Polytheism and non-Duality

[dauer]

I came across a really interesting article by Jay Michaelson entitled Polytheism and non-Duality. It's about the tendency of many non-dualist traditions to be very polytheistic or, in the case of Jewish tradition, polymorphic.

Zeek | Polytheism and Nonduality | Jay Michaelson

A lot of what he says makes sense to me and seems to be in line with my own thinking. I don't appreciate those teachers who try to force myth to conform with their non-dualist framework. I think that completely misses the point of myth. I don't see a lot of value in trying to rationalize myth because for me it's very much the contents of the psyche projected onto external reality and as such a greater window into the mind of the individual and of larger collectives than into historical events or the hard sciences.

He also connects back to the primacy of experience, something that to me is very central, that at the level of experience I think mystics of different religions are in agreement about the Divine but that it gets contextualized very quickly in terms of the individual's cultural and religious framework.

His central point really seems to be that G!d is This And[/], that the real idolatry is limiting G!d to one thing but not another.
What do you think?

-- Dauer

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Daur,

My belief system is both polytheistic and non-dualistic. According to the theory, all dieties originally come from a basic non-dualistic source. I see no conflict between the two concepts.

You said,

"...the real idolatry is limiting G!d to one thing but not another."

--> As I am not a monotheist, I do not need to search for such idolatry, as it does not exist in my belief system.

"I don't see a lot of value in trying to rationalize myth because for me it's very much the contents of the psyche projected onto external reality...."

--> I have found that myths are usually stories that are trying to explain a profound metaphysical concept in overly simplistic terms (so that most people can at least understand the story). I have also found that, once we learn the metaphysical concept that a particular myth is really talking about, the myth becomes a lot easier to understand. I have been able to interpret a fair number of myths into what they really mean, and it has always been quite entertaining, and very educational.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Dauer,

thank you for the post.

His central point really seems to be that G!d is This And[/], that the real idolatry is limiting G!d to one thing but not another.
What do you think?

-- Dauer

i am oft find my mind thinking that many theists would be well served by learning about Santana Dharma as the view that you are relating is one which the Sanatana Dharma has been teaching for somewhere near 4,000 years now.

alot of this, however, is outside of our religious view and is more a product of the cultural millieu in which a being arises given that, by and large, western beings hold a Greek atomist view rather than an Indian or Chinese wholistic view. even so, there are still beings within both cultural paradigms that have views which seem out of step with their society.

one of the most radical conclusions of this line of thought is the implications that it has upon the human being.

metta,

~v

 

[dauer]

Hey Vaj.

I don't know if you read the article but Hinduism is actually the first religion he uses as a reference, though a lot of his article seems structured around an interpretation of the Zen Ox-herding pictures where the re-acceptance of the mythical approach parallels the return to the marketplace. That somewhat parallels my own experience. In my mid-teens I was strongly rationalist, mostly pushing away myth. Then I got to a point where I saw myth as something beyond the literalist interpretations of it.

-- Dauer