> To: soc-religion-paganism@moderators.uu.net > From: tyagi@veracruz-gw.customer.itw.net (nocTifer) > Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,soc.religion.paganism,alt.religion.christian,alt.mythology > Subject: Gods, gods, Worship, Nature and QBL (LONG) > Organization: Access Internet Communications, Inc. > Message-ID: <67qffu$eva$1@shell.accesscom.com> > Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com > X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV) > > [orig-to: kabbalah-l@hollyfeld.org] > > 49971126 aa2 Hail Satan! (this is compiled from a # of msgs and is > quite long; it contains the writing of > JMarshall, ABillings and PSchuerman; I > apologize for any errors of quotation) > > peace be with you, my kin. > > > "Jeff Marshall" : > & If we view Man as Sinful and Fallen and must subdue Nature as the montheisms > & of the West generally do, then we are going to set ourselves apart from > & Nature and create a Nature-Spiritual dichotomy. And in doing so, I think we > & create a schizophrenic condition in ourselves and actually distance > & ourselves from the Divine. I think this is the root cause of the malaise > & the West is suffering now. > > yes, and 'matter' is not the same as 'nature'. as I see it, 'nature' includes > all objects (cars, clouds, bodies) and subjects (thoughts, feelings, pain, > pleasure, etc.) and 'matter' is just the 'stuff' out of which the objects seem > to be composed. the dichotomies seem to revolve either around Orphic (spirit > vs. matter) or Manicheaen (Go(o)d vs. (D)evil) dualisms, respectively > associated. very often *wild* nature (which I contend is Satan or (D)evil), > is associated with 'the world' and therefore the Adversary of Christians. > > > & Is the cure polytheism then?... > > IS there a cure? is there one Solution for everyone? does everyone need > such a Solution? > > > & ...the answer is to see all things as [aspects] of the Divine.... > & There is a glorious spark of the Divine within all. ...like unto God. > > so instead of polytheism (which you interpret in a manner that I understand > to be fairly commonplace), you seem to suggest a LIMITED PANENTHEISM. that > is, the divine is eternal-temporal consciousness, partly exclusive of the > World (if not exclusive then you favor complete panentheism). Hartshorne > and Reese (1) indicate that similar philosophers who also entertain this > conception of the divine would be William James, Christian von Ehrenfels, > and E.S. Brightman. check them out and see if they compare to your taste. > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # Angels, ...are the result of the polytheistic impulse surfacing in > # monotheism. In other words, they give the divine multiple faces. > # The same thing goes for saints, too. > > as 'theos' implies 'god' or 'God', it seems to me that the term 'polytheist' > has become ambiguous of usage by virtue of referent. one may presume that > there are many 'gods' and that some 'God' underlies them all, or one may > dismiss this notion entirely, accepting the simple notion that it means, > as my dictionary (2) instructs, one who worships or believes in more > than one god. > > I hear you saying in response to Jeff that this latter perspective is an > oversimplification of pre-Christian or even modern polytheistic religious > paradigms, and I'd challenge you to produce a reputable source that gives > this interpretation as necessary or global. it seems an unfortunate > consequence of 19th-century religiology that it saw Oriental religions > through a biased and narcissistic lens. > > this appears to be the case with 'Hinduism', a confluence of religious > expressions obtaining to complexity and diversity overlooked by the > Victorians, who separated out 'philosophy' from 'religion' in a manner > which oversimplified and confused many aspects of world religion. this > can be seen also in the way that Chinese religion has been described, > and massive confusion about both have only within the last few decades > begun to get cleared up in the Western scholarly community. more on > that (with citation) below. > > > "Jeff Marshall" : > $ ...give *the* divine multiple faces.... ...a "pure" polytheistic > $ approach splits everything apart. Each diety is separate and > $ distinct. They are not aspects of the one Divine Source. > > this is also my understanding. > > > $ The monothesitic approach I'm tracking on isn't the typical western > $ approach of denying Isis et al. > > this denial usually takes the form of reclassifying the particular > entity from a 'god' to a 'demon' (fundamentalist Christianity) or, > perhaps less antagonistically but no less disrespectfully, from a > 'god' to a 'spirit' or 'djinn' (some Christians merely mean by > 'demon' a spirit antagonistic to the Christian faith, so the two > are only separated by slight cosmological presumptions). > > > $ ...Isis and Michael are ...aspects of the Divine. There is one > $ source, with different faces and functions. > > the only thing which separates this from pantheism is that you seem > to specify that each object or spirit or whatever has a 'spark of > the divine' rather than being the divine itself. your classification > of 'God as fundamental Source of All things' is reminiscent of both > the emanationism of Plotinus and various Neoplatonists after him as > well as Taoists who claim that Tao is 'Mother of All Things' and yet > not the 10,000 Things (World) themselves. > > > $ On the surface, this is similar to polytheism, but the root is pure > $ monotheism. > > I'm not sure this is at all meaningful. you sound as if you'd like > to make assertions along the lines of Indian philosophers and their > pantheistic monism (one Source from which all things are derived > which are also divine but not the Source), and yet you want to use > the term 'monotheism' while characterizing the World as divine in > some way. I don't see how you can do it without denying the divinity > of Isis or Michael as you have outlined above, admitting to pantheism, > or (if cars and rocks and other objects aren't divine) polytheism. > > > $ My surmise is this was the original esoteric interpretation of > $ polytheism anyway, but I can't prove that. > > I'll bet that the original usage was by Western religious who looked > upon their competitors with few clear conceptions and from a > perspective heavily tainted by their own limited polytheistic > monolatry which they sometimes mistakenly called 'monotheism'. > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # ...there may indeed be a one-ness, a collective, a single "source". > # But aesthetically speaking, why dwell upon it? It is a boring > # conclusion. > > monist mystics have apparently been dwelling on it for centuries. > mysticism can be some of the most tedious and boring of enterprises. > > > # If god is everywhere, he might as well not be anywhere. He factors out, > # so to speak. No matter where or how I look, there cannot be a different > # degree of divinity. > > I see no required negation of degree by virtue of pantheistic presumptions. > variations of spiritual potency could be arrived at in a quality similar > to the Melanesian *mana*, distinguishing spirits, people, and any other > specific object, place or event. > > > # ...polytheism recognizes the idea of a source or oneness.... > > I'd love to see modern sources that maintain this and yet do not > participate in the variety of errors (Tylor, Marett, Frazer, et al) > that run rampant in the early studies of religion. as Eliade and > others have made plain, such oversimplifications are stupendously > difficult to prove and exceptions can more often than not be found. > > > # monotheism is ...only socially successful when people are made to > # believe that it is, in fact, in short supply or access is limited. No one > # has ever been successful at making a religion out of telling people that > # they are already surrounded by god and that they don't need any help to > # come in closer contact with the divine. > > this illumines some of the presumptions you have about what religions > are and how they come to begin and perpetuate -- apparently designed > and originated by an ecclesiastical class in order to obtain social > power. this is of course similar in certain respects to the theories > of Emile Durkheim, who claimed that religion is the worship of society > itself, though it may be disguised by myths and symbols. (3) > > > # ...polytheists recognize this source as being of less importance than > # the more immediate, manifesting deities. For instance, the Greeks > # did not worship the creators Gaia and Ouranos to anywhere near the > # extent that they worshipped their children. The Norse do not pay > # homage to the Great Cow, or the sea of yeast, the first man, or the > # giants that were involved in creation; they worshipped the generation > # of gods that was closest to humanity. > > # The source is less important because it is not appropriate for human > # reality. > > this does appear to be a common element in religions, I agree. whether > the supreme god is seen as immanent or transcendant seems to vary, as > does Hir importance. to polytheists generally I think your assertions > are fairly sound, but I note that I am still researching this. > > > # You could think of polytheistic deities as being "transducers" of > # consciousness... more channeled, focused, and directed. Or interfaces, > # perhaps. Polytheism is surprisingly (to some) sophisticated. Sweeping > # away polytheism and replacing it with monotheism is like erasing the > # operating system from your computer... all those programs, designed to > # give you access to the abilities of the computer, all gone. It's no > # wonder that monotheism rapidly mutates into polytheism (e.g. the addition > # of an adversary/devil, the addition of angels, demons, saints, ghosts, > # sephiroth etc.). Monotheism is a crappy interface, and people > # instinctively "hack" it to make it workable. > > so would you propose a kind of 'evolution of religion' in aftermath of > Darwin and variation of Herbert Spencer and others? this theory seems to > be on the downswing -- a variety of religious forms appear to be found > in many cultures, sometimes side-by-side, sometimes combined in weird ways. > > > # About the only thing monotheism seems to support is centralized authority. > # I guess the more interested you are in having a central authority (e.g. > # being told what to do), the more you should adhere to and support > # monotheism. I can't see what else it is going to do for you. It also > # gives you the chance to be seen as a central authority, which is exciting > # to some. > > you later comment that such centralized authority has a quite practical > benefit in the support of the military. I think this may contribute > to the life-cycle and endurance of world religions, as well as their > propagation. there are certainly obvious examples where religions > were martially spread (Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and many > other Middle-Eastern religions, etc.). > > ======================================== > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # ...even polytheism includes the concept of divinities of lesser and > # greater power.... > > but here is another ambiguity. when we specify 'divinity' it is unclear > whether we are talking about a 'god' (polytheistic singular of many like > Zeus), a 'God' (fundamental originator of all things like the Christian > deity), an angel (emissary or agent of some 'god' or 'God' as in Judaism > or popular Christianity), or a primitive idea concerning spirits or mana. > > are ALL of these to be considered 'divinities', or will we, as have a > variety of authors, reserve this for a 'God' or 'god'? there is no > absolute consensus on the point. here you appear to be using it in a > very inclusive sense, or perhaps along the lines of Greek gods and their > immortal councils. > > > "Jeff Marshall" : > $ ...you can see all the dryads, angels and gods you want. You can > $ commune with them as seemingly separate entities. But they are all > $ aspects of the one Divine, as are you and I. > > it is unclear to me how you mean the term 'aspect' here and above, > since it doesn't seem to square with your usage of 'divine sparks'. > the former seems to imply pantheism while the latter emanationaism > or something else. > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # ...it is inherent in monotheism to not respect diversity for what it > # is, but for what it supposedly contains (e.g. god). And this makes you > # less cognizant of diversity, because it focusses the mind on the hidden, > # the unseen, the theoretically common elements. Monotheism encourages > # monocognitive thought. > > and yet, > > the mere idea of a multiplicity of superhuman souls, > astral or otherwise, is not incompatible with > monotheistic intent. Even to call these 'deities' > or 'gods' in a loose sense may be a passing > concession to ordinary language where precision is > not sought. (4) > > so while you are correct as regards a kind of strict monotheism, > the language varies considerably across descriptions and there > may not even be categories constructed to describe the type of > religion which borders amongst 'monotheism', 'polytheism' > (limited) and 'polytheism' (strict). this is why Jeff begins > to segment them into 'surface and root monotheism' below. > > > "Jeff Marshall" : > $ ...surface monotheism does that. But root monotheism > $ cannot, because it sees all as faces and aspects of the one Divine. This > $ approach lets us see all aspects of the Divine and to explore these faces > $ separately as we will. > > and yet as Peter has pointed out, your language is vague in that you have > not clearly separated this 'root monotheism' from pantheism. > > =================================== > > > "Jeff Marshall" > $ I've also spoken to Wiccans that maintain just the opposite. It seems > $ you and I are more or less in agreement in how we see things. > > Al Billings > % ...Nothing in acknowledging a single source rules out other gods.... gods > % have always come in greater and lesser amounts of ability and influence. > % Just because I acknowledge one source doesn't mean I'm a monotheist. I'm not. > > nothing inherent, no, and monolatry, henotheism and polytheism all differ > from monotheism in this sense: the latter denies the existence of other gods: > > Belief in one god alone is 'monotheism', and is seen in Judaism, > Christianity and Islam, and in some of the most important > religious groups in Hinduism and elsewhere. > > Belief in many gods is 'polytheism' and these gods together > are said to form a pantheon. However, within a pantheon > one god may be supreme, a 'president of immortals', like > Zeus in ancient Greek mythology, who in theory dominates > all others. 'Monolatry' appears when one group worships > a single god yet recognizes that other people worship > different beings, as when in the Bible the judge Jephthah > professed to follow Yahweh but told the Moabites to > possess the land which Chemosh their god gave them. Rather > different is 'henotheism', concentration upon one god at > a time while recognized under different names, as when the > vedic Indians said that 'they call it Indra, Mitra, Varuna, > Fire, or the heavenly sun-bird. That which is One the > sages speak of in various terms.' > > Henotheism seems to prepare the way for monotheism, or it > may develop into 'pantheism.' When people began to reflect > upon the universe and its gods they sought some unifying > principle to explain it. A famous dialogue in the Indian > Upanishads reduces the gods from 3,306 to one, and that > one is Brahman, the holy power. From this unification came > pantheism, the idea that everything is god and god is > everything. Perhaps this is more accurately termed 'monism', > the doctrine that only one reality exists. Hindu thinkers > called it 'non-dualism', meaning that there is no duality > or difference between the humand the divine. In another > direction 'dualism' was illustrated in the ancient > Zoroastrianism of Iran, which postulated two prilnciple > spirits, one good and one evil. The term is also used of > other forms of belief in which the eternal dualism of > difference between god and human is taught. (5) > > while I don't agree that all of these statements are true, they > are commonplace in modern religious studies and illustrate the > problem with attempting to categorize particular religious > perspectives when we begin to distinguish between 'sources' and > 'aspects' (which starts sounding like emanationalism to me :>). > > > "Jeff Marshall" > $ ...perhaps the terms monotheism and polytheism have too many cultural > $ associations attached to them. I'll call it omnitheism in the future. > > the terms have accreted cultural biases, though these are typically > strained out with any precise and fair examination of comparative religions. > of course such an inclusive study also makes it difficult to generalize. ;> > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # ...your description of omnitheism is identical > # to that of polytheism.... You might want to delve into Hindu > # religion, which is both polytheistic and which is similar enough to your > # current way of thinking that it should reveal to you this underlying > # concept of one-ness. > > can you really claim this about Hindu religious with exactness? what > about the fact that: > > The most distinctive feature of Hindu or Indian religion is > indeed its vast complexity. Hindu writers at the present > time are among the first to emphasize this complexity as > they note how hard it is to see the wood for the trees > and avoid taking some of the trees as all that constitutes > the wood. A similar sensitivity to this same complexity > distinguishes western views today. > > It means a very different view of Hindu life and thought > from that which obtained a century ago. A good many of > the earlier western writers drew a sharp line between > what was called philosophical Hinduism and popular > Hinduism. Philosophical or sophisticated Hinduism was > then presented with narrow reference to the dominant > school associated with the medieval scholar-saint, Sankara, > the Thomas Aquinas of Hindu thought, which was described as > monistic or pantheistic. In contrast, popular Hinduism > was seen as polytheistic gathered around a superstitious > respect for some of the many gods in the Hindu pantheon. > Accompanying this hasty classification there was a special > regard for the more philosophical or systematic presenta- > tions of Hindu thought to the comparative neglect of the > poetic expressions of the Hindu view of life which can be > found in the great epics. There was also a very western > separation of philosophy from religion which is foreign > to the Indian mind. > > Today, with increasing knowledge of the many and various > sources which have to be taken into account for anything > approaching a more adequate understanding of the great, > broad, immensely diversified Hindu tradition, we find it > said that when it comes to Indian religion we must see it > in terms, not of any one religion, if indeed our western > concept of religion is at all applicable in this context. > > ... > > If there is need in general, then, to revise earlier > accounts of the great religious traditions of the world > in light of new knowledge, this is manifestly true in > regard to the Hindu religion.... > > ...To be confronted with Hinduism is immediately to be > confronted with the need emphasized in our introduction > for reconsidering earlier western views of oriental > religion. The need is especially patent in the case of > Hindu thought since it is still identified in the minds > of a good many western readers with monistic or > pantheistic treands, treands which are undoubtedly there > but which by no means constitute the full context. (6) > > > "Jeff Marshall" > $ When I go to my dictionary and > $ look up polytheism, I see "The worship or belief in more than one god." > $ When I talk people who profess polytheism, they often state the gods are > $ separate and are not faces of one Divine source. Many catagoricially state > $ there isn't a single Divine source. I bet if we carried this discussion > $ into alt.paganism, we get some interesting answers. Some would certainly > $ say there is a single source, others would not. > > it is here that I agree most strongly with you. simultaneously I would say > that there are a large number of new religious who have been heavily > influenced by their Christian context and/or family such that this sourcing > element is integral to their cosmopolitan, syncretic view of polytheism. > there is a diversity of interpretation and ignoring it is foolhardy. > > > $ If we asked the average person to define polytheism, I doubt that more > $ than a handful would speak of the gods as aspects of one Divine Source. > > that would depend on whether the 'average' identifies with the term or > with something else, I'd think. ask a Christian and I think this will > be the typical response. ask a Neopagan who considers themself a > polytheist and I think you'll find the more common answer is as has > been given by the others in this discussion. > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # ...the reason that polytheism does not strongly emphasize the > # underlying connection between things is because, as I've said before, it > # is of extremely limited application. I think I used the word "boring" as > # a shorthand for this. > > it is only boring to those who don't focus on it. I think the monists > and some of the panentheists or emanationists like Jeff consider it of > vital importance, striving to have a relationship with it despite its > perceived lack of immanence. > > > # The reason that polytheism naturally contains the concept of the > # underlying divine is that it is derived from animism.... > > as I said, this idea appears to be disputed somewhat firmly in the discovery > of several different types of religion side-by-side in ancient cultures. > the Darwinian animism=>monism=>monotheism=>polytheism model (or any other > type of linear, progressive variation) appears impossible to substantiate. > I defy you to cite one modern source who continues to believe it while > resting on the observations of modern archaeology. > > > # ...this monotheistic concept is an oversimplification. You can call > # ki/chi/prana/numen/etc anything you like of course, but the rich > # symbolic heritage of polytheistic belief systems offers a more advanced > # interface for interacting with it. > > I'm unsure why you think polytheism is 'more advanced' except that you > have a somewhat limited view of monotheism and monism, presuming for > some reason that direct experience ("finger in the socket") of the > divine is somehow impossible or of little value. what do you think the > monastics and ecstatics of conventional Western mystical traditions > have been doing all these years? you use taste analogies in your > assertion that the experience of this type of monism is 'boring'. to > those who understand the ultimate unity of singularity and diversity, > this reductionism yields a transcendance of the very category of taste, > often described as an experience without parallel of ecstatic rapture > or spiritual import. how could such a thing ever be 'boring' except > on its surface, misunderstood for its intent and result? have you never > studied the texts of mystics like John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, > Thomas Merton, or a number of other 'via negativa' Christians? theirs > is not an expression of interminable boredom, but surely vacant of the > erotic and effusive sensorium associated with polytheistic immanence. > > I would add as an afterthought that I am not trying to favor either the > via positiva or the via negativa, only defending what I see to be your > short-shrift of the latter. > > > > # You are familiar with the concept of Nirvana, right? This is a belief > # that nestles comfortably within the polytheistic context of Hinduism. > # This is a good example of what I'm referring to.... > > I thought I was familiar with the concept of nirvana in Buddhism (it seems > to vary slightly through the Buddhist traditions), but I am not sure I > really understand this claim o 'nestling comfortably within' your supposed > polytheistic Hindu context (an apparent projection). why should nirvana, > whose root imagery surrounds *extinguishment* (as of a candle flame) nestle > comfortably with polytheism? > > > # What I think is interesting is this: given that creation is connected, > # what does this allow you to do? What freedoms and abilities does this > # realization grant? This is what the "interfaces" of polytheism are about. > > unless this creation is happening all the time, or if it is a product of > our fractured minds. re-integrating our minds/spirits and coming to a > direct connection with this Source would therefore be of prime importance. > > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # ...People realized that everything was connected. They built on this idea, > # and developed user-friendly interfaces for *using* this realization to > # achieve things. That's what polytheism *is*. That's why polytheism > # *recognizes* one-ness, but doesn't obsess about it. > > not all polytheists do recognize this 'one-ness' of which you speak, > especially in relation to any sort of divinity. even so, granting that > your analysis of the progress of religions has any sort of validity, > the typical obsession of monotheists for this Source is that it yet > retains the power of the cosmos. usually it has not delegated it to > the elements of the creation. some polytheists see that the power is > also distributed to the gods (thus we have a 'god of fire', and a 'god > of the north wind', etc.). it is here that I think you are raising a > very important challenge to Jeff, who must choose between accepting > that these 'divine sparks' are necessarily divided up into gods that > now manage the cosmos for the Source (polytheism as you have it) or > that they are still in essence unified in an Originator who continues > to be the agent of change (again, a type of panentheism). > > > # Other people took this realization, adjusted the idea slightly to allow > # for "divine scarcity", and used it to form hierarchical social structures. > > I could just as easily describe polytheism as the breakdown of a pure and > perfect monotheistic 'religion' (as has been done by Western religious > for centuries). I don't see that such extremities of description do much > beyond demonstrate our bias and ignorance of history of religion, however. > > ================================================================ > > > "Jeff Marshall" > $ ...when you see the source all around and can feel the source in all its > $ myriad shapes and faces, you can draw from it. No, it's not sticking your > $ finger in the socket or trying to balance electrons to program. It's > $ knowing there is a unity to all and that one form can be converted to > $ another. And all is a glorious expression of the Divine. > > sounds more like monism to me the way you describe it here. > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # So, how would one use this realization to convert one form of the divine > # into another? I can do that just fine by eating something. I eat a > # divine sandwich, and convert it into divine shit, right? > > # ...if god is in everything, then one does not have to > # become upset about that which is unpleasant. Suffering is god. Shit is > # god. War is god. Pain is god. Therefore, if one is upset about such > # things, one is in error: One must correct one's thinking to accept these > # things. > > it seems to me that there is a difference between saying that the divine > assumes a mykriad shapes and forms and that the divine is to be found 'in' > myriad objects (not being the objects themselves). the first is monistic > while the latter is something else. > > > # ...if divinity *is* as omnipresent as you say, then it would > # be impossible to be out of tune with the divine. Being out of tune would > # mean noticing it less, or resonating with it less... which would mean that > # there are mental states into which one can escape from divinity. > > taoism recognizes that tao is everywhere and yet we can, through our > ignorance, begin to work against the natural Way. the tao itself > brings nothing to pass, yet through tao all things come into being. > the typical illustration is of the drunken man. he falls off the > moving cart and is not harmed because he wasn't resisting the force > of gravity or the impact of the ground. resistance to that which is > happening is very similar to the Buddhist concept of 'dukkha', to > which the 'nirvana' you suggested might be nestled with polytheism > is the solution or remedy. > > > # Which means that your god isn't everywhere. Your philosophy is inconsistent. > > if a god is everywhere, I might still resist that god. > > > # If divinity is everywhere, and a person were not in tune with the divinity > # within themselves, they would be in tune with the divinity outside of > # themselves... and that would be the same, because it's everywhere, right? > > I don't see the logic of this. why need we be attuned to anything, > whether inside or outside? what if we are 'out of tune' completely? > > > # If not, perhaps you are suggesting that there is a *difference* between > # the divinity in one person, and the divinity in another person...? This > # is a key point, and I would love to hear a concise answer from you on this > # score. Is it ever important to distinguish between the divinity within > # *me* and the divinity within *you*? > > perhaps the divinity of me is 'ill' in that it doesn't recognize its own > power, strength, value, or perfection. perhaps my divinity is out of > phase with its own qualities in a way that a vibrating metallic sphere > can be ill-set within a machine such that it blasts it apart rather than > contributing to the overall machination. > > ========================================================== > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # ...how do you know what you can and cannot change, unless you try? Life > # is *about* trying to change things. > > "Jeff Marshall" > $ ...the responsibility rests with us as CoCreators to shape and mold > $ creation and change it. But I think prior to doing so, we need to > $ understand our Will. I don't think the Divine Source controls all events. > $ I think it's more [like] a well spring and a container. Two different > $ images, perhaps but I think both are there. > > $ Well spring in that it is the source for the creative energy. > $ Container in that it has drawn up the outline of the Master Blueprint and we > $ all are given areas to create. Simplistically, we have guidance on how it > $ is to interface with the rest of the design, but within that we're free to > $ create. > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # So freedom separates us from Divine will, yes? And so, there are areas of > # life --- situations and so forth --- that are separate from the divine. > > I think this is a very important point. if the divine will is not controlling > us in some fashion, then there is some portion of us (unless we are all > divine, and thus so is our will ;>) which is not divine. > > > "Jeff Marshall" > $ Conflict and those crappy things you mention spring from not being in > $ contact with the Divine Spark and thus not understanding your Will. > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # So when an event occurs that is *not* controlled by the Divine Source, > # what is it controlled by? > > again, I think this a crucial question. first, must a thing be controlled? > does setting a thing's constraints for greater limitation to choose amongst > a variety of options constitute 'providing it with freedom'? or is this > more like putting a rat in a maze with cheese at the other end and saying > 'choose your path'? > > ===================================================================== > > > "Jeff Marshall" : > $ War and monotheism? That is the function of Satan as in the Tanach. I > $ think Jeffrey Smith addressed this fairly well. War, etc keeps Man off > $ balance and from getting too comfortable so we will continually adapt and > $ evolve. YHVH is Nature red of tooth and we were pushed out of Eden to > $ struggle with it to evolve and grow. > > I'd like to hear more about this 'Tanach' and Satan's function here. > > > "Peter L. Schuerman" : > # See, in response to my question, you *immediately* tease out a symbol, > # separate it from God/Divine source by giving it a separate name. Satan. > # You might as well have said "Ares" except it's not your favored mythology. > # Don't you get it yet? This is exactly what polytheists do when asked > # similar questions about reality. You were able to do it while still > # believing in a divine source; why don't you think they could do the same? > > I think that this is based on a faulty perception of what 'polytheists' > include, as I think I've said above. some of them would agree with you, > of course, but many would not. then again, it depends on whether you want > to have a linear progressive model of religion, are trying to describe gods > and their relation to the world, or are talking about a psychological > explanation for why people retain certain concepts of the divine. > > > "Jeff Marshall" : > $ ...the concept of omnitheism is inherent in Qabalah. > > I think it is inherent to Hermeticism, which developed Qabalah out of what > it took from Jewish Kabbalah. I'm unsure that pantheism of the sort you > are describing (or panentheism) is a necessary part of the Judaism that > created Kabbalah, however. > > ========================================================== > > > Jeff Marshall : > $ ...the dichotomy between the material and the spiritual. ...pure, > $ rigorous monotheism and how Man views the marriage of Spirit and > $ Matter determine the nature of the marriage and how "happy" Man is > $ while incarnate. The strict monotheisms of the west generally > $ separate Spirit and Matter. Christianity in particular sees Man > $ as fallen and hence the imprisionment of Spirit in Matter and dichotomy. > > note the typical Hermetic element of view-determining-state. it is also > related to Buddhism in this way (though Buddhism is usually more complex). > > > $ The cure: > $ > $ Embrace Nature. I am growing to see Isis, as Nature as the subconscious > $ processes of the Diety. Osiris, Christ or whatever is the conscious > $ processes of the Deity. And something else is the Superconscious > $ processes. The Veil of Isis is the Veil between the conscious and the > $ subconscious. I think the subconscious has a great deal to tell us and > $ by embracing and accepting it, we can learn a lot and reintegrate. Seek > $ harmony and balance with Nature. > $ > $ Embrace the divinity of Man. We are not fallen and flawed creatures. > > this begins to become a jumble, though I truly appreciate the sentiment. > first of all I don't find that Isis easily abstracts to 'Nature', though > quite a few modern Neopagans enjoy this perspective. Her forms have been > varied and you'd have to select one out in particular that was somewhat > universal (there are these of course). second, by selecting out this > divinity (rather than just talking about 'Mother Nature' and allowing a > more syncretic coalescing of the goddesses as is favored by Wiccans), > you begin to force yourself into either a pantheon or a string of > henotheist visions, shifting thereafter to either monotheism or pantheism. > > some of the problem is the distinguishment between 'Nature' and humans. > are we part of this Nature? if so, then is our consciousness also? > do we by virtue of our consciousness become part of the Osirian Deity, > or are we a composite of Isis-Oriris Deity? why bother with any kind > of godnames here at all? why not just look at this strictly in > psychological terms and equate the experience of integration or self- > actualization or whatever with 'divinity'? why bother trying to make > any of this relate to 'Nature'? why isn't consciousness part of Nature > too? is this just a remnant of Promethean visions or (modern) Setian > xephers in which the original presumption that something is broken is > in part responsible for the breaking in the first place? there are a > lot more questions I could ask of this. > > your description, aside from the terminology, sounds alot like taoism > to me. the objective is to attune to the Way of Nature. we are out > of tune, and when we rejoin this harmony we will once more begin to > know the peace and joy of swimming with the current rather than > against it. that current manifests to us in the unconscious, through > dreams, visions, symbols. it arises in the form of gods, the filling > out of archetypes buried in the deep recesses of ourselves. there is > much Jungian within your text as well, and I favor these ideas also. > > what I'd like to see more of in this forum (kabbalah-l) is a connection > to how this relates to your Qabalah and why. do you think the objective > of your Qabalah is to explain the things you are saying in prose via > symbols? do you derive an understanding of these things from the symbols > you have hitherto used? do you think that there is only one perspective > that *can* be derived in such reflections? one correct perspective? > or is all of this just a tangent to Qabalah studies? > > blessed beast! > ________________________________________________________________________ > nocTifer: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com --- http://www.abyss.com/tokus > TOKUS-COE Office: 408/2-666-SLUG --- Mother Church (CoE) coe@netcom.com > caution: I don't read all posts, filtering out those of < 3000 bytes. > I select text by key authors. cc me if you absolutely need a response. > > ======================================================================== > > > FOOTNOTES > > (1) Hartshorne/Reese, _Philosophers Speak of God_, Univ. of Chicago > Press, 1975; p. 17. > (2) _The American Heritage Dictionary_, Second College Edition, Houghton > Mifflin Co., 1972; p. 962. > (3) Parrinder, _World Religions From Ancient History to the Present_, > Facts on File, 1983; p. 13. > (4) Hartshorne/Reese, p. 57. > (5) Parrinder, pp. 15-6. > (6) Lewis/Slater, _The Study of Religions_, Pelican Books, 1969; > pp. 35-7. > > EOF > ____________...oooOOO---kabbalah-l@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________ > To subscribe send: 'subscribe kabbalah-l' to majordomo@hollyfeld.org > To unsubscribe send: 'unsubscribe kabbalah-l' to majordomo@hollyfeld.org > http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/kabbalah-l.phtml > -- > (emailed replies may be posted); http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi; 408/2-666-SLUG > join the esoteric syncretism in alt.magick.tyagi; http://www.abyss.com/tokus >