BOOK REVIEW
The
Deities are Many
by Jordan Paper
State
University of New York Press (March 3, 2005)
ISBN: 0791463885
Review
by Jason Cook
The overarching
aim of The Deities are Many is to demonstrate that the ideological
bases of non-Western religions, all polytheistic when the effects of Western
domination are removed, should be accepted by those studying religion to be
as genuine as the monotheistic basis of the Western religions. The author
taking on this task is Jordan Paper, an academic with a large body of work
on comparative religious study of Chinese, Native American and other polytheistic
faiths. Also as part of this work, he has written on the mystic experience
and the feminine aspects of spirituality.
Papers approach to comparative religious study is that of a participant-observer.
He advocates a view that to truly understand a religious culture, one must
understand the native language in order to grasp the inherent worldview of
that culture and one must participate in the practices of the religion with
the presumption that the resulting experiences are valid and real. The author
admits that this work has at time skirted advocacy and, in turn, this has
driven him to write this general polytheistic theology. Paper is conscious
of objections to the participant-observer approach, but argues that countering
what he sees as the Eurocentrism implicit in the study of religion requires
taking non-Western ideologies seriously. I interpret this to mean that the
study of a religion alien to ones own culture requires letting go of
the presumptions of ones native culture and adopting the studied religions
presumptions (at least for the duration of the study) in order to fully access
that religions experiences. Perhaps the ultimate issue here is if it feasible
to undertake objective comparative study of religions where direct personal
experiences are given primacy; luckily for us, this is not at issue in the
book under review.
It is important to note that from the above that the underpinnings of Papers
theology are his experiences in existing polytheistic faiths and not from
reconstructionist or Neopagan religions. The theological conclusions are nonetheless
relevant to the Neopagan or reconstructionist as they ultimately rely on an
argument from direct personal experience. I would note that Papers dedication
to what I would call a full religious-cultural immersion is consistent with
ADFs emphasis on scholarship to understand the Old Gods we are worshipping,
though our task faces additional challenges as we cant seek out surviving
members of those cultures for consultation.
Similar to John Michael Greers position in A World Full of Gods,
Paper argues that polytheism is inherent in human nature as it arises from
human experience, in particular humanitys immersion in the natural world
for much of our existence. He describes monotheism as a relatively recent
phenomenon and one that that is constantly breaking down . Evidence of the
limits of the integrity of monotheism in some faiths is seen in the Christian
understanding of a single deity in three aspects, the veneration of saints,
the existence of angels, demons and Satan (which also occur in other of the
Abrahamic faiths). \Paper argues that theology became a central feature of
monotheism as repeated schisms over minute differences in belief required
articulation of sophisticated arguments as each side of a schism sought to
prove its Truth. The absence of theology from polytheism often led to perverse
outcomes when Westerners encountered non-Western polytheistic religions, allowing,
for example, 16th century Jesuit missionaries to argue that the Chinese were
protomonotheists and later, allowing 20th century sinologist with Humanist
presumptions to argue the Chinese were agnostics or atheists who had carried
out rituals without meaning for two thousand years.
Paper admits to a belief that all works of theology are essentially confessional
and I think it of note in this regard that the first draft of this book was
written in a single month in his cabin retreat. In relation to his belief
in the confessional nature of any and all theology, Paper argues that knowledge
of the confessee is essential and to that end offers us a summary biography
that traces a life with early mystical encounters in nature, an eclectic academic
career that wound through undergraduate years spent perusing the South Asian
section of the theological library at his university, getting kicked out of
divinity school, and studying Chinese language and Buddhism. He came to feel
at home in China and ultimately married a Chinese wife. The experiences of
her familys ancestor worship are clearly influential upon the authors
views of polytheistic belief. A particularly important experience for the
author appears to have been finding his fingers, not under his conscious control,
typing a second conclusion to an article on Native American religion that
he thought he was done with. This additional conclusion argued that Christian
influence has suppressed female spirituality in Native American traditions;
a topic of some of his future research efforts.
Paper early on adopted a Buddhist-Daoist mindset that he says still underpins
his metaphysics. Additionally he admits that his experiences in various religious
traditions have also led him to hold multiple, parallel points of view and
that often his conclusions may differ depending upon which mindset he is working
from.
According to Paper, there are two primary shared characteristics of polytheism.
The first is that polytheism is essentially experiential; people come to know
deities directly through mediumism and shamanism. This, in part, gives rise
to the diversity of polytheism as people with different personalities and
experiences meet differing deities. Faith is meaningless and irrelevant as
there is no leap of faith necessary to belief as the polytheist has actually
met numinous beings face-to-face. The second characteristic is that relationships
with the deities are reciprocal. Nothing is owed to a deity whose favor is
not sought and if one deity can not deliver what is needed, another may be
asked. If a relationship has been entered in to however, the obligations of
that relationship must be honored or else we may suffer. Beyond these two
characteristics, the varieties of polytheism are determined by the gestalt
of a cultures economy, society, government, terrain, climate, and other
material realities, which Paper refers to as religioecology.
Proceeding from the thesis of the role of religioecology in determining features
of polytheistic faiths, Paper postulates the commonality of a Cosmic Couple
in most forms of polytheism. Paper argues that the fundamental reality of
early humans made them keenly aware of their dependency upon the earth and
the sky for life. Earth gives birth to us and nurtures us while the sky is
temperamental and distant, though bringing rain and sun which are necessary
to create life. He generally uses the monikers of Mother Earth and Father
Sky in this description, though noting that some cultures reflect this dichotomy
in Morning/Evening Star, Sun/Moon, Sun/Earth and how the female/male attributions
are occasionally reversed. The next layer of conclusions arising from this
approach discusses how humans relate to plants, animals, and the mineral world
as numinous entities.
In Papers recounting, for most of human existence, we were not separated
from nature and were intensely dependent upon the weather, wild plants and
wild animals for our survival; none of which were dependent upon us for their
survival. We came to understand that we were dependent upon their sacrifice
of their own lives for our continued existence and we therefore developed
rituals to ask for this sacrifice and offer token sacrifices in return. Humans
also came to understand the wide array of powers wild plants and animals possess:
in addition to food, they give us shelter, clothing, ways to heal. In the
case of animals in particular, they have physical talents far superior to
what we possess and humans sought ways to ask these animals to allow us to
use these abilities. In this view, according to Paper, humans came to understand
that the wild flora and fauna had both a physical and spiritual existence
and that in an encounter with an individual creature, be it a tree or a deer,
we were encountering not just the individual in front of us but also the totality
of its species. Paper admonishes us to . . . never forget that all about us
are the voluntary self-sacrifices of many numinous beings. Such understanding
fills us with awe and gratitude.
Paper posits that with the shift from foraging to farming, humans did not
recognize domesticated plants and animals as divine in themselves, but rather
as gifts of the Earth. He cites Native American traditions of sacrificing
to the Earth at planting, the Eleusyian Mysteries, and the adoration of the
Black Madonna as examples of agricultural rituals honoring Earth instead of
the crop itself. He also highlights that domesticated animals came to be seen
as something to be sacrificed to numinous beings, rather than numinous beings
in themselves and, in some instances, were effectively stand-ins for a human
sacrifice.
These different modalities of relating to the divine are associated with different
modes of communication with deity according to Paper. In a foraging culture
reliant upon wild plants and animals, shamanism is the associated mode of
communication, with each individual communicating directly with deities. In
such communities, this communication is encouraged from a young age, with
practices such as use of psycho-active plants, fasting, meditation and so
forth used to access and build relationships with the deities. Paper is at
pains to dispense with certain myths surrounding shamanism He stresses that
in shamanistic cultures, every individual functions as a shaman, though with
varying abilities. The shaman acts not to control the spirits, but to encourage
their assistance to the community, and actions are always for the good of
the community -- these are not individualistic cultures. In fact, Paper stresses
that in most of these cultures, the closest thing to a conception of evil
is someone acting shamanisticly for individual, selfish purposes. (Note: Negative
power used against the communities enemies is a good action as it supports
ones own community.)
Paper next turns to ancestor worship. With the advent of horticulture and
permanent settlements, the dead began to be kept nearby and were always present,
in contrast to being left behind by nomadic cultures. With the dead always
on the mind, Paper postulates that people began to try and consult dead elders
for advice and this gave rise to spirit possession as a form of communication
with the divine. In Papers view, ancestral spirits are not deities but
are entities with more than human powers whose aid can be sought if they are
cared for by the living. For this reason, in such cultures, the family is
conceived of as extending in both directions in time. Paper does allow that
spirit possession is not the sole means of communication with the spirits
and includes practices such as pyroscapulamancy, various forms of sortilege,
dreams, visions, and pilgrimages.
Papers argues that the numinous natural beings became anthromorphized
deities as humans settled in towns and cities and began to live in a human
built world increasingly distant from immersion in natural phenomenon. In
China, some deities arose out of the ghosts of the uncared-for dead who some
humans found to be sympathetic and helpful. As the efficacy of these spirits
was demonstrated and their aid increasingly sought, their graves became temples
and the temples became grander until these spirits became gods. Likewise,
the spirits of those well-known and powerful during their lives became gods
over time as their spirits were found to be responsive to entreaties for aid.
Paper also describes how polytheists tend to use images of their deities as
focal points for offerings and communication. He points out that these images
are not understood to be the actual deities, but are more than just representations;
Paper describes how many televisions in Taiwan are arranged to be easily seen
from the altar, but not necessarily for the living inhabitants of the house.
In contrast to spirit possession as a form of communication, Paper holds up
prophecy as the main form of communication known in monotheistic traditions.
Im not convinced Paper adequately defines prophecy. For example, many
of the prophets in the Abrahamic faiths are described as having their deity
talk through them, so to my mind the means of communication is the same as
spirit possession. I gather that the difference lies in the fact that other
followers of the particular faith are forced to rely upon messages so delivered
to a special individual (the prophet) and denied direct communication. Perhaps
prophecy is the recourse of a jealous god who recognizes the P.T. Barnum axiom
that you can fool some of the people some of the time, and you can fool all
of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all the people all
the time and therefore engages a public relations agent.
Paper describes how polytheism often features seminuminous culture heroes
and tricksters who are generally absent from monotheistic faiths. I believe
this section of the book is clearly directed at Papers target of shifting
the implicit assumptions of religious studies scholars away from the Western
monotheistic mindset and without this in mind, the chapter is somewhat incoherent.
The author cites the Western presumption that myths always describe functional
deities; i.e. those whose aid is sought in ritual. Many myths in polytheistic
cultures relate to entities who are rarely, if ever, the focus of rituals.
These tricksters may have given humans gifts of tools and skills, but they
are also often trouble makers. These tricksters are frequently key actors
in myths of the re-creation of the world. At this juncture, Paper moves on
to a discussion of how polytheistic cultures often lack a creation myth that
cites how the universe first began. Rather, there may be a myth of clan origin
or emergence or migration; myths that describe how did we get to where we
are from some earlier stage of existence. Most forms of polytheism simply
dont assume some form of ultimate beginning. Paper cites the Old Testament
which holds a re-creation myth (The Great Flood) and a first creation (Eden)
which appears to have been later in actual origin. I would like to point to
the myth of Ragnarok which turns the re-creation myth on its head a bit by
telling how we get to the next stage.
Chapter 7 One or Many: Monotheists Misperceptions of Polytheism is the
focus of Papers assault on monotheisms hegemonic position in the
Western worldview. He begins by citing that the Abrahamic faiths essentially
define their monotheism by rejecting polytheism. For example, the Nicene Creed
is nonsense in its aggressive assertion of only one god unless one assumes
a context of a polytheistic milieu. Paper then argues that the concept of
polytheism is a monotheistic intellectual construct because polytheists have
no use for such a term themselves as polytheism has been the human cultural
norm for most of history: The only indispensable characteristic that polytheists
have in common is not how monotheists identify them, but the very fact that
polytheists are so identified. Likewise, a general theology of polytheism
only makes sense in a cultural context of dominant monotheism. (I wonder if
it then is also arguable that in such a monotheistic hegemony if it doesnt
make sense for polytheists to seek their commonalities which could be based
upon shared practice to achieve the mystic experience?) Paper concludes: In
summary, to admit that one is a polytheist is to damn oneself in the eyes
of other members of Western culture.
Paper continues on to describe what he calls ur-monotheists who assume that
polytheistic cultures at one time had the Truth of monotheism and lost it.
This leads those with positive views of non-Western cultures to see those
traditions as being proto-monotheistic even if it requires the presumed chief
deity to be so numinous as to be totally ignored in myth and ritual. To Paper,
if a concept is irrelevant or contradictory to practice, illogical to the
logical relationships of all other concepts and violates the logical integrity
of the religion as a whole, it cannot be part of the original tradition. For
example a single male deity in an egalitarian culture that lacks concepts
of a master or king is hard to accept. He provides a number of examples where
he finds that the Western monotheistic mindset has led to erroneous views
of a number of cultures as this mindset has led the researchers or observers
to find exactly what they want to and never critically question the finding.
As part of this analysis, Paper also levels a brief but withering assault
on the myth of a universal pre-historic worship of a single goddess, what
he calls Feminist Goddess Worship.
In the concluding chapter, Paper addresses how polytheism does not preclude
monistic understandings. One example is the fact that mystical experiences
of a cosmic unity are common in polytheistic cultures and these experiences
are considered to stand outside of normal functioning. Another aspect of monistic
understanding may be found when devotion to a single deity results in conflation
of all deities with one; Paper cites this as a common occurrence in Hindu
practice. Lastly, polytheists may have an understanding of an underlying functional
equivalence among all deities.
Paper also uses the conclusion of the book to launch a polytheistic critique
of monotheism, which includes the desacralization of nature and the elevation
of one gender and sex over another (which in turns permits a celebration of
celibacy that can mutate into negative views of the body in general). The
quest for a single Truth can (but not necessarily) lead to intolerance as
there cease to be grey areas between values. Out of intolerance can be bred
fanaticism, though certainly this is not an inevitable or necessary occurrence.
The singularity of truth in monotheism transforms dualistic pairs into antagonists;
one opposite must be good and the other evil. The concept of heresy is not
compatible with polytheism, as there is no singular truth. As Paper puts it:
My truth need not be your truth, but that does not in any way challenge nor
imperil my truth or your truth.
In contrast, the deities of the polytheists are morally neutral and do not
lay out rules for humans to follow, though a particular relationship with
a given deity may include certain obligations. The rules of human conduct
arise from family and community concerns, ethical considerations, and the
way of the universe and therefore the resulting rules point toward living
in harmony with nature and society. Deities may be willing to help us, or
not. If one god cant or wont help, you can turn to another. However,
the deities are not all powerful (another fundamental problem for the monotheistic
Western mindset) and they cannot counter fate but can only enhance what the
way of the universe permits. The deities are not distant, but accessible in
a myriad of ways. Polytheists therefore do not suffer from angst and doubts
about our relationships with the divine that the monotheists often do.
A comparison with Greers work is warranted. The two books ultimately
reach common conclusions, but get there from different approaches. Greer proceeds
with an argument from first principles to describe the philosophical underpinnings
of polytheism. Paper, on the other hand, works from observation and experience
to build such a philosophy. That they end up in a very similar place is quite
astonishing, particularly as Greer primarily works from a Neopagan point-of-view
and Papers experiences come from unbroken native traditions.
The book is a work of clear, concise writing that is easily read. I have not
touched on many of the examples of religious experience, ritual, and practice
that Paper uses to drive home his theological points, but these add a richness
of detail and enhance the overall effort greatly. Paper is at pains to demonstrate
how mistranslations and cultural misunderstandings have led Westerners to
erroneous understandings of non-Western religions; this never detracts from
the overall theology, but at time such examples may be oddly placed in the
book. The book is not heavily burdened by references to factual research;
there is an ample listing of further readings in the back for those so inclined.
This is the work of a lifetime researcher who has chosen to step away from
relaying scientific observations in order to make statement of principle and
of faith. As such, it succeeds in making a strong case for polytheism as an
internally consistent, logical, and coherent approach to our world. Lastly,
in a sentiment I and many of the members of ADF will share, Paper endorses
polytheism as being more than just useful; it is enjoyable and makes life
exhilarating.
|