2 MONOTHEISM & ANGELOLOGY

WHAT we said earlier makes it possible to understand the nature of the error that tends to give rise to polytheism: this latter, which in short is but the most extreme case of 'association',^[1] consists of admitting a plurality of totally independent principles, whereas in reality these are and can be only more or less secondary aspects of the supreme Principle. It is obvious that this can only be the result of a failure to understand precisely those traditional truths that refer to the divine aspects or attributes. Such a lack of understanding is always possible among isolated individuals, whatever their number, but its generalization, which corresponds to the state of extreme degeneration of a traditional form about to disappear, has no doubt been far more uncommon in fact than is usually believed. In any case, no tradition whatsoever could ever be polytheist in itself; it is a reversal of all normal order to suppose, as do the 'evolutionist' views of most moderns, a polytheism at the origin rather than to see therein only the simple deviation that it is in reality. All genuine tradition is essentially monotheistic; more specifically, it affirms above all the oneness of the supreme Principle,^[2] from which everything is derived and on which it entirely depends, and it is this affirmation that, especially in the guise in which it is clothed in the traditions having a religious form, constitutes monotheism in the strict sense of the word; but, having given this explanation in order to avoid any possible confusion of points of view, we can ultimately extend the meaning of the term monotheism so as to apply it to every affirmation of principal unity. On the other hand, when we say that monotheism is therefore necessarily at the origin, it goes without saying that this is in no way related to the hypothesis of a so-called 'primitive simplicity', which probably never existed.^[3] Furthermore, to avoid any misunderstanding in this respect, it is enough to note that monotheism can include all the possible developments connected with the multiplicity of divine attributes, and also that angelology, which is closely related to the consideration of these attributes as we have already explained, plays an important role in the traditional forms where monotheism is affirmed most explicitly and rigorously. Thus no incompatibility exists here, and even the invocation of the angels is perfectly legitimate and normal from the strictest monotheistic point of view, provided they are considered solely as 'celestial intermediaries', that is to say, finally, as representing or expressing certain divine aspects within the order of supra-formal manifestation, according to what we have already explained. In this connection we should also mention certain misuses of the so-called 'historical' point of view dear to many of our contemporaries, and particularly as regards the theory of 'borrowings' which we have already mentioned on various other occasions. Indeed, to give an example, we have quite often seen authors claim that the Hebrews did not know anything about angelology before the captivity in Babylon and that they simply borrowed it from the Chaldeans, while others maintain that all angelology, wherever encountered, invariably proceeds from Mazdaism. It is clear enough that similar assertions implicitly suppose that angelology belongs to the sphere of mere 'ideas' in the modern and psychological sense of this word, or of baseless concepts, whereas for us—as for all those who share the traditional point of view—on the contrary it concerns knowledge of a certain order of reality. It is hard to imagine why such knowledge should have been 'borrowed' by one doctrine from another, whereas it is very easy to understand that it is inherent to one as well as the other, since both are expressions of one and the same truth. The same knowledge can and must be found everywhere; and when we speak here of equivalent knowledge, we mean knowledge that is basically the same, but presented and expressed in different ways in order to adapt to the special constitution of this or that traditional form.^[4] In this sense, it could be said that angelology or its equivalent—whatever its particular designation—exists in all the traditions; it is hardly necessary to recall for instance that in the Hindu tradition, the Devas are the exact equivalent of the angels of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic traditions. In all cases, what is in question can be defined as the part of a traditional doctrine that refers to supra-formal or supra-individual states of manifestation, either purely theoretically or in view of an actual realization of these states.^[5] It is obvious that in itself this is something that does not have the slightest connection with any kind of polytheism, even if, as we have said, polytheism can only be the result of a lack of understanding of such matters, but when those who believe in the existence of polytheistic traditions speak of 'borrowings' such as those mentioned above, they seem to want to suggest thereby that angelology represents nothing but a 'contamination' of monotheism by polytheism! This would amount to saying that because idolatry can arise from the misunderstanding of certain symbols, symbolism itself is only a derivation of idolatry; the above case would be completely similar, and we think the comparison is more than enough to point out how absurd such a view is.

To conclude these remarks, which are meant to complete our preceding study, let us quote this passage from Jacob Boehme, who, with his characteristic terminology and somewhat obscure form, seems to us to express correctly the relationship of the angels to the divine aspects:

The creation of the angels has a beginning, but the forces from which they were created never knew a beginning, but were present at the birth of the eternal beginning.... They are born of the revealed Word, out of the eternal, dark, fiery, and luminous nature, from desire for divine revelation, and have been turned into 'creatured' images [that is, fragmented into isolated creatures].^[6]

And Boehme says elsewhere: 'Each angelic prince is a property come out of the voice of God, and he bears God's great name.'^[7] A. K. Coomaraswamy, quoting this last sentence and comparing it with various texts about 'Gods' in the Greek as well as the Hindu tradition, adds these words, which fully accord with what we have written above:

We hardly need say that such a multiplicity of Gods is not polytheism, for all are the angelic subjects of the Supreme Deity from whom they originate and in whom, as is so often recalled, they again become one.^[8]