True re: Avalokiteshwara and Tara, but what I was trying to say was that some branches of Buddhism do not call for worshiping of any single object, be it Buddha, Avalokiteshwara or Tara. Worshiping (of deities) is neither promoted, nor called for.

Some forms of Buddhism have over time, come to have different deities like Tara (there is a white one and I think a green one), Avalokiteshwara etc. I believe they are a marriage between original Buddhism, certain Tantric traditions, and native south-eastern traditions.

Not all branches of Buddhism call for a single object of worship (Buddha), though that is how we see it manifested in the form of Buddha statues in temples, with people worshiping, most notably in Thailand.

True. Most of these comparisons do not take into account the philosophy behind polytheism or idol worship and are based on finding similarities with other Eurocentric religions.

My point is, when westerners look at polytheism, they mostly look at Greeco-Roman or Egyptian (GRE) religions, and when they look at Monotheism, they look at Abrahamic religions. But neither the GRE coalition represents polytheism in its best sense, nor Abrahamic religions represent Monotheism in its best sense. The sad part though is that definitions and characterisations are made based on these very examples, good or bad.

Typically, Indic religions area class apart, and all of the 6 sub religions– Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shaaktya, Gaanapatya, Soura, Skaanda, not to mention the various tribal and village deity-cults, Buddhism and Jainism are each a study in their own, and I think its unfair to drag them and try to fit them into the pigeon holes created by the west.

So I would limit myself to the examples available and say that Abrahamic type of monotheism is at a higher plane than GRE type of polytheism.

Arby:
Zarathushtra is quite ancient. Talageri puts him well into the 3rd millennium BCE, whereas Kak puts him in the middle of 2nd millennium BCE. Even if Kak’s later date is considered, its still early stages of Judaic religion.

It is only the western religions who see a God other than the self, while the Sanatana-dharma clearly says that the Self is God. It is the western religions who define a world which is different from God, while it is Sanatana-dharma which says that the world that the individual (the “little i”) sees is not different from God. Hence the idea that Indic religions, in particular Sanatana-dharma being monotheistic is incorrect in the absolute-sense. The “mono” part may be true, but what is the meaning of theism when you have a major branch of Philosophy (Darshana) Purva-Mimamsa need not believe in the creative power (as well as dispensing power (of karma)) of Ishvara. They believe in Vedas and Vedas only.

The Upanishads follow a adhyaropa-apavaada theory of teaching, where you shown a higher level of truth from the current state you are in. For them, the whole world is a manifestation of God. Lord Krishna has made the above very clear in chapter 10 of Bhagavad Gita, where He defines the whole world as a manifestation of Himself. Is He creating a new theory. No. He is rephrasing a Upanishadic-metaphor (Mundaka) of a spider weaving a web and becoming it. In fact, such a glorification is clear in worshipping the feminine qualities of (almost) all Devatas in Sanatana Dharma. These feminine qualities, like Lakshmi (as Bhudevi), Parvati (as Lalitha) are the symbols of the concrete, and visible aspects of Ishvara, with the more abstract form (like sleeping Narayana, eyes-closed Shiva) being the abstract form of Self. That Self that is Sat-Chit-Ananda.

Swami Dayananda says: Other religions says “Our God Only”, while Hinduism is the only one who says that “It is Only God”.. Here the Swami is explaining the spirit of chapter 10 of Gita that I have referred above.

Also refer to an excellent article on the same subject
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_14.html

The gradation in Sanatana-dharma is very clear: The initial “Jiva-Jagat-Ishvara” bheda is refined to “Jiva-Jagat-Guru-Ishvara” to “anaatma-aatma” to “Atma”. In the final stage, where the Atma is Atma without a second, ekameeva-advitiyam.

Had not heard about this. Will try to read them.

The unifying ideal behind all Indic religions is the practical realization of truth – basically sravana (hearing the truth), manana (conviction after critical analysis) and nidhidhyasana (practical realization). Under this vast umbrella theism, atheism and materialism were supported. This gives freedom to the end user; if he had practical realization, then no one can say it is false.

There are more options – you could stick to apara vidya or para vidya – based on your level. What I am trying to say is, with these parameters, we cannot say one is better than the other. So if Caananites worshiped many gods and they realized the truth that path is fine and so is the path of Israelites who worshiped a Supreme God. It this value judgment – this path is better than the others – that has resulted in crusades and conversion.