Source: here.
mantra motivation
A philosophical sketch of polytheistic pantheism
In the course of our daily study (pārāyaṇa) of the śruti, we practiced the following ṛk of Vasukarṇa, the son of Vasukra of the clan of the Vasiṣṭha-s:
dyāvā-pṛthivī janayann abhi vrata
āpa oṣadhīr vanināni yajñiyā ।
antarikṣaṃ svar ā paprur ūtaye
vaśaṃ devāsas tanvī ni māmṛjuḥ ॥
They generated forth Heaven and Earth for their laws,
the waters, herbs, and the trees belonging to the sacrifice;
They filled the atmosphere and the sky for [our] aid.
The gods clasped their power to themselves.
After that, we recited the Atharvanic vyāhṛti-s (oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svar janad vṛdhat karad ruhan mahat tac cham om ॥) with the invocation of Indra and the gods (indra pra ṇo dhitāvānaṃ… the Indravanta-stuti, which corrects mishaps in the deployment of the śruti), followed by the recitation of a section of the Upaniṣad of the Taittirīyaka-s. Consequently, we were left with an urge to sketch a philosophical vision of polytheistic pantheism.
Scope and goal
We felt this was necessary because we wanted a more natural harmonization of the views expressed in the Upaniṣad-s with the foundational polytheism that characterizes the Indo-European natural religion (sanātana-dharma). While we are not presenting this as our ultimate or complete philosophical position, we felt it to be an important exercise toward such an effort.
As we are presenting only a sketch here, we will not be conducting a detailed analysis of the Āryan and Greek traditions to draw parallels or cite traditional supporting references. We should also be rather clear that this attempt is, in a sense, also a departure from most of the dominant lineages within the Hindu system in interpreting the philosophy of the Upaniṣad-s.
Further, if we take an Upaniṣad like that of the Taittirīyaka-s, we already notice certain fissures developing between its brahman-centric view and aspects of its Prājāpatya-colored theology on one side and the older polytheism of the saṃhitā-s. Our intention is not to explain away or harmonize these fissures. Instead, we take a more drastic stance – we retain what we believe is the core teaching from the Upaniṣadic layer that can be harmonized with the ancestral polytheism and drop the rest.
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
A reconciliation of prAjapatya brahmavAda with strong polytheism is possible - one would just need to expand the Ishvara-tattva to include multiple distinct Gods (as orthodox SVs do with nArAyaNa and laxmI).
yavana vs hindu trajectories
The inspiration for this comes from the Neoplatonic tradition of sages like Iamblichus and Proclus in the Yavana world; however, for the purposes of this note, we do not delve deeply into their specific insights that led us in this direction. We see the Hindus (starting in the late Vedic age) as being more radically innovative in the development of their theology and philosophy.
On the plus side, this comes with a fertile abundance of philosophical strands featuring many new and useful ideas. On the downside, this comes with a tendency to flow against the ancestral tradition in many ways, while at the same time paying lip service to it without genuinely attempting to harmonize with or truly understand its archaic essence. The Yavana-s, while poor at preserving their ancient liturgical tradition, were interestingly still conservative with what they retained. In this regard, they paid greater attention to harmonizing their innovations with traditional elements in their Pythagorean, Orphic and Neoplatonic expressions. Hence, for the modern IE philosopher, studying and utilizing both the Yavana and Ārya traditions strikes a much-needed balance.
Theism
0. Why should we even consider a theistic system?
Because both the cosmos and the practice of mantra-s produce a comparable or identical inspired states of first-person experience.
Pantheistic layer
1. The Ground: the pantheistic layer
We see an essence, which can be termed as pantheism in modern usage, as a foundational teaching across multiple principal Upaniṣad-s. However, we are using the term “theism” in pantheism in a specific sense: we accept the cosmos as a whole, which possesses an unbounded, self-ordering totality, to be divine.
One may ask what is meant by divine in this context? It arouses awe and is the source of the inspiration that manifests as the mantra-s of the religion. Hence, we term divine. Further, this “All” is immanent, not outside the world: all things are modes, expressions, or concentrations of its powers. Hence, when taken together, we term it as pantheism.
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
Further, this “All” is immanent, not outside the world
Could be both. Reg. the universe being just a part of the All - sharIra-sharIri-bhAva may help.
This “All” (sarva; Chāndogya Upaniṣad: sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahma; c.f., Para-Zoroastrian Zurvan in the Iranic tradition) is essentially none other than the brahman of the principal Upaniṣad-s and is compatible with the expressions of it clearly outlined in the Upaniṣad of the Taittirīyaka-s or the great forest Upaniṣad of the Vājasaneyin-s (among others).
While direct meditation on it through the appropriate mantra-channels can confer powerful and even terrifying fruits (e.g., the brahmaṇa-parimara-mantra), by itself it is not a personal mono-God but the ontological condition for all existence.
Facets
Importantly, this “All” gives us a field or continuum which has multiple simultaneous “sides” or “facets” to it.
One side manifests as the vibrations and excitations of the material universe (the wave-particles).
Another facet manifests as the world of mathematics – one could call it the Platonic realm of mathematics.
Yet another facet of it is conscious experience.
We hold that while these realms may appear disconnected to the casual observer, they have a certain mutual mapping and hierarchical structure between them.
The apprehension of this is largely beyond the reach of current knowledge. However, the existence of this mapping and hierarchy can be sensed by some through enquiry into the totality of phenomena (missed by most common intellectuals because they ignore the totality) and by others through various practices of yoga.
Polytheistic Layer
2. Differentiation: emergent real powers (the polytheistic Layer)
The next part of our construct is the proposal that the above substrate “All”, while a continuum, is not unstructured. The inspiration for this comes from our long-standing fascination with and study of attractors in complex systems.
Stable patterns
While there is a continuum of points represented by the continuous entry of all input values into the equation of the map, a clear, stable, and, in some cases, deeply intricate structure emerges in the output map. Similarly, we posit that the “All” has a mapping resulting in an output structure with distinct, stable patterns of force or form analogous to attractors in complex systems. Moreover, each pattern has a characteristic “profile”: a logic, a value‐structure, a qualitative mood, and a domain of influence. It is these persistent patterns in the “All” which are the gods.
Facets
They are manifest both in the structure of physical facet and correspondingly as personified, intelligible nodes of divine potency in the facet of conscious experience. The structure in the physical facet may be seen more or less as how physics treats matter fields and particles. In conclusion, they are real (not mere symbols) because they are genuine, recurrent inter-mapping structures in both the cosmos and psyche.
Thus, the plural “crystallizations”, like the structures in an attractor of a complex system, is an inherent feature of the “All,” making it innately polytheistic. This is how the famous statement of the Āṅgirasa Dirghatamas Aucāthya should be understood.
As an aside, we should remark (based on our rather shallow understanding of Neo-Occidental philosophy) that our presentation may seem similar to the way the philosopher Spinoza treats modes of substance. However, our construct comes with greater room for plurality, agency, and mythic depth among the modes.
Multiplicity and unity
3. Understanding the coherence of multiplicity and unity in this system
It should be noted that under this vision of pantheistic polytheism, the gods are not fragments of the “All”, nor is the “All” merely the sum of the gods. Instead, the “All” is the field and the gods are its modal intensifications – both being necessary for the whole picture.
Thus, the gods are co-original, each embodying a necessary aspect of the whole. Here again, we are informed by the analogy to mathematical attractors with fractal structures. When we zoom in on a persistent structure, much like a particular feature of the attractor, we often perceive a fractal structure in it.
Interactions
In some cases, we observe structures found elsewhere in the attractor being mirrored around the given feature when zoomed in. In other cases, we see an intricate structure with deeper and deeper stable substructures surrounding the basic stable structure we zoomed into.
This complexity of detail seen in mathematical attractors is also reflected in the nature of the gods in the field of the “All”. When we zoom in on their nature, we see embedded in and integral to them the natures of other gods orbiting in the periphery of their main nature.
This leads to the overlap that we see in their functional domains despite them maintaining their distinctness. As a result, while studying the śruti, one understands things like the functional intersection of Indra, Dyaus and Rudra and also Mitra, Varuṇa and Rudra inherent in the mantra element
“indrota tubhyaṃ tad dive
tad rudrāya svayaśase ।
mitrāya vocaṃ varuṇāya saprathaḥ
sumṛḻīkāya saprathaḥ ॥”.
If one happens to be wearing glasses tinted by sectarianism, one might focus on one such nodal element in the “All” and see a central deity with the rest in orbit.
Multiple forms
Finally, some of this rich substructure allows one to see the same god in the form of many specific deities (devata-s) or ectypes in śrauta (e.g., Indra Marutvant, Mahendra, Agni Gṛhapati, Agni Anīkavant, etc.) or tāntrika (e.g., Kapālīśa Bhairava, Svacchanda Bhairava, Sadāśiva, etc.) practice.
Fractal temples
Alternatively, it gives the vision of the god with his/her own surrounding sub-pantheon that resembles the structure of the “All”. It is for this reason that we believe Hindu temples began to increasingly approximate fractal structures.+++(5)+++
Personality
4. Agency and Personality
A god represents the fundamental source of cosmic structure and intrinsic meaning, which may emerge at many levels
(just like there is intrinsic meaning emergent at the level of biology,
which, while constituted from the underlying chemistry and physics, is independent of them).+++(5)+++
Hence, a god is the inherent way the “All” organizes or expresses its own nature. In this conception, the gods are “personal” primarily in a philosophical sense. Their personality experienced by the votary in an anthropomorphic sense is the result of their nature “refracting” through the facet of conscious experience. Worship and myth engage with these personalities as partners in a relational context.
Thus, their “personhood” emerges relationally, in the ongoing interaction of the cosmos, human imagination, and ritual practice.
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
Personality may emerge from the interaction of the Gods with each other - without there ever needing to be a human.
Ethics
5. The intersection with the world of men and the ethical dimension
The vrata-s or the dharma of the gods in the field, denoted as the “All,” informs the dharma of the world of men.
The Yavana-s, starting with Iamblichus and culminating in Proclus, held that the presence and activity of the gods are perceivable via symbols or tokens dispersed throughout the physical world, which they termed sunthemata. These are what we alluded to right at the outset as the sources of inspiration from the cosmos, which are equivalent to those produced by the mantra-s.
As per the Yavana theorists, these act as:
(i) divine markers in the physical world (e.g., in stones, plants, animals, or celestial bodies).
(ii) Connecting links (c.f. sambandha-s of the Ārya tradition and ratu-s of the Iranian tradition). They form a connection or “sympathy” between the material/physical facet of the “All” and its subtle Daiva facets.
(iii) Mediating Agents: By manipulating or meditating on these physical tokens, the practicing philosopher (a theurgist in the case of the Yavana-s) can establish a direct link with the specific god(s) corresponding to the said sunthemata.
Indeed, the concept of the sunthemata is also implicitly presented in the śruti in the discourse on sambandha-s, e.g., in the Upaniṣad of the Taittirīyaka-s.
The sambandha-s establish the basis of the dharma or mānuṣāvrata-s. Because each god is a different modal intensification of the “All,” ethics becomes polycentric rather than monolithic. Thus, there is no single universal virtue; instead, striving for abhyudaya or excellence takes many forms.
This polycentricity is the basis of why the Indo-European philosopher tends to see varṇa as a natural tendency of society. A consequence of this is an ethic of situational discernment: the right action is that which harmonizes with the nature of the appropriate divine mode in the given situation.
This may be seen as a fruit of the ultimate daivī-mīmāṃsā as mīmāṃsā seeks to answer the question: what is the right action given a situation? The ethical task is to tune oneself to the gods’ patterns.
Hence, the emergent ethics might be termed as one of resonance, not submission.+++(4)+++
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
It’s submission only as it’s the jIva who does the resonating.
Moreover, from the pantheistic aspect of this worldview, ethics are not imposed from outside as if we are subjects of a distant sovereign. Instead, it emerges from our participation in a living web of forces – a concept that is also consistent with the emergence of morality from the underlying mathematics of game theory, filtering through natural selection.
Thus, while encouraging a generally conservative outlook, these ethics are aligned with respecting the natural world.
Environmental destruction would constitute a rupture of the divine “All”. Hence, one must strive towards greater alignment with ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles while recognizing kinship among all of Life.
In the interpersonal domain, the recognition and emphasis on the web of relationships encourages prosocial ethics of reciprocity centered on giving/honoring and receiving | teaching and study | worship and aiding others in worship (Father Manu’s triad for a V1).
Conflict and dynamics
6. Conflict and dynamics
As we have noted before, the Indo-European polytheistic systems present a world where conflict is inherent in its structure. In the tradition of the Ārya-s, this manifests as the multiple and ongoing rounds of the Devāsura-saṃgrāma. The balance and favorable order have to be maintained through a constant struggle against opposing forces.
An acceptance of this also informs the above-discussed ethics. For example, it results in the view that justice is not purity but equilibrium, and conflict is not evil, but imbalance is.
In order to overcome the Asura-s, the Deva-s have to repeatedly arrive at new upāya-s each time. This discovery of new upāya-s is like searching design-space through natural selection – each adaptation is a new upāya. It is this process that keeps the “All” dynamic and exploring new structures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this sketch is just a prolegomenon and by no means a complete exposition of the system. Nevertheless, we have attempted to include aspects that we typically do not cover, like the domain of human action and ethics, because a solid philosophical system should encompass these.
We have covered certain other aspects, such as the mathematical realm, the connection to number, and the sambandha-s between the macroscopic and the microscopic, at considerable length before.
In some aspects, the detail presented here is rather insufficient. As and when we find the inspiration, and if the gods are favorable, we will revisit some of them in the future.
On panentheism
It depends on how you define panentheism. If you define it as the world existing in the divine while it also exceeds the totality of the world, the I’d say may be. But I find that to be unnecessarily superfluous. Hence, I resort to a simple pantheism, where the other non-material realms are facets of the “All” that still “refract” into the physical universe which is one facet.
Not advaita
Monism can be a material monism (like that of Huxley) or an idealistic monism like that of advaita vedAnta. Throughout my philosophical development I have had problems with advaita both in its traditional expression and also my own attempts at reformulating it. The main issue for me is the emergence and maintenance of structure in the physical universe (an illusory object in that tradition). That said I think there are aspects of advaita vedAnta thinking that are philosophically useful: e.g., the convergence with the inference from evolutionary theory that perception has evolved to maximize fitness and not mimic the structure of the universe. Hence, perception is non-veridical, with respect to the actual structure.
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
your “All” is obviously not nir-visheSha/ nirguNa. So shAnkaran advaita is already in the dustbin.
(Notion that perception does not capture actual reality fully is common to other darshanas.)