What Exactly is a God?
-
So far from what I can tell, there seems to be a pretty big difference between what most moderns occultists think of as a god and the way they were thought of in ancient times. If I understand this correctly, the modern outlook is that a god represents psychological attributes of the human mind. I've also heard gods described as symbolizing a state (or states) of human consciousness. A well developed pantheon of gods is considered to represent the full spectrum of the human psychology. War, love/beauty, wisdom, death, knowledge, sex/creation, parent, child, etc. If I missed someone may they strike me down in furious anger!!
I'm gonna try to leave the monotheistic idea of the One God or Supreme Guiding Intelligence out of it because I have a feeling that is a different topic altogether and one which probably deserves it's own dedicated post. I would however, love to hear some perspectives on the Hermetic take on angels.
It seems to me that although Occidental religions (of the age of Osiris) professed to believe in the One God, at the same time they also developed the idea of angels, which to me seem to serve the exact same purpose of the pantheon of pagan gods which came before them.
So to clarify, in the system of Thelema there seems to be a few different categories of gods that apply to certain preferred uses. There are historic gods (typically Greek or Egyptian) which are preferred for use in general invoking rituals, often ones involving planetary work. There are (New Aeon) gods which are specifically Thelemic dieties which to be honest I dont really understand but they seem to be similar to historic gods except more applicable to the spiritual make-up of current human evolution. Then there are angels which seem to be used when with rituals that are specially Qaballistic.
My guess is that there are no fast rules for which gods/angels are used where, so long as the correspondences work out. In other words one could map the Greek pantheon onto the "enumerations" of the Tree of Life but it would be more convenient to simply use the Jewish pantheon of angels since they both emerged from that particular system.
Am I gettin any of this right??
-
@Coniuncti said
"So far from what I can tell, there seems to be a pretty big difference between what most moderns occultists think of as a god and the way they were thought of in ancient times."
That's true of qiute a lot of things
"If I understand this correctly, the modern outlook is that a god represents psychological attributes of the human mind."
A few people think that way. It's wrong to regard that as "the modern outlook" as if it were some generally accepted point of view.
I would be one example of someone who doesn't generally accept this definition (although in some people's usage, in some contexts, that's exactly what they mean: I understand that in context).
"A well developed pantheon of gods is considered to represent the full spectrum of the human psychology."
Again, that's one specific point of view.
I think at the very least you need to regard these not in terms of an individual's psyche, but of the psyche of the entire species. If you do that - and make sure to get the Plane right - then this p.o.v. may be either exactly right, or close enough that one couldn't tell the difference in a practical way.
"I'm gonna try to leave the monotheistic idea of the One God or Supreme Guiding Intelligence out of it because I have a feeling that is a different topic altogether and one which probably deserves it's own dedicated post."
Yes, I noticed that you were careful with your capitalization (or lack thereof) on the letter G.
"It seems to me that although Occidental religions (of the age of Osiris) professed to believe in the One God, at the same time they also developed the idea of angels, which to me seem to serve the exact same purpose of the pantheon of pagan gods which came before them."
I don't recall ever encountering a monotheistic religion that wasn't, in practice, polytheistic; nor a polytheistic religion that didn't, among its most wizened participants, have an implicit monotheism at its root.
"So to clarify, in the system of Thelema there seems to be a few different categories of gods that apply to certain preferred uses. There are historic gods (typically Greek or Egyptian) which are preferred for use in general invoking rituals, often ones involving planetary work. There are (New Aeon) gods which are specifically Thelemic dieties which to be honest I dont really understand but they seem to be similar to historic gods except more applicable to the spiritual make-up of current human evolution. Then there are angels which seem to be used when with rituals that are specially Qaballistic. "
Any many others. (Including people.)
-
Another interesting perspective I thought I would share comes from the Chaos Magicians. Peter Carroll wrote that:
"Religion takes the view that consciousness preceded organic life. Supposedly there were gods, angelic forces, titans, and demons setting the scene before material life developed. Science takes the opposite view and and considers that much organic evolution occurred before the phenomenon of consciousness appeared. Magic, which has given more attention to the quality of consciousness itself, takes the alternative view and concludes that organic and psychic forms evolve synchronously. As organic development occurs, a psychic field is generated which feeds back into organic forms. Thus each species of living being has it's own type of psychic form or magical essence. These egregores may occasionally be felt as a presence or even glimpsed in the form of the species they watch over. Those who have perceived the human egregore usually describe it as God. Communion with the morphic field of beasts is of great importance to the shaman and sorceror, as it conveys intimate knowledge of the actual creature and allows the magician a certain power of the species. It may also allow him to appropriate certain of the beast's powers, particularly on the aetheric plane. This is the reason for the world-wide occurrence of totemism amongst hunting peoples and the prevalence of animal headed-human bodied gods in most mythologies."
Another one is: "If the word is of Greek origin it seems to connect with the idea of watchers rather than leaders. Cf. [ho egre^'goros] = Vigil, in the Septuagint. A.E. Waite, note to Éliphas Lévi, The History of Magic
So yes, in my first post I had purposefully capitalized the "G" in "God" to indicate what I think of as some people's belief in the idea of an actual entity which was self-aware, in contrast to a lower case "g" for "gods" which I think of as some people's belief in the idea that "gods" are merely symbols or archetypes of the collective unconscious seen from a purely mundane, psychological point of view. Having revisited the concept of **"egregores" **I can see how my original post could've reflected a "few" people's opinion but perhaps not even the "common" outlook of modern magicians.
-
I think it's also a good idea not getting too hung up on a specific interpretation of gods (or anything else, for that matter!). Personally, I've found it best to have a "light grip" when it comes to defining such abstract concepts, specifically so that you're left with room for your understanding of concepts (such as the definition of a god or gods) to evolve as your own understanding evolves -- but also because, on a practical level, it's generally good to approach things "scientifically," by which I mean trying not to allow your preconceived notions color the results of your studies and experiments.
That quote from Peter Carroll, by the way, is a fascinating take on things! Food for speculation. But it's easy to use that as an example of what I mean -- if you acknowledge the fact that both the "religious" and "scientific" views describe potential viewpoints of reality without having to get attached to one or the other, it gives you a useful stance for experimentation and exploration; simply accepting one or the other because it "sounds right" is fine if your goal is to find a definition that you like and sits well with you, but will necessarily color any further exploration.
When defining words I always find it's good to remember the lessons learned by empirical philosophy, and recognize that our predisposition to attributing "truth-in-itself" to our words is something we ought to be ever aware of in the modern world.
Fra. AL H-ShMATh