more thoughts on the deities and polytheism
I've been thinking frequently about the concept of deity, what does it mean, how deity is relevant, etc. Part of this is due to a post and a thread in gigglingwizard's LJ and musings of anglican_druid, though these kind of things go through my head all the time (and occasionally make it to LJ).
First nutshell declaration, from my own philosophical views and my experience in the study of comparative religion, I think the terms "polytheism" and "monotheism" need to be thrown out (or at least used less frequently). Why? I question whether they are relevant to an adequate understanding of the divine. It seems to me that the bulk of the content of the concept of "polytheism" comes from those who weren't "polytheists" and created the position as an unflattering foil as opposed to a reasoned attempt at understand a different spiritual understanding; in that case, it's much like the concept of "pagan" itself - a broad breadbox in which to put everything that is not 'X', rather than a positive definition in itself. Again, the term "monotheism" needs to be similarly deconstructed to have any useful meaning - otherwise, we have crude characterizations of saints and trinity, as if they were the same as Edith Hamilton's olympians, or that Kannon is the same kind of conceptual entity as Athena.
Second nutshell declaration, my metaphysical views tend toward non-duality, my philosophical views are thoroughly phenomenological with psychological tendencies and my methodology (informed by both of the above) focuses on semiotics. In such a mind as mine, "polytheism" makes a great methodological approach (to maintain semantic integrity) but makes lousy metaphysics.
While I'll have more time to process and explain in depth later, I thought I'd make my third nutshell declaration specifically regarding deities: my understanding of deities are shaped by three major influences (in order of influence): an Epicurean/Deep Ecologist materialism, the notion of deities in Buddhism and the communion of saints. That being said, I'll include a few paragraphs on the last two and include links to further reading.
From Can Christianity Dialogue with African Traditional Religion?, describing difficulties in simplistic terms of mono or poly:"PAGANISM
Besides the negative view of African traditional religion based on its lack of scripture, African traditional religion has suffered other injustices especially in the way it has been named.
It has been called pagan. That this is a misnomer is easily seen from the origin of the word 'pagan'. The Latin root suggests that a pagan is originally a rugged, country person. Later on, "paganism" was employed to refer to any religion that was not Islam, Judaism or Christianity. It is an injustice to call West African traditional religion, with a strong belief in a God who is unique, incomparable and a Creator, paganism.
...
FETISHISM
Why the word fetishism has caught on as a description of African traditional religion is again one of those mysteries. The word derives from the Portuguese word feitico which means an object or an article. Discovering that the West Africans they met on the coast were wearing objects of religious value like charms, talismans and amulets, the Portuguese imagined that the religion of West Africans was a worship of such objects. One need not labour the point that this is a great injustice. What about the wonderful names given to the Supreme Being and the honorific appellations he enjoys among us?
The truth of the matter is that there is no religion in the world that can be called fetishism.
And if because sacred objects are found in African traditional religion the religion is fetishistic, then we find ourselves in deep waters. There is no religion in which such objects are not found. In Christianity we respect statues and crucifixes, medals and rosaries. They, too, are objects. But we understand that these are a secondary aspect of the Christian religion. Do they not also use prayer-beads? Do the Muslims not venerate the Kaaba?
ANIMISM
The term animism too, appears to be the choice of many. Coined by the great Taylor of Britain, animism is derived from the Latin word anima. The thinking behind the use of that word to describe African traditional Religion is that Africans believe that objects and animals have souls or spirits-anima.
While this may be true, it cannot be said that Africans believe that every object and every creature has such a spirit The Asante do not believe that the cocoa tree, or the plantain tree or for that matter the palm tree or the grasscutter has a spirit. Yet these are all items of the animal and vegetable kingdoms that are of empirical interest to the Asante. In any case, again, the idea that some objects have spirits is not peculiar to Africa. It is simply incorrect to call African traditional religion animism.
ANCESTOR WORSHIP
But probably the worst of the epithets used to describe African traditional religion is ancestor-worship. As has been mentioned, ancestors do form part of the religious thought of the African. But the existence and the veneration of saints too form part of the thinking of Christians, of whatever denomination.
No Christian would accept it if Christianity were termed "Saint worship". Christians would rightly protest. The reason would not simply be that there are much more important aspects to Christianity than the Saints. The protestation would be justified on the grounds that indeed Saints are not worshipped, Saints are not deified, Saints are not the ultimate object of our petition and praise or adoration. We honour Saints as having lived our lives and being worthy of emulation and we pass our petitions through them to the Almighty God. We impose their names on ourselves to remind us of their lives which we would then be urged to imitate.
This is exactly the same idea in the veneration of ancestors in African traditional religion. Ancestors are not divinized. My father who dies and is regarded as an ancestor remains my father and I refer to him as my father. I honour him and I respect him for what he has done for me and others. By reason of the radical change of mode of existence, it is believed ancestors have acquired a power that is higher than human. But neither they nor the lesser gods can act independently from the will of God, the all-powerful, eternal, all-knowing, superlatively great God. African traditional religion is no more ancestor worship than Islam is Muhammad worship or Christianity is Saint-Worship.
POLYTHEISM
What is going to follow about the concept of the Supreme Being should make it clear that the word Polytheism should not be used to describe African traditional religion.
Polytheism, in the classical sense, connotes a situation where two or more divinities are believed to hold an equal status. In a polytheistic situation the pantheon of gods comprises deities none of whom is thought to be greater than others, even though one may be considered as primus inter pares. This is not the case with African traditional religion where the Supreme Being is the creator of all other divinities and does not form part of the pantheon of divinities but holds a position unique to himself."
Now when I refer to myself as a panentheistic animist, I do mean that all things have an inner dimension that can be considered a spirit, not just beings that are culturally significant. However, the terms "monotheist" or "polytheist", let alone "pagan" are likewise misleading. IMO, Neopaganism has a bad case of good old Eurocentric "noble savagery" that keeps it from discerning the sacred when and where it appears - even if that appearance is in the barren wastes of their childhood religions.
Therefore, people get all weird about someone who works well within a druidic milieu and yet works as well within a Christian one. Sadly, less of a stir is made by someone who is a druid and a Buddhist because to many (ignorantly, IMO), Buddhists have been made into "honorary pagans", even if they do have a universal religion with a historic founder, a definite moral code and an ascetic/mystic tradition... just like Catholicism. Some try to justify this prejudice by describing Buddhism as "polytheistic", as if a) it were polytheistic, and b) all polytheisms are somehow kindred spirits; both assumptions are nonsense.
Here's a bit from Deities in Buddhism one a Karma Kagyu website:"Functions of a Deity
In Buddhism, the deities perform different types of functions for the practitioner. They may be a focus or aid to individual meditation and transformation, in which case they are called yidams, or they may function as a protector of the dharma and/or of an entire class of being. It is important to understand that the precise meaning varies according to the view of a particular school and/or lineage. In all cases, deities are understood as means for liberation and the enlightenment of all...
Why call them deities; why not gods?
Although the word deity was originally a synonym for god, experience has shown that some practices such as those performed by Buddhists consist of a type of address in which the intent is rather different from the usual ancient one. That is, the general intention is not to propitiate; not to flatter, placate or enter into contracts.
There is another important difference between Buddhist deities and mythological gods or goddesses. The latter are, or were once, considered real -- described as motivated by jealousy, power and other appetites and not very different from physical creatures such as people. The deities of Buddhism are ultimately regarded as manifestations of Emptiness. Some practitioners eventually abandon deity devotion as a method for attaining an enlightened state when it has outlived its utility.
In fact, Atisha is supposed to have remarked, "We Indians do the practice of one thereby accomplishing all of them; you people do the practices of so many, and so accomplish none!"
...
*We must stress that the word deity is understood in a rather unique way by Buddhist practitioners. It is used for lack of a better word. The translation "tutelary deity" for the Tibetan yidam is misleading as it implies a teacher-student relation. The term "meditational deity" is now preferred.
These figures are understood by a Buddhist to arise and return to Emptiness; they have no inherent reality. They are not worshipped in the sense of idolatry, though certainly it may seem to be so for example, when someone first encounters people doing full prostrations before images on a shrine. That is one good reason for avoiding the use (in a Buddhist context) of the term 'altar', by the way."
By the way, saying that a being arises and returns to Empitness and has "no inherent reality" is not to diminish them; according to the concept of no-self, nothing has "inherent reality", so I'm sure that these enlightened beings don't feel slighted in the least. ;)
Whew! I can go on and on about this... but I need to get back to work.
More later...
First nutshell declaration, from my own philosophical views and my experience in the study of comparative religion, I think the terms "polytheism" and "monotheism" need to be thrown out (or at least used less frequently). Why? I question whether they are relevant to an adequate understanding of the divine. It seems to me that the bulk of the content of the concept of "polytheism" comes from those who weren't "polytheists" and created the position as an unflattering foil as opposed to a reasoned attempt at understand a different spiritual understanding; in that case, it's much like the concept of "pagan" itself - a broad breadbox in which to put everything that is not 'X', rather than a positive definition in itself. Again, the term "monotheism" needs to be similarly deconstructed to have any useful meaning - otherwise, we have crude characterizations of saints and trinity, as if they were the same as Edith Hamilton's olympians, or that Kannon is the same kind of conceptual entity as Athena.
Second nutshell declaration, my metaphysical views tend toward non-duality, my philosophical views are thoroughly phenomenological with psychological tendencies and my methodology (informed by both of the above) focuses on semiotics. In such a mind as mine, "polytheism" makes a great methodological approach (to maintain semantic integrity) but makes lousy metaphysics.
While I'll have more time to process and explain in depth later, I thought I'd make my third nutshell declaration specifically regarding deities: my understanding of deities are shaped by three major influences (in order of influence): an Epicurean/Deep Ecologist materialism, the notion of deities in Buddhism and the communion of saints. That being said, I'll include a few paragraphs on the last two and include links to further reading.
From Can Christianity Dialogue with African Traditional Religion?, describing difficulties in simplistic terms of mono or poly:"PAGANISM
Besides the negative view of African traditional religion based on its lack of scripture, African traditional religion has suffered other injustices especially in the way it has been named.
It has been called pagan. That this is a misnomer is easily seen from the origin of the word 'pagan'. The Latin root suggests that a pagan is originally a rugged, country person. Later on, "paganism" was employed to refer to any religion that was not Islam, Judaism or Christianity. It is an injustice to call West African traditional religion, with a strong belief in a God who is unique, incomparable and a Creator, paganism.
...
FETISHISM
Why the word fetishism has caught on as a description of African traditional religion is again one of those mysteries. The word derives from the Portuguese word feitico which means an object or an article. Discovering that the West Africans they met on the coast were wearing objects of religious value like charms, talismans and amulets, the Portuguese imagined that the religion of West Africans was a worship of such objects. One need not labour the point that this is a great injustice. What about the wonderful names given to the Supreme Being and the honorific appellations he enjoys among us?
The truth of the matter is that there is no religion in the world that can be called fetishism.
And if because sacred objects are found in African traditional religion the religion is fetishistic, then we find ourselves in deep waters. There is no religion in which such objects are not found. In Christianity we respect statues and crucifixes, medals and rosaries. They, too, are objects. But we understand that these are a secondary aspect of the Christian religion. Do they not also use prayer-beads? Do the Muslims not venerate the Kaaba?
ANIMISM
The term animism too, appears to be the choice of many. Coined by the great Taylor of Britain, animism is derived from the Latin word anima. The thinking behind the use of that word to describe African traditional Religion is that Africans believe that objects and animals have souls or spirits-anima.
While this may be true, it cannot be said that Africans believe that every object and every creature has such a spirit The Asante do not believe that the cocoa tree, or the plantain tree or for that matter the palm tree or the grasscutter has a spirit. Yet these are all items of the animal and vegetable kingdoms that are of empirical interest to the Asante. In any case, again, the idea that some objects have spirits is not peculiar to Africa. It is simply incorrect to call African traditional religion animism.
ANCESTOR WORSHIP
But probably the worst of the epithets used to describe African traditional religion is ancestor-worship. As has been mentioned, ancestors do form part of the religious thought of the African. But the existence and the veneration of saints too form part of the thinking of Christians, of whatever denomination.
No Christian would accept it if Christianity were termed "Saint worship". Christians would rightly protest. The reason would not simply be that there are much more important aspects to Christianity than the Saints. The protestation would be justified on the grounds that indeed Saints are not worshipped, Saints are not deified, Saints are not the ultimate object of our petition and praise or adoration. We honour Saints as having lived our lives and being worthy of emulation and we pass our petitions through them to the Almighty God. We impose their names on ourselves to remind us of their lives which we would then be urged to imitate.
This is exactly the same idea in the veneration of ancestors in African traditional religion. Ancestors are not divinized. My father who dies and is regarded as an ancestor remains my father and I refer to him as my father. I honour him and I respect him for what he has done for me and others. By reason of the radical change of mode of existence, it is believed ancestors have acquired a power that is higher than human. But neither they nor the lesser gods can act independently from the will of God, the all-powerful, eternal, all-knowing, superlatively great God. African traditional religion is no more ancestor worship than Islam is Muhammad worship or Christianity is Saint-Worship.
POLYTHEISM
What is going to follow about the concept of the Supreme Being should make it clear that the word Polytheism should not be used to describe African traditional religion.
Polytheism, in the classical sense, connotes a situation where two or more divinities are believed to hold an equal status. In a polytheistic situation the pantheon of gods comprises deities none of whom is thought to be greater than others, even though one may be considered as primus inter pares. This is not the case with African traditional religion where the Supreme Being is the creator of all other divinities and does not form part of the pantheon of divinities but holds a position unique to himself."
Now when I refer to myself as a panentheistic animist, I do mean that all things have an inner dimension that can be considered a spirit, not just beings that are culturally significant. However, the terms "monotheist" or "polytheist", let alone "pagan" are likewise misleading. IMO, Neopaganism has a bad case of good old Eurocentric "noble savagery" that keeps it from discerning the sacred when and where it appears - even if that appearance is in the barren wastes of their childhood religions.
Therefore, people get all weird about someone who works well within a druidic milieu and yet works as well within a Christian one. Sadly, less of a stir is made by someone who is a druid and a Buddhist because to many (ignorantly, IMO), Buddhists have been made into "honorary pagans", even if they do have a universal religion with a historic founder, a definite moral code and an ascetic/mystic tradition... just like Catholicism. Some try to justify this prejudice by describing Buddhism as "polytheistic", as if a) it were polytheistic, and b) all polytheisms are somehow kindred spirits; both assumptions are nonsense.
Here's a bit from Deities in Buddhism one a Karma Kagyu website:"Functions of a Deity
In Buddhism, the deities perform different types of functions for the practitioner. They may be a focus or aid to individual meditation and transformation, in which case they are called yidams, or they may function as a protector of the dharma and/or of an entire class of being. It is important to understand that the precise meaning varies according to the view of a particular school and/or lineage. In all cases, deities are understood as means for liberation and the enlightenment of all...
Why call them deities; why not gods?
Although the word deity was originally a synonym for god, experience has shown that some practices such as those performed by Buddhists consist of a type of address in which the intent is rather different from the usual ancient one. That is, the general intention is not to propitiate; not to flatter, placate or enter into contracts.
There is another important difference between Buddhist deities and mythological gods or goddesses. The latter are, or were once, considered real -- described as motivated by jealousy, power and other appetites and not very different from physical creatures such as people. The deities of Buddhism are ultimately regarded as manifestations of Emptiness. Some practitioners eventually abandon deity devotion as a method for attaining an enlightened state when it has outlived its utility.
In fact, Atisha is supposed to have remarked, "We Indians do the practice of one thereby accomplishing all of them; you people do the practices of so many, and so accomplish none!"
...
*We must stress that the word deity is understood in a rather unique way by Buddhist practitioners. It is used for lack of a better word. The translation "tutelary deity" for the Tibetan yidam is misleading as it implies a teacher-student relation. The term "meditational deity" is now preferred.
These figures are understood by a Buddhist to arise and return to Emptiness; they have no inherent reality. They are not worshipped in the sense of idolatry, though certainly it may seem to be so for example, when someone first encounters people doing full prostrations before images on a shrine. That is one good reason for avoiding the use (in a Buddhist context) of the term 'altar', by the way."
By the way, saying that a being arises and returns to Empitness and has "no inherent reality" is not to diminish them; according to the concept of no-self, nothing has "inherent reality", so I'm sure that these enlightened beings don't feel slighted in the least. ;)
Whew! I can go on and on about this... but I need to get back to work.
More later...