I don't think your qualifications at the end need hold us back. Far from there being no direct evidence of theology, it seems to me that philosophy *is* Hypsistarian theology. It isn't terribly surprising that temple inscriptions wouldn't include theology: you won't find much exegesis carved into the walls of cathedrals or mosques, either.
Now, until fairly recently, not much distinction was made in Christian society between philosophy, theology, and even natural philosophy. It was more a matter of emphasis, but everyone was presumed Christian. There's every reason to expect a similar lack of distinction in the ancient world.
It could well be that Hypsistarianism simply *was* the metareligious framework underpinning ancient "pagan" religion (pagan also being a Christian pejorative). Rather than developing out of polytheistic cults and philosophy, it would be the other way around: the various cults of gods, goddesses, demigods, and heroes were ritual and mythical ramifications of an underlying framework, while philosophy was the intellectualization of that core faith. With the faith being already quite universal, it wouldn't even necessarily have had a name, anymore than fish give a name to water.
There is a commonplace phenomenon in modern thought, one that definitely partakes of the duplicity of Judaic thought: That crass aphorisms are in themselves pillars of truth. Case in point, the evil world and evil Demiurge. Taken at face value, this small unit of thought leads to all manner of value judgments, most of which border on the moral, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual structure of the Gnostic cosmos.
Christians especially are fond of this evil world/evil god aphorism because it enables them to assume an egomaniacal sense of superiority, but it has no fewer followers in Islam, and Judaism.
I've spent some time attempting to trace back this development in modern thought, only to conclude that it seems to have taken root amongst several pop culture "Gnostics" who are eager to offer a sexy, shocking, and emotionally charged exodus from abrahamism.
Whilst this is interesting from a sociological point of view, it is actually destructive to Gnosticism. Such a shock doctrine approach has, quite apparently convinced the modern mind that Gnosticism is a University based reactionary social movement.
Lost in this noise and glare are the deep mystical truths, stemming from the very essence of human existence. I would urge any reader of this piece to see, not simply an isolated phenomenon of an ancient religion, but a rung on the ladder, a single step in the staircase.
Gnostic and Hypsistarian most correctly belong to a much deeper and greater weave that they both take into an intimate participation. I have always called this the Western Mystical Tradition.
I have seen many attempts to interpret the New Testament through the lens of Vedanta, but this like a much, MUSH, better fit. If a Catholic can "view" the theology and practice of Catholicism through the interpretive lens of Hinduism...and still be a "good Catholic", the same thing would hold for the Hypsistarian view.
I would love to have a hardcopy of this series on my bookshelf- please do continue!
Also, can you elaborate on "Caelus Aeternus Iupiter ... was associated with the monotheistic god of the Jews (Yahweh)"? Was it the widespread view of the Hellenistic world that Jews worshipped Caelus?
From what I can tell -- and I am not an expert with decades in this field, just a dilettante -- It was widely accepted that the Jews worshipped a "megatheistic" God Most High. The Greeks and Romans seemed to have then correlated him with one of their own primordial and cosmic gods. The Hellenes seemed to have taken the stance that everybody was worshipping the same gods under different names, while the Ancient Hebrews tended towards the stance that God was God and everybody else's gods were demons.
Becoming gods by spiritual struggle, uncreated chaotic matter are the two big ones. Mormon doctrine tends to cyclical views of creation and destruction as well.
"To the contrary, Mormonism teaches the eternal existence of matter, or Creation Ex Materia. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains, “Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation” (1:400). The Book of Mormon speaks about how God (2 Nephi 2:14; 11:7) and Jesus (Helaman 14:12) created the heavens and the earth. Early sections of the Doctrine and Covenants also refer to this issue (D&C 14:9; 45:1)."
Wow, that's interesting. A blogger I read, Bruce Charlton, speaks very highly of Mormon doctrine but I myself have never read it. As far as I can tell, the early Church agreed that creation was Creation Ex Materia. Creation Ex Nihilo emerged later around the time that orthodoxy solidified.
> For angels do not assist all indifferently, but as when men swim at sea, those standing on the shore merely view in silence the swimmers who are still far out distant from land, whereas they help with hand and voice alike such as have near, and running along and wading in beside them bring them safely, in such, too, my friends, is the way of angels: as long as we are head over ears in the welter of worldly affairs and are changing body after body, like conveyances, they allow us to fight our way out and persevere unaided, as we endeavor by our own prowess to come through safe and reach a haven; but when in the course of countless births a soul has stoutly and resolutely sustained a long series of struggles, and as her cycle draws to a close, she approaches the upper world, bathed in sweat, in imminent peril and straining every nerve to reach the shore, God holds it no sin for her angel to go to the rescue
Contrast this "helping the virtuous first" attitude with the Christian "sinners first" attitude as exemplified in the parable of the prodigal son and the parable of the lost sheep.
Definitely a major difference. That said, the sinner who is not saved in Christian theology suffers annihilation or damnation while in Plutarch's theology, the sinner who is not saved is reborn to try again. The Plutarchian theology would be extremely cold-hearted (IMO) if angels aided the virtuous in conjunction with leaving everyone else to be damned.
Which doesn't make them your children. Everyone has real duties and a real place, given to them by Our Lord. He that loves everyone equally loves no one as they aught to be loved. Do the good in front of you.
3Honour widows that are widows indeed. 4But if any widow have children or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own house and to make a return of duty to her parents; for this is acceptable before God. 5But she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, let her trust in God and continue in supplications and prayers night and day. 6For she that liveth in pleasures is dead while she is living. 7And this give in charge, that they may be blameless. 8But if any man have not care of his own and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.
In general, Transmission is best done via Oral Tradition. Lower than that there is the Written word, and lower than that you have various levels of Archeological evidence (i.e. ruins, reconstruction, etc). So whilst the reconstruction you provide sounds compelling, it is sort of akin to Abductive Reasoning (i.e. "What sort of model best accounts for the data here?").
Sadly, I think one cannot go beyond said level. This btw is true for many past peoples. A lot of the Masterpieces of Pali and Prakrit literature (for example) are lost to the sands of time due to the bulk of them being written down on Palm leaves (which decay rapidly in a High Humidity climate like the Bengal Delta). It is a minor miracle that we even have a "Pali Canon" intact given said fact.
I'm surprised by the explicit dualism. I had thus far assumed a Plotinian monism. This idea of two independent principles seems to harken back to the Indian system of Samkhya.
Plato was explicit in his dualism in his final dialogue, The Laws; allegedly, the "unwritten doctrine" was also dualistic. Plutarch's philosophy heavily relies on The Laws and the Unwritten Doctrine. Apparently, Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists were more focused on Timeaus and came to monistic conclusions. I personally think dualism makes more sense than monism, which is part of why I like Plutarch.
The first philosophical system of ancient India was a hard dualism of the Samkhya system, based on the awareness/object appearing to awareness dichotomy.
I don't think your qualifications at the end need hold us back. Far from there being no direct evidence of theology, it seems to me that philosophy *is* Hypsistarian theology. It isn't terribly surprising that temple inscriptions wouldn't include theology: you won't find much exegesis carved into the walls of cathedrals or mosques, either.
Now, until fairly recently, not much distinction was made in Christian society between philosophy, theology, and even natural philosophy. It was more a matter of emphasis, but everyone was presumed Christian. There's every reason to expect a similar lack of distinction in the ancient world.
It could well be that Hypsistarianism simply *was* the metareligious framework underpinning ancient "pagan" religion (pagan also being a Christian pejorative). Rather than developing out of polytheistic cults and philosophy, it would be the other way around: the various cults of gods, goddesses, demigods, and heroes were ritual and mythical ramifications of an underlying framework, while philosophy was the intellectualization of that core faith. With the faith being already quite universal, it wouldn't even necessarily have had a name, anymore than fish give a name to water.
What a most beautiful calm before the storm. Thank you.
What a fascinating journey. Thank you.
There is a commonplace phenomenon in modern thought, one that definitely partakes of the duplicity of Judaic thought: That crass aphorisms are in themselves pillars of truth. Case in point, the evil world and evil Demiurge. Taken at face value, this small unit of thought leads to all manner of value judgments, most of which border on the moral, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual structure of the Gnostic cosmos.
Christians especially are fond of this evil world/evil god aphorism because it enables them to assume an egomaniacal sense of superiority, but it has no fewer followers in Islam, and Judaism.
I've spent some time attempting to trace back this development in modern thought, only to conclude that it seems to have taken root amongst several pop culture "Gnostics" who are eager to offer a sexy, shocking, and emotionally charged exodus from abrahamism.
Whilst this is interesting from a sociological point of view, it is actually destructive to Gnosticism. Such a shock doctrine approach has, quite apparently convinced the modern mind that Gnosticism is a University based reactionary social movement.
Lost in this noise and glare are the deep mystical truths, stemming from the very essence of human existence. I would urge any reader of this piece to see, not simply an isolated phenomenon of an ancient religion, but a rung on the ladder, a single step in the staircase.
Gnostic and Hypsistarian most correctly belong to a much deeper and greater weave that they both take into an intimate participation. I have always called this the Western Mystical Tradition.
I have seen many attempts to interpret the New Testament through the lens of Vedanta, but this like a much, MUSH, better fit. If a Catholic can "view" the theology and practice of Catholicism through the interpretive lens of Hinduism...and still be a "good Catholic", the same thing would hold for the Hypsistarian view.
I would love to have a hardcopy of this series on my bookshelf- please do continue!
Also, can you elaborate on "Caelus Aeternus Iupiter ... was associated with the monotheistic god of the Jews (Yahweh)"? Was it the widespread view of the Hellenistic world that Jews worshipped Caelus?
From what I can tell -- and I am not an expert with decades in this field, just a dilettante -- It was widely accepted that the Jews worshipped a "megatheistic" God Most High. The Greeks and Romans seemed to have then correlated him with one of their own primordial and cosmic gods. The Hellenes seemed to have taken the stance that everybody was worshipping the same gods under different names, while the Ancient Hebrews tended towards the stance that God was God and everybody else's gods were demons.
Oddly enough, your reconstructed Hypsistarianism reminds me of Mormon doctrines in several ways.
I feel grateful that you are mindful of this part of your ancestral heritage.
That's interesting! How so?
Becoming gods by spiritual struggle, uncreated chaotic matter are the two big ones. Mormon doctrine tends to cyclical views of creation and destruction as well.
"To the contrary, Mormonism teaches the eternal existence of matter, or Creation Ex Materia. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains, “Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation” (1:400). The Book of Mormon speaks about how God (2 Nephi 2:14; 11:7) and Jesus (Helaman 14:12) created the heavens and the earth. Early sections of the Doctrine and Covenants also refer to this issue (D&C 14:9; 45:1)."
https://www.mrm.org/origins-universe#:~:text=Apostle%20Orson%20Pratt%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20prophet,%E2%80%9D%20(August%2025%2C%201878%2C
Wow, that's interesting. A blogger I read, Bruce Charlton, speaks very highly of Mormon doctrine but I myself have never read it. As far as I can tell, the early Church agreed that creation was Creation Ex Materia. Creation Ex Nihilo emerged later around the time that orthodoxy solidified.
Wow! You da' man!
> For angels do not assist all indifferently, but as when men swim at sea, those standing on the shore merely view in silence the swimmers who are still far out distant from land, whereas they help with hand and voice alike such as have near, and running along and wading in beside them bring them safely, in such, too, my friends, is the way of angels: as long as we are head over ears in the welter of worldly affairs and are changing body after body, like conveyances, they allow us to fight our way out and persevere unaided, as we endeavor by our own prowess to come through safe and reach a haven; but when in the course of countless births a soul has stoutly and resolutely sustained a long series of struggles, and as her cycle draws to a close, she approaches the upper world, bathed in sweat, in imminent peril and straining every nerve to reach the shore, God holds it no sin for her angel to go to the rescue
Contrast this "helping the virtuous first" attitude with the Christian "sinners first" attitude as exemplified in the parable of the prodigal son and the parable of the lost sheep.
Definitely a major difference. That said, the sinner who is not saved in Christian theology suffers annihilation or damnation while in Plutarch's theology, the sinner who is not saved is reborn to try again. The Plutarchian theology would be extremely cold-hearted (IMO) if angels aided the virtuous in conjunction with leaving everyone else to be damned.
LMAO. The key point of the prodigal son is the relationship. He is not a random sinning stranger. He is a son to a father.
One starts to wonder if there any 'Christians' left not infected a universalist indifferentism.
And the doctrine is that all humans are children of God.
Which doesn't make them your children. Everyone has real duties and a real place, given to them by Our Lord. He that loves everyone equally loves no one as they aught to be loved. Do the good in front of you.
3Honour widows that are widows indeed. 4But if any widow have children or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own house and to make a return of duty to her parents; for this is acceptable before God. 5But she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, let her trust in God and continue in supplications and prayers night and day. 6For she that liveth in pleasures is dead while she is living. 7And this give in charge, that they may be blameless. 8But if any man have not care of his own and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.
OTOH, "Unto he who hath is given, while from he who hath not, even that which he hath is taken away."
It may be a mistake to impute a primarily moral meaning to something which may be no more than a frank statement of how things work.
You may want to read the full parable of the bags of gold.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:14-30&version=NIV
I'm quite familiar with the parable of the talents. I fail to see how it isn't consistent with the point I was making.
Also (just FYI) there might not be a next week :'P Just sayin!
I wish you were wrong!
As do I; but the Time for that has past. Like I said a while back... got a Time Machine lying around somewhere? :'P
In general, Transmission is best done via Oral Tradition. Lower than that there is the Written word, and lower than that you have various levels of Archeological evidence (i.e. ruins, reconstruction, etc). So whilst the reconstruction you provide sounds compelling, it is sort of akin to Abductive Reasoning (i.e. "What sort of model best accounts for the data here?").
Sadly, I think one cannot go beyond said level. This btw is true for many past peoples. A lot of the Masterpieces of Pali and Prakrit literature (for example) are lost to the sands of time due to the bulk of them being written down on Palm leaves (which decay rapidly in a High Humidity climate like the Bengal Delta). It is a minor miracle that we even have a "Pali Canon" intact given said fact.
For sure. Absolutely based on abductive reasoning. I wish I had more to go on but it is what it is.
I'm surprised by the explicit dualism. I had thus far assumed a Plotinian monism. This idea of two independent principles seems to harken back to the Indian system of Samkhya.
Plato was explicit in his dualism in his final dialogue, The Laws; allegedly, the "unwritten doctrine" was also dualistic. Plutarch's philosophy heavily relies on The Laws and the Unwritten Doctrine. Apparently, Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists were more focused on Timeaus and came to monistic conclusions. I personally think dualism makes more sense than monism, which is part of why I like Plutarch.
The first philosophical system of ancient India was a hard dualism of the Samkhya system, based on the awareness/object appearing to awareness dichotomy.
Yeh, that was bothering me as well. All the classic arguments point to The One, not the two.
The idea of venerating excellence in any human is central to Caodaism.
I am unfamiliar with Caodaism but will look it up!
OK having now looked it up, that's pretty mind-blowing. Thanks for alerting me!