Monday 8 December 2014

In the Beginning

"In the beginning, Eurynome, the Goddess of All Things, rose naked from Chaos, but found nothing substantial for her feet to rest upon, and therefore divided the sea from the sky, dancing lonely upon its waves."

          This beautifully evocative sentence is the opening line of the Pelasgian Creation myth as told by Robert Graves in "The Greek Myths: 1." In common with all creation myths this is, supposedly, a story describing the creation of the physical universe, from the beginning of time up to the creation of humankind. But is this a correct assumption, or is there another explanation? Before attempting to answer my own question, let me delve a little deeper into this myth.

"She danced towards the south, and the wind set in motion behind her seemed something new and apart with which to begin a work of creation. Wheeling about, she caught hold of this north wind, rubbed it between her hands, and behold! the great serpent Ophion."

          To spare your blushes, gentle folk, let me simply say that Eurynome and Ophion 'got together', the result of which was the production of the universe we see around us. The two of them set up home together on Mt. Olympus where Ophion, believe it or not, had the gall to claim that he alone was the author of the Universe. Being more than a little vexed, Eurynome (I like this bit) bruised his head with her heel, kicked out his teeth, and banished him to the dark caves below the earth. The symbolism here is so rich with meaning.
          By way of introduction to the answering of my first question as to the possibly real nature of this myth, let me refer you to an earlier post, ("In Which I Have My Being" dated 15th. June 2013) in which I recorded the following:-

"..........Below me, an airless world of water moves silently through the cosmos.  A wisp of dark, mauve smoke glides across the surface of the deeps.  Shapes, dark, menacing and unidentified, glide below the surface.  In the distance is a galaxy, shining like a brilliant sunset, or a cosmic dawn.  All the while a silvery-white, equal-armed cross hangs in space above the planet. Movement, but no passing.  Serenity, a sense of eternity.  Timelessness.  Spheres within spheres.........."

          I have always assumed that this imagery represented a cosmic symbol of our psycho-spiritual construction. I still accept that as the most likely interpretation, but now with something else added. In my imagery, the waters have been separated from the air/sky, and a wisp of smoke glides across the surface of the waters, not unlike the spirit-wind that follows the dancing Eurynome. What I am saying here is that the Greek myth and my meditation experience appear to be saying that both are a story of creation as well as a current state of psycho-spiritual being. I must say again, this creation story refers to the creation of the psycho-spiritual universe, not the physical cosmos. What then is the role of my Wisp of Smoke, and the great serpent Ophion? Later on in the post to which I refer above, I conclude that the Wisp is my own Ego, a conclusion which must now include Ophion.
          Ophion is he who claims to be the one and only Creator god, an arrogance which he shares with the Gnostic Demiurge. And dare I say that the Old Testament god Jehovah, also seems to fall into this category of divine beings. Now the ego may not claim to be the Creator, but its actions clearly, and all too often, say that it can tolerate no other god besides itself, for it alone is the creator of all our denials, perceptions and illusions.
          There is much more that could be developed on this theme, (including the Genesis myths) but it would only be icing on the Christmas cake. I will add, however, that the egoistic God portrayed in the biblical Old Testament is a far cry from the God of the New Testament, where he is portrayed as Love. Maybe we have treated the old myth makers, who were perhaps living in an age of growing spiritual enlightenment, with too little respect, and fostered our modern thinking with too much hubris.

12 comments:

  1. Intriguing and coherent line of thought, Tom. I am reminded of Mark Twain's opinion that unlike the New Testament, the Old Testament described God before He got religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Geo. I rather like Mark Twain's opinion on the matter.

      Delete
  2. Hi Tom, I agree the myth does represent symbolically the physics of the day and also as a way of describing an inhabitable place of being. I do think the God of the OT when expressed as a jealous GOD doesn’t conform to the desirous metaphysical doctrines of immutability, simplicity and impassibility.

    But Christianity also struggles to come to come to terms with this, except one might conceivably relate the message of Jesus to more of a matter of compassion and love, without the ego tarred theistic notion of vengeance.
    But a lot of this has its roots in the book of Daniel, in the apocalyptic visions for a new age , as yet unrealised, but were attributed to what Jesus said. Hence understanding this shift in emphasis, was I think mostly in turn, rooted in eschatology.

    Best wishes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hullo Lindsay: It seems to me that what Jesus actually said about a lot of things was often not understood by his immediate followers of the later Church. There appears to be a desire to link the NT with the OT, presumably to increase the credibility of the former, using expressions e.g. that Jesus did this or that, so that OT prophecy should be fulfilled. We see the same tendency in European history, relating a number of rulers such as Charlemagne to the former Roman Empire.

      When I try to strip away what I see as spurious connections between the OT and the NT, a very different, possibly non-apocalyptic, story begins to unfold (although a genuine spiritual awakening can feel apocalyptic!).

      One thing I always try to do is not confuse God with the Church, or Jesus with Christianity. Christianity appears to have problems that Jesus never experienced. And that arises, I suspect, from the principle of arguing a case from authority rather than experiential facts.

      Delete
  3. Tom, there's so much fascinating material in this post, and in creation stories in general, that I find it impossible to reply concisely. Maybe it can wait for a time when we can have another 'live' conversation. But I've always been deeply interested in creation stories, from all religious and/or cultural traditions, and have at various times been inspired to create artworks from the subject. Do you know the book 'Creation Myths' by Marie Louise Von Franz (Jungian psychotherapist)? If you don't already have it, I'm sure it would interest you.
    One of the many intriguing thing about creation stories is how similar they are, regardless of where and when they originated. I can't help thinking that, apart from psycho-spiritual connotations such as you mention, they might also have intuitions about actual cosmic creation (which science still doesn't know all the answers to) and if their mythological language was translated into physics at a very sophisticated perhaps as-yet undiscovered level, there may well be some surprises hidden therein.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hullo Natalie; I'm glad you enjoyed this. For too long I tended to treat creation myths with less than appropriate consideration. Another 'live' conversation is something to look forward to. I do not know the book you mentioned, but it is one I must keep in mind.

    If one reads only the Genesis creation myth, for example, one tends to see things as being disproportionately unique. I mentioned the point of Aphion having his head bruised, an action that appears also in the Genesis account. There is also the similarity between the Pelasgian and Gnostic myths. As you rightly say, it is intriguing how similar creation stories are. Perhaps this tells us something about how ideas and experiences were spread, and also from whence these ideas originated, perhaps.

    One must beware of reading present knowledge into past explanations of course, but I reiterate my point that perhaps we have treated past thinkers with less than their due respect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another point you might like to consider Tom is the writings of the apostle St Paul, which as you know represents over 50% of the NT, and which has become both the cornerstone of Christianity and of interest to moral secular philosophers. The mysterious “in Christ” experience he talks about is almost exclusively in relation to a “resurrected Christ” with no apparent references (there is maybe one or two oblique reference to the gospels) to the synoptics. Certainly there is evidence, in the early church, of a schism between St Peter and St Paul, with Peter wanting to retain an essentially Jewish view against Paul’s revelation quoting divine authority. St Paul, won out obviously, but there are those who claim the marring of Greek rationality to Hebrew mysticism was, and still is, an almost impossible marriage........from the beginning ? f.
    Best wishes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I shall indeed consider the point you have made. Thank you Lindsay.

      Delete
  6. It was just a couple of months ago that John Michael Greer wrote about the fact (and the reasons why) that humanity thinks in different ways depending upon the large scale culture in a period of history. Since it's far too long a piece for me to parse I hope you won't mind me giving you a link to his interesting essay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I certainly do not mind, Susan. I look forward to reading this.

      Delete
  7. As Natalie says, there is so much here of worth.
    I love how the Pelasgian Creation myth moves between body and spirit. We have the eternal struggle between the creative source and the usurper, the seduction by the female, the claiming of credit by the male. Good stuff.
    It seems to me these old myth makers, honouring the union of male and female are more in tune with and able to connect spirit to body in this way than those who recorded the old testament and conveniently ignored the female element in their Godhood; what arrogance. Or those who crafted Jesus' message of love into a loving but sexually deprived God. How they can manage that but manage to include the destruction of cities and such, but relegate creation to the wave of a cosmic (male) hand escapes me, but this is all about the people who believed such mythology and what it says about their world view after all.

    It seems to me your accounts of pathworking have included a great serpent as well in the past. Or perhaps I am remembering my own dimly as an account by another?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And of course one snake-in-the-grass which I didn't go into is the politico-religious aspect of all this. The victors of all conflicts write history in their own image, that deemed to be more important than truth. Thank you for your comment.

      Delete