Polytheism

Polytheism vs Monotheism: Definitions

Broader definition: Reducibility to unity

  • Polytheism is: “Any theological account in which the divine is not reducible to unity, but rather intrinsically plural.”

Examination

  • “Would the concept of the Trinity be an example of Divinity being intrinsically and irreducibly plural? Christians claim it is not (three persons, one substance).”

Position of henotheism

  • See henotheism page for intro.
  • Based on whether these Gods are considered fundamentally distinct, monotheism (by the “broader” reducibility test) or polytheism can encompass henotheism.
  • Connection with brahman - see polycentrism .
  • “Polytheism can be understood in terms of all Gods being inherent in each God, rather than all Gods being inherent in one God. Some authors use the term “polycentric polytheism” to refer to this understanding.” - Edward Butler

Stronger definition: aloneness in the God class

  • Here exactly one God can claim “God” status. There may be other divinities -but they may not be called “God”.

“Nowadays, very many Hindus will tell you that in essence, Hinduism is a monotheism. These Hindus are not even aware of the proper meaning of this word. Monotheism does not mean that you worship one God (already requiring a serious reinterpretation of the many Gods effectively worshipped by most Hindus, from the Vedic rishis on down), the way some Hindus choose one God to worship from among many, a phenomenon that scholars of religion call henotheism. Nor is it the inclusive oneness of a divine essence underlying all the gods, or monism, as enunciated in the profoundest Vedic verses. It means an exclusive worship of a jealous God banishing all others. Mono- does not mean “one”, as Hindus seem to think; it means “alone”, hence “not tolerating another”. It does not say: “Allah and Shiva are one”, it says: “Only Allah is true, burn Shiva.” So far, there is no such jealous God in Dharma.” [Koenraad Elst here].

Importance of the classification

  • “A key reason that polytheisms will never be regarded by some as “proper” religions is because the full potential of a polytheistic field need not be present for any given individual worshiper (who may have a specific supreme deity as his focus).” [EB]
  • “The monotheists and closeted monotheists will then argue that there is no such recognition (of polycentrism) and what one calls polytheism is simply an assemblage of “wannabe monotheisms”.” [EB]
  • “this is the erasure of polytheisms as religions, that they are conceived as mere material assemblages that necessarily disintegrate under analysis. This means that only credal faiths can count as “religions”.” [EB]

Is Hinduism a polytheism?

  • This question is meaningful once one accepts Hinduism as a religion (see religion page).

  • “The term “polytheism” does no conceptual violence to Hinduism, as monotheism clearly does. … I was just struck by the emptiness of the claim, particularly given the tight etymological kinship between देव and θεός (- poly-devism → poly-theism).” - EB

  • “These are not “pocket monotheisms” because they tacitly or explicitly presuppose that other Gods, who exist for them in a dependent status, can be and are experienced by others as at the center.” [EB]

  • " the degree of intimate entanglement that we see between diverse sects in a common polytheistic field, even where they display strong “single-pointedness”, goes far beyond that of a congery of “wannabe monotheisms”." [EB]

Is cult x monotheist?

Recognition of “plausible supreme Godhood” of deities of other cults is oft tacit (EB). Just as “Hinduism” existed before the word came to be: It is the marvellous genius of platonists and E Butler to have made it explicit.

Is vaiShNavism monotheist?

Vaishnavism is clearly not monotheist in the strong “alone God” sense. Clear significant points of deviation are:

  • viShNu can appear in avatAra-s a multitude of whom are adored.
  • viShNu has a consort, a vehicle and innumerable servants and devotees who are also adored as being in the “God” class (though not as being in the “supreme God” class).
  • Even shiva, shakti, skanda etc.. are considered limited aspects of viShNu, and as such their adoration is not considered evil - merely inferior from one’s own perspective. They are not characterized as “false gods” (in the sense of the semitic cancers). This is non-exclusivism.

Is siddhAnta-shaivism monotheist?

Obviously not monotheist in the “strong sense”. Not monotheist in the weak sense either! There are lots of beings who become “Shivas” equal in potency to the “primary active Shiva”. More in the “hierarchy/shaiva-siddhAnta-view” page.