Pantheism is thephilosophical andreligious belief thatreality, theuniverse, andnature are identical todivinity or asupreme entity.[1] The physical universe is thus understood as animmanentdeity, still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time.[2] The termpantheist designates one who holds both that everything constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine, consisting of an all-encompassing, manifestedgod orgoddess.[3][4] Allastronomical objects are thence viewed as parts of a sole deity.
Another definition of pantheism is the worship of all gods of every religion, but this is more precisely termedomnism.[5]Pantheistbelief does not recognize a distinctpersonal god,[6]anthropomorphic or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.[7] Pantheistic concepts date back thousands of years, and pantheistic elements have been identified in various religious traditions. The termpantheism was coined by mathematicianJoseph Raphson in 1697[8][9] and since then, it has been used to describe the beliefs of a variety of people and organizations.
Pantheism was popularized inWestern culture as atheology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopherBaruch Spinoza, in particular, his bookEthics.[10] A pantheistic stance was also taken in the 16th century by philosopher and cosmologistGiordano Bruno.[11]
Pantheism derives from theGreek word πᾶνpan (meaning "all, of everything") and θεόςtheos (meaning "god, divine"). The first known combination of these roots appears inLatin, inJoseph Raphson's 1697 bookDe Spatio Reali seu Ente Infinito,[9] where he refers to "pantheismus".[8]It was subsequently translated into English as "pantheism" in 1702.
the belief that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God, and that all forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it;[15] and
a non-religious philosophical position maintaining that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical.[16]
Early traces of pantheist thought can be found within animistic beliefs and tribal religions throughout the world as an expression of unity with the divine, specifically in beliefs that have no centralpolytheist ormonotheist personas.Hellenistic theology makes early recorded reference to pantheism within theancient Greek religion ofOrphism, wherepan (the all) is made cognate with the creator GodPhanes (symbolizing the universe),[17] and withZeus, after the swallowing of Phanes.[18]
TheCatholic Church has long regarded pantheistic ideas as heresy.[20][21]Sebastian Franck was considered an early Pantheist.[22]Giordano Bruno, an Italian friar who evangelized about a transcendent and infinite God, was burned at the stake in 1600 by theRoman Inquisition. He has since become known as a celebrated pantheist and martyr of science.[23][24]
The Hindu philosophy ofAdvaita Vedanta is thought to be similar to pantheism. The termAdvaita (literally "non-secondness", but usually rendered as "nondualism",[25][26] and often equated withmonism[note 1]) refers to the idea thatBrahman alone is ultimatelyreal, while the transientphenomenal world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman. In this view,jivatman, the experiencing self, is ultimately non-different ("na aparah") fromĀtman-Brahman, the highest Self orReality.[27][28][29][note 2] Thejivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singularĀtman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.[30]
The philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is often regarded as pantheism.[14][31]
In the West, pantheism was formalized as a separate theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza.[14]: p.7 Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese descent raised in theSephardi Jewish community inAmsterdam.[32] He developed highly controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine, and was effectively excluded from Jewish society at age 23, when thelocal synagogue issued aherem against him.[33] A number of his books were published posthumously, and shortly thereafter included in the Catholic Church'sIndex of Forbidden Books.[34]
In the posthumousEthics, he opposedRené Descartes' famousmind–body dualism, the theory that the body and spirit are separate.[35] Spinoza held themonist view that the two are the same, and monism is a fundamental part of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance.[35] This view influenced philosophers such asGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who said, "You are either aSpinozist or not a philosopher at all."[36] Spinoza earned praise as one of the greatrationalists of17th-century philosophy[37] and one ofWestern philosophy's most important thinkers.[38] Although the term "pantheism" was not coined until after his death, he is regarded as the most celebrated advocate of the concept.[39]Ethics was the major source from which Western pantheism spread.[10]
The first known use of the term "pantheism" was in Latin ("pantheismus"[8]) by the English mathematician Joseph Raphson in his workDe Spatio Reali seu Ente Infinito, published in 1697.[9] Raphson begins with a distinction between atheistic "panhylists" (from the Greek rootspan, "all", andhyle, "matter"), who believe everything is matter, and Spinozan "pantheists" who believe in "a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligence, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence."[40][41] Raphson thought that the universe was immeasurable in respect to a human's capacity of understanding, and believed that humans would never be able to comprehend it.[42] He referred to the pantheism of theAncient Egyptians,Persians,Syrians,Assyrians,Greek,Indians, and JewishKabbalists, specifically referring to Spinoza.[43]
The term was first used in English by a translation of Raphson's work in 1702. It was later used and popularized byIrish writerJohn Toland in his work of 1705Socinianism Truly Stated, by a Pantheist.[44][19]: pp. 617–618 Toland was influenced by both Spinoza and Bruno, and had read Joseph Raphson'sDe Spatio Reali, referring to it as "the ingenious Mr. Ralphson's (sic) Book of Real Space".[45] Like Raphson, he used the terms "pantheist" and "Spinozist" interchangeably.[46] In 1720 he wrote thePantheisticon: or The Form of Celebrating the Socratic-Society in Latin, envisioning a pantheist society that believed, "All things in the world are one, and one is all in all things ... what is all in all things is God, eternal and immense, neither born nor ever to perish."[47][48] He clarified his idea of pantheism in a letter toGottfried Leibniz in 1710 when he referred to "the pantheistic opinion of those who believe in no other eternal being but the universe".[19][49][50][51]
In the mid-eighteenth century, the English theologianDaniel Waterland defined pantheism this way: "It supposes God and nature, or God and the whole universe, to be one and the same substance—one universal being; insomuch that men'ssouls are only modifications of the divine substance."[19][52] In the early nineteenth century, the German theologianJulius Wegscheider defined pantheism as the belief that God and the world established by God are one and the same.[19][53]
Between 1785–89, a controversy about Spinoza's philosophy arose between the German philosophersFriedrich Heinrich Jacobi (a critic) andMoses Mendelssohn (a defender). Known in German as thePantheismusstreit (pantheism controversy), it helped spread pantheism to many German thinkers.[54]
"Mr. Lincoln's religion is too well known to me to allow of even a shadow of a doubt; he is or was a Theist and a Rationalist, denying all extraordinary – supernatural inspiration or revelation. At one time in his life, to say the least, he was an elevated Pantheist, doubting the immortality of the soul as the Christian world understands that term. He believed that the soul lost its identity and was immortal as a force. Subsequent to this he rose to the belief of a God, and this is all the change he ever underwent."[56][57]
The subject is understandably controversial, but the content of the letter is consistent with Lincoln's fairly lukewarm approach to organized religion.[57]
Some 19th-century theologians thought that various pre-Christian religions and philosophies were pantheistic. They thought Pantheism was similar to the ancient Hinduism[19]: pp. 618 philosophy ofAdvaita (non-dualism).[58]
In the late 20th century, some declared that pantheism was an underlying theology ofNeopaganism,[63] and pantheists began forming organizations devoted specifically to pantheism and treating it as a separate religion.[49]
Albert Einstein is considered a pantheist by some commentators.
Dorion Sagan, son of scientist and science communicatorCarl Sagan, published the 2007 bookDazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature, co-written with his motherLynn Margulis. In the chapter "Truth of My Father", Sagan writes that his "father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature, but as nature, equivalent to it."[64]
In 2009, pantheism was mentioned in aPapal encyclical[65] and in a statement on New Year's Day, 2010,[66] criticizing pantheism for denying the superiority of humans over nature and seeing the source of man's salvation in nature.[65]
There are multiple varieties of pantheism[19][70]: 3 and various systems of classifying them relying upon one or more spectra or in discrete categories.
The philosopherCharles Hartshorne used the termClassical Pantheism to describe thedeterministic philosophies of Baruch Spinoza, the Stoics, and other like-minded figures.[71] Pantheism (All-is-God) is often associated withmonism (All-is-One) and some have suggested that it logically implies determinism (All-is-Now).[35][72][73][74][75] Albert Einstein explainedtheological determinism by stating,[76] "the past, present, and future are an 'illusion'". This form of pantheism has been referred to as "extreme monism", in which – in the words of one commentator – "God decides or determines everything, including our supposed decisions."[77] Other examples of determinism-inclined pantheisms include those ofRalph Waldo Emerson,[78] and Hegel.[79]
However, some have argued against treating every meaning of "unity" as an aspect of pantheism,[80] and there exist versions of pantheism that regard determinism as an inaccurate or incomplete view of nature. Examples include the beliefs ofJohn Scotus Eriugena,[81]Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling andWilliam James.[82]
It may also be possible to distinguish two types of pantheism, one being more religious and the other being more philosophical. The Columbia Encyclopedia writes of the distinction:
"If the pantheist starts with the belief that the one great reality, eternal and infinite, is God, he sees everything finite and temporal as but some part of God. There is nothing separate or distinct from God, for God is the universe. If, on the other hand, the conception taken as the foundation of the system is that the great inclusive unity is the world itself, or the universe, God is swallowed up in that unity, which may be designated nature."[83]
A diagram with neutral monism compared to Cartesian dualism, physicalism and idealism
Philosophers and theologians have often suggested that pantheism impliesmonism.[84][note 3]
For theAztecsteotl was the metaphysical omnipresence creating the cosmos and all its contentsfrom within itself as well asout of itself. This is conceptualized in a kind of monistic pantheism as manifest in the supreme godOmeteotl, as well as a large pantheon of lesser gods and idealizations of natural phenomena.[90]
In 1896, J. H. Worman, a theologian, identified seven categories of pantheism: Mechanical or materialistic (God the mechanical unity of existence); Ontological (fundamental unity, Spinoza); Dynamic; Psychical (God is the soul of the world); Ethical (God is the universal moral order, Fichte); Logical (Hegel); and Pure (absorption of God into nature, which Worman equates with atheism).[19]
In 1984,Paul D. Feinberg, professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, also identified seven: Hylozoistic; Immanentistic; Absolutistic monistic; Relativistic monistic; Acosmic; Identity of opposites; and Neoplatonic or emanationistic.[91]
According to censuses of 2011, the UK was the country with the most Pantheists.[92] As of 2011, about 1,000 Canadians identified their religion as "Pantheist", representing 0.003% of the population.[93] By 2021, the number of Canadian pantheists had risen to 1,855 (0.005%).[94] In Ireland, Pantheism rose from 202 in 1991,[95] to 1106 in 2002,[95] to 1,691 in 2006,[96] 1,940 in 2011.[97][needs update] In New Zealand, there was exactly one pantheist man in 1901.[98] By 1906, the number of pantheists in New Zealand had septupled to 7 (6 male, 1 female).[99] This number had further risen to 366 by 2006.[100]
The2021 Canadian census showed that pantheists were somewhat more likely to be in their 20s and 30s compared to the general population. People under 15 were about four times less likely to be pantheist than the general population.[94]
The 2021 Canadian census also showed that pantheists were less likely to be part of a recognized minority group compared to the general population, with 90.3% of pantheists not being part of any minority group (compared to 73.5% of the general population). The census did not register any pantheists who wereArab, Southeast Asian, West Asian,Korean, orJapanese.[94]
In Canada (2011), there was no gender difference in regards to pantheism.[93] However, in Ireland (2011), pantheists were slightly more likely to be female (1074 pantheists, 0.046% of women) than male (866 pantheists, 0.038% of men).[97] In contrast, Canada (2021) showed pantheists to be slightly more likely to be male, with men representing 51.5% of pantheists.[94]
Comparison of pantheists in Canada against the general population (2021)[94]
General population
Pantheists
Total population
36,328,480
1,855
Gender
Male
17,937,165 (49.4%)
955 (51.5%)
Female
18,391,315 (50.6%)
895 (48.2%)
Age
0 to 14
5,992,555 (16.5%)
75 (4%)
15 to 19
2,003,200 (5.5%)
40 (2%)
20 to 24
2,177,860 (6%)
125 (6.7%)
25 to 34
4,898,625 (13.5%)
405 (21.8%)
35 to 44
4,872,425 (13.4%)
380 (20.5%)
45 to 54
4,634,850 (12.8%)
245 (13.2%)
55 to 64
5,162,365 (14.2%)
245 13.2%)
65 and over
6,586,600 (18.1%)
325 (17.5%)
Ethnicity
Non-minority
26,689,275 (73.5%)
1,675 (90.3%)
South Asian
2,571,400 (7%)
20 (1.1%)
Chinese
1,715,770 (4.7%)
45 (2.4%)
Black
1,547,870 (4.3%)
45 (2.4%)
Filipino
957,355 (2.6%)
10 (0.5%)
Arab
694,015 (1.9%)
0 (0%)
Latin American
580,235 (1.6%)
25 (1.3%)
Southeast Asian
390,340 (1.1%)
0 (0%)
West Asian
360,495 (1%)
0 (0%)
Korean
218,140 (0.6%)
0 (0%)
Japanese
98,890 (0.3%)
0 (0%)
Visible minority, n.i.e.
172,885 (0.5%)
0 (0%)
Multiple visible minorities
331,805 (0.9%)
15 (0.8%)
Canadian pantheist population by percentage (2011 National Household Survey)
Nature worship or nature mysticism is often conflated and confused with pantheism. It is pointed out by at least one expert, Harold Wood, founder of theUniversal Pantheist Society, that in pantheist philosophy Spinoza's identification of God with nature is very different from a recent idea of a self identifying pantheist with environmental ethical concerns. His use of the wordnature to describe his worldview may be vastly different from the "nature" of modern sciences. He and other nature mystics who also identify as pantheists use "nature" to refer to the limitednatural environment (as opposed to man-madebuilt environment). This use of "nature" is different from the broader use from Spinoza and other pantheists describing natural laws and the overall phenomena of the physical world. Nature mysticism may be compatible with pantheism but it may also be compatible with theism and other views.[7] Pantheism has also been involved inanimal worship especially in primal religions.[106]
Nontheism is an umbrella term which has been used to refer to a variety of religions not fitting traditional theism, and under which pantheism has been included.[7]
Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") was formally coined in Germany in the 19th century in an attempt to offer a philosophical synthesis between traditional theism and pantheism, stating that God is substantiallyomnipresent in the physical universe but also exists "apart from" or "beyond" it as its Creator and Sustainer.[107]: p.27 Thus panentheism separates itself from pantheism, positing the extra claim that God exists above and beyond the world as we know it.[108] The line between pantheism and panentheism can be blurred depending on varying definitions of God, so there have been disagreements when assigning particular notable figures to pantheism or panentheism.[107]: pp. 71–72, 87–88, 105 [109]
Pandeism is another word derived from pantheism, and is characterized as a combination of reconcilable elements of pantheism anddeism.[110] It assumes a Creator-deity that is at some point distinct from the universe and then transforms into it, resulting in a universe similar to the pantheistic one in present essence, but differing in origin.
Panpsychism is the philosophical view that consciousness,mind, or soul is a universal feature of all things.[111] Some pantheists also subscribe to the distinct philosophical viewshylozoism (or panvitalism), the view that everything is alive, and its close neighboranimism, the view that everything has a soul or spirit.[112]
Ideas resembling pantheism existed inEastern religions before the 18th century (notablyHinduism,Confucianism, andTaoism). Although there is no evidence that these influenced Spinoza's work, there is such evidence regarding other contemporary philosophers, such as Leibniz, and later Voltaire.[119][120] In the case of Hinduism, pantheistic views exist alongside panentheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, and atheistic ones.[121][122][123]
Pantheism is popular in modern spirituality andnew religious movements, such asNeopaganism andTheosophy.[124] Two organizations that specify the word pantheism in their title formed in the last quarter of the 20th century. The Universal Pantheist Society, open to all varieties of pantheists and supportive of environmental causes, was founded in 1975.[125] TheWorld Pantheist Movement is headed byPaul Harrison, an environmentalist, writer and a former vice president of the Universal Pantheist Society, from which he resigned in 1996. The World Pantheist Movement was incorporated in 1999 to focus exclusively on promotingnaturalistic pantheism – a strictmetaphysical naturalistic version of pantheism,[126] considered by some a form ofreligious naturalism.[127] It has been described as an example of "dark green religion" with a focus onenvironmental ethics.[128]
Malkovsky 2000, p. 71: "The interpretation of advaita that is the most common equates non-duality with monism and acosmic illusionism. Only the Absolute, or the paraa brahma, is said to exist; everything else is but an illusory appearance."
Menon 2012: "The essential philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented first in the Upaniṣads and consolidated in the Brahma Sūtra by this tradition."
King 1995, p. 65: "The prevailing monism of the Upanishads was developed by the Advaita Vedanta to its ultimate extreme."
Mohanty 1980, p. 205: "Nyaya-Vaiseshika is realistic; Advaita Vedanta is idealistic. The former is pluralistic, the latter monistic."
Shankara,Upadesasahasri I.18.3: "I am ever-free, the existent" (Sat). I.18.6: "The two [contradictory] notions "I am the Existent-Brahman" and "I act," haveAtman as their witness. It is considered more reasonable to give up only [that one] of the two [notions] which arises from ignorance. I.18.7: "The notion, "I am the Existent," arises from right means of knowledge [while] the other notion has its origin in fallacious means of knowledge." (Mayeda 1992, p. 172)
Brahmajnanavalimala Verse 20: "Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different." Translation by S. N. Sastri[1]
Sivananda 1993, p. 219: "Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or individual soul is non-different from Brahman."
Menon 2012: "The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems different as space within a container seems different from space as such. These cardinal doctrines are represented in the anonymous verse "brahma satyam jagan mithya; jīvo brahmaiva na aparah" (Brahman is alone True, and this world of plurality is an error; the individual self is not different from Brahman)."
Deutsch 1973, p. 54: "[the] essential status [of the individual human person] is that of unqualified reality, of identity with the Absolute [...] the self (jiva) is only misperceived: the self is really Brahman."
Koller 2013, pp. 100–101: "Atman, which is identical to Brahman, is ultimately the only reality and [...] the appearance of plurality is entirely the work of ignorance [...] the self is ultimately of the nature of Atman/Brahman [...] Brahman alone is ultimately real."
Bowker 2000a, "Advaita Vedanta": "There is only Brahman, which is necessarily undifferentiated. It follows that there cannot even be a difference, or duality, between the human subject, or self, and Brahman, for Brahman must be that very self (since Brahman is the reality underlying all appearance). The goal of human life and wisdom must, therefore, be the realization that the self (ātman) is Brahman."
Hacker (1995, p. 88) notes that Shankara uses two groups of words to denote 'atman': "One group - principallyjiva,vijnanatman, andsarira - expresses the illusory aspect of the soul [...] But in addition there are the two expressionsatman andpratyagatman. These also designate the individual soul, but in its real aspect."Mayeda (1992, pp. 11, 14) uses the wordpratyagatman;Sivananda1993, p. 219),Deutsch (1973, p. 54), andMenon (2012) use the termjiva when referring to the identity ofatman andBrahman.
Substance monism, "the view that the apparent plurality of substances is due to different states or appearances of a single substance".[85]
Attributive monism, "the view that whatever the number of substances, they are of a single ultimate kind".[85]
Partial monism, "within a given realm of being (however many there may be) there is only one substance".[85]
Existence monism, the view that there is only one concrete objecttoken (The One, "Τὸ Ἕν" or theMonad).[87]
Priority monism, "the whole is prior to its parts" or "the world has parts, but the parts are dependent fragments of an integrated whole."[86]
Property monism: the view that all properties are of a single type (e.g. only physical properties exist).
Genus monism: "the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being".[86]
Views contrasting with monism are:
Metaphysical dualism, which asserts that there are two ultimately irreconcilable substances or realities such as Good and Evil, for example,Manichaeism.[88]
Certain positions do not fit easily into the above categories, such as functionalism,anomalous monism, andreflexive monism. Moreover, they do not define the meaning of "real".
^Charles Taliaferro; Paul Draper; Philip L. Quinn (eds.).A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. p. 340.They deny that God is 'totally other' than the world or ontologically distinct from it.
"The idea that Unity that is rooted in nature is what types of nature mysticism (e.g. Wordsworth, Robinson Jeffers, Gary Snyder) have in common with more philosophically robust versions of pantheism. It is why nature mysticism and philosophical pantheism are often conflated and confused for one another."
"[Wood's] pantheism is distant from Spinoza's identification of God with nature, and much closer to nature mysticism. In fact it is nature mysticism."
"Nature mysticism, however, is as compatible with theism as it is with pantheism."
^abcAnn Thomson; Bodies of Thought: Science, Religion, and the Soul in the Early Enlightenment, 2008, page 54.
^abLloyd, Genevieve (1996).Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Spinoza and The Ethics. Routledge Philosophy Guidebooks.Routledge. p. 24.ISBN978-0-415-10782-2.
^Birx, Jams H. (11 November 1997)."Giordano Bruno".Mobile, AL: The Harbinger. Archived fromthe original on 27 July 2017. Retrieved5 February 2019.Bruno was burned to death at the stake for his pantheistic stance and cosmic perspective.
^Pearsall, Judy (1998).The New Oxford Dictionary Of English (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 1341.ISBN978-0-19-861263-6.
^Owen, H. P.Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971, p. 65.
^The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341.ISBN978-0-19-861263-6.
^Damascius, referring to the theology delivered by Hieronymus and Hellanicus in"The Theogonies".sacred-texts.com.:"... the theology now under discussion celebrates as Protogonus (First-born) [Phanes], and calls him Dis, as the disposer of all things, and the whole world: upon that account he is also denominated Pan."
^Betegh, Gábor,The Derveni Papyrus, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 176–178ISBN978-0-521-80108-9
^abcdefghijWorman, J. H., "Pantheism", inCyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 1, John McClintock, James Strong (Eds), Harper & Brothers, 1896, pp. 616–624.
^Collinge, William,Historical Dictionary of Catholicism, Scarecrow Press, 2012, p 188,ISBN9780810879799.
^Daniel, Stephen H. "Toland's Semantic Pantheism," in John Toland's Christianity not Mysterious, Text, Associated Works and Critical Essays. Edited by Philip McGuinness, Alan Harrison, and Richard Kearney. Dublin, Ireland: The Lilliput Press, 1997.
^R.E. Sullivan, "John Toland and the Deist controversy: A Study in Adaptations", Harvard University Press, 1982, p. 193.
^Honderich, Ted,The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 641: "First used by John Toland in 1705, the term 'pantheist' designates one who holds both that everything there is constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine."
^Thompson, Ann,Bodies of Thought: Science, Religion, and the Soul in the Early Enlightenment, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 133,ISBN9780199236190.
^Literary Remains of the Late Professor Theodore Goldstucker, W. H. Allen, 1879. p. 32.
^Thilly, Frank (2003) [1908]. "Pantheism". In Hastings, James (ed.).Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 18. Kessinger Publishing. p. 614.ISBN9780766136953.
^Armstrong, AH (1967).The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 57, 60, 161, 186, 222.ISBN978052104-0549.
^McLynn, Frank (2010).Marcus Aurelius: A Life. Da Capo Press. p. 232.ISBN9780306819162.
^"About Realism". The Realist Society of Canada. Retrieved5 February 2022.
^Adler, Margot (1986).Drawing Down the Moon. Beacon Press.
^Sagan, Dorion, "Dazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature" 2007, p. 14.
^Dependence and Freedom: The Moral Thought of Horace Bushnell by David Wayne Haddorff[2] Emerson's belief was "monistic determinism".
Creatures of Prometheus: Gender and the Politics of Technology by Timothy Vance Kaufman-Osborn, Prometheus ((Writer))[3] "Things are in a saddle, and ride mankind."
Emerson's position is "soft determinism" (a variant of determinism)[4].
"The 'fate' Emerson identifies is an underlying determinism." (Fate is one of Emerson's essays)[5].
^Hegel was a determinist" (also called a combatibilist a.k.a. soft determinist).[6]"Hegel and Marx are usually cited as the greatest proponents of historical determinism."[7]
^Moran, Dermot; Guiu, Adrian (2019),"John Scottus Eriugena", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved19 March 2020
^* Theories of the will in the history of philosophy by Archibald Alexander p. 307 Schelling holds "...that the will is not determined but self-determined."[8]
The Dynamic Individualism of William James by James O. Pawelski p. 17 "[His] fight against determinism" "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."[9]
^"Pantheism".The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press. 2012. Retrieved13 June 2012.
^Owen, H. P. (1971).Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan. p. 67.
^Seager, William; Allen-Hermanson, Sean (23 May 2001)."Panpsychism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.).
^Haught, John F. (1990).What Is Religion?: An Introduction. Paulist Press. p. 19.
^Carpenter, Dennis D. (1996). "Emergent Nature Spirituality: An Examination of the Major Spiritual Contours of the Contemporary Pagan Worldview". In Lewis, James R.,Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. Albany: State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-2890-0. p. 50.
^"Home page". Universal Pantheist Society. Retrieved8 August 2012.
Bowker, John (2000a),"Advaita Vedanta",The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-280094-7,archived from the original on 5 January 2022, retrieved1 August 2020
King, Richard (1995),Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: The Mahāyāna Context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, SUNY Press
Koller, John M. (2013), "Shankara", in Meister, Chad; Copan, Paul (eds.),Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Routledge
Levine, Michael (1994),Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, Psychology Press,ISBN9780415070645
Long, Jeffrey D. (2011),Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, Scarecrow Press
Malkovsky, Bradley J. (2000), "Samkara on Divine Grace", in Malkovsky, Bradley J. (ed.),New Perspectives on Advaita Vedānta: Essays in Commemoration of Professor Richard De Smet, S.J., BRILL
Menon, Sangeetha (2012),Advaita Vedanta, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Milne, Joseph (April 1997), "Advaita Vedanta and typologies of multiplicity and unity: An interpretation of nindual knowledge",International Journal of Hindu Studies,1 (1):165–188,doi:10.1007/s11407-997-0017-6,S2CID143690641
Mohanty, JN (1980), "Understanding some Ontological Differences in Indian Philosophy",Journal of Indian Philosophy,8 (3):205–217,doi:10.1007/BF00166295,S2CID145752220
Sivananda, Swami (1993),All About Hinduism, The Divine Life Society
Urmson, James Opie (1991),The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers, Routledge
Brugger, Walter, ed. (1972),Diccionario de Filosofía, Barcelona: Herder, art.dualismo,monismo,pluralismo
Mandik, Pete (2010),Key Terms in Philosophy of Mind, Continuum International Publish.
