Warthomp

Welcome!

Hello, Warthomp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Brahman

As a teacher of comparative religion and a published editor in the field I would beg you to refrain from making edits that make the fundamental metaphysical concept of both Hinduism and yoga less clear. It is inadequate to describe Brahman as simply 'an essence of all things within the material universe'. Brahman is much more than this and is not limited to material things in the universe. Furthermore Brahman is intelligible and has been discussed and defined for 2500 years (since the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad if you are interested). The previous definition was refined by my colleagues in India and i would be grateful if you would let their definition stand. many thanks 81.107.150.246 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are well qualified to speak on the subject and I am glad you are helping with the article. However, it's important to keep in mind that these articles are meant to clarify the concepts to the reader as simple and as subjective as possible and not to promote them spiritually. The previous definition was, in my opinion, very unclear:

 "...the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground
of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe."

Aside from its prolixity, it boils down to "Brahman is the reality which is the Divine Ground of everything" but it doesn't explain what it means by 'reality' or what 'Divine Ground' means. Using the sources provided, I came up with the "essence" alternative. I understand that this probably understates what Brahman is, but it is the simplest definition I could come up with for the opening sentence. The entire article can be devoted to explaining how eternal, unchanging, and infinite Brahman is, but the first sentence should explain exactly what it is for the readers who aren't familiar with Hindu spirituality and are just looking for the simple facts.

The unintelligible part I got from the first source, which stated that the Brahman is "without characteristics that can be seen, heard, or intelligibly thought about." and I included it because I thought it helped elaborate on the sparse "essence" sentence. If it was inaccurately represented, I apologize, but please make the necessary changes. We can come to a happy medium, I'm sure of it. Warthomp (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding in a civil manner. I would like to respond to your remarks in reverse order if I may. Firstly, Brahman "without characteristics that can be seen, heard, or intelligibly thought about" refers to what is called Nirguna Brahman (you will find more about this later in the article) but does not refer to Saguna Brahman. Though I sympathise with your apophatic proclivities we must take the broader view and allow for a full definition of Brahman that caters for the cataphatic tendencies of schools such as the Gaudiya Vaishnavites who will be extremely upset by a purely negationist definition.

As regards your assertion that the phrase, "...the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space and everything beyond in this universe." is very unclear, I would argue in response that it is more comprehensive and less sectarian than the statement 'Brahman refers to an essence of all things within the material universe'. It is true that in the earlier Upanisads Brahman is explained in the terms you describe. If one goes further back in time to the Yajur veda Brahman is described as a sort of magical force that makes the sacrifice effective. Both of these definitions are important and relevant but they are sectarian and belong to the pre-commentarial literature. They are pre-theological. Your current definition of Brahman refers to Vedanta Hinduism but we are defining a concept that is important to many schools of Indian religious philosophy. Even within Vedanta Hinduism, there are different views on the matter. So, even though I am in general agreement that articles should be clear, succinct and concise your replacement definiton is actually worse than what was there already.

Lastly, to turn to your opening remarks, you say that "it's important to keep in mind that these articles are meant to clarify the concepts to the reader as simple and as subjective as possible and not to promote them spiritually". In response to that I would say that resorting to simplicity is the job of the Simple English Wikipedia but not this one. Concision, clarification and accuracy, yes, but not simplicity. I do see what you mean about the article appearing to promote its subject matter. And the phrases 'Divine Ground' or 'Transcendent reality' may be unclear to those unfamiliar with theology or metaphysics but they are nonetheless explicated in the main body of the article. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the definition of Brahman, I'm admittedly not an authority, so I bow to your expertise in that respect. However, what I can offer is a knowledge of Wikipedia formatting and the perspective of someone who is, again, not an authority. The goal of the first sentence is that someone like myself, of at least average intelligence but may not have studied Hinduism (I've read Bhagavad Gita, at least) can understand the core concept before delving into the details. If the definition "an essence of all things within the material universe" does not encompass every secular meaning, then it needs to be changed. However, you might use these examples as a framework:

Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE), also referred to as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, 
is the central figure of Christianity. 

Buddha
Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher who founded Buddhism.

Naturally, there is a lot that could be said about Jesus and Buddha (and there is), but the first sentence is just trying to get the basic concepts out there for the average reader. Also, I've changed the "unintelligible" sentence to reflect the minority opinions. Hopefully, that's more agreeable. Warthomp (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I admire your spunk but if you are not an authority (presumably by this you mean you cannot give an exact and precise definition of Brahman because you have not studied the matter deeply enough) how can you improve the definition of this concept which you furthermore consider unintelligible? By saying that Brahman is an essence of material things you do not explain anything any better than the previous definition. In fact, by refusing to explicate the concept you have made the matter less clear to the reader wanting a concise definition. Your sources are not authoritative. You have involuntarily given your ignorance of the matter away by asserting that "some schools claim that Brahman cannot be intelligibly understood". Which schools are these? As someone who has been studying the subject for many years and who has been invited to speak by The International Association for the History of Religions (under the auspices of UNESCO) I would like to know which of these schools assert such a thing. Finally, your assertion that "other schools" describe Brahman as "the principle force that creates and changes things in the universe". In this case, your source, Richard Hooker, has conflated the concept of Brahman with Brahma, the creator. They are two distinct entities. In the source you cite, Hooker states, "In the later development of Hinduism, Brahman would become one aspect of a triune god and would represent the creation aspects of that god." This is a cardinal error that only an ignorant, uninformed person could make. If you look at the top of the page there is the statement "Not to be confused with Brahma". My recommendation to you is that you keep definitions in consonance with current accepted definitions of scholars. As such, I also recommend that you allow the article to be reverted to the previous definition which at least had the merit of being correct. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's get something straight: this isn't my definition. This is the definition that was drawn from the published sources provided, which were not even provided by me. If you have an issue with the sources then post sources to the contrary but, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your authority is no greater than mine if you cannot back up your claims with reliable, peer-reviewed citations. If you're implying that I should not be editing the article because I do not have any personal expertise on the subject, you are sorely mistaken. Wikipedia is created through citing facts from published experts and not using your own judgement as a source. Again, I would be happy to collaborate on a definition, but if you're going to be dismissive of my ideas because I don't know Brahman, I'm going to have to be dismissive of your ideas because you don't know Wikipedia. I'd rather we work together. Warthomp (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but your source Hooker says that Brahman later becomes Brahmā as 'one aspect of a triune God'. This is wrong - completely wrong. Brahman doesn't become anything. Becoming is foreign to it. Brahmā is born of Brahman in Hiranyagarbha - the original matrix of creation that Radhakrishnan calls the world soul. Brahman is prior to all this and always remains a separate entity from Brahmā. Brahmā is the Creator but is not the Supreme Being. This is very important to understand: In Hinduism the Creator God is not the same as the Supreme Being. Please take care to understand this. This distinction between the Creator God and the Supreme Being was made by Plato and the ancient Indian sages but not by the later Christians for whom the creator God and the Supreme Being are the same person (God the Father). In Hinduism the Supreme Being is Brahman.

With respect to your edits, therefore, the following should be noted:

1) Brahman doesn't create anything. Brahman is the origin and support - not the creator of material creatures.

2) If Brahman cannot be seen, heard, or intelligibly thought about how can it be asserted that Brahman is 'the principle force that creates and changes things in the universe'? On what epistemological basis do those who assert this ground their knowledge?

3) You've put a tag on the page which says that the article 'uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them'. Can you explain this because most of the article is derived from secondary sources?

4) Which parts of the current text warrants the existence of the other tag saying the article contains wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration?

If you are serious about collaboration then I look forward to working with you. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)