formed the vital principle, and that the normal phenomena of life and the abnormal phenomena of disease could be traced to spiritual causes.

The first known usage in English appeared in 1819.[16]

Earlier anthropological perspectives, which have since been termed the old animism, were concerned with knowledge on what is alive and what factors make something alive. The old animism assumed that animists were individuals who were unable to understand the difference between persons and things. Critics of the old animism have accused it of preserving "colonialist and dualist worldviews and rhetoric".

The idea of animism was developed by anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor through his 1871 book Primitive Culture, in which he defined it as "the general doctrine of souls and other spiritual beings in general". According to Tylor, animism often includes "an idea of pervading life and will in nature;"[20] a belief that natural objects other than humans have souls. This formulation was little different from that proposed by Auguste Comte as "fetishism",[21] but the terms now have distinct meanings.

For Tylor, animism represented the earliest form of religion, being situated within an evolutionary framework of religion that has developed in stages and which will ultimately lead to humanity rejecting religion altogether in favor of scientific rationality. Thus, for Tylor, animism was fundamentally seen as a mistake, a basic error from which all religions grew. He did not believe that animism was inherently illogical, but he suggested that it arose from early humans' dreams and visions and thus was a rational system. However, it was based on erroneous, unscientific observations about the nature of reality. Stringer notes that his reading of Primitive Culture led him to believe that Tylor was far more sympathetic in regard to "primitive" populations than many of his contemporaries and that Tylor expressed no belief that there was any difference between the intellectual capabilities of "savage" people and Westerners.[4]

The idea that there had once been "one universal form of primitive religion" (whether labeled animism, totemism, or shamanism) has been dismissed as "unsophisticated" and "erroneous" by archaeologist Timothy Insoll, who stated that "it removes complexity, a precondition of religion now, in all its variants".

Tylor's definition of animism was part of a growing international debate on the nature of "primitive society" by lawyers, theologians, and philologists. The debate defined the field of research of a new science: anthropology. By the end of the 19th century, an orthodoxy on "primitive society" had emerged, but few anthropologists still would accept that definition. The "19th-century armchair anthropologists" argued, that "primitive society" (an evolutionary category) was ordered by kinship and divided into exogamous descent groups related by a series of marriage exchanges. Their religion was animism, the belief that natural species and objects had souls.

With the development of private property, the descent groups were displaced by the emergence of the territorial state. These rituals and beliefs eventually evolved over time into the vast array of "developed" religions. According to Tylor, as society became more scientifically advanced, fewer members of that society would believe in animism. However, any remnant ideologies of souls or spirits, to Tylor, represented "survivals" of the original animism of early humanity.[25]

The term ["animism"] clearly began as an expression of a nest of insulting approaches to indigenous peoples and the earliest putatively religious humans. It was and sometimes remains, a colonialist slur.

Graham Harvey, 2005.

In 1869 (three years after Tylor proposed his definition of animism), Edinburgh lawyer John Ferguson McLennan, argued that the animistic thinking evident in fetishism gave rise[colloquialism?] to a religion he named totemism. Primitive people believed, he argued, that they were descended from the same species as their totemic animal.[21] Subsequent debate by the "armchair anthropologists" (including J. J. Bachofen, mile Durkheim, and Sigmund Freud) remained focused on totemism rather than animism, with few directly challenging Tylor's definition. Anthropologists "have commonly avoided the issue of animism and even the term itself rather than revisit this prevalent notion in light of their new and rich ethnographies".[27]

According to anthropologist Tim Ingold, animism shares similarities with totemism but differs in its focus on individual spirit beings which help to perpetuate life, whereas totemism more typically holds that there is a primary source, such as the land itself or the ancestors, who provide the basis to life. Certain indigenous religious groups such as the Australian Aboriginals are more typically totemic in their worldview, whereas others like the Inuit are more typically animistic.[28]

From his studies into child development, Jean Piaget suggested that children were born with an innate animist worldview in which they anthropomorphized inanimate objects and that it was only later that they grew out of this belief. Conversely, from her ethnographic research, Margaret Mead argued the opposite, believing that children were not born with an animist worldview but that they became acculturated to such beliefs as they were educated by their society.

Stewart Guthrie saw animismor "attribution" as he preferred itas an evolutionary strategy to aid survival. He argued that both humans and other animal species view inanimate objects as potentially alive as a means of being constantly on guard against potential threats. His suggested explanation, however, did not deal with the question of why such a belief became central to the religion. In 2000, Guthrie suggested that the "most widespread" concept of animism was that it was the "attribution of spirits to natural phenomena such as stones and trees".

Many anthropologists ceased using the term animism, deeming it to be too close to early anthropological theory and religious polemic. However, the term had also been claimed by religious groupsnamely, Indigenous communities and nature worshipperswho felt that it aptly described their own beliefs, and who in some cases actively identified as "animists". It was thus readopted by various scholars, who began using the term in a different way, placing the focus on knowing how to behave toward other beings, some of whom are not human. As religious studies scholar Graham Harvey stated, while the "old animist" definition had been problematic, the term animism was nevertheless "of considerable value as a critical, academic term for a style of religious and cultural relating to the world."

The new animism emerged largely from the publications of anthropologist Irving Hallowell, produced on the basis of his ethnographic research among the Ojibwe communities of Canada in the mid-20th century. For the Ojibwe encountered by Hallowell, personhood did not require human-likeness, but rather humans were perceived as being like other persons, who for instance included rock persons and bear persons. For the Ojibwe, these persons were each wilful beings, who gained meaning and power through their interactions with others; through respectfully interacting with other persons, they themselves learned to "act as a person".

Hallowell's approach to the understanding of Ojibwe personhood differed strongly from prior anthropological concepts of animism. He emphasized the need to challenge the modernist, Western perspectives of what a person is, by entering into a dialogue with different worldwide views. Hallowell's approach influenced the work of anthropologist Nurit Bird-David, who produced a scholarly article reassessing the idea of animism in 1999. Seven comments from other academics were provided in the journal, debating Bird-David's ideas.

More recently,[when?] postmodern anthropologists are increasingly engaging with the concept of animism. Modernism is characterized by a Cartesian subject-object dualism that divides the subjective from the objective, and culture from nature. In the modernist view, animism is the inverse of scientism, and hence, is deemed inherently invalid by some anthropologists. Drawing on the work of Bruno Latour, some anthropologists question modernist assumptions and theorize that all societies continue to "animate" the world around them. In contrast to Tylor's reasoning, however, this "animism" is considered to be more than just a remnant of primitive thought. More specifically, the "animism" of modernity is characterized by humanity's "professional subcultures", as in the ability to treat the world as a detached entity within a delimited sphere of activity.

Human beings continue to create personal relationships with elements of the aforementioned objective world, such as pets, cars, or teddy bears, which are recognized as subjects. As such, these entities are "approached as communicative subjects rather than the inert objects perceived by modernists".[40] These approaches aim to avoid the modernist assumption that the environment consists of a physical world distinct from the world of humans, as well as the modernist conception of the person being composed dualistically of a body and a soul.[27]

Nurit Bird-David argues that:[27]

Positivistic ideas about the meaning of 'nature', 'life', and 'personhood' misdirected these previous attempts to understand the local concepts. Classical theoreticians (it is argued) attributed their own modernist ideas of self to 'primitive peoples' while asserting that the 'primitive peoples' read their idea of self into others!

She explains that animism is a "relational epistemology" rather than a failure of primitive reasoning. That is, self-identity among animists is based on their relationships with others, rather than any distinctive features of the "self". Instead of focusing on the essentialized, modernist self (the "individual"), persons are viewed as bundles of social relationships ("dividuals"), some of which include "superpersons" (i.e. non-humans).

Stewart Guthrie expressed criticism of Bird-David's attitude towards animism, believing that it promulgated the view that "the world is in large measure whatever our local imagination makes it". This, he felt, would result in anthropology abandoning "the scientific project".

Like Bird-David, Tim Ingold argues that animists do not see themselves as separate from their environment:[42]

Hunter-gatherers do not, as a rule, approach their environment as an external world of nature that has to be 'grasped' intellectually indeed the separation of mind and nature has no place in their thought and practice.

Rane Willerslev extends the argument by noting that animists reject this Cartesian dualism and that the animist self identifies with the world, "feeling at once within and apart from it so that the two glide ceaselessly in and out of each other in a sealed circuit". The animist hunter is thus aware of himself as a human hunter, but, through mimicry, is able to assume the viewpoint, senses, and sensibilities of his prey, to be one with it. Shamanism, in this view, is an everyday attempt to influence spirits of ancestors and animals, by mirroring their behaviors, as the hunter does its prey.

Cultural ecologist and philosopher David Abram promotes an ethical and ecological understanding of animism, grounded in the phenomenology of sensory experience. In his books The Spell of the Sensuous, and Becoming Animal, Abram suggests that material things are never entirely passive in our direct perceptual experience, holding rather that perceived things actively "solicit our attention" or "call our focus", coaxing the perceiving body into an ongoing participation with those things.[45][46]

In the absence of intervening technologies, he suggests, sensory experience is inherently animistic in that it discloses a material field that is animate and self-organizing from the beginning. Drawing upon contemporary cognitive and natural science, as well as upon the perspectival worldviews of diverse indigenous oral cultures, Abram proposes a richly pluralist and story-based cosmology in which matter is alive. He suggests that such a relational ontology is in close accord with our spontaneous perceptual experience; it would draw us back to our senses, and to the primacy of the sensuous terrain, enjoining a more respectful and ethical relation to the more-than-human community of animals, plants, soils, mountains, waters, and weather-patterns that materially sustains us.[45][46]

In contrast to a long-standing tendency in the Western social sciences, which commonly provide rational explanations of animistic experience, Abram develops an animistic account of reason itself. He holds that civilized reason is sustained only by intensely animistic participation between human beings and their own written signs. For instance, as soon as we turn our gaze toward the alphabetic letters written on a page or a screen, we "see what they say"the letters, that is, seem to speak to usmuch as spiders, trees, gushing rivers and lichen-encrusted boulders once spoke to our oral ancestors. For Abram, reading can usefully be understood as an intensely concentrated form of animism, one that effectively eclipses all of the other, older, more spontaneous forms of animistic participation in which we once engaged.

To tell the story in this mannerto provide an animistic account of reason, rather than the other way aroundis to imply that animism is the wider and more inclusive term and that oral, mimetic modes of experience still underlie, and support, all our literate and technological modes of reflection. When reflection's rootedness in such bodily, participatory modes of experience is entirely unacknowledged or unconscious, reflective reason becomes dysfunctional, unintentionally destroying the corporeal, sensuous world that sustains it.[47]

Religious studies scholar Graham Harvey defined animism as the belief "that the world is full of persons, only some of whom are human, and that life is always lived in relationship with others". He added that it is therefore "concerned with learning how to be a good person in respectful relationships with other persons".

In his Handbook of Contemporary Animism (2013), Harvey identifies the animist perspective in line with Martin Buber's "I-thou" as opposed to "I-it". In such, Harvey says, the animist takes an I-thou approach to relating to the world, whereby objects and animals are treated as a "thou", rather than as an "it".[48]

There is ongoing[when?] disagreement (and no general consensus) as to whether animism is merely a singular, broadly encompassing religious belief[49] or a worldview in and of itself, comprising many diverse mythologies found worldwide in many diverse cultures.[50][51] This also raises a controversy regarding the ethical claims animism may or may not make:[according to whom?] whether animism ignores questions of ethics altogether;[52] or, by endowing various non-human elements of nature with spirituality or personhood,[53] in fact promotes a complex ecological ethics.[54]

Animism is not the same as pantheism, although the two are sometimes confused. Moreover, some religions are both pantheistic and animistic. One of the main differences is that while animists believe everything to be spiritual in nature, they do not necessarily see the spiritual nature of everything in existence as being united (monism), the way pantheists do. As a result, animism puts more emphasis on the uniqueness of each individual soul. In pantheism, everything shares the same spiritual essence, rather than having distinct spirits or souls.[55][56]

In many animistic world views, the human being is often regarded as on a roughly equal footing with other animals, plants, and natural forces.[57]

Traditional African religions: most religious traditions of Sub-Saharan Africa, which are basically a complex form of animism with polytheistic and shamanistic elements and ancestor worship.[58]

In North Africa, the traditional Berber religion includes the traditional polytheistic, animist, and in some rare cases, shamanistic, religions of the Berber people.

In the Indian-origin religions, namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, the animistic aspects of nature worship and ecological conservation are part of the core belief system.

Matsya Purana, a Hindu text, has a Sanskrit language shloka (hymn), which explains the importance of reverence of ecology. It states, "A pond equals ten wells, a reservoir equals ten ponds, while a son equals ten reservoirs, and a tree equals ten sons."[59] Indian religions worship trees such as the Bodhi Tree and numerous superlative banyan trees, conserve the sacred groves of India, revere the rivers as sacred, and worship the mountains and their ecology.

Panchavati are the sacred trees in Indic religions, which are sacred groves containing five type of trees, usually chosen from among the Vata (Ficus benghalensis, Banyan), Ashvattha (Ficus religiosa, Peepal), Bilva (Aegle marmelos, Bengal Quince), Amalaki (Phyllanthus emblica, Indian Gooseberry, Amla), Ashoka (Saraca asoca, Ashok), Udumbara (Ficus racemosa, Cluster Fig, Gular), Nimba (Azadirachta indica, Neem) and Shami (Prosopis spicigera, Indian Mesquite).[60][61]

The banyan is considered holy in several religious traditions of India. The Ficus benghalensis is the national tree of India.[62] Vat Purnima is a Hindu festival related to the banyan tree, and is observed by married women in North India and in the Western Indian states of Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat.[63] For three days of the month of Jyeshtha in the Hindu calendar (which falls in MayJune in the Gregorian calendar) married women observe a fast, tie threads around a banyan tree, and pray for the well-being of their husbands.[64] Thimmamma Marrimanu, sacred to Indian religions, has branches spread over five acres and was listed as the world's largest banyan tree in the Guinness World Records in 1989.[65][66]

In Hinduism, the leaf of the banyan tree is said to be the resting place for the god Krishna. In the Bhagavat Gita, Krishna said, "There is a banyan tree which has its roots upward and its branches down, and the Vedic hymns are its leaves. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas." (Bg 15.1) Here the material world is described as a tree whose roots are upwards and branches are below. We have experience of a tree whose roots are upward: if one stands on the bank of a river or any reservoir of water, he can see that the trees reflected in the water are upside down. The branches go downward and the roots upward. Similarly, this material world is a reflection of the spiritual world. The material world is but a shadow of reality. In the shadow there is no reality or substantiality, but from the shadow we can understand that there is substance and reality.

In Buddhism's Pali canon, the banyan (Pali: nigrodha)[67] is referenced numerous times.[68] Typical metaphors allude to the banyan's epiphytic nature, likening the banyan's supplanting of a host tree as comparable to the way sensual desire (kma) overcomes humans.[69]

Mun (also known as Munism or Bongthingism) is the traditional polytheistic, animist, shamanistic, and syncretic religion of the Lepcha people.[70][71][72]

Shinto, including the Ryukyuan religion, is the traditional Japanese folk religion and has many animist aspects.

Kalash people of Northern Pakistan follow an ancient animistic religion identified with an ancient form of Hinduism.[73]

Muism, the native Korean belief, has many animist aspects.[74]

In the indigenous religious beliefs of the Philippines, pre-colonial religions of Philippines and Philippine mythology, animism is part of their core beliefs as demonstrated by the belief in Anito and Bathala as well as their conservation and veneration of sacred Indigenous Philippine shrines, forests, mountains and sacred grounds.

Anito (lit. '[ancestor] spirit') refers to the various indigenous shamanistic folk religions of the Philippines, led by female or feminized male shamans known as babaylan. It includes belief in a spirit world existing alongside and interacting with the material world, as well as the belief that everything has a spirit, from rocks and trees to animals and humans to natural phenomena.[76][77]

In indigenous Filipino belief, the Bathala is the omnipotent deity which was derived from Sanskrit word for the Hindu supreme deity bhattara,[78][79] as one of the ten avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu.[80][81] The omnipotent Bathala also presides over the spirits of ancestors called Anito.[82][83][84][85] Anitos serve as intermediaries between mortals and the divine, such as Agni (Hindu) who holds the access to divine realms; for this reason they are invoked first and are the first to receive offerings, regardless of the deity the worshipper wants to pray to.[86][87]

Animism also has influences in Abrahamic religions.

The Old Testament and the Wisdom literature preach the omnipresence of God (Jeremiah 23:24; Proverbs 15:3; 1 Kings 8:27, Ephesians 4:6). God is bodily present in the incarnation of his Son, Jesus Christ. (Gospel of John 1:14, Colossians 2:9).[88]

With rising awareness of ecological preservation, recently theologians like Mark I. Wallace argue for animistic Christianity with a biocentric approach that understands God being present in all earthly objects, such as animals, trees, and rocks.[89]

Pre-Islamic Arab religion can refer to the traditional polytheistic, animist, and in some rare cases, shamanistic, religions of the peoples of the Arabian people. The belief in jinn, invisible entities akin to spirits in the Western sense dominant in the Arab religious systems, hardly fit the description of Animism in a strict sense. The jinn are considered to be analogous to the human soul by living lives like that of humans, but they are not exactly like human souls neither are they spirits of the dead.[90]:49 It is unclear if belief in jinn derived from nomadic or sedentary populations.[90]:51

Some Neopagan groups, including Eco-pagans, describe themselves as animists, meaning that they respect the diverse community of living beings and spirits with whom humans share the world and cosmos.[91]

The New Age movement commonly demonstrates animistic traits in asserting the existence of nature spirits.[92]

A shaman is a person regarded as having access to, and influence in, the world of benevolent and malevolent spirits, who typically enters into a trance state during a ritual, and practices divination and healing.[93]

According to Mircea Eliade, shamanism encompasses the premise that shamans are intermediaries or messengers between the human world and the spirit worlds. Shamans are said to treat ailments and illnesses by mending the soul. Alleviating traumas affecting the soul or spirit restores the physical body of the individual to balance and wholeness. The shaman also enters supernatural realms or dimensions to obtain solutions to problems afflicting the community. Shamans may visit other worlds or dimensions to bring guidance to misguided souls and to ameliorate illnesses of the human soul caused by foreign elements. The shaman operates primarily within the spiritual world, which in turn affects the human world. The restoration of balance results in the elimination of the ailment.[94]

Abram, however, articulates a less supernatural and much more ecological understanding of the shaman's role than that propounded by Eliade. Drawing upon his own field research in Indonesia, Nepal, and the Americas, Abram suggests that in animistic cultures, the shaman functions primarily as an intermediary between the human community and the more-than-human community of active agenciesthe local animals, plants, and landforms (mountains, rivers, forests, winds, and weather patterns, all of which are felt to have their own specific sentience). Hence, the shaman's ability to heal individual instances of dis-ease (or imbalance) within the human community is a byproduct of their more continual practice of balancing the reciprocity between the human community and the wider collective of animate beings in which that community is embedded.[95]

Animism entails the belief that "all living things have a soul",[quote citation needed] and thus, a central concern of animist thought surrounds how animals can be eaten, or otherwise used for humans' subsistence needs. The actions of non-human animals are viewed as "intentional, planned and purposive", and they are understood to be persons, as they are both alive, and communicate with others.

In animist worldviews, non-human animals are understood to participate in kinship systems and ceremonies with humans, as well as having their own kinship systems and ceremonies. Harvey cited an example of an animist understanding of animal behavior that occurred at a powwow held by the Conne River Mi'kmaq in 1996; an eagle flew over the proceedings, circling over the central drum group. The assembled participants called out kitpu ('eagle'), conveying welcome to the bird and expressing pleasure at its beauty, and they later articulated the view that the eagle's actions reflected its approval of the event, and the Mi'kmaq's return to traditional spiritual practices.

Some animists also view plant and fungi life as persons and interact with them accordingly. The most common encounter between humans and these plant and fungi persons is with the former's collection of the latter for food, and for animists, this interaction typically has to be carried out respectfully. Harvey cited the example of Maori communities in New Zealand, who often offer karakia invocations to sweet potatoes as they dig the latter up; while doing so there is an awareness of a kinship relationship between the Maori and the sweet potatoes, with both understood as having arrived in Aotearoa together in the same canoes.

In other instances, animists believe that interaction with plant and fungi persons can result in the communication of things unknown or even otherwise unknowable. Among some modern Pagans, for instance, relationships are cultivated with specific trees, who are understood to bestow knowledge or physical gifts, such as flowers, sap, or wood that can be used as firewood or to fashion into a wand; in return, these Pagans give offerings to the tree itself, which can come in the form of libations of mead or ale, a drop of blood from a finger, or a strand of wool.

Various animistic cultures also comprehend stones as persons. Discussing ethnographic work conducted among the Ojibwe, Harvey noted that their society generally conceived of stones as being inanimate, but with two notable exceptions: the stones of the Bell Rocks and those stones which are situated beneath trees struck by lightning, which were understood to have become Thunderers themselves. The Ojibwe conceived of weather as being capable of having personhood, with storms being conceived of as persons known as 'Thunderers' whose sounds conveyed communications and who engaged in seasonal conflict over the lakes and forests, throwing lightning at lake monsters. Wind, similarly, can be conceived as a person in animistic thought.

The importance of place is also a recurring element of animism, with some places being understood to be persons in their own right.

Animism can also entail relationships being established with non-corporeal spirit entities.

In the early 20th century, William McDougall defended a form of animism in his book Body and Mind: A History and Defence of Animism (1911).

Physicist Nick Herbert has argued for "quantum animism" in which the mind permeates the world at every level:

The quantum consciousness assumption, which amounts to a kind of "quantum animism" likewise asserts that consciousness is an integral part of the physical world, not an emergent property of special biological or computational systems. Since everything in the world is on some level a quantum system, this assumption requires that everything be conscious on that level. If the world is truly quantum animated, then there is an immense amount of invisible inner experience going on all around us that is presently inaccessible to humans, because our own inner lives are imprisoned inside a small quantum system, isolated deep in the meat of an animal brain.[109]

Werner Krieglstein wrote regarding his quantum Animism:

Herbert's quantum Animism differs from traditional Animism in that it avoids assuming a dualistic model of mind and matter. Traditional dualism assumes that some kind of spirit inhabits a body and makes it move, a ghost in the machine. Herbert's quantum Animism presents the idea that every natural system has an inner life, a conscious center, from which it directs and observes its action.[110]

In Error and Loss: A Licence to Enchantment,[111] Ashley Curtis (2018) has argued that the Cartesian idea of an experiencing subject facing off with an inert physical world is incoherent at its very foundation and that this incoherence is predicted rather than belied by Darwinism. Human reason (and its rigorous extension in the natural sciences) fits an evolutionary niche just as echolocation does for bats and infrared vision does for pit vipers, and isaccording to western science's own dictatesepistemologically on par with, rather than superior to, such capabilities. The meaning or aliveness of the "objects" we encounterrocks, trees, rivers, other animalsthus depends its validity not on a detached cognitive judgment, but purely on the quality of our experience. The animist experience, and the wolf's or raven's experience, thus become licensed as equally valid worldviews to the modern western scientific one; they are more valid, since they are not plagued with the incoherence that inevitably crops up[colloquialism] when "objective existence" is separated from "subjective experience".

Harvey opined that animism's views on personhood represented a radical challenge to the dominant perspectives of modernity, because it accords "intelligence, rationality, consciousness, volition, agency, intentionality, language, and desire" to non-humans. Similarly, it challenges the view of human uniqueness that is prevalent in both Abrahamic religions and Western rationalism.

Animist beliefs can also be expressed through artwork. For instance, among the Maori communities of New Zealand, there is an acknowledgement that creating art through carving wood or stone entails violence against the wood or stone person and that the persons who are damaged therefore have to be placated and respected during the process; any excess or waste from the creation of the artwork is returned to the land, while the artwork itself is treated with particular respect. Harvey, therefore, argued that the creation of art among the Maori was not about creating an inanimate object for display, but rather a transformation of different persons within a relationship.

Harvey expressed the view that animist worldviews were present in various works of literature, citing such examples as the writings of Alan Garner, Leslie Silko, Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Walker, Daniel Quinn, Linda Hogan, David Abram, Patricia Grace, Chinua Achebe, Ursula Le Guin, Louise Erdrich, and Marge Piercy.

Animist worldviews have also been identified in the animated films of Hayao Miyazaki.[118][119][120][121]

Read more here:
Animism - Wikipedia

Ididntdiscoveruntilafter a long while following the career of the Incredible String Band that the members of thisEdinburgh-basedScottish groupdidnt choose their name because they set out from the start to forge a reputation for original and amazing music, but simply because theyperformed regularlyat the Incredible Folk Club in Glasgow in the mid-1960s.I see why I was mistaken.Whether or not one liked them, it was soon clear that they were doing something new in popular music. The Beatles declared their admiration, as (surprisingly) did the Rolling Stonesand Led Zeppelin:all threebands were influenced by them, and their musical experimentation was inspired by the Incredible String Band.Later(and even more surprisingly),Neil Tennant ofthePetShop Boys and David Bowie both sang their praises.

Their reputation stands or falls based on their four first albums. Each is worth serious attention. True, there are impressive songs on later albums, but as the band changed its form and its focus, it never quite captured the magic of their early work.

Their first album largely consisted of music in the recognisable folk idiom.However, their three members Robin Williamson, Mike Heron, and Clive Palmer demonstrated their skill with various instrumentsand showed a flair for lyricaloriginality. An outstanding trackwas Williamsons October Song, which drew the attention of Bob Dylan, who rated it highly. Here the vocal delivery(to be maintainedthroughoutlaterwork)is that of a Celtic bard or even Druid priest rather than the average folk-club performer, and the lyrics exploreamystical dimension.

There isserenityinthis verse: The fallen leaves that jewel the ground / They know the art of dying / And leave with joy their glad gold hearts / In the scarlet shadows lying.There isaudacityinthis: For rulers like to lay down laws / And rebels like to break them / And the poor priests like to walk in chains / And God likes to forsake them. It was obvious that here was a new voice, a new perspective conveying both a love of nature and ataste for metaphysics.If Gram Parsonswas soon to proclaim that he wasforging a cosmic American music, the the Incredible String Bandhad alreadyforgeda cosmic British music.

Mike Herons contributions to the albummight best be described asenchanting, and in one or two cases, they address the theme of enchantment. The Tree is representative in its concern with how the adult all too often experiences a fall from the grace of childhood. The song affirms the power of nature to heal the fallen soul. I had a tree in the dream hills where my childhood lay, and there the sun was shining brightly and the sky was smiling.Thencame the fall, when theworld had put me in its tomb. Only by returning to the tree and letting his mind be shrouded inits green leavescouldhebe reborn.Essentially, this is a song celebrating pantheism, a recurrent theme in the Incredible String Bands oeuvre.

No sooner had the firstalbum been released than thebandtemporarilybroke up, with Palmer wanting to pursue a more traditional folk format and Williamsongoing offtravelling in search of musical sounds that might inspire himto even more adventurous music.When he returned, he brought various instruments from foreign lands: Afghanistan, Morocco, and Bulgaria. He and Heronbeingthe only membersnow, the Incredible String Band was re-launched with a strikingly alternative quality. Their second albumwas soon to belauded as one of the definitive musical works of the 60s being singled out for praise by Paul McCartney.As for the intriguing title: my hunch is that it is meant to suggest aspiritualmystery running deep through the natural world though there are those who claim its simply a cosmic joke.

Its opening track,Mike Herons Chinese White,is certainly one of the most unusual compositions of the time thanks not only to the audacious instrumentation but also to the imaginative lyrics: The bent twig of darkness / Grows the petals of the morning; / It shows to them the birds singing / Just behind the dawning. Apprehensions of old age and death follow, but they areresolvedin the chorus with speculation about rainbows and Christmas trees.Somehow, it works

In the album, both Heron and Williamson explore diverse forms of mysticism without any impression of merely dabbling.However, were not presented with asuperficialeclecticism. One particularly striking song has some very dark riddling fromWilliamson:I am the question that cannot be answered,/ I am the lover that cannot be lost,/ Yet small are the gifts of my servant the soldier,/ For time is my offspring:pray, what is my name? The answeris given in the titleMy Name Is Death and isareminder of somethinghuman beings find so hard to accept, unlike those graceful leaves mentioned in October Song.

If this was hippie music, it was more than a drug-fuelled diversion. However we judge the Incredible String Band, ithas always beena very hard phenomenon to pin down.Commentators have come to identify it as psychedelic folk.Certainly, the Incredible String Band pioneered that genre. More broadly, Heron and Williamson effectivelypioneeredwhat we now callworld music: rather than trying toturn Indian, East European, Arabic, or Celtic sounds into three-minute hit wonders, they allowed their influences lots of room to breathe while they drew on them at daringly experimental length.

A strangely impressive track on the same album isThe Mad Hatters Song. Like the Beatles I am the Walrus,itis indebted to the nonsense writing of Lewis Carroll. Here the idea of the song is to use the paradox and hyperbole of theAlice in Wonderlandbooks to invite the listener toward a moment of revelation.The dominant civilisation, based on materialism, is rejectedas a source of insanity: Within the ruined factory is the normal soul insane. The aim is the beatific vision, which is here figured in explicitly Zen imagery: I am the archer, and my eyes yearn after the unsullied sight, / Born of the dark waters of the daughters of night, / Dancing without movement after the clear light. / In the rumbling and trundling rickshaw of time / Hooked by the heart to the kingfishers line, / I will set my one eye for the shores of the blind. Profane time and space may be transformed into sacred time and space by virtue of apprehension of natural beauty and an overcoming of false duality.

Not all the tracks on the album are quite so experimental. Herons contribution includes songs of childlike charm: The Hedgehog Song, for instance, posits that humble animals have a great deal to teach despondent humans: I can see by the sadness in your eyes that you never quite learned the song. Again,You Know What You Could Be is unashamedly uplifting.Itclearly communicates how we too often choose to live and how we can change. Listen to the song of life rather than limit yourself to what you read about life:It gurgles through the timeless glade / In quartertones of lightning. / No policy is up for sale / In case the truth be frightening.Curious images of nature turn out to be oddly reassuring.

The third albumhas atitleequally intriguingas the second one. I think it is meant to signify life coming out of death a recurrent preoccupation of the Incredible String Band. Musically and lyrically,the albumis so diverse that its hard to recall that this album is the creation of two young Scottish folksingers,aided by the traditional folk musicians Shirley and Dolly Collins.Instruments include guitar, gimbri, whistle, pan pipe, piano, oud, mandolin, sitar, organ, dulcimer, harpsichord, and harp.

The words that accompany the weird and wonderful sounds are unforgettable. Heres a distillation of the story of Eden from the Book of Genesis in terms of the Buddhist teaching of the illusory nature of the ego: Earth water fire and air / Met together in a garden fair,/ Put in a basket bound with skin:/ If you answer this riddle / Youll never begin.The riddle suggests Zen Buddhism specifically the master posing akoanto test the sharpness of the monks insight.

The four linesform the chorus of the opening trackby Williamson,Koeeoaddi There (a titlederived from numerology). It consists of a sequence of recollections, mainly of childhood, each one opening out into mystical speculation.The natural world is celebrated as asource of spiritual reflection: The natural cards revolve, ever-changing:/ Seeded elsewhere, planted in the garden fair./ Grow trees, grow trees:/ Tongues of the sheer wind./ Setting your foot where the sand is untrodden:/The ocean that only begins.

Along with this organic flow of thoughts, the music seems to develop spontaneously, moving in accordance with the mood. Whatever ones response to this kind of composition, it certainly supports the case for the total originality of the Incredible String Band. In effect, itredefined what a pop song could be. Hereafter, there are no artificial limits to what could be said and how it might sound.

Heron provided his own long, reflective contribution to the album: A Very Cellular Song. The Incredible String Band have rightly been hailed as prophets of pantheistic mysticism, and that is certainly demonstrated here.He takes us deeper into the natural world, right down to the level of the amoeba. Nature is permeated by spirit, and the music is so intriguing and affecting that you spontaneously grasp its meaning.

The musicalambitionis remarkable, with various instruments deployedharpsichord, and pan pipes in particular.The Bible and a Bahaman spiritual (I Bid You Goodnight) are invoked. Nobody listening to this song would think that the Incredible String Bands mysticism was confined to Indian religion. All opportunities for spiritual uplift are taken. As with the opening song, the music follows its organic path, as does the lyric. Lasting nearly a quarter of an hour, this Cellular Song offers an imaginative journey that is still exceptional in popular music. From childhood memories to the science of bodily being and the power of the sacred Word, all brought to resolution by an affirmation of the healing power of nature: that is a remarkableprogressionindeed. Herons final refrain is a powerfully effective way of bringing the song to spiritual fruition: May the long-time sun shine upon you, /All love surround you, /And the pure light within you/Guide you all the way on.

Asongthat is immediately engagingbut encourages speculation is WilliamsonsThree Is a Green Crown. It demonstrates how deeply this Scottish band was immersed in Celtic religion. The title suggests the ancient goddess, who some scholars believe to have taken the tripleform ofyouth, maturity, and age.The chorus celebrates her power: For all that is moving is moved by her hands:/ She is mirrored forever in the life of the lands,/ In the building of thoughts, in the shifting of sands. This celebration merges with the celebration of the natural world in all its diversity: Let the cracked crystal raindrop be merged in the sea,/ Silent, shining, thoughtless, free./ But close your eyes to find the golden flower / And open them to see the sunshine shower,/ Where the flowers are free and the fishes ask / Ah, what can water be? The music is insistent, and the meaning is clear, despite the playful paradox.

Celtic, Chistian,Hindu, Buddhist:the range of references in their music is remarkable.Just as they were pioneers of world music, so too were the Incredible String Band pioneers in their exploration ofwhat we now callworld religion.

Later in the same year asHangmancamethisdouble album.Here the Incredible String Band is augmentedboth vocally and musicallybyWilliamsons partner Christina (Licorice) McKechnie and byHerons partner Rose Simpson. The Scottish origin of the band is evidentin theidiom of thetitle.Wee Tam is the humble individual gazing up at The Big Huge, the vastness of the universe.

One of the most powerful invitations to ponder the infinite is Maya byWilliamson.The wordmayainVedanta is usually defined asthe sense-world of manifold phenomenawhichconcealsthe unity of absolute being: in other words, illusion. Instead of realising that all opposite entities in this sphere of existence are aspects of cosmic unity, they are taken as permanent and immutable. What is often forgotten is that once one awakens to what is going on, it becomes possible to enjoywhat Alan Watts callsthecreative power or magic show by which Brahman manifests itself. This is certainly how Willamson uses the term.Invoking both the Upanishads and Shakespeare,Williamsonfeels movedto proclaim: All this world is but a play / Be thou the joyful player.

The song moves through several phases, one, in particular, outlining the sort of life one who has understood the nature of the cosmic game might live, culminating in this affirmation: God is his soul,/ Infinity his goal,/ The mystery his source / And civilisation he leaves behind./ Opinions are his fingernails.One has to concede that thelyrical audacityis even more impressive than previously.

With Jobs Tears, Williamson shifts attention from Hindu cosmologyto the Judeo-Christianreligion.The song might be seen asa meditation on the nature of suffering, as presented in the Bible.We think ofJob,tormented physically and spirituallydue toSatans wager with God.We think of Jesus,proclaiming a new kingdom but finallycrucified by the Roman authorities as a criminal and a troublemaker, memorably crying out from the cross, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

One link betweenJobandJesus, besides their suffering, is that they could be seen as representatives of patriarchal religion, rejectingthe natural cycle celebrated in the matriarchal religion that it sought to replace.However, while the song focuses exclusively on Jesus, he is here largely identified with a kind of folklore Christianity rather than that espoused in the Gospels. Hisvoluntarysacrifice takes placeon the cross of the earth, representing the natural cycle. Reason condemned him, butThe grave was empty where they had laid him: not with any suggestion of being raised to heaven but reminding us of the power of the great goddess of fertilityas opposed to patriarchal rationality.

As Jobs Tears states at the beginning: Were all still here: / No one has gone away and I hear my mother calling suggestive of eternal return. This is endorsed when the singer later declares: Oh, I remember it all from before.What does he remember? Why heroes die at sunrise,/ Why the birds are arrows of the wise,/ Why each perfumed flower,/ Why each moment has its hour. It all is due to an unidentified spiritual force addressed simply as you; moreover, its all true. The wisdom to be gleaned is simple: Stranger than that, were alive.

When the song addresses the theme of salvation, Williamson opts for the body of Bahaman spirituals that Heron had drawn from in A Very Cellular Song. This is folk Christianity,not abstract theology. Here threeBahamansources are identifiable: We Will Understand It Better By and By; Wont That Be a Happy Time(Over yonder in that fair and sunny clime); and Sheep Know When Thy Shepherd Calling (John saw a golden angel with a crown with a book in his hand).

Compare Jobs Tears:Well understand it better in the sweet bye and bye:/ All will be one, all will be one,/ You wont need to worry and you wont have to cry / Over in the old golden land. In the golden book of the golden game / The golden angel wrote my name./ When the deal goes down Ill put on my crown / Over in the old golden land.(I am here indebted to Raymond Greenoakens reading of the song in Adrian WhittakersBe Glad: An Incredible String Band Compendium.)

The old golden land is Biblical, but in this song,the promise is already fulfilled in the folk imagination. Though the singer refers to the future, the song is a celebration of the earth we know, which is in full glory.

Remarkable as Maya and Jobs Tears are, HeronsDouglas Traherne Hardingis equallyambitious, informed as it is by Christianity, Zen Buddhism, and pantheism.Heron invokes two mystics, one from the 17th century and one from the 20th, with added support from the Gospels. It is a bold synthesis, but he carries it off with intriguing, slightly disorienting music that defies Western conventions.(To my untutored ear, it is reminiscent of Bulgarian folk music.)

Thomas Traherne is the author ofCenturies of Meditations(1699), which includes the following reflection: You never enjoy the world aright, till the Sea itself floweth in your veins, till you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with the stars. In being at one with nature, we are at one withthe divine: that is, the One.

Douglas Hardingis theauthor ofOn Having No Head(1961), an account of a Zen-like awakening that he experienced. Suddenly, where he thought he had a head an ego, a fixed centre of perception and conception he had rather a state of selfless awareness: there was a vast emptiness vastly filled, a nothing that found room for everything room for grass, trees, shadowy distant hills, and far above them snow-peaks like a row of angular clouds riding the blue sky. I had lost a head and gained a world. This, in turn, may remind us that Jesus famously declared: The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light (Matthew 6:22).

Impressively, Heron manages to make a coherent song out of this diverse material. It culminates in the invitation to the listener: But if youre walking down the street/ Why dont you look down to the basement?/ For sitting very quietlythere is a man who has no head:/ His eye is single and his whole body also is filled with light. This is effectively an invitation to awaken to the profane worlds sacred dimension, which may manifest in the most unlikely places.

The basement detail perhaps echoesJackKerouacsThe Subterraneans. The image of headlessness specifically comes from Harding but also confirms the Zen ideal of spontaneously losing all sense of separation. Such an awakening brings an awareness of the perennial philosophy, that mystical wisdom which lies buried in all the major religions (One light), as evinced by the allusion to Jesus words. To complete the picture, the song ends with an a cappella rendition of the words of Traherne quoted above. This is the beatific vision, not only articulated but placed in the perspective of the visionary tradition.

The final song is Williamsons The Circle Is Unbroken, his riposte to that old, other-worldly hymn Will The Circle Be Unbroken? He memorably declares that Seasons they change but with gaze unchanging, invokingthe rhythm of the natural cycle to demonstrate the dialectic of permanence and possibility that underlies everything. Similarly, past and future are reconciled in the quest for that which is always:Come let us build the ship of the future / In an ancient pattern that journeys far./ Come let us set sail for the always island / Through seas of leaving to the summer stars.

Musically, the song is understated: an organ and an Irish harp create a sense of serenity.The mysticism is closer to folk wisdom than to religious doctrine. The singer addressesthedeep eyed sisters who presumably represent Celtic matriarchy: Within your fingers the fates are spinning/The sacred binding of the yellow grain./Scattered we were when the long night was breaking/But in bright morning converse again.

Such lines are as memorable as any poem: they could even be read as a reply to Sailing to Byzantium,inwhichYeats expresses his desire to transcend the natural cycle and attain the eternity of artifice: Once out of nature I shall never take/My bodily form from any natural thing,/But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make/Of hammered gold and gold enamelling/To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;/Or set upon a golden bough to sing/To lords and ladies of Byzantium/Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

That may be a bold claim for a song on an album by a band often referredtodismissively as a passing hippie phenomenon. I hope to have shown here thatitswork merits serious attention, both lyrically and musically. In doing so, Ivemade the case that the Incredible String Band was incredible.

Ahumble Scottish folk groupgreatly influenced some major pop artists.It played a key rolein the development of world music,anditdemonstrated theimportance ofworld religion. Pantheism informed its mysticism, anditscelebration of the natural worldremainsconsistent and convincing.

Ultimately, though, what is most incredibleabout the Incredible String Band is that20 years ago,thethenArchbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, was moved to endorseits achievementin print (as the foreword to Whittakers aforementioned 2003 book,Be Glad). This in itself is one of the mostremarkabledocuments in church history.Asking himself first what the function of poetry is, Williamsproposesfour of its tasks thefirst twoof whichare the most relevant to our discussion. Firstly: It should take us into the realm of myth that is, of the stories andsymbols that lie so deep you cant work out who are the authors of them, the stories that give points of reference for plotting your way in the inner and outer world.Secondly: Its meant to celebrate; to clothe ordinary experience with extraordinary words so that we see the radiance in the ordinary, whether it in landscape or in love or whatever. He goes on:

Perhaps for a lot of us growing up in the late Sixties and earlySeventies, there was a gap in the heart where this very traditional bardic, even shamanic, sense of poetry was looking for expression; and the ISB did just that. Forget the clichs about psychedelic and hallucinogenic vagueness: this was work of extraordinary emotional clarity and metaphorical rigour an unusual combination.

For those of us who fell in love with the Incredible String Band, there was a feeling of breathing the air of a very expansive imagination indeed. Itwas simplyadiscovery of poetry; and as suchrisking the embarrassment that so regularly goes with my particular vocationId also have to say that it was a discoveryof the holy; not the solemn, not the saintly, but the holy, which makes you silent and sometimes makes you laugh and which above all makes the landscape different once and for all.

Theres nothing to add to that.

Works Cited

Whittaker (ed).Be Glad: An Incredible String Band Compendium.Helter Skelter. 2003

Go here to read the rest:
What Was So Incredible About the Incredible String Band? - PopMatters