Talk:Divine embodiment#Foundational overview sources and comparative framing

Significant portions of this page appear to be WP:SYNTHesized, WP:ORiginal, or at worst, reflect the perspective of certain Western esoteric schools. I don't have a strong opinion on the rest of the article, but the section on Vajrayana is problematic as it is based around the concept as it appears in modern occultism (per the sources, Israel Regardie and the Golden Dawn.) None of the sources used in that section (Khyentse, Kongtrul, Beyer, Norbu) use either "godform" or "divine embodiment" -- except probably the self-published and obviously unsuitable {{em|Tantric Thelema}}, which I didn't bother to check (I guess it's not technically self-published in the normal sense, but it's put out by a press the author founded.) In short, I don't actually think that deity yoga fits under the concept as presented (even if certain Western esotericists who had outdated and inaccurate ideas about Buddhism thought so.) The page seems to reflect a problematic perennialism rather than a historically-grounded overview of the topic {{em|sensu stricto}}. wound theology◈ 15:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:New explicit source was added minutes after I posted this, but it's from a book by...Diana L. Paxson. wound theology◈ 15:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::You really should do a source search before you start criticizing other editors. Skyerise (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::None of this was criticism of any editors, only content. Refrain from casting aspersions. wound theology◈ 16:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::In any case, a quick source search ("deity yoga" || "vajrayana" || "buddhism" "godform" || "divine embodiment" on Google Scholar) does not bring up anything of note. I did find this: {{cite web | last=Collins | first=Dawn | title=Seeing the Gods: Divine Embodiment through Visualisation in Tantric Buddhist Practice | website= Equinox Publishing|date=2020-07-01 | url=https://journal.equinoxpub.com/SEARC/article/view/25379 | access-date=2025-04-05}} This paper is not on Scihub, but from the abstract it seems to talk about a separate conception ("divine embodiment" versus sighted experience.) wound theology◈ 16:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Attempting discussion with you has always been a waste of time; the deity yoga of tantra has been defined as a form of theurgy. I rest my case and will simply continue to expand the article without explaining myself to you or responding to any further attacks to my scholarhip or motives. This isn't the first article of mine that you have chosen to focus negative attention on. Skyerise (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::One, you don't WP:OWN any articles. Two, this page isn't entitled "Theurgy", it's entitled "Divine embodiment" and gives "godform" as a synonym with regards to Regardie and the Golden Dawn. Keep expanding the page by all means, but I'd like the input of other editors on this issue in particular. wound theology◈ 16:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I didn't say I own it: I simply meant that I wrote it, as you well know. Go write something yourself so I can attack it, okay? The additional citations I've added have certainly made clear that the usage in Vajrayana is viewed at least by some reliable sources as a form of the topic at hand and show parallel usages of terminology. Skyerise (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Do you mind pointing out which of those reliable sources consider deity yoga (or what have you) as a {{tq|form of the topic at hand and show parallel usages of terminology}}? I could not identify any. wound theology◈ 16:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No thanks, I've had enough cheese for today. Skyerise (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It's pretty easy to simply state your opinion is correct without providing any evidence for it. Btw. "{{tq|These practices, while distinct, share the structure of visualizing, invoking, and ultimately embodying a divine form within the self}}" is pretty clearly WP:SYNTH. wound theology◈ 06:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, but not my synth. I've added a source, but there are plenty more. Anyone who deeply knows the subject knows they exist and could find them if they wanted to. Skyerise (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Also, while I appreciate the attempt at moderating the implied perennialism, the lede section still claims that the practice is {{tq|[r]ooted in ancient philosophical traditions, particularly Neoplatonism and Hermeticism}} which is plainly false for Vajrayana. To paraphrase a friend (an ajari in the Ishizuchi-san lineage): Plotinus will confuse you in Shingon study. I would recommend focusing on the making it more clear that the practices described {{tq|[i]n Eastern esotericism}} are ultimately unrelated outside the work of syncretists and perennialists like Blavatsky and Crowley -- they're similar, but definitely not "the eastern branch" of the main practices being described here. Anything more than that is either synthetic or reflects a theological, rather than a neutral and encyclopedic, viewpoint. wound theology◈ 09:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Only so much I can do in one day. Sorry about forgetting Shingon is Vajrayana. Gotta go. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Alright, I'm satisfied with the state of the page now (or as it is developing,) thanks for making the edits. wound theology◈ 13:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Thanks. If you've got anything to add re Shingon, please do so as that's a detail that I'm not likely to get to soon. Skyerise (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Skyerise, you've asked me to limit interactions with you but, again, we edit in the same areas. I'll raise this here to avoid directly clashing with you since clearly I was on the wrong side of the AfD and don't want to just stomp on your effort here: I think you've vastly overweighted NRMs in this article. Specifically, WP:DUE calls on us to

{{blockquote|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.}}

Emphasis added. This article feels to me to go way too heavy on Golden Dawn and contemporary mystical movements, and goes so far as using the language of Western mysticism to describe traditional practices on the basis of, apparently, one author's summary

{{blockquote|This theurgical method also appears in Eastern esotericism, particularly in Tibetan and East Asian Vajrayana}}

Cited or not, the use of "theurgical method" here, among other similar instances, feels like historical mainstream religions are being viewed through a specific, Western, contemporary academic lens (particlarly in light of there being perfectly acceptable and used-within-academic-scholarship terms that would work better here). Essentially, this article seems like it's funneling all major world religions and practices through a very specific lens of Western Mysticism, which seems like a huge WP:DUE problem. Especially as "divine embodiment" isn't a unified practice with a throughthread through multiple traditions. Basically this entire article feels like it's far too concerned with the western interpretation of this concept (why do we have an entire section on Yung, for example, on an article that's about 2000+ year old religious practices when Yung himself isn't exactly held in high academic regard, rather more as an influential figure important to the history of psychology).

I'm going to ping @Simonm223 and @Wound theology on this one. I think the article needs a rework so it doesn't read like "What do scholars of Western Esotericism think about this broad topic" and rather a parity of sources is considered, which likely would involve a pretty substantial reframing. Hermeticism, Golden Dawn, and other western esoteric practices should probably be a much smaller focus of this article than current living and historical mainstream religious traditions, for example. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Warren, you may be thinking of a different topic. Please list which "current living and historical mainstream religious traditions" you have in mind so that there are reference points to discuss mystical traditions and practices among the editors you pinged and exactly what you have in mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, I'm referring specifically to Judaism and Buddhism for extant mainstream traditions and the Antiquity and arguably (though ehhhhhhh) Gnosticism sections for historical and mainstream. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I know of the Kabbalistic tradition in Judaism, where Kether, Ein Sof and "above" may refer to this page topic. About your pings above, if you intended to ping editors who replied at the RM you missed some. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I didn't, I pinged the editor who raised synth concerns above and one who discussed synth concerns at FTN, both with Skyerise present. My comment on this is that the language and lens being used is clearly that of the academic study of western esotericism, which is inappropriate for an article that, per WP:DUE, shouldn't mostly be about western esotericism. This seems to be a running issue with a lot of religious articles that touch on topics adjascent to Western Esotericism, which lead to a bit of a discussion at FTN about editors overweighting a minor religious tradition which certainly warrants a discussion, but not a spotlight. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. Like I mention, you may be thinking of a different topic, but will wait for {{u|Skyerise}}, who started and wrote the article and accurately defined the page topic and implied criteria, to comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq| you may be thinking of a different topic}}

::::::I am not, and I would appreciate if this is the last time you insinuate I don’t know what I’m talking about on a talk page. It’s happened quite enough times now, thank you very much. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'll be honest I've got a lot of people currently asking for my feedback on pages right now - for instance someone made about a 12kbite change to Rape of Nanjing which I reverted and which they want me to now review line by line. I will watch-list this page and get to it when I get to it but I may need to invoke WP:NODEADLINE here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}} {{yo|Warrenmck}} Multiple editors responding to the AfD - everyone but you, in fact - indicated that SYNTH was not an issue. You're beating a dead horse, and I'm not going to engage with your time wasting tactics. You said you were 100% willing to be shown that you were wrong. Well, you've been shown to be wrong, so what happened to your willingness? GooFY! Skyerise (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Right, this has gone quite far enough. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::So Skyerise has a three month block for this. I’m still concerned about the content of this page but don’t want to steamroll their work. I do think this article needs a cleanup, however. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

To clarify the article’s scope and address concerns about synthesis or undue emphasis on Western esotericism, it may be helpful to highlight two core overview sources already in use, both of which frame divine embodiment as a cross-cultural and multidisciplinary theme within religious, psychological, and mystical traditions:

• Friedman, Harris; et al. (2024). “Models of Spiritual and Transpersonal Development.”
• :This chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality outlines how embodiment plays a central role in spiritual development models across traditions, including indigenous, Buddhist, Christian, and contemporary mystical frameworks. The authors analyze embodiment not merely as a metaphor but as a core psychological and transformational theme, bridging traditional religions with modern spiritualities in a coherent academic framework. Their perspective supports including diverse traditions (e.g., Kabbalah, Vajrayana, Christian mysticism, and even new religious movements) under a single conceptual umbrella.
• Washburn, Michael. Embodied Spirituality in a Sacred World (2012).
• :Washburn, drawing from both depth psychology and comparative mysticism, presents embodiment as fundamental to spiritual experience and transformation. He connects ancient practices (e.g., Christian incarnation, shamanic possession, yogic awakening) with contemporary esoteric and psychological perspectives. His synthesis of East–West traditions is scholarly and widely cited in transpersonal studies. This source is especially helpful in framing divine embodiment as a unifying process, not a claim about doctrinal equivalence.

These sources justify the comparative scope of the article and establish a scholarly precedent for bringing together traditions such as Vajrayana Buddhism, Kabbalah, and Hermetic theurgy. Their inclusion aligns with WP:DUE by relying on secondary academic overviews that treat divine or sacred embodiment as a cross-traditional phenomenon.

Another source that bridges the topic which hasn't yet been used in the article is:

• Geoffrey Samuel, Religion and the Subtle Body in Asia and the West (2013)
• :Samuel’s volume brings together contributors who explore how divine embodiment, subtle physiology, and ritual transformation appear across traditions — including Tibetan Vajrayana, Daoism, Christian mysticism, Sufism, and Western esotericism. The book’s comparative lens justifies including both “mainstream” and “esoteric” currents as part of a larger cross-cultural pattern of divine embodiment, rather than privileging any one tradition.

This isn't a WP:COATRACK. It addresses the topic in a global way, like we are supposed to do. Skyerise (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I was only able to access reviews of Washburn via Wikipedia library and an abstract of the Oxford handbook text. Does anyone have links to these books? I will say that the review of Washburn makes me somewhat skeptical of the reliability of the book. It does seem like Washburn is particularly deep in the new-age woo end of Depth Psychology - which is saying something considering it's a field with Stanislav Grof at its heart. Still I would prefer to actually see the book itself before passing judgment on it as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::The main source I use is Friedman; I only added Washburn after a certain editor's complaints: it's only used once in the article, IIRC. In any case, that editor has yet to acknowledge that overview sources exist, and most likely hasn't even bother to try to access them. I do have access to Friedman; it covers embodiment in all these traditions. Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::OK but do you have a route to access these books or is this a "consult your local library" situation? Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::As usual, that probably depends on where you are. You could try [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Psychology_and_Sp/Px3pEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Models+of+Spiritual+and+Transpersonal+Development%22&pg=PA149&printsec=frontcover this link]. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you. That worked. But the chapter does not discuss divine embodiment? It's a much more general survey of spiritual development which is a related but distinct topic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::It actually does discuss embodiment. Here's a quotation: "In Hassidim, one variant of mystical Judaism, the very person of a righteous one is seen as the embodiment of wisdom and compassion, while in Kabalistic Judaism, ..." Throughout most of the article, he just uses the term "body", but the context makes it clear that he is referring to embodiment: "body and its hypothesized energy systems are like Jacob's Ladder, with each chakra being a rung", etc. He makes it explicit later in the article: "body, embodiment, and/or, somatic phenonomenology? How might neuroscience inform, modify, or guide spiritual development models." If you read the whole article, the applicability to the discussion is quite apparent. Most author tend to brevity, so will use "body" rather than "embodiment" while meaning the same thing. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I read the para of Hassidim and I think you're interpreting it rather broadly. I will have another look at the discourse around the body in the chapter but I'm a bit skeptical that this source is supporting your assertion based on first read. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I reread both the Hassidim reference and every reference to the "body" in the chapter and the closest it gets is a simile linking chakras as a hierarchy of spiritual development to Jacob's ladder. This simile does not, in any way, speak to the assumption of an embodied divinity by a mystical practitioner unless one wants to argue that either: A) chakras are gods and B) Jacob was embodying God in his vision of angels ascending and descending a ladder. I'm afraid you're interpreting this material far too broadly with this source which, while very interesting, is not relevant to this specific practice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Embodiment is not always about gods: it includes the embodiment of divine qualites and their association with parts of the body. In this case, however, each chakra does indeed have a specific god or gods associated with it; practitioners use mantras of those gods while focusing on the chakras. That's covered under the comparative religions concept of "embodiment". And yes, Jacob's Ladder is a better example for the closely related topic of Theophany, but it is still relevant. For two book length overviews, see: Skyerise (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::So the challenge here is that your overview source doesn't actually make those connections explicitly nor does it mention the association of chakras with specific gods. The question here isn't what you or I know but rather about what the source says and I'm concerned you're inferring things into the source based on personal knowledge that are not there. That's, I suspect, the root of Warren's SYNTH concern. The source is, except with reference to chakras, mostly mute on the idea of the body in spirituality; and that's a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I looked through some more of the sources and in general there does appear to be a problem with WP:SYNTH here, still. Skyerise appeard to be determining independently that all descriptions of embodiment in sources, or which had descriptors that matched the general concept, were referring to the same thing.

:::::::::Is there a single source that discusses all of these traditions together explicitly when discussing divine embodiment? I know contemporary religious studies is highly cautious on attempting to link mystical experiences into a single category, instead viewing them as context dependent. So "Divine Embodiment as a vague concept exists in these faiths" is probably fine, trrying to relate them as flavours of the same thing other than a superimposed academic category probably isn't the best idea. Samuel and Johnston, cited below, explicitly highlights that there are other conceptions of subtle bodies that are distinct formulations, rather than just expressing they can be correlated. I would expect that more in the sources.

:::::::::I think this article is still way too focused on trying to correlate these experiences as one "thing" called divine embodiment, rather than discussing that the concept of divine embodiment exists in a wide variety of contexts and traditions and while there is an academic thread through them, both academic scholars and individual believers would object to this sort of rhetorical levelling being attempted here.

:::::::::While clearly I am alone in this, I do still think WP:TNT somewhat applies, and the more I dig into the actual provided sources the more convinced I am that WP:SYNTH has taken place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Looking at this section, for example:

::::::::::{{blockquote|The idea was later adapted and expanded in Hermeticism, particularly through the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, where practitioners would visualize themselves as deities to channel spiritual power.}}

::::::::::{{blockquote|This theurgical method also appears in Eastern esotericism, particularly in Tibetan and East Asian Vajrayana, where practitioners engage in deity yoga by constructing a visualization (Skt: samayasattva) of themselves as a deity, inviting the divine presence (Skt: jñānasattva, "wisdom being") to unite with this visualization.}}

::::::::::This is clearly WP:SYNTH because it's directly stating that the method that exists in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn also exists in Vajrayana, which is clearly not what the very careful wording against direct cross correlation in the sources implies. It also runs up against the WP:PARITY concerns expressed above (why is a minor NRM being used as a lead-in to a major world religion, when readers can be assumed to be more familiar with the latter and there is a longer scholarly and literary tradition for the latter?).

::::::::::We cannot call these Divine Embodiment practices versions of the same thing, and the sources used are typically very careful to avoid exactly that. We can discuss divine embodiment as an academic concept, and discuss different faith traditions' manifestations/practices relating to that in a vacuum unless there is direct evidence of influence. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::

:::::::::*{{cite book |editor-last1=DelMonte |editor-first1=M. M. |editor-last2=Haruki |editor-first2=Y. |year=1998 |title=The Embodiment Of Mind: Eastern And Western Perspectives |place=Delft |publisher=Eburon Publishers}}

:::::::::*{{cite book |editor1-first=Geoffrey |editor1-last=Samuel |editor2-first=Jay |editor2-last=Johnston |title=Religion and the Subtle Body in Asia and the West: Between Mind and Body |year=2013 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-136-76647-3}}

:::{{tq|In any case, that editor has yet to acknowledge that overview sources exist, and most likely hasn't even bother to try to access them.}}

:::Er, nothing I raised here at this talk page since the AfD was about the suitability of an article that links these traditions. Everything was about the weighting of New Religious Movements in an article with expansive scope on WP:UNDUE grounds and the specific terminology from Western esotericism being applied more broadly as some sort of default, when in reality it's more of an authorial choice to select obscure terms from Western esotericism to describe concepts from other esoteric traditions over neutral terminology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I am not linking these traditions. You claim to have broad knowledge of the topic, but you seem to be completely unaware that both Embodiment theory in anthropology and theories of Tacit knowledge both apply the term "embodiment" across ritual and religious studies. Just the many titles of the individual books and papers that include the word "embodiment" should be enough to show that the term is applied cross-culturally. And the sections aren't being written about the general topic of each tradition: each section is written about the specific uses of embodiment in the tradition using sources that specifically address the application of embodiment theory to the tradition in question. This is just WP:CHEESE. You certainly don't know the topic to the depth that you claim. Skyerise (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I fail to see how that addresses literally any point I raised. In fact, it appears to be entirely about something else? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, that's the problem here. You "fail to see". I am communicating clearly here. The sources are also clear about what they mean by embodiment, which is assigning divine qualities to the body - sometimes broken down into parts (one god name or form for the left shoulder, another for the right, etc.), sometimes the whole body, frequently both. Basically, I am writing an anthropological view of the history of religious anthropomorphizing of deity as it intersects with the identification of the whole body or parts of the body with the anthropomorphized deity. And that's exactly how the literature describes it. Do some reading. Skyerise (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Skyerise (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have been doing the readings. And there is an issue with WP:SYNTH in bundled ref 6 - can we please stay focused on article improvement? Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::They’ve got a three month time out. I do want to work on this article somewhat, mainly due to the WP:PARITY concerns and to excise most of the Jung commentary. It sounds like you’ve got a better sense of synth concerns than I do? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yeah this is literally pretty much smack-dab in the middle of a lot of my personal areas of study (religion, psychoanalysis and philosophy) and as such I spotted that synth pretty much as soon as I looked. I'm going to try and bump a review of this article's sources up my to-do list a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That is a re-hash, as this page has "survived" the AfD attempt and deemed not to be synth, which is also backed up in this long and interesting discussion by the new sources and points made and added by Skyerise. I don't see how psychoanalysis fits, as the page is more or less about sane people within an accepted spiritual search, analysis, and practice. Maybe it would fit in a criticism section? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::If you look at the sources this is already leaning on Jung and depth psychology a fair bit. And the AfD, in which I strongly supported keeping, simply said that the SYNTH issues could be resolved through normal editing - which a source review is a good first step toward. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Warrenmck}}, the rewrite tag surely doesn't seem needed here. You failed at deleting the page at AfD, which shows that the topic is a valid topic (which, in my opinion, is an extremely good article which I feel will be a feature at some point). Your concern about theurgy not being applicable also confuses, as it fits well into the topic of this page. Anyway, before you take something the wrong way again (as you did so with me recently), why do you feel the page needs a complete rewrite? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Because the page had an under construction tag on it before, by an editor who is no longer able to maintain it. So, given that not even the creator of this article thought it was in a sufficient state for consumption without a heads up, and there are remaining and substantial synth issues, it's a perfectly reasonable tag. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)