I have been giving some thought to theology as of late. I know I think about and talk about religion all the time; that’s not what I mean. What I mean is giving thought to my own theology in a constructive way. Something more than “ZOMG I just don’t know what I believe.” The thing is, I am starting to actually figure out what I do believe, and I am starting to think about how to put all of the pieces together. So here goes:
My philosophical foundation is essentially Advaita Vedanta. I have read the Baghavad Gita and the Upanishads and I am blown away by them. When I read from those texts, I feel like I am hearing the voice of God–not “god’ as in a divine being, but GOD, the entire universe, the ultimate divine reality that is all things and is beyond all things. I believe that everything is a part of this ultimate reality, but that in total it is something entirely beyond out conception. Nothing is like God, and so no analogy or metaphor could possibly do God justice. The differences we perceive, the identities we imagine ourselves as having, are all ultimately illusions. The world of sense objects and empirical data is basically an illusion, called maya. On one level, the creation of the universe as we know it was the creation of this illusion of separateness. Maya is practically necessary for us to function, but it is nevertheless illusory, and it can mislead us powerfully.
In the deepest parts of our own consciousness, we are one with everything, even the gods. But we spend most of our time identifying ourselves as the tips of the fingers, as entirely bound in the world of the five senses. When we dream we withdraw into our own consciousness, which is further back but still a world of deceptive distinction. In dreamless sleep we come closer to our essential oneness, which the Hindus call Atman, the Self that is all-self, the ultimate divine reality of Brahman.
From a practical standpoint, however, this knowledge or philosophy doesn’t do much. Maya is powerful, and it is difficult to even be sure of the Atman, much less to be able to fully identify with it. Because we are out on the branches, functioning in the practical maya-divided world of sense and identity, we need to be able to thing in those terms, even when we think about divinity. The Hindu Vedanta thinkers do this, but their gods are culturally alien to me. Krishna, Rama, Vishnu, and Shiva are extremely interesting, sure, but they are not compelling to me the same way that Zeus, Aphrodite, and Odin are. And furthermore, the gods I have had personal contact with are decidedly Western.
So instead of thinking about divinity in terms of Indian myth, I choose to think about it in terms of the mythology that is compelling and accessible to me, and as an American of Western European descent, that basically points the way to three clusters of myth-tradition: the Celtic/Arthurian, the Norse/Germanic, and the Greek/Classical. The former two are the mythologies of my genealogical ancestors, and the latter is the mythology of my cultural ancestors. These three mythologies are extremely powerful to me. Their gods have spoken to me. I believe that their stories point to the ultimate divine truth that unifies and unites all of reality and that fundamentally explains and gives meaning to my existence.
In these mythologies, I find inspiration, wisdom, a guide to behavior, and a tangible connection to divinity. These are the gods that speak to me, and so when I try to connect to the Ultimate, these gods are my mediators. Why do I need mythology and mediator gods? I guess I could theoretically do without them, but practically, that’s not what my brain is hard-wired to do. And I need something practical that can serve as a kind of stepping stone towards the ultimate.
Even so, belief in these mythologies doesn’t fully carve out a path of action, at least spiritually speaking. I need a set of spiritual practices to serve as a vehicle to take me through the triple-lens of these mythologies and ultimately back to the Divine Self that lies behind everything. For that, I think I have chosen Revival Druidry. Revival Druidry is flexible enough to accommodate the theology I have constructed, and it gives me practices that take me places spiritually that I want to go. I intend to start with the AODA’s first-year curriculum, which includes meditation, regular celebration of the seasons and the position of the sun, and care for the environment leading to an increased awareness of my place in the natural world. In addition, I will probably do some extensive work on poetry.
Vedanta is the philosophy, my three chosen mythologies are together the conceptual lens that I use to construct meaning, and Revival Druidry is the way I will put it all into action. At least… that’s the idea.
Sailing to Byzantium 
Boy you’ve given me inspiration for a new post!
Your philosophy is very similar to my own, but my mediators and my path/practice would probably be very different.
I’m very interested in reading how all this plays out for you.
In addition, I will probably do some extensive work on poetry.
I found Stephen Fry’s book The Ode Less Traveled to be an excellent intro/refresher to poetic forms…
One of the most powerful aspects of the Revival Druid tradition for me is the primacy that it gives to artistic creation as a spiritual act. Most religions place value on the results of artistic creation when they “glorify God” or otherwise validate the religion’s teachings according to some external criteria – Druidry is one of the only ones I can think of that valorizes human creative action in, of and for itself alone. The flow of Awen is an incredibly powerful part of my spirituality, and one that I probably should write about more.
“Druidry . . . valorizes human creative action in, of and for itself alone” – this is precisely how Druidry has allowed me to become vastly more creative than I have ever been – as long as I was focused on outcome (“will this thing I’m making be any good?”) I couldn’t enjoy the process or find anything worthwhile in it for myself. I just thought of myself as a not-very-creative person. As soon as I managed to shift the focus over to the process (“I am making this thing because making things is a sacred act”) then I was able to tap into a much deeper well and suddenly I’m making stuff all over the place.
Your theology sounds not too far away from mine, though I’ve been less directly influenced by the Vedanta. I have gotten some very productive information from meditating on fractal geometry – the concept of self-similarity plays a big role in how I think of the divine.
If you have not read the Baghavad Gita, you really should. Especially regarding actions versus outcomes. Sri Krishna has some interesting stuff to tell you about.
This is similar to my theology. The One (Nirguna Brahman, the divine without attributes) and the many gods (Saguna Brahman, the divine with attributes). Though like you I feel closer to the Germanic, Celtic, and Greco-Roman deities, I view them through the Advaita philosophy.
Advaita is very cool. It is great to see another Pagan who appreciates that we can learn a great deal from Hinduism, but that we can simultaneously follow the ancient spiritual traditions of the West.
You should seriously check out Sri Aurobindo, especially since you are into the Gita. His little book on “Rebirth and Karma” is amazing. I really need to do a review of it on by blog.