No creation myth in Thelema
-
@Luce said
"That's interesting. Do many Thelemites believe in a creator?"
I think not so much "a creator," as Creation, and a divine stream (called Will) that is incessantly creating.
"If I may ask, do you believe in a personal creator? I'm not sure what I exactly mean by that; I guess I mean something that is more than just an impersonal force."
Not my place to answer for him, but your question prompted me to ask: Why do you characterize such a force as necessarily impersonal? Do you mean, perhaps, something that has a distinctive ego-like identity? For myself, I expect my Creator to be immeasurably beyond such individual distinctions.
-
Oh, I don't think such a force is necessarily impersonal. I was just asking if he thought there was an impersonal force. I also think there could be a personal force. Kinda like if I asked if he likes black dogs, I wouldn't be implying all dogs were black. Stupid example but it seems the quickest way to explain how I meant that statement to be taken.
Basically, I want to know if thelemites think that God is capable of personal actions (and by God here and throughout I mean the creator). I know God is infinitely more than I can put into words, so I'm not trying to define God, I'm more trying to define him apophatically by asking if thelemites believe the creator can't hear and respond to a person.
If I asked the creator a question, could the creator answer me? Not would the creator answer, not how would I know it's the creator, but is it possible the creator could hear me and answer me... Or would it be like asking gravity a question? I guess that's what I mean by personal. I mean capable of acting like a person. So not an ego-like being, but one that could choose to act like one. I hope that makes sense.
-
@Luce said
"That's interesting. Do many Thelemites believe in a creator?"
Don't know. I only know a few Thelemites myself and they're a pretty mixed bag.
"Also, if I may ask, do you believe in a personal creator? I'm not sure what I exactly mean by that; I guess I mean something that is more than just an impersonal force. I pray to the creator and believe that the creator hears me, knows what I'm saying, and can respond. Do you believe in the creator in that way?"
Answering your question with a yes or no would probably give the wrong impression so, instead, I'll say that I don't "believe" in anything unless it conforms with my experience and, even then, I keep everything provisional.
I don't really know what you mean by "personal creator" either but, based on your usage in the rest of your post, it seems to conform with an idea of an entity that is other than and more powerful than you. If that's an accurate description, then my answer is: no. However, your use of personal/impersonal doesn't really jive with any of my own thoughts on the matter so it's difficult for me to discuss matters of creation in that context. Jim's answer/question gets at the heart of it so I'll leave it there unless you have followups.
@Luce said
"Basically, I want to know if thelemites think that God is capable of personal actions (and by God here and throughout I mean the creator). I know God is infinitely more than I can put into words, so I'm not trying to define God, I'm more trying to define him apophatically by asking if thelemites believe the creator can't hear and respond to a person."
Thelema frames its mythos in the persons of three gods rather than One God (I think) specifically to undermine these notions.
The Rosicrucian outlook (from which Thelema depends) rests on Deus est Homo (God is Man). Taken from that viewpoint -- and all of the attendant mysteries behind and informing it -- yes, Deus is capable of personal actions.
"If I asked the creator a question, could the creator answer me? Not would the creator answer, not how would I know it's the creator, but is it possible the creator could hear me and answer me..."
If you know how to ask... and how to listen for the answer.
"Or would it be like asking gravity a question?"
Very similar.
-
Buddhism has no creation myth either. A Buddhist monk told me that Buddha wasn't concerned about creation stories because he wasn't there so he can't confirm it so why even debate or ask about it?
In fact when Nuit speaks of Creation, as posted earlier, note that there is no past tense involved but it's in fact articulated within the present tense. "This** is the creation of the wold" not "this was **the creation of the world" as in Genesis. Interesting that, one is strictly linear and the other isn't.
-
Y'know, the whole point about Thelema not having a creation myth is absurd (it doesn't have one, of course). Would anyone in the world who establishes a religion in this scientific age add in a creation myth to their religion? It's ridiculous to pejoratively talk about creation myths in this way; it's anachronistic to hold bronze-age writing to an information-age standard. Plus there's the whole thing about us not understanding ancient writing as well as we think we do... We assume just because fundies take creation myths as historical narrative that the original author meant it in that way.
If a creation myth is not meant to be taken literally, how is it infantile? For example, any cursory study into the literary genre of the first few chapters if Genesis reveals it's not historical narrative. In that case, it's meant, like all allegories, to convey truth. Therefore if creation myths are for the infantile, so are all allegories. Well, better burn Wake World.
-
Most people invested in a religion take their creation myths seriously, I think.
By the way, don't overlook the fact that current theories of astrophysicists, such as the Big Bang Theory, are creation myths. Science doesn't seek the truth (in any absolute sense) but, rather, the best model - the best story! - that fits all the facts at hand.
The Big Bang Theory is a creation myth. Among tantric physicists, the Big Bangin' Theory is a much more fun creation myth.
-
Yeah, I was thinking that there is kind of a creation myth implicit in Hadit (Father), Nuit (Mother), and HeruRaHa (Child) just from the fact that there's a procreative "family" personified in the "gods."
A "Big Banging" Myth. lol... But, yes, constantly occurring.
-
"Among tantric physicists, the Big Bangin' Theory is a much more fun creation myth."
Ahaha! Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing about modern cosmology. I think to some extent the story we tell is always going to be a creation myth. Because of this, I fundamentally disagree with what I see as the intent behind the original post of this thread. I don't think Thelema is superior merely because it doesn't have a creation myth. I think it'd be no less mature if it did.
I really think that this is a trap of thelemites: thinking that the absence of something automatically is superior. You see a similar thing among some atheists. Atheism is, in my opinion, the ultimate philosophical cop-out... And Thelema can sometimes follow suit when poorly understood. Ethics? There are none! Creation myth? Nope! Meaning of life? Self made! It's like mocking the Bohr model without having a theory yourself, and thinking you're superior because you're not entering into the discussion. Nothing is not superior to an incomplete something.
So are creation myths infantile? Is our modern ones (the big bang) infantile? Is thelema superior just because it doesn't put forth a theory? How confused we've become if we think there's virtue in not trying.
All of our ideas about anything are incomplete. We don't truly understand anything. We see how a plant turns to the sun and the ancients called this Mystery. We see it and call it heliotropic, thinking we've erased the mystery. The truth is that we haven't, but at least we're trying to understand it better. It is in no way an advantage to just not at all try to explain why a plant turns to the sun. Just because our theories are all myths, doesn't mean that not putting forth a theory is superior.
There's just no way to know for sure what cosmogony is all about. Moreover, the whole issue is inherently beyond our grasp. Really, we're trying to ask "what happened before the beginning of the universe." In effect, because time is a part of the universe, we're asking "what happened before the beginning of time." Then we realize the whole realm of cosmogony is centered on an internally paradoxical statement. "Before," after all, is a "time word," so how can we ask what happened before "before" even existed?
It continuously amazes me how there is something rather than nothing. What a beautiful divine drama we are a part of! "Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging?"
-
93,
@Takamba said"Creation myths behold beginnings and endings. When one's "religion" is the continuity of consciousness, where is the beginning and ending supposed to be?"
Good point! The OP and your response makes me think of LXV ii 17-25, "And laughing I chid him, saying: No whence! No whither!".
93 93/93
phthah -
Any creation theory that requires faith without evidence as is to how any such theory that exists is a very dangerous, and not mentioning unbalanced in the very nature of things. Since no evidence can be substaintiated as being true then to believe nothing is still best for me.
Given the science of things those evidences found somehow lean away from any evidence of intelligent design. But then even that idea is constantly changed and requestioned and on and on.Until mankind really knows for sure as to how things came to be, then the theories and conspiracies from those religious minded people will continue on.
-
@Barrackubus said
"Any creation theory that requires faith without evidence as is to how any such theory that exists is a very dangerous, and not mentioning unbalanced in the very nature of things. Since no evidence can be substaintiated as being true then to believe nothing is still best for me.
Given the science of things those evidences found somehow lean away from any evidence of intelligent design. But then even that idea is constantly changed and requestioned and on and on.Until mankind really knows for sure as to how things came to be, then the theories and conspiracies from those religious minded people will continue on."
Yeah exactly, we place no reliance on Virgin or pigeon... ...........you know the rest. This is Thelema.
-
The purpose of a creation myth has nothing to do with believing anything. No sane person takes them seriously. However, the human psyche responds most powerfully to stories. That's the real natir of myth.
-
"28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.
29. For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.
30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all"Creation myth or no?
Discuss.
-
I think I said exactly that at the beginning of this thread, no?
