Can proselyte polytheism compete with proselyte monotheism or even come about at all?

This question is inspired by a popular medieval fantasy trope (that is not, in any way, ASB, despite it appearing so much) in which the primary or one of the primary settings is a kingdom with pseudo-christian, or maybe just uniquely inspired medieval ethics, with an organized clergy preaching a polytheistic or "aspect-based" monotheistic religion that is at least a little proselyte, if not as vehemently as Abraham. Part of this can obviously be chalked up to historical illiteracy, but it some of the more well thought out stuff gets me thinking- is it possible? Can there be a truly polytheistic, nonsyncretic religion in history that is proselyte? Please do not mention Hittite religion (despite how cool it is), it may be antisyncretic but that's because they went with . . . oh I don't know how to say it, omnilatry instead of syncretism.
 
Generally transentheism has been important for polytheistic survival. The only transtheistic religion I can think of that proselytised to great success would be buddhism, having propped up various polytheism a by including them in the cycles of Samsara or as "empty" projections to be called upon in vajrayana.
 
Could Neoplatonism do this? In that the elite/learned are converted to the Neoplatonic philosophies, whereas the general public follows their traditional polytheism with some Neoplatonic elements filtering on down (like theurgy for instance, but possibly vague conceptions of how the gods work as well).
 
Could Neoplatonism do this? In that the elite/learned are converted to the Neoplatonic philosophies, whereas the general public follows their traditional polytheism with some Neoplatonic elements filtering on down (like theurgy for instance, but possibly vague conceptions of how the gods work as well).

Yes... But it would probably need to develop common narratives. Although the layman applications of a religion can be radically different, they still needed to be linked together. Neoplatonism never really built any stories to give greater impressions to the masses.
In essence, that filtering you describe comes from narratives that particularly the young may internalise it.

Think on the indian buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. From a historical perspective, the guy was a radical skeptic buddhist philosopher who coined emptiness in the way most understood today. In later myth, he actually received the verses from the center from Buddha (Siddartha) as passed to him by the u derwTer nagas.
The latter, although having no bearing on the power of his work, gives it sticking power.

"Mummy, what is shunyata?"
"A doctrine espoused by buddhist philosophers in which reality it void of intrinsic existence but existing by nature of co-dependence. A middle way between eternalism and nihilism, self and no self. Existence by dialectic of the two".
"K"

Or

"Mummy, what is Shunyata?"
"The ultimate nature of reality taught to us by the buddha, passed by him to us from the ancient snake people who live in underwater caves"
":eek:"
 
Chritianity is half way to polytheism. It just pretends not to be with the trinity fudge. If it didn't have the awkward lines from the OT requiring monotheism and said Jesus and the Father were separate Gods, would it really have spread a lot less?

I think the two things you need for a successful proselytising religion are a) an egalitarian message for the poor b) a belief that other religions are false so theres an imperative to convert and c) a redemption message for potential converts to feel they can be rescued if they sign up. Montheism leads you to b) more easily but isn't necessarily required.
 
Chritianity is half way to polytheism. It just pretends not to be with the trinity fudge. If it didn't have the awkward lines from the OT requiring monotheism and said Jesus and the Father were separate Gods, would it really have spread a lot less?

I think the two things you need for a successful proselytising religion are a) an egalitarian message for the poor b) a belief that other religions are false so theres an imperative to convert and c) a redemption message for potential converts to feel they can be rescued if they sign up. Montheism leads you to b) more easily but isn't necessarily required.

There also needs to be a reason why other gods can't join up or why the current pantheon does not expand.
 
b) a belief that other religions are false so theres an imperative to convert.

The Professor said:
There also needs to be a reason why other gods can't join up or why the current pantheon does not expand.

I could not disagree more with both of these statements.

Hinduism and Buddhism are the two most successful polytheist proselytising faiths and both were inclusive to local gods and had a theology that could encompass them.
 

scholar

Banned
Could Neoplatonism do this? In that the elite/learned are converted to the Neoplatonic philosophies, whereas the general public follows their traditional polytheism with some Neoplatonic elements filtering on down (like theurgy for instance, but possibly vague conceptions of how the gods work as well).

Neoplatonism was monotheistic before Christianity even really took off, it was just more philosophically orientated than religiously so. You can find this kind of though as far back as Socrates (through the works of Plato) where he speaks highly of a "God", but seems to question intently anything and everything related to the gods themselves.
 
I could not disagree more with both of these statements.

Hinduism and Buddhism are the two most successful polytheist proselytising faiths and both were inclusive to local gods and had a theology that could encompass them.

Hinduism isn't a set religion as such, but a fusion of a whole bunch of beliefs in one cultural corner of the world. It never really spread beyond that culture, other than by emigration.

Buddhism is polytheistic but non-theistic, and teaches people to stop clinging to things, including the belief in gods.
 

scholar

Banned
Buddhism is polytheistic but non-theistic, and teaches people to stop clinging to things, including the belief in gods.
That's a Western modern revision based on what they think Buddha's original message was. Most people who are not new age converts do not think that way, and actually believe that the worship of various gods and spirits is key to actually being released from their earthly bonds.
 
That's a Western modern revision based on what they think Buddha's original message was. Most people who are not new age converts do not think that way, and actually believe that the worship of various gods and spirits is key to actually being released from their earthly bonds.

Scholar is most definitely right on this, the anatheist concepts are something I've only ever heard from modern western sources.
 
"In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."
-- Thera, Nyanaponika. "Buddhism and the God-idea".
 
That's a Western modern revision based on what they think Buddha's original message was. Most people who are not new age converts do not think that way, and actually believe that the worship of various gods and spirits is key to actually being released from their earthly bonds.

That is also a misconception and depends on the school.
There ARE sects who beleive worship of the gods is key, but they are not neccesarily even the majority. It is the Vajrayana sect of Mahayana which is most well known for that doctrine (in the form of deity yoga) although otherwise that is not an explicit rule. Therevada for instance largely only references deities in the concept of Siddarthas parables (note, parable used in context of a teaching story as skillfull means has left much of the Pali Canon up for debate in that regard).

Most importantly however it is fair to remember that deity yoga (the archetypical deity based meditation) still does not presume worship of the gods above the buddhas or adibuddha.

Edit: for some reason my phone is adamant that "buddhism" or "buddha" is not a word and that the correct word I am looking for is "herbs". Mk.
 
Hinduism isn't a set religion as such, but a fusion of a whole bunch of beliefs in one cultural corner of the world. It never really spread beyond that culture, other than by emigration.

Buddhism is polytheistic but non-theistic, and teaches people to stop clinging to things, including the belief in gods.

1) hindu gods are worshiped outside of the indian cultural sphere, all the way into the Middle East prior to Islam and all the way to Northern china and Japan in the modern day. You are correct it is a broad set of traditions, but spread in many ways it did and very well.

2) it doesn't argue to let to of belief in gods (at least to the extent of belief in anything) but specifically the eternalist conception of a god. Siddartha spoke of Brahma, met with Mara and regularly spoke of them in the canon. I know your quote above, but this is referring very especially to a specific idea regarding a deity.
Also it should be mentioned that Siddarthas buddhism is not buddhism as a whole. Buddhism includes many drastically different schools of thought including. Vajrayana deity yoga which places much importance on the belief in (and the emptiness of) deities.
 

scholar

Banned
"In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."
-- Thera, Nyanaponika. "Buddhism and the God-idea".
Not to reiterate a point, but Nyanaponika Thera was a born a German Jew and was very much a new age convert whose experiences and religious worldview was heavily influenced by the first world war. Further, his argument is most specifically pointed towards the idea of a creator god, in direct answer to the abrahamic tradition. Lesser deities are not, and he would know this since.

You can find an easy quote from the BBC, or really anywhere else that discusses gods beyond the answer to the Abrahamic god in Theravada literature.

God: There is no omnipotent creator God of the sort found in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Gods exist as various types of spiritual being but with limited powers.
The Path to Enlightenment: Each being has to make their own way to enlightenment without the help of God or gods. Buddha's teachings show the way, but making the journey is up to us.

I would also add that Theravada Buddhism is not the most popular form of Buddhism, though it is easy to finds shrines and temples to gods in Siam and Burma. Mahayana is, and not only is Buddha himself turned into a God like figure to be worshiped and prayed to in order to achieve salvation, praying to gods, Bodhisattva, spirits, and one's ancestors are considered requirements for salvation. The Great Vehicle of Buddhism is very much not what you think Buddhism is.
 
Not to reiterate a point, but Nyanaponika Thera was a born a German Jew and was very much a new age convert whose experiences and religious worldview was heavily influenced by the first world war. Further, his argument is most specifically pointed towards the idea of a creator god, in direct answer to the abrahamic tradition. Lesser deities are not, and he would know this since.

You can find an easy quote from the BBC, or really anywhere else that discusses gods beyond the answer to the Abrahamic god in Theravada literature.



I would also add that Theravada Buddhism is not the most popular form of Buddhism, though it is easy to finds shrines and temples to gods in Siam and Burma. Mahayana is, and not only is Buddha himself turned into a God like figure to be worshiped and prayed to in order to achieve salvation, praying to gods, Bodhisattva, spirits, and one's ancestors are considered requirements for salvation. The Great Vehicle of Buddhism is very much not what you think Buddhism is.
Once again, whilst reverance to gods is part of SOME Mahayana sects (e.g. vajrayana) it isn't part of all. Chan/zen literature for instance is often likely only to reference deities in the context of the heart and lotus sutras, and in neither is worship of deities an instruction. Comparitively, I can think of very few in which anscestor worship and deity worship (one, the other or both) are requirements for salvation; furthermore to the extent of my knowledge the two most dominant Mahayna sects are Zen and Pureland (Vajrayana having an unusual amount of exposure comparitively) of which Zen has Shunyata as a focus and PUreland the Amithaba buddha and faith in him as a focus.

Note btw, this isn't to say "what the average follower beleives" or presumes consistency, but that the dominat and mainstream dharmas within Mahayana more rarely require enlightenment. Especially as core to Mahayana is the idea that there is more than 1 way to enlightenment.
 
Last edited:

scholar

Banned
Once again, whilst reverance to gods is part of SOME Mahayana sects (e.g. vajrayana) it isn't part of all. Chan/zen literature for instance is often likely only to reference deities in the context of the heart and lotus sutras, and in neither is worship of deities an instruction. Comparitively, I can think of very few in which anscestor worship and deity worship (one, the other or both) are requirements for salvation; furthermore to the extent of my knowledge the two most dominant Mahayna sects are Zen and Pureland (Vajrayana having an unusual amount of exposure comparitively) of which Zen has Shunyata as a focus and PUreland the Amithaba buddha and faith in him as a focus.

Note btw, this isn't to say "what the average follower beleives" or presumes consistency, but that the dominat and mainstream dharmas within Mahayana more rarely require enlightenment. Especially as core to Mahayana is the idea that there is more than 1 way to enlightenment.
Buddhism isn't just what is written though, it is also what is practiced and what is told. While ancestor worship gets very little actual treatment in the literature, it is what most practitioners of Mahayana Buddhists carry out in their day to day lives in their pursuit of nirvana. This, likewise, holds true for the other things that I have mentioned. Many prayer beads are also often "anointed" by repeating the names of spirits or gods, and that these are then used to promote protection against malicious spirits or deities, as well as to guide them on their journey towards enlightenment.

Now I may have misspoke, as I did mean for my post to be taken predominately in the context of most Buddhists, not all. However, I do want to try to convey to you that my comments were not unwarranted.
 
Buddhism isn't just what is written though, it is also what is practiced and what is told. While ancestor worship gets very little actual treatment in the literature, it is what most practitioners of Mahayana Buddhists carry out in their day to day lives in their pursuit of nirvana. This, likewise, holds true for the other things that I have mentioned. Many prayer beads are also often "anointed" by repeating the names of spirits or gods, and that these are then used to promote protection against malicious spirits or deities, as well as to guide them on their journey towards enlightenment.
I suppose my issue is querying whether you can source the underlined? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate drastically a difference between layman and... (I suppose orthodox?) Buddhism but I have never heard of any monastery teaching that ancestor worship alone will bring one to Nirvana. I have seen many schools teach ancestor veneration as a means of accumulating merit but not as a means to Nirvana in itself; something further expounded by the fact that the goal of Layman Buddhism is rarely Nirvana but favourable reincarnation/stream entry.
 

scholar

Banned
I suppose my issue is querying whether you can source the underlined? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate drastically a difference between layman and... (I suppose orthodox?) Buddhism but I have never heard of any monastery teaching that ancestor worship alone will bring one to Nirvana. I have seen many schools teach ancestor veneration as a means of accumulating merit but not as a means to Nirvana in itself; something further expounded by the fact that the goal of Layman Buddhism is rarely Nirvana but favourable reincarnation/stream entry.
It was an older treatise on Buddhist practice in China that I read years ago. I suppose I should make it clear that I am not saying that ancestor worship is enough to achieve nirvana, but rather that it exists as an important part of Buddhist practice in their pursuit of nirvana. You seemed to have skipped the more directly relevant point about prayer beads using the names of gods and spirits, though, since ancestor worship is just a low hanging fruit for me since I spent a great deal of time studying China.
 
It was an older treatise on Buddhist practice in China that I read years ago. I suppose I should make it clear that I am not saying that ancestor worship is enough to achieve nirvana, but rather that it exists as an important part of Buddhist practice in their pursuit of nirvana. You seemed to have skipped the more directly relevant point about prayer beads using the names of gods and spirits, though, since ancestor worship is just a low hanging fruit for me since I spent a great deal of time studying China.

Ah, I thought you were saying that for most Buddhists ancestor worship was enough to achieve Nirvana. My bad.

I didn't feel the need to adress prayer needs and spirits etc because that too would come under merit.
 
Top