A common misconception is that Hellenic Pagans will view the old stories about the Olympians in the same way as a Christian will view the gospels. No, they aren't at all comparable, either in character or purpose, as far as we're concerned. The gospel speaks to us of a way of life (and of looking at life) that we are to try to realise. The Hellenic deities do not bring us a similar body of teachings, their inspiration moving philosophers (and artists) rather than prophets. So, why do we concern ourselves with them or these stories?

Why we are interested in Aphrodite, is that while it is true that we haven't received a body of teachings directly from her, we find that an emotional connection with her helps us find the strength and insight to live by the values she seeks to promote and which we treasure. It helps us become more than we might otherwise be, which is, after all, the purpose of religion.

Why the stories? Do we believe in their literal, historical truth? No. No thinking person today could. Obviously, when we send a satellite up, it doesn't go crashing into some solid blue dome being held up by the titan Atlas. But, when you read the stories, the Olympians come out as real, flesh and blood characters who you can develop a real feeling and understanding for, with all of their strengths and frailties, making that connection all the easier. As anyone who has ever tried to write a personal ad or tell one person about another knows, a simple list of adjectives tells one very little about a person. It is when you are told a story about the person that you truly begin to know her.

Why false stories rather than true ones? Consider the intellectual gulf seperating even the most brilliant of humans from the least of the divinities. Could we even understand such stories? The point of the myths is not to help us understand those we offer our devotion to fully. That is beyond us. It is to help us understand them to a degree our abilities make possible.

Which brings us to the nature of a myth. It is not, in any sense, imagined to be dictated to the poet who writes it by the divinities it speaks of, but is rather inspired by a personal experience of them. Those who have worshipped the gods of Olympus, to use the usual terminology, have often by struck by the power and immediacy of the experience. It is not, as with some other pantheons, a matter of straining to hear a faint voice. One can feel their presence, as if they were standing beside one, Aphrodite in particular, and relate to them on an intensely personal level. The myths are stories told in an attempt to share the feeling of that experience. They are imperfect stories, perhaps in part, because the Olympians are, themselves, imperfect, but mainly because the teller himself is quite imperfect and his representation of his experience, through the hypothetical narrative he creates, reflect the imperfections of the point of view he employs when constructing them.

This objective we describe, explains why the stories were written by the poets and not by the philosophers. They are written to help you feel the presence of the Olympians and connect to them, emotionally. They are not meant to be sermons or metaphysical essays.




The particular myth I'd like to shares my enjoyment of with you, in this piece, is that of Aphrodite and the Death of Adonis, which we'll eventually include a more literary retelling of, to replace my crude effort. The message of the story is that Aphrodite stands behind a value that will be argued for in the following essay - a value that all should know to hold, and yet is no longer fashionable to assert or uphold. It is the willingness to talk another out of harm's way, when the other is about to blindly stumble into it and the recognition that this is what one must strive to do. It is the recognition and acceptance of this, that is, in large part, the real measure of one's love, as opposed to one's lust.

Here is the essay.

Something that may trouble one about this story, is the manner in which Myrrha is led astray by Aphrodite, as punishment for mere thoughtlessness. How can we worship a being capable of doing such things? This, we answer primarily in two ways.

First of all, what is meaningful to us, in a myth, is not the nature of the deity "in the moment". (This is a concept that, of course, exists only in approximation, as any reference to a being's nature must make reference to its thoughts (which take time to form and pass, time during which the very nature described will change in response to the experience of those very thoughts, if nothing else). Were that not true, the being would be incapable of reacting to its surroundings or forming a coherent chain of thought, as its' point of view could not reflect one thought that had passed as it lead to the next). Rather, what is relevant to us is the process by which the being becomes that which it will be, and thus expresses what it is.

In part, what we mean by this, is that we seek to know the goddess by understanding how she will react to her own shortcomings and seek the Good, as she seeks to grow. It is that process of change and growth that is a large part of the experience of life, and which relates most closely to that part of our own experience of life, that we ask the divine to touch.

When someone adds to the myth, I would say that the image of Aphrodite in this unattainable moment, in its limitations is more likely to reflect his limitations than hers. But, as he opens himself to the experience of the myth, she gently touches his soul and to the extent that he succeeds in feeling that touch, instead of being caught up in his own preconceptions, her reactions to where she has been, morally and psychologically, in the story, will be a reflection of how she would react to having been that way. It becomes a highly imperfect reflection of the process that is the divine psyche the storyteller feels, or senses the presence of. But, because he is not a prophet, or a seer, the voice of the Divine can barely be heard over his own inner voice. It is as the whisper, in the storm, that one must hear many times, to hear right. And thus, the conservativism of the mythic process and our hesistation to radically 'update' the story to reflect modern mores. In slowing the process of change, and making the making of myth the work of many, not one, we minimise the impact of our own individual quirks, and preconceptions, so that gentle touch can be felt, and that quiet voice be heard, through the action of centuries of reflection (*).

Another part of the answer lies in our view of the nature of divinity, expressed in the very name of our ritual group, "The Shrine of the Sleeping Gods". We tend to imagine the Divine existing in a dreamlike, semiformed state, brought, as is stated in Constructing God, to a fuller state of awareness through the emotional connection with the worshipper created in prayer. Aphrodite, the neglected, may be a force of nature, until Aphrodite, the beloved, is raised from her slumber by the cries of pain to view with sorrow what the force of nature has brought about. As time passes, and maturity comes, the former may, more and more, be replaced by the latter, but only if that connection remains. Mankind, taken as a collective entity, in a sense, becomes a partner or mate to the Divine, which draws on the experiences of the worshippers to awaken and realise its own true nature

In the story of Pygmalian, and of Cupid and Psyche, such a pattern of reflexive anger, and thoughtful remorse in the face of the prayers of the suffering is seen. Our model of the nature of divinity seems to hold up when compared to the impressions of the worshippers of antiquity. We revere, not the blind force of nature she has sometimes been, but the caring presence she has always been becoming in the course of her slow and painful birth.



Options, now ...

Or, if you would like to link to this page, you could bookmark the link below.

Note : this material, written by us, is copyrighted 1999, all rights reserved. See notice.














(*) Our first answer to the concerns raised by the stories regarding the goddess (the reference to the nature of myth making) should be kept in mind as we address another commonly asked question. Are Pagans delusional? Do they have trouble distinguishing between folktales and reality? To be honest, some do, but this failing is not a requirement for entry into the Pagan community.

Let us turn the point of view around, in a sense, in the preceding discussion. Let us say that there are a number of deities that man has encountered in his history. Not necessarily unchanging, but of great antiquity. I see someone's all too human attempt to share his experience of some part of the divine and behind the limitations of his point of view, and the attitudes of his age, I see something that resonates with me. Something I like. And, upon meditation, something reminiscent, in however imperfect a way, with something or somebody I feel the presence of when praying, and that being, when I pray with the thought of that resemblance in mind, seems unusually receptive to my prayers. Then it would seem to me that in guessing that I and my ancient predecessor have prayed to the same goddess, I have made a reasonable intuitive leap.

So, to the question of delusion, I would say that there is Aphrodite, the mythical figure (and fictional character) and then there is what one might call the noumenal Aphrodite, the reality whose presence gives that slight urging that leads to the arising of the literary archetype. As Pagans we do (or at least should) know that the two are not one and the same. But, the name of the fictional character seems as good a label for the semi-hidden presence as any, and it does have the virtue of being suggestive enough to lend clarity to the discussions that follow.

I would ask someone whom offers such commentary, if he truly believes than in the millions of years that man has been upon the earth, that a deity conscious of the presence of our species would elect to only seek to move it toward better things in the last 2,000 years, having ignored it in the ages past. Does that seem logical? To this, someone might say, "Well, yes, but this person only thought that he encountered Aphrodite, in reality he felt the presence of an angel". "Named Aphrodite?", I'd ask. "No, not named Aphrodite", he might respond. To which I would ask, what does that assertion mean?

If Heaven came before earth, then the Divine was, before there was breath to draw or sounds to hear. A name is only a collection of sounds, there for our convenience, an aid to our memories and conversations made necessary by the limitations of our intellects, and no more. It is whatever we, in a spirit of respect, decide it to be. So, our answer to the question "How do you know that being that the ancients felt the presence of was Aphrodite?" is to note that, in a real sense (given the lack of semantic content) the speaker hasn't even asked a question.

Lets's continue with our discussion, now.