Could Pagan "nature worship" actually destroy nature?

[Wolke]

Quintessence,

- I don't have a "hostile attitude" towards Pagans. If you regard my criticism of Paganism as an exhibition of hostility, it is not because I am actuated by the motives you impute to me, but because your religion is sensitive to you as touching upon your personal identity. I don't blame you for that, but I actually don't feel much of anything on this topic, save a detached intellectual curiosity. But you are free to impute to me whatever motives may please your fancy.

- The primordial religion is the religion of Adam, not as a historical personage, but as a timeless archetype of the perfected soul of each individual. In the paradise in which Adam dwelt, God was not an idea of the mind, but a real and vital presence. Now Adam of course lived "in the beginning"; which being interpreted, is the ever-present "now" moment which is the only beginning". For it is always now, whether it be today or ten thousand years ago; and now is always beginning. Meister Eckhart has an excellent way of explaining this "beginning":

To talk about the world as being made by God tomorrow, yesterday, would be talking nonsense. God makes the world and all things in this present now. Time gone a thousand years ago is now as present and as near to God as this very instant. The soul who is in this present now, in her the Father bears His only begotten Son and in that same birth the soul is born back into God. It is one birth; as fast as she is reborn into God the Father is begetting His only Son in her.

To know God as Adam did is to abide in the "beginning", in that changeless Reality which as it were stands behind the ever-flowing stream of phenomena in which we are immersed. It is this "beginning" that is the original source of all doctrines concerning the existence of God, bearing in mind that I speak of an archetypal priority which may or may not coincide with the order of events in historical time; or it may also be that scattered individuals in different times and places had the same "experience" of God, i.e. returned to their "beginning" in the ever-present now-moment and thus "became" the First Man. (But we must not forget that truth is always more important than the medium through which it is conveyed; if it conveys the truth it matters not a jot whether the symbol should be a myth or a historical fact.

Now I said that Adam is the archetype of the perfected human soul. I will try to explain this in plain English. To be perfect in this sense is to be whole; division is imperfection. Now human consciousness has separated itself into Subject and Object, Self and Not-self. I am aware of a stone; the stone is not-me. But for the First Man, there was as yet no differentiation between Subject and Object. For he lived in the eternal now. The eternal now cannot be contained by anything. And to be confronted by a world of external objects is to be contained. Hence to live in the eternal now implies the unity of subject and object, of the internal and the external. And this is how Adam lived. Not separated from the Absolute, he acted in perfect unision with the divine will; and thus participated in the very being of God. I hope I have made this clear enough.

Strictly speaking the primordial religion is Adam's consciousness of God before the Fall of Man (dislocation of human consciousness). But as a remnant of the primordial religion survives in the traditions of so-called primitive men, we may speak more loosely of primordial religions. Whether they descend from a common (pre-)historical religion, or are based upon separate individual or collective Adamic experiences of unity with the Supreme Reality, I will not determine.

The primordial religion is not the same as Paganism in the classical or traditional sense. Traditionally the word Paganism means the worship of symbols for their own sake, whether they be idols or products of the human imagination; the Supreme Reality they symbolise is no longer clearly recognised. (We have witnessed among many of the Neopagans who have participated in this thread, who even deny the existence of God.) Paganism thus results in a very worldly mentality, which also distinguishes Paganism from the surviving remnants of the primordial religion, which tend to be very otherworldly and mystical in their mentality. (Just read the mystical sayings of Black Elk for a glimpse into the primordial vision.)

You are at liberty to use the word Paganism in a sense that encompasses both Paganism in the classical sense as well as the primordial religions, but that doesn't alter the fact that there is a real distinction to be drawn here. Call it Paganism A and Paganism B if you prefer. It doesn't change the reality.

- "What is 'true religion' and 'traditional metaphysics' in your opinion?" A true religion must satisfy at least two criteria: it teaches that there is only one Supreme Reality, which is absolute, infinite, and eternal; and it offers a means of union with the Supreme Reality by annihilating or overcoming the ego. It is not important if the religion uses the word "God" for the Supreme Reality, as long as it acknowleges the Reality itself for what it is. (Which is why Buddhism is a true religion. It may not have any use for the word God, yet it possesses the reality itself in the form of the Absolute and of transcendence.)

Traditional metaphysics is metaphysical knowledge that emanates from God (as distinct from modern philosophy which emanates from man). Metaphysics proceeds from divine Intellect (while philosophy proceeds from Reason). The Intellect stands above Reason, while Emotion stands below both Reason and Intellect. Only metaphysical knowledge is absolute and infallible; for only in the Intellect is there a unity of Subject and Object; while Reason presupposes a separation between Subject and Object.

The basic difference between religious knowledge and metaphysical knowledge is that the latter is esoteric, the former is exoteric; religion is based on an outer Revelation, while metaphysics is based on the inner Revelation accessible through the eye of the Intellect. The inner and outer revelation are complementary; the inner revelation in a certain sense is a microcosm of the outer revelation. Religion "translates" metaphysical knowledge into dogmas, myths, in short symbols that can be understood by the average mentality; while metaphysical knowledge perceives the inner meaning of religious symbols. But with metaphysical knowledge only a minority can be saved; with religion everyone can be saved.

 

[Quintessence]

I seem to remember in some previous post you said you believed in things that were real?

I recall making no such post. Not sure where you were meaning to go with this.

 

[Quintessence]

- I don't have a "hostile attitude" towards Pagans. If you regard my criticism of Paganism as an exhibition of hostility, it is not because I am actuated by the motives you impute to me, but because your religion is sensitive to you as touching upon your personal identity. I don't blame you for that, but I actually don't feel much of anything on this topic, save a detached intellectual curiosity. But you are free to impute to me whatever motives may please your fancy.

Sir, my assessment of your perspective as hostile towards Paganism had nothing to do with any assumptions about your motives. A put-down is a put-down, regardless of whether or not it's coming from an "intellectually detached" perspective. I'm sorry, but saying things like "such and such is a false religion" and "such and such path is vacuous and misguided" is hostile, period. But it's cute that you think my assessment is because of "sensitivity." I'm simply calling a spade a spade.

At any rate, you unfortunately didn't respond to the majority of my questions, but from what I can tell, you and I are not even talking about the same thing when we use the term "Paganism." Your "traditional" definition of Paganism is not one I've ever seen in any dictionary (and I've seen some really terrible definitions of Paganism), so I don't know how to move forward with this discussion. I suppose I'll end this by saying I do find your perspectives interesting, but I do not agree with your map of the territory and find your understanding of Paganism to be lacking.

 

[Riverwolf]

Riverwolf,
- I spoke of mythic time, not "mystic" time. Let's put it this way instead. A mythological symbolism that conveys a metaphysical truth is truer than an historical event deprived of symbolism. Truth consists not in the bare fact itself, but the effectiveness of the symbol as a vehicle for conveying metaphysical truth. It is metaphysical truth that matters to me, not worldly phenomena.
This is not to say that history cannot also be woven of symbolism. The comparison is only between mythological symbolism and an "exact" historicism deprived of symbolism. When metaphysical truths are conveyed through history, which in Judaism begins at Sinai, in Christianity begins with the New Testament, and in Islam begins with the life of Mohammed, then history is true and real; otherwise myths are truer than history.

No, they're not. I may have misread the word, but the core remains unchanged.

I do know what you're talking about better in terms of mythic history, as I use it, too. But what must always be remembered is that studying history is a multi-faceted subject, and every single one of them must be regarded. Anthropology, archaeology, psychology, biology, linguistics... to disregard one is to misunderstand.

- I have great respect for Norse mythology, but with our limited knowledge it is difficult to determine if it is a genuine representative of the primordial tradition, or a Pagan deviation. If if it is truly a primordial religion, my main problem with it would be that it is not a living tradition. A living tradition is not a reconstruction from scattered fragments, but an entire revelation from Heaven. Also, as Cutsinger has pointed out, one of the criteria of a true religion (as distinct from a philosophy) is that it gives its adherents a means of overcoming or extinguishing their egos so as to become participants in the being of God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Asatru lacks this essential element.

Perhaps because it's not so essential after all, as that sort of thing is part of Mystery/Ascetic Religions.

- "There's no evidence that there was any unity in ancient religions." We can pursue this digression if you wish, but perennialists would disagree. I am interested in metaphysics and mythology, not historicism.

Perennialists can go on disagreeing. Their disagreement isn't going to change my opinion.

- The Absolute (God) is necessary Being, which is Infintite and perfect.

No it's not. Infinity and perfection are directions, not states of being.

Its harmony and perfection are not restricted to the phenomenal level.

Whatever that means.

- "There's no evidence that there's anything that transcends the universe." There is the evidence of the awakened intellect, direct evidence, which is the only real evidence. The intellect coincides in its essence with knowledge of the transcendent.

No, it's not. The human mind is a master deceiver. Our senses, no matter how seemingly "awakened", are fallible, especially during periods of heightened emotions.

- I am not New Age. I am strictly traditional and orthodox in my religious beliefs.

What you've revealed about your beliefs sound just like New Age to me.

 

[Riverwolf]

I sometimes get pagans come to me and say 'I'm a lover of nature'.

Oh really? Says I. So you love tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, diseases, plagues, typhoons, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions? Things that can kill thousands of people and wipe away entire cities?

Oh no, I don't love those.

No such thing as a 'nature lover'.

Actually, I do love those as well. They're presence is essential for life. Death is the Mother of Life.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't really see things like ebola and typhoons as necessary to my existence. On the contrary I find them to be antithetical to my longevity indeed. Try asking those poor people in Pompeii who got roasted by the volcano: Hey, Isn't nature wonderful?

How many pagans rejoiced at the wonder of nature after Hurricane Katrina?

Point is, i've never met someone who loved all of nature. Yet the phrase 'I love nature' is fairly substantive and seem to imply that they love all things in nature.

You want hurricanes and typhoons to go away? Then remove all weather by removing the atmosphere. You want earthquakes and volcanoes to go away? Then remove all tectonic movement which means a cooling of the Earth's core, and though I don't know my geology very well, I'd guess that that would be REALLY bad.

A mother won't rejoice when her child accidentally burns the house down. But she'll continue to love her child.

 

[wildcat]

I don't really see things like ebola and typhoons as necessary to my existence. On the contrary I find them to be antithetical to my longevity indeed. Try asking those poor people in Pompeii who got roasted by the volcano: Hey, Isn't nature wonderful?

I don't worship nature depending on whether it benefits or hurts the human species. When I worship nature, I look at the Earth as a whole with all it's parts interacting, with every species and every force as necessary (as Riverwolf pointed out, these aspects are essential to how the Earth functions). I don't put humans on a pedestal, and thus, when there is a hurricane that kills people, I don't "hate" nature. The incident is sad because I sympathize with my fellow humans, but it doesn't affect my worship of all the aspects of nature (including the hurricanes).

Nature is not always fluffy and cute, the majority of nature is not. Nature can be harsh and scary and powerful. I marvel at the sheer power and intensity of volcanoes and hurricanes, and it reminds me of the nature of the gods. I wouldn't use the term "nature-lover" to describe myself though, it's just not what I refer to myself as.

I'd say you might be right if you're talking to a person that says they are nature-lover and hasn't thought it through and only thinks about pretty forests and beaches. But to a person who actually worships nature, I assure you, that I appreciate and pay attention to those aspects of nature that come across as devastating from a human perspective, I contemplate and worship those gods very often.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I sometimes get pagans come to me and say 'I'm a lover of nature'.

Oh really? Says I. So you love tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, diseases, plagues, typhoons, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions? Things that can kill thousands of people and wipe away entire cities?

Oh no, I don't love those.

No such thing as a 'nature lover'.

Of course, they're beautiful. It shows the fury in nature, and nothing exists without a furious nature, right?