⬅ Back to diary page
Monday, September 19th, 2022
18:00
Let my commitment slip for a couple weeks. Have been reading a lot of non-fiction in the meantime, but hope to return to heavy reading, making some headway into World Religions once more.
First actual look at Jainism, totally blind on it up to this point. Jainism is considered a 'transtheistic' religion, that is, it makes no claims about a supreme creator deity, and it presupposes that the universe has existed and will continue to exist forever. Jainism also hold the doctrine of Anekantavada (literally: non-one-sidedness doctrine), a form of non-absolutist relativism, the notion that there is no absolute truth to reality, only a complex series of relativistic claims and aspects that constitute a whole that can not be individually or wholly grasped.
Some key terms 'World Religions' provides:
Ahimsa, the virtue of non-violence towards all living beings.
Ajiva, non-living matter, including human and other bodies: everything which is not Jiva (Soul).
Anekantavada, see above.
Angas, the earliest texts in the Jain tradition.
Jina, victor or conqueror, the main title of the great Jain teachers.
Kevala, state of liberation in which the jiva exists motionless at the summit of the universe.
Mahavrata, the vow taken by a monk or nun, pledging themselves to ahimsa and other moral rules.
Tapas, austerity.
Tirthamkara, ford-maker, the great leader who makes a way across the stream of life to salvation.
Also of note are the Digambara and the Svetambara, the 'Sky-clad' and 'White-clad' respectively; monastic nudity is common among the Jains, but those who do not practice wear three pieces of white cloth.
As stated, Jainism has no doctrine of a creator, but they do believe in a series of heavens and hells; the liberated jiva may rise, free from the weight of its depressing karma, to the top of the universe where it remains, free from pain in kevala.
Every jiva is considered an omniscient, eternal entity seperate from the universe of matter, only existing within the body temporarily during the cycles of rebirth that Jainism likewise shares with other Indian religions. The jiva is characterised by chetana (consciousness) and upayoga (knowledge and perception), but material defilement within the universe causes it to lose this knowledge; through emancipation this original omniscience is regained, thus the moral rules, as in mahavrata.
18:31
Of note is the indian philosophical school of the 'Ajivika', or the 'Follower of the Way of Life'. Ajivika teachings centered on the idea of Niyati, or fate. No virtuous act or austerity can help an individual to be released from the sufferings of this world, although such actions may be an indicator that the individual may be close to liberation. No, every soul has been set on a preordained path of living and suffering, and even ultimate liberation (as in moksha) is not guaranteed.
Considered by the Buddhists as a potentially threatening level of fatalism, Ajivika would go on to die out in the area, and such philosophy is largely considered heterodox, specifically the rejection of the doctrine of Karma, which did not at all fit in with the Ajivika conception of determinism.
18:40
I have a passing familiarity with the basics of Sikhism, so there's no real utility in summarizing the description Smart gives here, but I will note the key terms provided for posterity:
Amrit, initiation by baptism in sweetened water stirred by a two-edged sword, in which the initiate swears to abide by Rahit.
Granth, the sacred scriptures which now exist as the eternal guru.
Gurdwara, the Sikh temple.
Guru, one of the ten leaders and preceptors of Sikhism.
Janamsakhi, Punjabi writings celebrating the life of Guru Nanak.
Khalsa, the Sikh community, the 'pure ones' started by Gobind.
Mool Mantra, the 'basic verse', a brief statement of belief composed by Nanak affirming the oneness of God.
Panth, literally the 'path', or spiritual sect.
Rahit, the code of ethics and rituals laid upon the Sikhs, including the worn articles of faith.
Sant, a member of a devotional tradition of North India, picturing God as without attributes or nirgunan rather than more personally as among Vaishnavas.
Sat Guru, the name most give to God in Sikhism, literally 'Being, the Teacher'.
Sikh, literally 'Disciple', a member of the Sikh Panth.
Smart does relay a pretty funny anecdote attributed to Nanak, in which, on a journey to Mecca, the Guru mistakenly falls asleep with his feet pointing towards Mecca, inadvertently showing disrespect to the Muslim faith in doing so. A mullah, or Muslim scholar, wakes Nanak angrily to correct this transgression, but Nanak's reply is devastating: "Then turn my feet in a direction where God is not."
Tuesday, September 20th, 2022
16:54
Learned of Indra's Net, a Buddhist metaphor used to illustrate the concept of Pratityasamutpada, or 'dependent origination'. I quote an excerpt from Francis H. Cook that I found on wikipedia after reading about the metaphor in World Religions:
Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering "like" stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.
The 'jewels' in this net can refer to any and all items, entities, and concepts, highlighting the Buddhist perspective on how all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas, and from that, how the jewels too may thus refer to buddha-nature in both the microcosm of the individual, and the macrocosm of sunyata, or the emptiness of non-self, within the infinity of those reflections.
It's a very evocative image, and I can't help but relate it mentally to the doctrine of interdependence found within the Thelemic maxim 'Every man and every woman is a star'. As a metaphor, it pictures every individual as though they were a celestial object, racing through space, their trajectories goverened by their independent true Will, the notion being that when all follow their True Will, this cosmic interplay between all individuals will engender a harmonious balance, where no one star intrudes on the other, gravitationally stabilized as it is by the natural trajectories of every other party. The difference between the metaphors, I find, is that, Crowley, as an individualist, saw fit to focus first and foremost on the independence of each individual star within this cosmic orchestra, tracing their own arcs as they do, with the mutual balancing merely being the resultant outcome of this singular focus, whereas Indra's Net is very much focused on the interdependence of things as a foundational reality.
It seems mostly to be a difference of language, however, and a lot can be said on this topic with how Thelema as a whole analogizes reality, and the layers you can find there that would add more to this discussion, but I'll have to stop myself here, if only because my knowledge of Buddhist metaphysics could nary fill half a page. Very out of my depth!
17:01
Making my way through Smart's assessment of Chinese religion now, though I am at this point quite acquainted with the area, so there is not much to write on. One quote, though, from Wang Yangming, a Neo-Confucian scholar I hadn't yet read on:
Knowledge is the beginning of action; action is the completion of knowledge.
Smart doesn't go much into Wang beyond this pithy statement, and if I'm honest I think I've had my fill of Neo-Confucian metaphysics for one year at least, so I'll merely appreciate the quote for its aesthetic value rather than its historical context at this juncture. Onwards.
17:10
On to Japan, then. Again, some Key terms:
Bosatu, Bodhisattva, often appearing god-like as a celestial being.
Butsudan, a household altar to the Buddha, parallel to a kamidan, or shinto shrine.
Daimoku, the title of the Lotus Sutra.
Jodo, The Pure Land, a paradise for the faithful in faith-oriented Amida Buddhism.
Kami, traditional nature god or spirit.
Kannon, the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara in female form.
Kokutai, the national Essence.
Matsuri, shinto festival or ceremony.
Miko, shinto shamans or priestesses, brought up strictly as virgins, serves the cult of the local kami.
Nembutsu, the formula of calling on the Buddha which brings salvation.
Shinto, the way of the Kami.
Tendai, a sacramental and esoteric movement within Japanese Buddhism.
Zen, literally 'Meditation', also the name of Japanese forms of yogic Buddhism.
17:14
As with China, I'm pretty familiar with the broad strokes of Japanese religion thanks to Dubois' Religion and the Making of Modern East Asia, but there are a few things Smart brings up that are new to me.
Most interestingly, Emperor Tenmu, who, during his reign, ordered the committing to paper and codification of the nation's diverse cultural myths—in what would later become the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki—the effort ultimately being a means of affording his restructuring of Japanese society a form of religious legitimacy; up to that point in time, Shinto as we know it didn't exist as a widespread religion. This is a pretty evident example of a manufactured faith for political ends. As said, I've been over this subject before (see my prior entry on the Meiji Restoration), but I was unaware that even the foundational myths as collected and told originated as a political gambit.
17:40
Sped through the comparatively smaller chapter on Southeast Asia, a religious melting pot of Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic influence. Certainly an area I lack the knowledge and tact to summarize accurately; if I ever return to Buddhism in general, this will have to be an area I get a real handle on, though for now I'm content with the overview Smart offers. I have no real notes.
17:57
Pacific religions. Key terms:
Atua, Polynesian word for a god or supernatural being.
Calumet, French term applied to all smoking instruments. Smoking is a ceremonial act.
Corroboree, aboriginal festival with ceremonial rituals and dances, often reenacting myths.
Kachina, masks and other representations of mythic beings.
Mana, sacred and numinous power associated with gods, breaches of tabu, and holy forces in nature.
Marae, Polynesian word for a sacred area with a shrine.
Masalai, Melanesian word for animal spirits and demons liable to haunt human beings.
Mizimu, Bantu word for the spirits of the dead; ancestors.
Nganga, specialist in dealing with illnesses and various evils.
Shaman, Tungus word from Siberia for a visionary who can help cure the sick and locate resources.
Tabu, Polynesian word for that which is forbidden and dangerous; great mana generates tabu.
Totem, Algonquin word for a natural species of animal or plant life connected especially with a clan, who do not hunt or gather that species.
Some quick notes regarding the so-termed 'smallscale religions' of the pacific. Smart doesn't go into extensive detail on any one region or clan, instead providing a broad overview.
Polynesia: Gods exist in the heavenly world that is distinct from the material. Such gods can be invited into the material world through replication of their images or myths, as in masks and ritual. The gods are known as real figures with detailed creation myths. As such, these gods and the associated dynamic of mana and tabu are revered.
Melanesia: The border between the heavenly realm and material realm is loose; humans comingle with spirits in day-to-day life. The use of mana and magic as a means of controlling this reciprocal relationship in pursuit of human utility is a common occurence. Ancestor worship is likewise common, as the ghosts of the dead linger for some time before straying outward to the heavens. There are no real central deities or myths, just a division between 'here' and 'there'.
Micronesia: Sharing the same general outline as Polynesia, Micronesia is contrasted by its emphasis on their myths concerning a female creator deity.
Australia: Core to the Aboriginal conception of spirituality is the 'Dreaming', sometimes referred to as 'Dreamtime', though no Aboriginal language has a word for 'time' related to this philosophy, as 'Dreaming' is an omnipresent concept that connects the past, present, and the future. The Dreaming refers to both the period in which ancestral figures shaped the landscape in mythic tales, as well as the symbols that make up reality, as in concepts, characters, animals and locations themselves. A specific tribe or familial line can 'own' a Dreaming, as in a totem, connecting their sense of self with the Dreaming of, for instance, a Kangaroo. It's an interesting concept, and hard to immediately grasp, layered as it is under the umbrella term of Dreaming, but I think I have a handle on it.
Thursday, September 22nd, 2022
16:52
Acquired copies of Daphne Hampson's After Christianity, and Roger Lloyd's Revolutionary Religion: Christianity Fascism and Communism.
Extremely interestingly, this copy of Revolutionary Religion, published in 1938, is an original printing of the 'Religious Book Club' edition, a middlebrow institution that existed throughout the middle decades of the last century, and, much to my excitement, contains an original bulletin leaflet from said organization: The Religious Book Club Bulletin No. 2. Not only that, but it contains too a series of contemporary newspaper clippings, evidently the owner of this text was prepared to discuss the topics within these clippings at the book club's meeting, indeed, the bulletin leaflet itself contains a 'Questions for discussion on Revolutionary Religion' segment.
A fascinating piece of history, found squirrelled away in the far corner of a charity shop. I love these little stories.
Friday, September 23rd, 2022
13:20
The Americas. Very broad area, but most religious traditions died out in the colonial era/never really evolved into deeply organized lineages. Not much to write on this topic, including the closing quote Smart provides on the area:
If anything is close to being a universal theme in the Americas it is that of shamanism. The sacred center of Tenochtitlan and the pole erected in the Sun Dance both attest to the symbolism of the axis mundi. The Sweat Lodge and the drugs of Ancient Peru both attest to the Vision Quest. The figure of the priest and healer who also has the secret of fertility is one of the great symbols of the archaic world.
13:41
Mesopatamian, Egyptian, Canaanite and Phoenician religion. Already acquainted with the board strokes of the lot, detailed my foray into the Book of Going Forth by Day in past entries, but it is worth noting how Phoenician (Read: later Canaanite) religion especially exists as a sort of mirror to that of the then-outgrowing Israelite tradition; both were composites of their Mesopatamian roots, after all, but the fact they existed contemporaneously, with demonization of the former's deities happening in real time within Semitic scriptures is a pretty egregious example of revisiomism on the part of the Abrahamic tradition! Not to mention the Elohim discourse. I digress.
14:20
Smart tells of the Servant Songs of the book of Isaiah, in which the 'eved YHWH, or, Servant of YHWH—likely a metaphorical and literary representation of the state of Israel—suffers at the hands of his countrymen due to his commitment to the Lord. This era of Israelite belief was characterised by political tumult, and war with the Assyrians; it was a common religious interpretation that this was the result of ethical misconduct on the part of the Twelve Tribes; there are commentaries on the superfluousity of sacrifices at the Temple, where wealth and prosperity was valued more than commitment to the religious values themselves. In this manner, the Servant of YHWH represents a spiritual zeitgeist of the time, a warning and reaffirmation of what it means to be Israelite.
I myself note the comparison that can be made between the Servant of YHWH and its respective sociopolitical commentary with that of the later book of Revelation's status as a commentary on Nero's Rome, the tale instead becoming suffused over time into, well, just that, mythological revelation. It should of course be said that Christian adherents and writers painted Christ as this Servant of YHWH, allotting him a fair amount of scriptural precedence, but this is of course a retroactive justification.
14:35
A last footnote, readings of messianic attestations in passages from Isaiah as a whole can be considered anachronistic, as the eschatological definiton of 'Messiah', as in, a future Jewish king from the Davidic line that will rule the Jewish people, did not exist at the time of writing, instead, Messiah as used within Isaiah specifically refers to a king or High Priest important to the Jewish people within the present, traditionally anointed with holy oil, namely, Cyrus the Great, who decreed that the Jewish people may return from exile in Babylon. With this in mind, the Servant of YHWH too, as written, did not imply prophecy or revelation, indeed, the poems that refer to him are written in the past tense, implying metaphor.
22:16
Coming back to this top later in the day due to a thought. Jewish discussion regarding eschatology on the Messiah as a future figure generally peaked right before and during the time of the life of Christ. We all know Christianity started as a messianic sect that divided from second temple Judaism due to disagreements on whether or not he 'was' the Messiah, but to actually get the timeline down in my head, with the context I've been given from the day's reading, it really only makes it out that Christ was not in fact the culmination of centuries worth of Jewish prophecy and scholarly debate, but instead a fairly expected claimant to a religious position of power in the heat of a very fast-moving sectarian movement; the nature of Messianic thought developed alongside Christ, not before him; because Christ did not meet a set of characteristics that were being discussed within the century, this makes both sides seem fairly farcical in taking any firm stances about the subject. I mean, excusing the fact they're debating prophecy and revelation at all, that is.
Saturday, September 24th, 2022
14:46
Zoroastrianism. I knew a little about Zoroastrianism due to my very brief readings on our next religion of focus, Manichaeism, but I wasn't aware of the historical contexts in which it was placed. First, key terms:
Adur, Sacred fire. All fire is considered purified and is ritually tended to in temples and holy places.
Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, creator God.
Amesha Spentas, the seven divine entities emanating from Ahura Mazda.
Angra Mainyu, the Hostile Spirit, source of all evil. Destined to be overcome by Ahura Mazda. Later known as Ahriman.
Bundahishn, creation of the world arising out of war between Good and Evil spirits.
Chinvat, the bridge of separation and judgement.
Frashokereti, the act of creation, the occasion of resurrection, and of the final judgement.
Fravashis, the eternal spirits of human beings, which exist in heaven much like angels: the implication is that humans have freely chosen to assume material form.
Manthras, words of power, prayers drawn mainly from the earliest scriptures attributed to Zarathustra.
Yasana, temple rite, or worship generally.
Yazatas, heavenly beings thought worthy of worship. The most popular is Mithra.
Zurvan, Time. The focus of a deviant sect in later Zoroastrianism, known as Zurvanism: both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu are derived from the metaphysical being that represents Time, who is beyond good and evil.
15:20
Brief overview then. Arising out of the then-overwhelmingly polytheistic world of the Near-East, Zoroastrianism flourished during the reign of the Achaemenian Empire as a monotheistic, dualist cosmology, pitting the spiritual forces of good and evil against one another, with the ultimate god that represents goodness, Ahura Mazda, eventually defeating evil once and for all. Interestingly, Zoroastrianism achieved a peaceful coexistence with the area's polytheism, as the religion's Amesha Spentas, that is, the divine emanations of God, became anthropomorphized figures that were allowed some degree of worship, as they were ultimately derived from Ahura Mazda himself. This is somewhat similar to the hierarchical nature of divinity within Hinduism.
Pertinent to that point, Zoroastrianism had Indo-Iranian origins, presumably splitting off from the historical Vedic tradition during the migratory period, as the two groups have been shown to have etymological roots that originate in the foundational proto-Indo-Iranian religion.
Knowing the religion's roots, we must now turn to its influence, and, oh my, this is a debated one. There is pretty vast historical consensus that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism, particularly after the Babylonian Exile, but the extent to which this influence was felt and incorporated is up for debate, specifically because we are unsure of the exact timeline of Zoroastrian doctrine prior to the consolidation of beliefs in the writing of the Avesta during the reign of the Sassanid Empire centuries later. What is clear is that by the time Zoroastrian thought was getting its hands on Israelite minds, it was espousing, in some manner, a novel form of Monotheism. The issue, of course, is that the evolution of Judaism itself from the 7th century BCE onwards was itself in the process of divorcing itself from polytheism. Influence is there, certainly, but one might consider it more of a parallel evolution than monkey see, monkey do.
The influence Zoroastrianism had on the Abrahamics at large, however, is another topic. The period from the 3rd century BCE onwards unto the development of Manichaeism is rife with religious evolution within all sects that one might suppose is derived in some form or another from Zoroastrian thought: Dualism, Eschatology, resurrection, final judgment, messianism, revelation, heaven and hell, angelology and demonology, the cosmology of six days or periods of creation, free will, foundational traces of all such concepts can be found in the Zoroastrian lineage that predates both the foundations of Christian belief, as well as later developments within Judaism itself. So while we can consider one-to-one Zoroastrian impact on the development of contemporary Judaism as being an uneasy assertion, the fact of the matter is that the melting pot that was the Semitic world at the turn of the millennium was very much evolving in conjunction with Zoroastrian thought, and multiple concepts to be found within subsequent Jewish and Christian doctrine certainly have their origins in said thought.
Lastly, the topic of Zurvanism, a fatalistic sect within Zoroastrian thought that flourished during the aforementioned Sassanid era, in conjunction with the initial development of the religion proper's core texts. Zurvanism took the metaphysical position that if Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu were indeed twins (a position that had developed over time and had been codified within the Avesta), then it made sense that they were in actuality equal descendants of some greater force; if Ahura Mazda was the sole creator god, he would have to be omnipotent (a trait Zoroaster himself is said to have denied whilst still proclaiming Ahura Mazda's position as the creator), but the existence of Angra Mainyu implies otherwise. Therefore, Ahura Mazda can not be the sole creator, and the twins are derived from Zurvan, the neutrality of time, the only possible Absolute from whom the twins could proceed and which was the source of good in the one and the source of evil in the other.
16:29
That was a lot, I didn't expect to get so deep in the weeds. Onto Manichaeism then. Mani, christian preacher born in 216 AD. Mani believed that the teachings of Gautama Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus were incomplete, and that his revelations were for the entire world, calling his teachings the 'Religion of Light', the universal religion that connects all worldviews. The core of Manichaeism is the idea of light and dark essence, the notion that humans were made up of equal parts light and dark, the goal being to eliminate the dark through purity and become light again to live in the light realm, or else face endless reincarnation in the material realm. It was purposefully manufactured to appeal to multiple religious sects, and it initially had great political sway, as it was adopted by various rulers, the idea being that the tolerance of syncretic interpretation of any religious creed through Manichaeism would bring peace, however, a series of schisms and periods of persecution from other religious majorities essentially snuffed out the tradition, and it survives only today in far-flung fragments among local cultures. Smart really doesn't provide a lot of information on this topic, it being the closing footnote to the chapter, so I'll leave it at that.
Sunday, September 25th, 2022
17:17
Greco-Roman religion. Key Terms:
Cosmos, the universe as an orderly whole.
Holocaust, a whole burnt sacrificial offering.
Hubris, overweening pride and the desire to gain equality with the gods, which typically proves disasterous.
Logos, reason within humankind, sometimes treated as the governing principle of the cosmos, as in Stoicism and in Philo and Christianity (where Logos is also creator and mediator).
Manes, the spirits of the dead: the collective ancestors.
Mysteria, mysteries or mystery religions, such as those of Isis, Eleusis, and Mithras, involving the revalation of truth in dramatic form by initiation.
Mythos, a stroy and in particular an authoritative story about the gods.
Numen, spirit, e.g., in a stream, a copse, a mountain or other sacred spot or force.
Philosophia, love of wisdom, or a system of ideas which helps us to understand and cope with life, such as Stoicism or Neoplatonism.
Religio, that which binds us to the gods, religion.
Temenos, a sanctuary or sacred area often including a temple.
Theos, God, or God as supreme being, as in Aristotle's philosophy.
17:34
Quick overview of the philosophical tradition of greek thought that underpins their religious understanding. Touched on a few of these in past entries due to their prevalence in the western tradition, but it's good to retread and expand:
Pre-Socratic thought is built on the foundation that the cosmos, as an ordered arrangement, could be analyzed and understood via rational inquiry in order to discover the arche, or Material Principle that governed reality, independent of supernatural claims and mythology. The Pre-Socratics were not atheists, buts they believed natural phenomena had to be assessed and categorized as separate from the divine in order to truly gain knowledge of this Material Principle. Pre-Socratic thought is largely a form of material monism, that is, the belief that the Material Principle of the world is based in a singular element or force. The father of Greek philosophy, and the first Pre-Socratic philosopher, Thales, pioneered this school of thought, believing that the origin of all things was most likely in water, and that all material phenomena is thus derived in some way or another from water in its various forms. Anaximander, 25 years Thales' younger, supposed that arche would have to be infinite in substance and scope, and thus was not a material element, but rather a yet undefined form of matter, thus termed Apeiron, meaning boundless. A contemporary of Anaximander, Anaximenes, believed instead that arche was in fact air, and that its thickening and thinning could constitute all forms of matter. Later, Heraclitus made the claim that the arche of the world was fire, and that all things originate and all things return to it again in a process of eternal cycles. Key to Heraclitus' perspective is the notion of Flux, or the impermanence of all things, ta panta rhei, everything flows; 'into the same rivers we both step and do not step; we both are and are not.' In this manner, Heraclitus' arche of fire can be taken as a metaphorical representation of his metaphysical conception of the world as being in flux, as like a flame, rather than a literal interpretation of the world as founded in that flame. Another key concept Heraclitus espoused was that of the 'Unity of Opposites', the idea that the unity of the world and its various parts is kept through the tension produced by opposites, and that each polar substance necessarily contains its opposite, a continual circular exchange and motion that results in the stability of the cosmos. Heraclitus is also known for formulating the concept of the logos, or discourse/reason; logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure, implied within Heraclitus' use of the term is the existence of an independent and universal logos that exists outside of human perception. It's a muddy term, notoriously contextual, but from my understanding it can be somewhat likened to the Tao; the governing principle of the knowledge of reality rather than the metaphysical substance of reality as found within the notion of the arche itself. Pythagoras fits in here, considering the cosmos as being constituted of numbers and mathematical principles, though he was derided for his belief in reincarnation. I should also note Xenophanes, credited with highlighting the limits of human knowledge; we are quick to make claims but slow to prove them, it is within the realm of critical thinking that we make progress, but it is necessarily a gradual process. Xenophanes too was a critic of greek theology, pointing out that we did not know whether there was one god or many gods, or in such case whether there was a hierarchy among them. To critique the anthropomorphic representation of the gods by his contemporary Greeks, he noted that different nations depicted their gods as looking like themselves; 'If oxen, horses, or lions could draw, they would draw their gods as oxen, horses, or lions'. This critique was not limited to the looks of gods but also their behaviour. All those mentioned thus far that spoke on the matter of arche can be considered as existing within the 'Ionian' school of Pre-Socratic philosophy, concerned first and foremost with the material dimensions of monism, this is in contrast to the 'Eleatic' school, of which the just-mentioned Xenophanes can be tangentially considered a forefather, along with Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, and Melissus. The Eleatics rejected the epistemological validity of sense experience, and instead took logical standards of clarity and necessity to be the criteria of truth, asserting that all reality is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, and necessary; an eternalist, metaphysically monist position that champions internal consistency above all else. It is for this reason they reject the doctrine of the Ionian school, with Parmenides pointing out that material phenomena can not be the basis of the cosmos as it is a constituent part of the cosmos itself. Whatever is, exists. Whatever is other than is, has no existence; nothing can come from nothing, so what is, is, and what is, always was. Next came the Pluralists, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. Anaxagoras mirrored Eleatic thought, generally agreeing with the apparent timelessness of existence and its eternal nature, but he diverged on the point of monism. According to Anaxagoras, all things are composites of some basic elements, excluding that which has soul, or Psyche, which he considered an element unto itself, Nous: 'All other things partake in a portion of everything, while nous is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with nothing, but is alone, itself by itself.' Nous is characterized by its ability to induce motion; all other composite matter that makes up the world is merely dependent on the natural laws, whereas nous can drive matter itself, as in bodily motion. It was postulated too, that should the universe not be eternal, and derived from some first cause, nous is the only thing within material reality that seems to be unto itself a causal agent, making it a likely originator. Empedocles, our other Pluralst, is best known for originating the cosmogonic theory of the four classical elements, uniting the arche of Anaxagoras with that of the Ionians', positing that it was air, earth, fire, and water that, united in their various forms, constituted all matter. Empedocles, like the later Atomist school, was perceptive on the point of matter's ultimate totality, proposing that nothing new comes or can come into being; the only change that can occur is a change in the juxtaposition of element with element. It should be noted that it likely wasn't until the days of Plato that the word 'element' was used, for the Pre-Socratics, 'root' was more popular. Empedocles considered the four elements as simple, eternal, and unalterable, but were themselves inert. Two more natural forces were supposed to exist that facilitated the mixture and separation of these elements, namely, Love and Strife (Philotes and Neikos). Love is responsible for the attraction of different forms of matter, and Strife is the cause of their separation. Love and Strife are attractive and repulsive forces, respectively, which are plainly observable in human behavior, but also pervade the universe. The two forces wax and wane in their dominance, but neither force ever wholly escapes the imposition of the other. You can see here, again, a return to the ideas of the Ionian school, with Love and Strife being quite reminiscent of Heraclitus' Unity of Opposites. We move on to the Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus, who, in response to the Eleatic occupation with What-is, pointed out that since motions exist, What-is-not must also exist for What-is to occupy; hence void exists. Atoms, according to the Atomists, had some characteristics of the Eleatic What-is: they were homogeneous and indivisible, composing all matter. The Atomists also concluded that, seeing as all things are derived from some prior cause, the universe was necessarily deterministic. We are left to mention the Sophists, as well as Philolaous of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia, who, though existing under the umbrella of Pre-Socratic philosophy, ultimately did not advance Pre-Socratic thought in their own right, instead existing as espousers of abstract thinking and argumentation, more tools to hone the arguments of contemporary scholars than anything else, so any detail on any one of their positions would be to delve into the subjects of their critique, which is too much to go into here.
Okay, that was a lot, and covering just these Pre-Socratics alone took me near four and a half hours. So much for 'quick'. I'll return to this later to cover the rest. It was my intention to block paragraph each period of philosophy, thus the lack of spacing. If only I knew how much I was going to cover!
Wednesday, September 27th, 2022
03:08
Bouts of existential dread the past few days. Can't quite pin the cause or exact worry. Some deep, dark discomfort with the nature of existence. It tends to hit me at random, in the quiet moments bereft of focus in the mind, like a shadowing rogue or underlying illness waiting to make itself apparent. I'd have thought that this specific type of worry wouldn't be of the kind that had the ability to envelope me like it does, but I find myself worrying all the same. One can speak practically and dismissively of the topic when engaged in active conversation, but when it's nothing but the self and the question, I feel as though there is only a fundamental wrongness to be found.
Whenever I voice this complaint, it feels exposing, as if dwelling on the question is reason enough for social dismissal; if one can't find the answer, one should not worry. As if the discontent is a choice.
I feel incredibly vulnerable in that manner, it scares me.
Monday, September 19th, 2022
18:00
Let my commitment slip for a couple weeks. Have been reading a lot of non-fiction in the meantime, but hope to return to heavy reading, making some headway into World Religions once more.
First actual look at Jainism, totally blind on it up to this point. Jainism is considered a 'transtheistic' religion, that is, it makes no claims about a supreme creator deity, and it presupposes that the universe has existed and will continue to exist forever. Jainism also hold the doctrine of Anekantavada (literally: non-one-sidedness doctrine), a form of non-absolutist relativism, the notion that there is no absolute truth to reality, only a complex series of relativistic claims and aspects that constitute a whole that can not be individually or wholly grasped.
Some key terms 'World Religions' provides:
Ahimsa, the virtue of non-violence towards all living beings.
Ajiva, non-living matter, including human and other bodies: everything which is not Jiva (Soul).
Anekantavada, see above.
Angas, the earliest texts in the Jain tradition.
Jina, victor or conqueror, the main title of the great Jain teachers.
Kevala, state of liberation in which the jiva exists motionless at the summit of the universe.
Mahavrata, the vow taken by a monk or nun, pledging themselves to ahimsa and other moral rules.
Tapas, austerity.
Tirthamkara, ford-maker, the great leader who makes a way across the stream of life to salvation.
Also of note are the Digambara and the Svetambara, the 'Sky-clad' and 'White-clad' respectively; monastic nudity is common among the Jains, but those who do not practice wear three pieces of white cloth.
As stated, Jainism has no doctrine of a creator, but they do believe in a series of heavens and hells; the liberated jiva may rise, free from the weight of its depressing karma, to the top of the universe where it remains, free from pain in kevala.
Every jiva is considered an omniscient, eternal entity seperate from the universe of matter, only existing within the body temporarily during the cycles of rebirth that Jainism likewise shares with other Indian religions. The jiva is characterised by chetana (consciousness) and upayoga (knowledge and perception), but material defilement within the universe causes it to lose this knowledge; through emancipation this original omniscience is regained, thus the moral rules, as in mahavrata.
18:31
Of note is the indian philosophical school of the 'Ajivika', or the 'Follower of the Way of Life'. Ajivika teachings centered on the idea of Niyati, or fate. No virtuous act or austerity can help an individual to be released from the sufferings of this world, although such actions may be an indicator that the individual may be close to liberation. No, every soul has been set on a preordained path of living and suffering, and even ultimate liberation (as in moksha) is not guaranteed.
Considered by the Buddhists as a potentially threatening level of fatalism, Ajivika would go on to die out in the area, and such philosophy is largely considered heterodox, specifically the rejection of the doctrine of Karma, which did not at all fit in with the Ajivika conception of determinism.
18:40
I have a passing familiarity with the basics of Sikhism, so there's no real utility in summarizing the description Smart gives here, but I will note the key terms provided for posterity:
Amrit, initiation by baptism in sweetened water stirred by a two-edged sword, in which the initiate swears to abide by Rahit.
Granth, the sacred scriptures which now exist as the eternal guru.
Gurdwara, the Sikh temple.
Guru, one of the ten leaders and preceptors of Sikhism.
Janamsakhi, Punjabi writings celebrating the life of Guru Nanak.
Khalsa, the Sikh community, the 'pure ones' started by Gobind.
Mool Mantra, the 'basic verse', a brief statement of belief composed by Nanak affirming the oneness of God.
Panth, literally the 'path', or spiritual sect.
Rahit, the code of ethics and rituals laid upon the Sikhs, including the worn articles of faith.
Sant, a member of a devotional tradition of North India, picturing God as without attributes or nirgunan rather than more personally as among Vaishnavas.
Sat Guru, the name most give to God in Sikhism, literally 'Being, the Teacher'.
Sikh, literally 'Disciple', a member of the Sikh Panth.
Smart does relay a pretty funny anecdote attributed to Nanak, in which, on a journey to Mecca, the Guru mistakenly falls asleep with his feet pointing towards Mecca, inadvertently showing disrespect to the Muslim faith in doing so. A mullah, or Muslim scholar, wakes Nanak angrily to correct this transgression, but Nanak's reply is devastating: "Then turn my feet in a direction where God is not."
Tuesday, September 20th, 2022
16:54
Learned of Indra's Net, a Buddhist metaphor used to illustrate the concept of Pratityasamutpada, or 'dependent origination'. I quote an excerpt from Francis H. Cook that I found on wikipedia after reading about the metaphor in World Religions:
Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering "like" stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.
The 'jewels' in this net can refer to any and all items, entities, and concepts, highlighting the Buddhist perspective on how all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas, and from that, how the jewels too may thus refer to buddha-nature in both the microcosm of the individual, and the macrocosm of sunyata, or the emptiness of non-self, within the infinity of those reflections.
It's a very evocative image, and I can't help but relate it mentally to the doctrine of interdependence found within the Thelemic maxim 'Every man and every woman is a star'. As a metaphor, it pictures every individual as though they were a celestial object, racing through space, their trajectories goverened by their independent true Will, the notion being that when all follow their True Will, this cosmic interplay between all individuals will engender a harmonious balance, where no one star intrudes on the other, gravitationally stabilized as it is by the natural trajectories of every other party. The difference between the metaphors, I find, is that, Crowley, as an individualist, saw fit to focus first and foremost on the independence of each individual star within this cosmic orchestra, tracing their own arcs as they do, with the mutual balancing merely being the resultant outcome of this singular focus, whereas Indra's Net is very much focused on the interdependence of things as a foundational reality.
It seems mostly to be a difference of language, however, and a lot can be said on this topic with how Thelema as a whole analogizes reality, and the layers you can find there that would add more to this discussion, but I'll have to stop myself here, if only because my knowledge of Buddhist metaphysics could nary fill half a page. Very out of my depth!
17:01
Making my way through Smart's assessment of Chinese religion now, though I am at this point quite acquainted with the area, so there is not much to write on. One quote, though, from Wang Yangming, a Neo-Confucian scholar I hadn't yet read on:
Knowledge is the beginning of action; action is the completion of knowledge.
Smart doesn't go much into Wang beyond this pithy statement, and if I'm honest I think I've had my fill of Neo-Confucian metaphysics for one year at least, so I'll merely appreciate the quote for its aesthetic value rather than its historical context at this juncture. Onwards.
17:10
On to Japan, then. Again, some Key terms:
Bosatu, Bodhisattva, often appearing god-like as a celestial being.
Butsudan, a household altar to the Buddha, parallel to a kamidan, or shinto shrine.
Daimoku, the title of the Lotus Sutra.
Jodo, The Pure Land, a paradise for the faithful in faith-oriented Amida Buddhism.
Kami, traditional nature god or spirit.
Kannon, the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara in female form.
Kokutai, the national Essence.
Matsuri, shinto festival or ceremony.
Miko, shinto shamans or priestesses, brought up strictly as virgins, serves the cult of the local kami.
Nembutsu, the formula of calling on the Buddha which brings salvation.
Shinto, the way of the Kami.
Tendai, a sacramental and esoteric movement within Japanese Buddhism.
Zen, literally 'Meditation', also the name of Japanese forms of yogic Buddhism.
17:14
As with China, I'm pretty familiar with the broad strokes of Japanese religion thanks to Dubois' Religion and the Making of Modern East Asia, but there are a few things Smart brings up that are new to me.
Most interestingly, Emperor Tenmu, who, during his reign, ordered the committing to paper and codification of the nation's diverse cultural myths—in what would later become the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki—the effort ultimately being a means of affording his restructuring of Japanese society a form of religious legitimacy; up to that point in time, Shinto as we know it didn't exist as a widespread religion. This is a pretty evident example of a manufactured faith for political ends. As said, I've been over this subject before (see my prior entry on the Meiji Restoration), but I was unaware that even the foundational myths as collected and told originated as a political gambit.
17:40
Sped through the comparatively smaller chapter on Southeast Asia, a religious melting pot of Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic influence. Certainly an area I lack the knowledge and tact to summarize accurately; if I ever return to Buddhism in general, this will have to be an area I get a real handle on, though for now I'm content with the overview Smart offers. I have no real notes.
17:57
Pacific religions. Key terms:
Atua, Polynesian word for a god or supernatural being.
Calumet, French term applied to all smoking instruments. Smoking is a ceremonial act.
Corroboree, aboriginal festival with ceremonial rituals and dances, often reenacting myths.
Kachina, masks and other representations of mythic beings.
Mana, sacred and numinous power associated with gods, breaches of tabu, and holy forces in nature.
Marae, Polynesian word for a sacred area with a shrine.
Masalai, Melanesian word for animal spirits and demons liable to haunt human beings.
Mizimu, Bantu word for the spirits of the dead; ancestors.
Nganga, specialist in dealing with illnesses and various evils.
Shaman, Tungus word from Siberia for a visionary who can help cure the sick and locate resources.
Tabu, Polynesian word for that which is forbidden and dangerous; great mana generates tabu.
Totem, Algonquin word for a natural species of animal or plant life connected especially with a clan, who do not hunt or gather that species.
Some quick notes regarding the so-termed 'smallscale religions' of the pacific. Smart doesn't go into extensive detail on any one region or clan, instead providing a broad overview.
Polynesia: Gods exist in the heavenly world that is distinct from the material. Such gods can be invited into the material world through replication of their images or myths, as in masks and ritual. The gods are known as real figures with detailed creation myths. As such, these gods and the associated dynamic of mana and tabu are revered.
Melanesia: The border between the heavenly realm and material realm is loose; humans comingle with spirits in day-to-day life. The use of mana and magic as a means of controlling this reciprocal relationship in pursuit of human utility is a common occurence. Ancestor worship is likewise common, as the ghosts of the dead linger for some time before straying outward to the heavens. There are no real central deities or myths, just a division between 'here' and 'there'.
Micronesia: Sharing the same general outline as Polynesia, Micronesia is contrasted by its emphasis on their myths concerning a female creator deity.
Australia: Core to the Aboriginal conception of spirituality is the 'Dreaming', sometimes referred to as 'Dreamtime', though no Aboriginal language has a word for 'time' related to this philosophy, as 'Dreaming' is an omnipresent concept that connects the past, present, and the future. The Dreaming refers to both the period in which ancestral figures shaped the landscape in mythic tales, as well as the symbols that make up reality, as in concepts, characters, animals and locations themselves. A specific tribe or familial line can 'own' a Dreaming, as in a totem, connecting their sense of self with the Dreaming of, for instance, a Kangaroo. It's an interesting concept, and hard to immediately grasp, layered as it is under the umbrella term of Dreaming, but I think I have a handle on it.
Thursday, September 22nd, 2022
16:52
Acquired copies of Daphne Hampson's After Christianity, and Roger Lloyd's Revolutionary Religion: Christianity Fascism and Communism.
Extremely interestingly, this copy of Revolutionary Religion, published in 1938, is an original printing of the 'Religious Book Club' edition, a middlebrow institution that existed throughout the middle decades of the last century, and, much to my excitement, contains an original bulletin leaflet from said organization: The Religious Book Club Bulletin No. 2. Not only that, but it contains too a series of contemporary newspaper clippings, evidently the owner of this text was prepared to discuss the topics within these clippings at the book club's meeting, indeed, the bulletin leaflet itself contains a 'Questions for discussion on Revolutionary Religion' segment.
A fascinating piece of history, found squirrelled away in the far corner of a charity shop. I love these little stories.
Friday, September 23rd, 2022
13:20
The Americas. Very broad area, but most religious traditions died out in the colonial era/never really evolved into deeply organized lineages. Not much to write on this topic, including the closing quote Smart provides on the area:
If anything is close to being a universal theme in the Americas it is that of shamanism. The sacred center of Tenochtitlan and the pole erected in the Sun Dance both attest to the symbolism of the axis mundi. The Sweat Lodge and the drugs of Ancient Peru both attest to the Vision Quest. The figure of the priest and healer who also has the secret of fertility is one of the great symbols of the archaic world.
13:41
Mesopatamian, Egyptian, Canaanite and Phoenician religion. Already acquainted with the board strokes of the lot, detailed my foray into the Book of Going Forth by Day in past entries, but it is worth noting how Phoenician (Read: later Canaanite) religion especially exists as a sort of mirror to that of the then-outgrowing Israelite tradition; both were composites of their Mesopatamian roots, after all, but the fact they existed contemporaneously, with demonization of the former's deities happening in real time within Semitic scriptures is a pretty egregious example of revisiomism on the part of the Abrahamic tradition! Not to mention the Elohim discourse. I digress.
14:20
Smart tells of the Servant Songs of the book of Isaiah, in which the 'eved YHWH, or, Servant of YHWH—likely a metaphorical and literary representation of the state of Israel—suffers at the hands of his countrymen due to his commitment to the Lord. This era of Israelite belief was characterised by political tumult, and war with the Assyrians; it was a common religious interpretation that this was the result of ethical misconduct on the part of the Twelve Tribes; there are commentaries on the superfluousity of sacrifices at the Temple, where wealth and prosperity was valued more than commitment to the religious values themselves. In this manner, the Servant of YHWH represents a spiritual zeitgeist of the time, a warning and reaffirmation of what it means to be Israelite.
I myself note the comparison that can be made between the Servant of YHWH and its respective sociopolitical commentary with that of the later book of Revelation's status as a commentary on Nero's Rome, the tale instead becoming suffused over time into, well, just that, mythological revelation. It should of course be said that Christian adherents and writers painted Christ as this Servant of YHWH, allotting him a fair amount of scriptural precedence, but this is of course a retroactive justification.
14:35
A last footnote, readings of messianic attestations in passages from Isaiah as a whole can be considered anachronistic, as the eschatological definiton of 'Messiah', as in, a future Jewish king from the Davidic line that will rule the Jewish people, did not exist at the time of writing, instead, Messiah as used within Isaiah specifically refers to a king or High Priest important to the Jewish people within the present, traditionally anointed with holy oil, namely, Cyrus the Great, who decreed that the Jewish people may return from exile in Babylon. With this in mind, the Servant of YHWH too, as written, did not imply prophecy or revelation, indeed, the poems that refer to him are written in the past tense, implying metaphor.
22:16
Coming back to this top later in the day due to a thought. Jewish discussion regarding eschatology on the Messiah as a future figure generally peaked right before and during the time of the life of Christ. We all know Christianity started as a messianic sect that divided from second temple Judaism due to disagreements on whether or not he 'was' the Messiah, but to actually get the timeline down in my head, with the context I've been given from the day's reading, it really only makes it out that Christ was not in fact the culmination of centuries worth of Jewish prophecy and scholarly debate, but instead a fairly expected claimant to a religious position of power in the heat of a very fast-moving sectarian movement; the nature of Messianic thought developed alongside Christ, not before him; because Christ did not meet a set of characteristics that were being discussed within the century, this makes both sides seem fairly farcical in taking any firm stances about the subject. I mean, excusing the fact they're debating prophecy and revelation at all, that is.
Saturday, September 24th, 2022
14:46
Zoroastrianism. I knew a little about Zoroastrianism due to my very brief readings on our next religion of focus, Manichaeism, but I wasn't aware of the historical contexts in which it was placed. First, key terms:
Adur, Sacred fire. All fire is considered purified and is ritually tended to in temples and holy places.
Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, creator God.
Amesha Spentas, the seven divine entities emanating from Ahura Mazda.
Angra Mainyu, the Hostile Spirit, source of all evil. Destined to be overcome by Ahura Mazda. Later known as Ahriman.
Bundahishn, creation of the world arising out of war between Good and Evil spirits.
Chinvat, the bridge of separation and judgement.
Frashokereti, the act of creation, the occasion of resurrection, and of the final judgement.
Fravashis, the eternal spirits of human beings, which exist in heaven much like angels: the implication is that humans have freely chosen to assume material form.
Manthras, words of power, prayers drawn mainly from the earliest scriptures attributed to Zarathustra.
Yasana, temple rite, or worship generally.
Yazatas, heavenly beings thought worthy of worship. The most popular is Mithra.
Zurvan, Time. The focus of a deviant sect in later Zoroastrianism, known as Zurvanism: both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu are derived from the metaphysical being that represents Time, who is beyond good and evil.
15:20
Brief overview then. Arising out of the then-overwhelmingly polytheistic world of the Near-East, Zoroastrianism flourished during the reign of the Achaemenian Empire as a monotheistic, dualist cosmology, pitting the spiritual forces of good and evil against one another, with the ultimate god that represents goodness, Ahura Mazda, eventually defeating evil once and for all. Interestingly, Zoroastrianism achieved a peaceful coexistence with the area's polytheism, as the religion's Amesha Spentas, that is, the divine emanations of God, became anthropomorphized figures that were allowed some degree of worship, as they were ultimately derived from Ahura Mazda himself. This is somewhat similar to the hierarchical nature of divinity within Hinduism.
Pertinent to that point, Zoroastrianism had Indo-Iranian origins, presumably splitting off from the historical Vedic tradition during the migratory period, as the two groups have been shown to have etymological roots that originate in the foundational proto-Indo-Iranian religion.
Knowing the religion's roots, we must now turn to its influence, and, oh my, this is a debated one. There is pretty vast historical consensus that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism, particularly after the Babylonian Exile, but the extent to which this influence was felt and incorporated is up for debate, specifically because we are unsure of the exact timeline of Zoroastrian doctrine prior to the consolidation of beliefs in the writing of the Avesta during the reign of the Sassanid Empire centuries later. What is clear is that by the time Zoroastrian thought was getting its hands on Israelite minds, it was espousing, in some manner, a novel form of Monotheism. The issue, of course, is that the evolution of Judaism itself from the 7th century BCE onwards was itself in the process of divorcing itself from polytheism. Influence is there, certainly, but one might consider it more of a parallel evolution than monkey see, monkey do.
The influence Zoroastrianism had on the Abrahamics at large, however, is another topic. The period from the 3rd century BCE onwards unto the development of Manichaeism is rife with religious evolution within all sects that one might suppose is derived in some form or another from Zoroastrian thought: Dualism, Eschatology, resurrection, final judgment, messianism, revelation, heaven and hell, angelology and demonology, the cosmology of six days or periods of creation, free will, foundational traces of all such concepts can be found in the Zoroastrian lineage that predates both the foundations of Christian belief, as well as later developments within Judaism itself. So while we can consider one-to-one Zoroastrian impact on the development of contemporary Judaism as being an uneasy assertion, the fact of the matter is that the melting pot that was the Semitic world at the turn of the millennium was very much evolving in conjunction with Zoroastrian thought, and multiple concepts to be found within subsequent Jewish and Christian doctrine certainly have their origins in said thought.
Lastly, the topic of Zurvanism, a fatalistic sect within Zoroastrian thought that flourished during the aforementioned Sassanid era, in conjunction with the initial development of the religion proper's core texts. Zurvanism took the metaphysical position that if Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu were indeed twins (a position that had developed over time and had been codified within the Avesta), then it made sense that they were in actuality equal descendants of some greater force; if Ahura Mazda was the sole creator god, he would have to be omnipotent (a trait Zoroaster himself is said to have denied whilst still proclaiming Ahura Mazda's position as the creator), but the existence of Angra Mainyu implies otherwise. Therefore, Ahura Mazda can not be the sole creator, and the twins are derived from Zurvan, the neutrality of time, the only possible Absolute from whom the twins could proceed and which was the source of good in the one and the source of evil in the other.
16:29
That was a lot, I didn't expect to get so deep in the weeds. Onto Manichaeism then. Mani, christian preacher born in 216 AD. Mani believed that the teachings of Gautama Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus were incomplete, and that his revelations were for the entire world, calling his teachings the 'Religion of Light', the universal religion that connects all worldviews. The core of Manichaeism is the idea of light and dark essence, the notion that humans were made up of equal parts light and dark, the goal being to eliminate the dark through purity and become light again to live in the light realm, or else face endless reincarnation in the material realm. It was purposefully manufactured to appeal to multiple religious sects, and it initially had great political sway, as it was adopted by various rulers, the idea being that the tolerance of syncretic interpretation of any religious creed through Manichaeism would bring peace, however, a series of schisms and periods of persecution from other religious majorities essentially snuffed out the tradition, and it survives only today in far-flung fragments among local cultures. Smart really doesn't provide a lot of information on this topic, it being the closing footnote to the chapter, so I'll leave it at that.
Sunday, September 25th, 2022
17:17
Greco-Roman religion. Key Terms:
Cosmos, the universe as an orderly whole.
Holocaust, a whole burnt sacrificial offering.
Hubris, overweening pride and the desire to gain equality with the gods, which typically proves disasterous.
Logos, reason within humankind, sometimes treated as the governing principle of the cosmos, as in Stoicism and in Philo and Christianity (where Logos is also creator and mediator).
Manes, the spirits of the dead: the collective ancestors.
Mysteria, mysteries or mystery religions, such as those of Isis, Eleusis, and Mithras, involving the revalation of truth in dramatic form by initiation.
Mythos, a stroy and in particular an authoritative story about the gods.
Numen, spirit, e.g., in a stream, a copse, a mountain or other sacred spot or force.
Philosophia, love of wisdom, or a system of ideas which helps us to understand and cope with life, such as Stoicism or Neoplatonism.
Religio, that which binds us to the gods, religion.
Temenos, a sanctuary or sacred area often including a temple.
Theos, God, or God as supreme being, as in Aristotle's philosophy.
17:34
Quick overview of the philosophical tradition of greek thought that underpins their religious understanding. Touched on a few of these in past entries due to their prevalence in the western tradition, but it's good to retread and expand:
Pre-Socratic thought is built on the foundation that the cosmos, as an ordered arrangement, could be analyzed and understood via rational inquiry in order to discover the arche, or Material Principle that governed reality, independent of supernatural claims and mythology. The Pre-Socratics were not atheists, buts they believed natural phenomena had to be assessed and categorized as separate from the divine in order to truly gain knowledge of this Material Principle. Pre-Socratic thought is largely a form of material monism, that is, the belief that the Material Principle of the world is based in a singular element or force. The father of Greek philosophy, and the first Pre-Socratic philosopher, Thales, pioneered this school of thought, believing that the origin of all things was most likely in water, and that all material phenomena is thus derived in some way or another from water in its various forms. Anaximander, 25 years Thales' younger, supposed that arche would have to be infinite in substance and scope, and thus was not a material element, but rather a yet undefined form of matter, thus termed Apeiron, meaning boundless. A contemporary of Anaximander, Anaximenes, believed instead that arche was in fact air, and that its thickening and thinning could constitute all forms of matter. Later, Heraclitus made the claim that the arche of the world was fire, and that all things originate and all things return to it again in a process of eternal cycles. Key to Heraclitus' perspective is the notion of Flux, or the impermanence of all things, ta panta rhei, everything flows; 'into the same rivers we both step and do not step; we both are and are not.' In this manner, Heraclitus' arche of fire can be taken as a metaphorical representation of his metaphysical conception of the world as being in flux, as like a flame, rather than a literal interpretation of the world as founded in that flame. Another key concept Heraclitus espoused was that of the 'Unity of Opposites', the idea that the unity of the world and its various parts is kept through the tension produced by opposites, and that each polar substance necessarily contains its opposite, a continual circular exchange and motion that results in the stability of the cosmos. Heraclitus is also known for formulating the concept of the logos, or discourse/reason; logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure, implied within Heraclitus' use of the term is the existence of an independent and universal logos that exists outside of human perception. It's a muddy term, notoriously contextual, but from my understanding it can be somewhat likened to the Tao; the governing principle of the knowledge of reality rather than the metaphysical substance of reality as found within the notion of the arche itself. Pythagoras fits in here, considering the cosmos as being constituted of numbers and mathematical principles, though he was derided for his belief in reincarnation. I should also note Xenophanes, credited with highlighting the limits of human knowledge; we are quick to make claims but slow to prove them, it is within the realm of critical thinking that we make progress, but it is necessarily a gradual process. Xenophanes too was a critic of greek theology, pointing out that we did not know whether there was one god or many gods, or in such case whether there was a hierarchy among them. To critique the anthropomorphic representation of the gods by his contemporary Greeks, he noted that different nations depicted their gods as looking like themselves; 'If oxen, horses, or lions could draw, they would draw their gods as oxen, horses, or lions'. This critique was not limited to the looks of gods but also their behaviour. All those mentioned thus far that spoke on the matter of arche can be considered as existing within the 'Ionian' school of Pre-Socratic philosophy, concerned first and foremost with the material dimensions of monism, this is in contrast to the 'Eleatic' school, of which the just-mentioned Xenophanes can be tangentially considered a forefather, along with Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, and Melissus. The Eleatics rejected the epistemological validity of sense experience, and instead took logical standards of clarity and necessity to be the criteria of truth, asserting that all reality is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, and necessary; an eternalist, metaphysically monist position that champions internal consistency above all else. It is for this reason they reject the doctrine of the Ionian school, with Parmenides pointing out that material phenomena can not be the basis of the cosmos as it is a constituent part of the cosmos itself. Whatever is, exists. Whatever is other than is, has no existence; nothing can come from nothing, so what is, is, and what is, always was. Next came the Pluralists, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. Anaxagoras mirrored Eleatic thought, generally agreeing with the apparent timelessness of existence and its eternal nature, but he diverged on the point of monism. According to Anaxagoras, all things are composites of some basic elements, excluding that which has soul, or Psyche, which he considered an element unto itself, Nous: 'All other things partake in a portion of everything, while nous is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with nothing, but is alone, itself by itself.' Nous is characterized by its ability to induce motion; all other composite matter that makes up the world is merely dependent on the natural laws, whereas nous can drive matter itself, as in bodily motion. It was postulated too, that should the universe not be eternal, and derived from some first cause, nous is the only thing within material reality that seems to be unto itself a causal agent, making it a likely originator. Empedocles, our other Pluralst, is best known for originating the cosmogonic theory of the four classical elements, uniting the arche of Anaxagoras with that of the Ionians', positing that it was air, earth, fire, and water that, united in their various forms, constituted all matter. Empedocles, like the later Atomist school, was perceptive on the point of matter's ultimate totality, proposing that nothing new comes or can come into being; the only change that can occur is a change in the juxtaposition of element with element. It should be noted that it likely wasn't until the days of Plato that the word 'element' was used, for the Pre-Socratics, 'root' was more popular. Empedocles considered the four elements as simple, eternal, and unalterable, but were themselves inert. Two more natural forces were supposed to exist that facilitated the mixture and separation of these elements, namely, Love and Strife (Philotes and Neikos). Love is responsible for the attraction of different forms of matter, and Strife is the cause of their separation. Love and Strife are attractive and repulsive forces, respectively, which are plainly observable in human behavior, but also pervade the universe. The two forces wax and wane in their dominance, but neither force ever wholly escapes the imposition of the other. You can see here, again, a return to the ideas of the Ionian school, with Love and Strife being quite reminiscent of Heraclitus' Unity of Opposites. We move on to the Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus, who, in response to the Eleatic occupation with What-is, pointed out that since motions exist, What-is-not must also exist for What-is to occupy; hence void exists. Atoms, according to the Atomists, had some characteristics of the Eleatic What-is: they were homogeneous and indivisible, composing all matter. The Atomists also concluded that, seeing as all things are derived from some prior cause, the universe was necessarily deterministic. We are left to mention the Sophists, as well as Philolaous of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia, who, though existing under the umbrella of Pre-Socratic philosophy, ultimately did not advance Pre-Socratic thought in their own right, instead existing as espousers of abstract thinking and argumentation, more tools to hone the arguments of contemporary scholars than anything else, so any detail on any one of their positions would be to delve into the subjects of their critique, which is too much to go into here.
Okay, that was a lot, and covering just these Pre-Socratics alone took me near four and a half hours. So much for 'quick'. I'll return to this later to cover the rest. It was my intention to block paragraph each period of philosophy, thus the lack of spacing. If only I knew how much I was going to cover!
Wednesday, September 27th, 2022
03:08
Bouts of existential dread the past few days. Can't quite pin the cause or exact worry. Some deep, dark discomfort with the nature of existence. It tends to hit me at random, in the quiet moments bereft of focus in the mind, like a shadowing rogue or underlying illness waiting to make itself apparent. I'd have thought that this specific type of worry wouldn't be of the kind that had the ability to envelope me like it does, but I find myself worrying all the same. One can speak practically and dismissively of the topic when engaged in active conversation, but when it's nothing but the self and the question, I feel as though there is only a fundamental wrongness to be found.
Whenever I voice this complaint, it feels exposing, as if dwelling on the question is reason enough for social dismissal; if one can't find the answer, one should not worry. As if the discontent is a choice.
I feel incredibly vulnerable in that manner, it scares me.