To paraphrase The Twisted Rope, a post circulated on my dashboard that got me thinking about the idea of making God small. After reading TTR’s post on the subject (a very good read–I recommend it!) it got me thinking of my own perspective.
As my bio and a careful reading of my blog will tell you, I’m generally not in favor of postmodernist reliance on personal anecdote to the exclusion of exterior conceptual validation; in short, I prefer Confirmed Personal Gnosis to Unconfirmed Personal Gnosis (a post I really need to get around to writing). I was really intrigued by TTR’s description of the large vs small versions of themself they encountered in the astral, as well as the large vs small versions of the divine encountered. It’s a compelling concept. In the interest of internet debate I want to offer a slightly different perspective.
In my post on idolatry I mention the Greek concept of daimon as a lesser category of divine being. The Greeks envisioned personal daimons as well, two each per person. One being the embodiment of all we hold to be good and the other being the embodiment of all we hold to be bad. The propitiation and understanding of both was key to developing a virtuous life, especially among the Pythagoreans. Likewise, to call upon a deity did not always mean one was encountering the deity, but could be encountering a daimon sent by the deity who spoke for and as that deity. It’s for this reason the Greeks confirmed that it was part of the daimon‘s duty to lie, a concept that was lost in translation and turned into a cynical concept when the Hermetic tradition got ahold of it.
Conceptually speaking, there isn’t much precedence before the modern age to make the gods malleable. In fact, Sallust, Demophilus, Plato, Pythagoras, Josephus, et al see the gods as immutable. They are very active and very much alive, but ultimately are “changeable” only to the degree as they change over time in different times and places (cf the similarities and differences in the Roman versions of the Greek gods). At first glance this notion of encountering a “large” and a “small” version of a god or oneself is largely incongruent with Classical sources. But what is a daimon acting in the name of an astral being but a “small” God by another name? Is it important to keep these astral beings separate and unique or is their separation non-essential?
I am very intrigued by this concept. Growing up Catholic, this insistence on a deeply personal relationship with the creator of the universe pushed by my Protestant neighbors seemed unsuitable for the majesty I ascribed to God. Our gnosis of the gods I still do not see in the same light of the Protestant’s relationship with God (after all how can we perceive God in totality to truly “know” them?), as gnosis is evolving and always incomplete. But if we can bring the gods closer to us as we draw nearer to them, how much more fulfilling is our journey?
An Examen of Witches 