Hard Polytheism v. Soft-, pan-, etc.

[Bastemhet]

So. I am a hard polytheist, and for my tradition I would say historical evidence upholds this idea (except for in the context of syncretism, though I would argue both deities are still individual and one merely inhabits the other). However I have come across other interpretations of my tradition of monolatrous in that every deity is but a facet of the "godhead," and incomplete as an individual in their own right as a byproduct of such a hierarchy. This is offensive to me because I see this as a human being trying to deny the autonomy of a deity in order to fit a schema in which there is an overarching supreme deity that allows its other facets or aspects to exist, and I see it as considering other deities as "lesser" or incomplete because of it. However at the same time I do not deny that other people's experience of the divine may differ from mine, and I can't begin to tell someone that their mystical experience is invalid compared with mine.

Does anyone else have this problem, or have come across it before? Does this bother you? How do you deal with people who tell you that the deity you are wholly devoted to is also this, this, and this deity but of another name?  

[Bastemhet]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

I generally just have to laugh at them to avoiding punching them for their arrogance. Often time I point out facets of each deity that make them incompatible. My friend knows someone who thinks it's so obvious that Freyja is Artemis. rolleyes

One argument that's been given to me as to the incompatibility of seemingly opposite facets is that we can find opposing manifestations in nature, but nature itself is capable of both. How would you answer to this?

Edit: I also want to ask these people if all deities are but an aspect of one spiritual godhead, then why do they care of Aset finds an offering of pork to be impure and insulting, and yet Sutekh finds it pleasing?

Quote:

I'd like to know more about this Gods inhabiting one another thing though.

Gladly! smile

For the sake of brevity and clarity, I'll cite part of an essay I've written on conceptions of god in AE:

"Hans Bonnet defined syncretism as the temporary “inhabiting” of one god within another, e.g. Amun-Re. (Hornung, 91) One must not take syncretism as the fusion, equation, or identification of two gods with one another. The degree of intimacy and duration of the syncretism varies from case to case. More from Bonnet:

'The formula Amon-Re does not signify that Amun is subsumed in Re or Re in Amun. Nor does it establish that they are identical; Amun does not equal Re. It observes that Re is in Amun in such a way that he is not lost in Amun, but remains himself just as much as Amun does, so that both gods can again be manifest separately or in other combinations. (Hornung, 91)'

What is the purpose of these syncretisms? We often encounter a syncretized form of Re with other gods, e.g. Amon-Re, Khnum-Re, and Re-Atum. A common factor is that whenever these other gods are viewed in a creative capacity, Egyptians recognize these gods as Re. Or perhaps, for a specific example, that the creative power of Khnum is also another manifestation of power that is attributed to the sun god Re. (Frankfort, 20) It is also of note that when a god is syncretized within another god, the former gains an increased sphere of performance and extended nature. Yet the identity remains individual, and the identity is not submerged or assimilated. We might understand it better as a chemical compound; syncretistic combinations can be dissolved at any time into their original elements, which can then be combined with other elements without sacrificing individuality. (Hornung, 97) A function of syncretism is to soften henotheism, the concentration of worship on a single god, and stops it from turning into monotheism. In syncretism a single god is never isolated from other gods, because in worshipping one god, one apprehends and worships other forms of gods as well, e.g. in worshipping Amun one worships Re. Egyptians saw the tensions between apparent contradictions, and also their necessity. They did not seek to ameliorate, but to balance."

Sorry for the text block. Anyway I think understanding syncretism is key to being able to apprehend Egyptian deities as autonomous, individual beings in their own right. Otherwise it would be very easy to fall back on a monolatrous understanding.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

One argument that's been given to me as to the incompatibility of seemingly opposite facets is that we can find opposing manifestations in nature, but nature itself is capable of both. How would you answer to this?

Can you explain this one to me?

I tend to roll my eyes, as I cannot help but view soft-polytheism as the step before maltheism.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

One argument that's been given to me as to the incompatibility of seemingly opposite facets is that we can find opposing manifestations in nature, but nature itself is capable of both. How would you answer to this?

Can you explain this one to me?

I found this analogy in Kerry Wisner's eBook "Akhet Hwt-Hwr" which is representative of her temple/group of the same name. In her book she says:

Quote:

Neter is one and all inclusive...it holds within it the existence of complimentary opposites; polarity. We see this in all of nature; warm and cool, day and night, active and passive...All of these are complimentary opposites that exist because of its other half. As such, Neter is both female and male, or rather, what we term as female and male are but the manifestation of the principle of polarity contained within the divine.

She cites Brugsch (also spelling his name wrong) for the god as mother/father thing. I have a suspicion that she is cherry picking her arguments because Brugsch was for a monotheistic interpretation of deity. She also cites Hornung in other areas but studiously avoids the main thrust of his book "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt" where he lays the monolatrous interpretation to rest.

Wisner describes Hwt-Hwr as a feminine aspect of the male/female dichotomy of Neter by citing her title "Hand of God." She also says we know women differently by her different titles; mother, daughter, etc. but she is one being in the end. I think she is misinterpreting the Neteru. While documents do support the idea that gods are not revealed as much more than their roles (their names are titles, not true names), that doesn't mean that when one god has a similar function to another that they are the same being. I also think her choosing to worship the "facet" Hwt-Hwr is kind of arbitrary...she admits that apprehending deities as facets of the one Neter is necessary for feeble human minds to comprehend deity, but then consistently chooses to stop at Hwt-Hwr and go so far as to fold in other deities such as Bast and Aset like she's baking cookies and just wants a homogenous flavor in the end!

Quote:

I tend to roll my eyes, as I cannot help but view soft-polytheism as the step before maltheism.

I wonder if soft-polytheists realize just how insulting their stance is to the same deities they claim to worship? Just thinking of the wrath of Bast for those who consider her a "cute lil neko-chan" is enough to make my blood run cold...I don't even want to think about people calling her by names that are not her own.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

One argument that's been given to me as to the incompatibility of seemingly opposite facets is that we can find opposing manifestations in nature, but nature itself is capable of both. How would you answer to this?

Can you explain this one to me?

I found this analogy in Kerry Wisner's eBook "Akhet Hwt-Hwr" which is representative of her temple/group of the same name. In her book she says:

Quote:

Neter is one and all inclusive...it holds within it the existence of complimentary opposites; polarity. We see this in all of nature; warm and cool, day and night, active and passive...All of these are complimentary opposites that exist because of its other half. As such, Neter is both female and male, or rather, what we term as female and male are but the manifestation of the principle of polarity contained within the divine.

She cites Brugsch (also spelling his name wrong) for the god as mother/father thing. I have a suspicion that she is cherry picking her arguments because Brugsch was for a monotheistic interpretation of deity. She also cites Hornung in other areas but studiously avoids the main thrust of his book "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt" where he lays the monolatrous interpretation to rest.

Wisner describes Hwt-Hwr as a feminine aspect of the male/female dichotomy of Neter by citing her title "Hand of God." She also says we know women differently by her different titles; mother, daughter, etc. but she is one being in the end. I think she is misinterpreting the Neteru. While documents do support the idea that gods are not revealed as much more than their roles (their names are titles, not true names), that doesn't mean that when one god has a similar function to another that they are the same being. I also think her choosing to worship the "facet" Hwt-Hwr is kind of arbitrary...she admits that apprehending deities as facets of the one Neter is necessary for feeble human minds to comprehend deity, but then consistently chooses to stop at Hwt-Hwr and go so far as to fold in other deities such as Bast and Aset like she's baking cookies and just wants a homogenous flavor in the end!

Damn. That author doesn't understand the concept of scale or cycle in nature does she?

Quote:

I wonder if soft-polytheists realize just how insulting their stance is to the same deities they claim to worship? Just thinking of the wrath of Bast for those who consider her a "cute lil neko-chan" is enough to make my blood run cold...I don't even want to think about people calling her by names that are not her own.

I'm more wondering how they justify worship of any deity that says people should rape little kids. ~shrugs~  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Damn. That author doesn't understand the concept of scale or cycle in nature does she?

I don't intimately either, but I sure as frack don't agree with her interpretation.

Quote:

I wonder if soft-polytheists realize just how insulting their stance is to the same deities they claim to worship? Just thinking of the wrath of Bast for those who consider her a "cute lil neko-chan" is enough to make my blood run cold...I don't even want to think about people calling her by names that are not her own.

I'm more wondering how they justify worship of any deity that says people should rape little kids. ~shrugs~

Oi. That too, really.  

[Bastemhet]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Bastemhet

Edit: I also want to ask these people if all deities are but an aspect of one spiritual godhead, then why do they care of Aset finds an offering of pork to be impure and insulting, and yet Sutekh finds it pleasing?

Yeah see, pretty much this. They're all like we can forget the differences, but the problem with that is forgetting the differences is the first step to insulting the Gods. I often find most people who think like this are sorely uneducated about even the deities they claim to worship and are likely dealing with thoughtforms of them since they never took the time to actually learn about them, just latched on to something they like, combine it with another thing they like, and go from there. This of course is not true of all cases, it's just my greater experience.

Same here. I hope this isn't the case for most people. Although I really want to try and wrap my mind around it. I can understand the position but there's so much that shows it to be ridiculous that I wonder how they can bury their head in the sand and not acknowledge it for the sake of convenience? What do they gain that's good from insulting and subsuming other deities?

Quote:

Quote:

Sorry for the text block. Anyway I think understanding syncretism is key to being able to apprehend Egyptian deities as autonomous, individual beings in their own right. Otherwise it would be very easy to fall back on a monolatrous understanding.

I don't necessarily feel that this is the case with all syncreticism. For instance, Roman syncreticism is kind of purely artificial.

Oh, yes, there are many things that are peculiar to Egyptian religion alone, including their brand of syncretism. I'm not trying to say this form of syncretism is true for all religions, just the Egyptian conception.  

[aoijea23487]

In my cosmology, anything and everything is a "shade-of-grey" dynamic manifestation on several sliding scales of polarity. I view gods as being as individual as you and me, though ultimately we are all shades of One. In other words, when I worship Shiva, I am worshipping a particular manifestation--a pinpoint, if you will--of all these poles. I do this because I view some of this manifestation's "location" as ideal and want to mirror it or I just like it. Since I am worshipping a particular thing, I am in no way simultaneously worshipping other deities.

When I snuggle with my blanket, I am not also snuggling with my trash can, though their atoms were generated from the same star. Their particular combination of particular kinds of atoms is what makes them different, though they both come from the same source.

I'm not sure if that makes me a hard or a soft polytheist.  

[Bastemhet]

Illiezeulette

In my cosmology, anything and everything is a "shade-of-grey" dynamic manifestation on several sliding scales of polarity. I view gods as being as individual as you and me, though ultimately we are all shades of One. In other words, when I worship Shiva, I am worshipping a particular manifestation--a pinpoint, if you will--of all these poles. I do this because I view some of this manifestation's "location" as ideal and want to mirror it or I just like it. Since I am worshipping a particular thing, I am in no way simultaneously worshipping other deities.

When I snuggle with my blanket, I am not also snuggling with my trash can, though their atoms were generated from the same star. Their particular combination of particular kinds of atoms is what makes them different, though they both come from the same source.

I'm not sure if that makes me a hard or a soft polytheist.

I thought about this conception as well, but then it makes me want to ask- ok, everything is made of the same spiritual essence, just like physical objects are all made of matter. Is there a need to bring this up when you already admit that all deities are individual? What does reminding us that they come from the same source achieve?  

[aoijea23487]

Bastemhet

Illiezeulette

In my cosmology, anything and everything is a "shade-of-grey" dynamic manifestation on several sliding scales of polarity. I view gods as being as individual as you and me, though ultimately we are all shades of One. In other words, when I worship Shiva, I am worshipping a particular manifestation--a pinpoint, if you will--of all these poles. I do this because I view some of this manifestation's "location" as ideal and want to mirror it or I just like it. Since I am worshipping a particular thing, I am in no way simultaneously worshipping other deities.

When I snuggle with my blanket, I am not also snuggling with my trash can, though their atoms were generated from the same star. Their particular combination of particular kinds of atoms is what makes them different, though they both come from the same source.

I'm not sure if that makes me a hard or a soft polytheist.

I thought about this conception as well, but then it makes me want to ask- ok, everything is made of the same spiritual essence, just like physical objects are all made of matter. Is there a need to bring this up when you already admit that all deities are individual? What does reminding us that they come from the same source achieve?

I think what I meant by including it was differentiating it between soft polytheism, since maybe it could be interpreted as such? The poles originate from some unknowable One/God/whatsit in which everything was homogenous--no differentiation or subdivisions within it. As such, perhaps one could interpret my cosmology as saying that we are all faces of the One, as a soft polytheist would say that Ares is one face of one God---that because their source is the same and made of different degrees of the same stuff, could just be one expression of a singular big deity, and by worshipping Ares, you worship the one God, who encompasses all other gods.

Or maybe I just don't have a good grasp of what soft polytheism is anymore. Soft polytheism is believing that all gods are one God, correct?  

[Bastemhet]

Illiezeulette

I think what I meant by including it was differentiating it between soft polytheism, since maybe it could be interpreted as such? The poles originate from some unknowable One/God/whatsit in which everything was homogenous--no differentiation or subdivisions within it. As such, perhaps one could interpret my cosmology as saying that we are all faces of the One, as a soft polytheist would say that Ares is one face of one God---that because their source is the same and made of different degrees of the same stuff, could just be one expression of a singular big deity, and by worshipping Ares, you worship the one God, who encompasses all other gods.

Or maybe I just don't have a good grasp of what soft polytheism is anymore. Soft polytheism is believing that all gods are one God, correct?

Soft polytheism is the belief that all gods are just aspects of one god. Pantheism is the belief that all gods are part of an overarching immanent god that is equivalent with the universe. If you believe the overarching god is individual, you'd be soft polytheist. If the overarching god is also the universe and everything in it, you would be pantheist.