Monotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems of philosophy.  Civaism, Krishnaism, and R[=a]maism are all originally deistic.  Pure Civaism has remained so to this day, not only in all its popular sectarian expressions, but also in the Brahmanic Civaism of the early epic, and in the Civaism which expresses itself in the adoration-formulae of the literature of the Renaissance.  But there is a pseudo-Civaism which starts up from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and tries to work Civa’s name into a pantheistic system of philosophy.  Every such attempt, however, and all of them are the reflex of the growing importance of Vedantic ideas, fails as such to produce a religion.  If the movement becomes popular and develops into a religious system for the masses, it at once gives up Civa and takes up Vishnu, or, keeping Civa, it drops pantheism and becomes a low form of sectarian ascetism.  Civaism is, therefore, fundamentally non-Vedantic, and Unitarian.[39]

On the other hand, while Krishnaism and Ramaism begin as deistic (tribal) cults, they are soon absorbed into Brahmanic Vishnuism.  Now Vishnuism is essentially Brahmanistic, and the only orthodox (Brahmanic) system is that which holds to the completion of Vedic pantheism.  The first systematic philosophy, however, was not orthodox.  It was the S[=a]nkhya, which peeps out in the dualism of the oldest distinctly philosophical works, and lingers in the Puranic S[=a]nkhya.  The marks of this dualism we have shown in the Divine Song of the epic.  It is by means of it that Krishnaism as an expression of this heterodox Vishnuism became possible.  Vishnuism was soon rescued from the dualists, and became again what it was originally, an expression of pantheism.  But Vishnu carried Krishna with him as his alter ego, and in the epic the two are finally one All-god.  Vedantic philosopliy continued to present Vishnu rather than Civa as its All-god, until to-day Vishnuism is the sectarian aspect of the Ved[=a]nta system.  But with Vishnu have risen Krishna and R[=a]ma as still further types of the All-god.  Thus it is that Vishnuism, whether as Krishnaism or as Ramaism, is to-day a pantheistic religion.  But, while R[=a]ma is the god of the philosophical sects, and, therefore, is almost entirely a pantheistic god; Krishna, who was always a plebeian, is continually reverting, so to speak, to himself; that is to say, he is more affected by the vulgar, and as the vulgar are more prone, by whatever sectarian name they call themselves, to worship one idol, it happens that Krishna in the eyes of his following is less of a pantheistic god than is R[=a]ma.  Here again, therefore, it is necessary to draw the line not so much between names of sects as between intelligent and unintelligent people.  For Krishnaism, despite all that has been done for Krishna by the philosophers of his church, in this regard resembles Civaism, that it represents the religion of unintelligent (though wealthy) classes, who revere Krishna as their one pet god, without much more thought of his being an All-god avatar than is spent by the ordinary Civaite on the purely nominal trinitarianism which has been foisted upon Civa.