Have the Gods Forsaken us?

[causticus]

Something I just jotted down in another discussion area; on the topic of forming new spiritual groups or projects to address the state of acute cultural disintegration we Americans (and Westerners) are experiencing right now. Basically,

I'm kind of black-pilled on there being any religious or spiritual solution for the state of steep cultural decline we're now in. It seems like Americans in particular will corrupt any all types of spirituality and make it either all about money or all about themselves, or all about some stupid serving-up of pop culture blather that happens to be fashionable at the moment. Honestly I think the only real "solution" is for wise individuals to forget about "fixing society" as a whole and just find/form a tribe and try an infuse some basic spiritual principles into that.

I get the impression that the Gods are rather irate at humanity as a whole right now, and for good reason. I, guessing that there won't be until there is a significant population decline that any sort of new spiritual dispensation might come our way. The old ones are mostly worn out and largely irrelevant to our own cultural reality today, but there are tools and insights within those old systems we can adapt to the conditions of today and use to weather the onslaught of storms that are only going to get worse from here on.

Pseudo-Spirituality for Bored Affluenziacs

I've grown quite skeptical toward the usual stories I read/hear in certain circles about people chatting with Gods and Goddess directly in a nonchalant manner as if they're just some long-lost friends from whenever. Now, some of these stories might be altogether made up, or simply exaggerations of some vague dream or momentary flash in the pain brain fart that gets misconstrued as a profound spiritual experience. In other cases I'm inclined to believe there is some sort of spirit contact happening, but not in the way the recipient of such an experience might think. How many people do banishing rituals before chatting with their spirit buddies? (Yes, this is a rhetorical question) I've gotten the impression that the more serious end of Neopaganism is basically just Spiritualism dressed up in various ethnic costumes. Any sufficiently-intelligent spiritual entity (good, bad, or ugly) can appear in whatever shape or form they want via the psychic connection they establish with the human on the other end; it's just too easy to deceive and play tricks on the naïve dabbler who doesn't have much in the way of occult knowledge under their belt. Now of course I don't deny the existence of the Gods, not to I deny that the Gods can and do help individual humans in certain situations. I'm just rather suspicious of those people who like to talk a big game about what they believe to be divine communications. This is probably the same reason why I'm rather dismissive of prophetic religions.

Now onto the next bit of this rant. I'm gonna spout some Neopagan heresy.

Daimones: Say it Ain't So

It's nice to believe the "Gods" we think we are communicating with are in fact THE Gods, and not merely emissaries, angels, or spirit-messengers of those Gods. However, if we're to accept the idea that the Gods are in fact universal to all cultures, as opposed to being neatly divided up by human tribes and ethnic groups, it would then seem sensical to posit that the Gods appear to many different peoples in many different guises. Thus the "ethnic costumes" that are the "Gods" of each pantheon or cultural tradition, are just different expressions of the Divine Powers. Or maybe they are in fact messenger spirits who each have personality types that correspond with the deity-name they answer to. In Greek terms, these spirts are known as Daimones (Latin: Genii). The Northern traditions might call them Elves. There's some hints in Neoplatonic literature that the "Gods" that demand sacrifices are in fact not Gods but Daimones. Some notes from the Greco-Roman (Neoplatonic) philosopher Porphyry, via sdi:

But for the gods within the heaven, the wandering and the fixed (the sun should be taken as leader of them all and the moon second) we should kindle fire which is already kin to them, and we shall do what the theologian says. He says that not a single animate creature should be sacrificed, but offerings should not go beyond barley-grains and honey and the fruits of the earth, including flowers. "Let not the fire burn on a bloodstained altar," and the rest of what he says, for what need is there to copy out the words? Someone concerned for piety knows that no animate creature is sacrificed to the gods, but to other daimones, either good or bad, and knows whose practice it is to sacrifice to them and to what extent these people need to do so.

[..cont.]

One thing especially should be counted among the greatest harm done by the maleficent daimones: they are themselves responsible for the sufferings that occur around the earth (plagues, crop failures, earthquakes, droughts, and the like), but convince us that the responsibility lies with those who are responsible for just the opposite. They evade blame themselves: their primary concern is to do wrong without being detected. Then they prompt us to supplications and sacrifices, as if the beneficent gods were angry. They do such things because they want to dislodge us from a correct concept of the gods and convert us to themselves. They themselves rejoice in everything that is likewise inconsistent and incompatible; slipping on (as it were) the masks of the other gods, they profit from our lack of sense, winning over the masses because they inflame people's appetites with lust and longing for wealth and power and pleasure, and also with empty ambition from which arises civil conflicts and wars and kindred events. Most terrible of all, they move on from there to persuade people that the same applies even to the greatest gods, to the extent that even the best god is made liable to these accusations, for they say it is by him that everything has been thrown topsy-turvy into confusion. It is not only lay people who are victims of this, but even some of those who study philosophy; and each is responsible for the other, for among the students of philosophy those who do not stand clear of the general opinion come to agree with the masses, whereas the masses, hearing from those with a reputation for wisdom opinions which agree with their own, are confirmed in holding even more strongly such beliefs about the gods.

Now it does seem like Porphyry is imposing a type of dualism that was quite fashionable in his time; effectively dividing the "sprit world" into two diametrically opposed camps of "good" and "bad" spirits (Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism were the most guilty of this originally, and this habit trickled down into Christianity). While there are indeed a lot of bad (or at least cruddy) spiritual entities out there, I think there are many that simply aren't very relevant to human existence, nor are really categorizable according to human morality. Their neither malicious or beneficial to us; they simply are their own thing. But the overall takeaway from the above quote is that the object(s) of human worship can very easily become misdirected toward entities that don't exactly have our best interest at heart, or maybe just don't care about us. Where do the Gods come into this? Honestly, this is something I'm exploring and have nothing resembling concrete answers on, other than the fact they do exist and their presence(s) are all-but-ubiquitous. But the Gods are foremost mysteries and that we've lost most of the knowledge we used to have about them, which was probably garbled to begin with.

Personally, I lean toward the position that the "True Gods" are something akin to the Aeons of the Gnostics, and the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the Northern Buddhists. I think the Neoplatonists referred to such entities as "Hypercosmic Gods." Anyway, I think these "pure" entities are so far removed from human experience (and unlikely to meddle in our petty affairs) that we can only experience their mysteries through spiritual intermediaries; again, the Archangels, Angels, Spirit Guides, and other beings well advanced beyond the human level of consciousness, yet not exactly "Gods" in the full sense.

This rant has been excessively long, disjointed, and perhaps contradictory at points. But oh well, I needed to spill this out somewhere. There's likely a fair number of spelling, grammatical, typographical, and punctuation errors in there too. But too bad, I'll get around to fixing those later.

I'll end this with an annoying question:

Is the "Odin" or "Hecate" some bored American suburbanite communicates with before bedtime a Daimon (Spirit) or a God/Goddess?

Comments

[jprussell]

Hmm, an interesting set of questions. I don't think I have any definite answers, but a few thoughts based on my own rather limited experience and reading that I hope contribute something:

1) "By their fruits you shall know them": For me, the single most useful rule-of-thumb for interacting with spiritual beings is to keep an eye on what kind of states they bring about and what kind of things following their advice brings about. Where beings seem to bring about life-affirming, compassionate, and unselfish feelings and actions, whatever they are, it's likely worth keeping in touch with them, with the opposite being true for anything that brings about nihilism, wrath/envy/resentment, and selfishness.

2) Astral Vehicles: So far, I've found the idea that there are various "astral vehicles/bodies" that are ensouled by higher spiritual beings a very interesting and possibly useful one. This may or may not have overlap with your "daimones as emmisaries" theory above, but the idea that what I picture as "Thunor" may largely be culturally-determined, and perhaps much narrower than the spiritual being that animates that imagery, has been a useful one for me, without even getting into cross-cultural comparisons.

3) JMG's Comment About the First Decade Being Mostly Psychological: On an MM a while back, JMG responded to someone's question with something like "pretty much everything you experience for the first decade or so of magical practice, you're mostly experiencing your own psyche". This has given me a lot to chew on, especially since letting go of the idea that the Gods are "just archetypes in my head" was an important step in my spiritual development. Even so, it wouldn't surprise me at all if much of what modern polytheists experience spiritually is dealing with their own subconscious, especially if not paired with a more rigorous program of spiritual development.

4) What Do We Even Mean by "Gods" Anyway?: As a few other folks have alluded to, in discussions like this, we run the risk of getting too caught up in taxonomical terms. To maybe over-simplify, what if every being in all the world's traditional pantheons was "lower" than the kind of universals that you mention coming from Neo-Platonic philosophy, and mankind has never has any kind of direct experience of those universals, only vauge intuitions through philosophy. If that's the case, is it better to call the beings that have interacted with mankind through worship, prayer, miracles, et cetera "Gods" or "daimones" or whatever else? For me, it depends how much you want to emphasize "these beings are mighty and worthy of respect" versus "there are other 'higher' beings, so let's not get too fixated on these ones that are closer to us."

At the end of the day, I'm not sure I come away with very different practical actions: do a regular banishing ritual daily, use the names of deities from long-standing traditions with followers who display positive spiritual traits in prayer, and use a lot of self-reflection to monitor your own ethical behavior vis-a-vis your spiritual practice.

Cheers,
Jeff

[sdi]

I might note that there is a pretty big theological break between Plotinus and Porphyry (who saw the use of magic as an impediment to spiritual progress), and Iamblichus and basically everyone after him (who used theurgy as a matter of course). Indeed, some scholars consider the worldviews espoused by these two groups to be wholly different: I think it was Dodds that makes the point somewhere that Plato is the ultimate authority for the former two, while the Chaldean Oracles have taken that place for the later Neoplatonists.

So if one is themselves practicing banishing rituals and so on, one might reasonably favor a different model of the universe!

[causticus]

The attitude of Plotinus and Porphyry toward magic is so similar to that of most Eastern sages/gurus. I think the commonality in attitude stems from a shared disdain for the material world and thus the tendency to see that the point of spirituality is to break the cycle of rebirth ASAP. From this perspective, magical practice grants people "powers" over the material realm, which can be a lure to remain "trapped" in it longer, by nurturing the sort of desires that keep us trapped here. Of course, if one's worldview isn't so negative/cynical about the material world, then practicing magic isn't so much of a problem, granted it's not abused. It seems like Iamblichus and others after him were champions of this more positive view toward the material.

[jprussell]

Hmm, interesting, I didn't realize that about Plotinus/Porphyry vs Iamblichus (I'm still very early in my (Neo-) Platonic reading).

Possibly an irrelevant aside, but on causticus's comment about similarity with Eastern sages/gurus, I recently finished plodding my way through Spengler's Decline of the West, and in it he argues that Neo-Platonism and late Roman Empire polytheism are better understood as expressions of the religious sensibility of the Magian (Middle Eastern) civilization, along with Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, rather than as a direct continuation of the Classical religious sensibility that began with the Mycenaeans. I find this an intriguing possibility, but I also think Spengler is a little too forceful in arguing against continuity, because continuity was taken for granted by most scholars when he was writing.

What's interesting if we take Spengler's point of view, though, is that arguably Iamblichus would be the most Magian, whereas the attitude of being anti-theurgy seems more consistent with the mainstream of most Magian religions. So I'm not sure what to make of that.

Cheers,
Jeff

[causticus]

Yeah I definitely think there is something there in Spengler's view that Neoplatonism was essentially a Magian reimagination of the older Hellenic religion. The Mithraic mysteries was another great example of this and the initiatory symbolism of that cult IMHO exemplified the core essence of the Magian paradigm, even though its outer clothing was mostly Hellenic (though with a dash of Iranian).

Within the Magian fold there always seems to have been this duality of Esotericism vs. Dogmatism, and this seems to show up among the Neoplatonists along with the others.

I'd say Julian's version of Neoplatonism (which is quite adjacent to Iamblicus) is the most Magian of anything religiously-Hellenic.

[sdi]

This is a very interesting question. I had been treating it as an Age of Aries vs. Age of Pisces thing, but hadn't thought to look at it through other lenses and that one seems a fruitful one...

[boccaderlupo]

I have not read Spengler, but I think this perspective is compelling: the later Platonists' systems seem at least as much about the various mystery cults as about ancient Hellenic practices, if not more so. That said, it seems like the various groups of that period—Pagan Neoplatonists, Gnostics, early Christians, et al.—all seem to be responding to something in the spiritual environment, and, per the passage sdi found, it seems as their responses had some similarity.

I suspect it's possible to overstate the Plotinus-Iamblichus divide, but that said I tend to fall more in the Iamblichus camp. He seems to always be tying the more theoretical aspects back to how they explain real lived "mystical" (for lack of a better term) experiences and ritual. (I will cop to being a simpler person, more concerned with the practical than the abstract, FWIW.) That's what I find so valuable about these writings: not that they are some kind of dogma or doctrine per se, but rather that they represent attempts of other individuals in times past to grapple with profound spiritual experiences—namely, the expression of The Divine in mortal lives—and how to tie that back to a comprehensive way of thinking about the world. A template, perhaps, for individuals of our age not to reproduce exactly, but rather to inform our experiences on the path.

[sdi]

And while I'm at it, I should probably add that Plotinus doesn't really talk about the Olympians at all and Socrates was executed for his conception of the spiritual.

The modern pagans who speak of interacting with Aphrodite directly or whatever are more likely descended from the Olympian religion, and not this Platonist business :)

I enjoyed Gilbert Murray's Five Stages of Greek Religion on the topic: he contextualizes the two as very different impulses within the Greek religious world (among several others).

[causticus]

Thanks for all these resources. That last link looks particularly interesting.

The modern pagans who speak of interacting with Aphrodite directly or whatever are more likely descended from the Olympian religion, and not this Platonist business :)

I've actually seen overt antipathy toward Platonism expressed in those circles. And yeah, going with the above idea, it seems like we're talking about two entirely different religions.

[sdi]

Thank you for saying so, that's actually a very helpful data point to me!

[jprussell]

Thank you for sharing, this looks quite interesting!

And fair enough on the distinction between Platonism and modern Neo-Paganism. Since I'm currently getting a hefty dose of revival Druidry via the Druid Magic Handbook and the Dolmen Arch, I tend to have a lot of Neo-Platonic assumptions baked into how I look at and interpret this business, but it's helpful to remember that very many (likely most) folks reporting their experiences of polytheism do not share those assumptions.

Cheers,
Jeff

[causticus]

Well, I have come across a few Hellenic reconstructionists who are all about Neoplatonism. Not sure how common they are among the other Hellenists though.

From my own observations, it seems JMG walks a middle ground between doctrinal Neoplatonism and more typical Neopagan ideas when it comes to how he sees the Gods. But yeah his Neoplatontic-inspired ideas do show up in his Druidry books.

[causticus]

Jeff, thank you for this thoughtful and thorough (as always, lol) response.

1) I try to follow this whenever I have any kind of "unusual" experience. It's been a good guide thus far!

2) My own thinking process constantly tells me, "Well.. Thunor, Thor, Donar, Taranis, Perun, Perkunas, ect. MUST be the same entity." I think the "different Astral vehicles for each" explanation is quite interesting and might get at the operative reality we're working with. I think the idea that each pantheon has its own egregore is a similar explanation and might well explain how the same deity/entity can manifest in many different outer forms.

3) Hah, this would be outright blasphemy in some polytheist circles ;) I know of one particular blogger who has a textual screaming fit any time someone in that space suggests that people's experiences of the Gods might simply be archetypes or other psychological phenomena manifesting.

4) Yeah this can get beyond confusing if we think about it too much. Another issue is that as civilizations mature they tend to come up with ever-more complex theologies and layers of abstractions which get layered on top of the old primitive religion of their ancestors. Neoplatonism vs. the old Homeric mytho-religion is the most obvious example here.

Totally agree on that last part.

[jprussell]

Hah, "thorough" indeed! If there's one thing I do, it's wordy.

2) Yeah, this is an area that I have in the past found extremely interesting, but have somewhat backed off from more recently, at least for a time. I've always been interested in historical linguistics, archaeology, and other ways of pushing our knowledge back past the fuzzy boundaries of recorded history, and so it was natural to me to apply it to religious questions as well. When I was coming at religion from a more material/archetypal point of view, looking at comparative mythology seemed like a good way to get at what I was "really" trying to get in touch with. One of the main reasons I've backed off is that I intellectually arrived at the notion that Freyja and Frigg were just hypostases of a single earlier Goddess, and so I ought to just worship that Goddess. Well, as I began praying and worshipping, I got the impression that nope, they're different, I really ought to worship two different Goddesses. Now, are these two "really" two different astral vehicles for the same greater spiritual Being? No idea, maybe. Either way, at least at my current point of development, it seems like it's helpful to treat them as different.

3) Heh, I might be able to guess which blogger. My current thinking on this is that it's reductionist to think that religious experience is only manifestations of your subconscious, but that it is naive to think your personal subconscious plays no role such experiences. It seems to take a lot of hard work to even recognize what your subconscious is doing, much less to get it out of the way when you're doing things like praying or meditating. So, at least right now, I think it likely that when you pray or otherwise interact with "the Gods" (or daimones, or emissaries, or astral vehicles of incomprehensible intelligences, or whatever they might truly be), much of what you experience is coming out of your own subconscious, especially early on, but that hopefully your subconscious is getting nudged in certain directions by the Being(s) you are reaching out to. To use another personal example, if I make an offering to Thunor and imagine a burly red-bearded man telling me to be a more responsible family man, did I "really" have a conversation with the God Thunor? Maybe, maybe not. But maybe that Being did nudge me to recognize something I knew deep down.

4) Definitely. I bring this up because too much time with various editions of the D&D Monster Manual has made me a bit taxonomy-happy when it comes to non-mundane beings, and I have to remind myself of that when I get into thinking about the spiritual.

Cheers,
Jeff

[causticus]

2) I think I might be parroting a certain vlogger's pet theory (I forget which vlogger tbh) on this, but it seems to make sense that Frigg and Freya became two distinctive goddesses at some point during the Viking Age. The material explanation for this might be that the Norse may have been borrowing influences from Christianity (on their own terms) before outright converting. A metaphysical explanation might be (incoming UPG, lol) that a certain "beloved mother goddess" entity became very active during the Age of Pisces and made a profound impression on different cultures throughout the world, including the Norse. At some point their priests and mystics started experiencing Her as a distinctive motherly entity, quite distinct from the older love/war goddess. BTW, within modern Heathenry I find Frigg to me one of the most fascinating deities, with her 10 handmaidens seeming to represent Her various functions. She really is a "swiss army knife" type of goddess in that respect, IMHO. And of course Her husband Odin has no shortage of functions too. A perfect pair, one might say.

3) I personally think numinous experiences in general are a mix of both archetypal/psychological and actual interaction with unseen beings. And I think this particular blogger swings too far in one direction on this issue; she experiences the gods in one way and just assumes that's the way everyone else is supposed to (sound familiar? LOL).