Author Comment    
Sushuri Novaryana

Aug 13, 05 - 11:17 PM
The Aristasian Creation Story

For the first time, we have published the "Authorised Version" of the Creation Story as told both in Aristasia Pura and among some Deanic Telluryani.

Those who wish to discuss it further are welcomed to do so here.

Please proceed to The Creation.

Aug 16th, 2005 - 4:08 PM
Re: The Aristasian Creation Story

Thank you for this Sunday treat. It is quite extraordinary,especially for one who was brought up with Darwin's dreary creation theory. But I wonder if others have the same dilemma as myself? My heart is so drawn to this sublime story of creation, if I accept is as truth it would make such a difference to my happiness and to the way I would think and act;but I'm not sure that my reason can support it. Is it too good to be true?

I see that even many Christians nowadays accept Darwin's theory,to some extent and somehow find it compatible with their faith and my sister, who is a scientist, says that the evidence for the theory of evolution is highly compelling and accepted by all intellectuals these days.

Should one follow one's heart in these things, or should reason and logic also play a part in our understanding metaphysical subjects?
Sushuri Novaryana

Aug 16th, 2005 - 5:20 PM
Re: The Aristasian Creation Story

This is a very big question indeed! there are many different approaches to it.

Scientifically there are many deep flaws in the theory of evolution (see the relevant chapter in The Feminine Universe). Its massive popularity is really due to its "mythic" quality - the fact that it provides the picture-story necessary for the modern world-outlook. And it is true that bongo "intellectuals" tend to be highly committed to this outlook and therefore wedded to the idea of evolutionism.

However, It is not really true to say that evolutionism conflicts with the Creation Story. (In the way it is popularly presented, at least, it does conflict with certain other important aspects of Truth - but that is another matter).

The "Creation vs. Evolution" problem Is largely the result of a clash between highly literalistic Christian fundamentalists and a materialistic interpretation of "science".

The nub of your question is really this. If we read and believe in the Creation Story what is it we are actually believing?

Let us begin by noting these words in the Commentary: "The �Golden Time� when all things were golden ... is literally �pre-historic� � the time before time itself". Let us think about that.

In the first place, we are clearly outside the area in which "science" can have any opinions one way or another. "Science", by its very self-definition, deals only with things in time and space, with the objects of the five senses. This is both its strength and its weakness.

Now, when we speak of a "time before time" what do we mean? The story depicts events taking place in a sequence - therefore in time. But there was no time. So what does this mean?

It means that these Events are a way for us to understand things that surpass our understanding. That something beyond our experience is translated into events-in-time so that we, with our time-bound minds, can understand it.

"So," says the modern mind, "it is just a pretty story. Not true. A fairy-tale to help us understand something else."

And the modern mind - as usual - is wrong! It is true. It is truer than mundane history. It is the true way of understanding how the world became. Our Mother is the real maker of the world. We are Her children, and these Events are the truest things we, in our limited time-and-space-bound world can possibly know. As it says in The Feminine Universe - history deal with events in time that might or might not have happened. Myth deals with Events beyond time that cannot not be true.

The mistake of the Fundamentalists is that they have allowed themselves to be drawn too far into the materialist's world of time-and-space-only. they see their creation as an historical event like the Battle of Waterloo, rather than an event that is outside all history and is the cause of all history.

Modern people (whether on the evolutionist or creationist side of the fence) are all making the same mistake about the nature of the world. They can only see it in material terms.

I hope this helps. Do please ask as many more questions as you need to.

I think you may also find it useful to read The Image of the Cosmos from The Feminine Universe, because this explains the modern mistake about space which is equivalent to the modern mistake about time.

But to put it directly: Yes. The Creation happened. It happened in a realler, deeper sense than any worldly event you have read about or even lived through. It is the fundamental Truth that lies at the roots of our very existence.

Aug 19th, 2005 - 12:23 PM
Re: The Aristasian Creation Story

Thank you for this. It is wonderful to have an Authorised Version.

Thank you too for the Commentary. I have seen versions of this Story before, and had feared it was something New-Age or Wiccan. The commentary clarifies it wonderfully and shows how pure and profound this story really is.
Lady Aquila

Sep 11th, 2005 - 4:47 PM
Re: The Aristasian Creation Story

Our dear old friend the Theory of Evolution, when subjected to any serious investigation, begins to make a swiss cheese look positively hole-less. It is more a piece of Agnostic Theology than a bona fide scientific theory and is defended with all the passion that its essentially mythic status can be expected to engender.

For example, take a look on Amazon at books that question the theory and expose its innumerable flaws and weaknesses. One of the interesting things is that you will see "reviews" of these books by people who are not scientists and often have not actually read the book in question, attacking the author for daring to question the Sacred Myth and regurgitating paperback defences of evolutionism.

What is important here is not even the question of whether these critics are right or wrong, but the fact that they exist at all. If a new theory on astro-physics is expressed - one, perhaps that questions the assumptions of Einstein - no non-physicists are going to leap to the impassioned defence of the Holy Special Theory of Relativity. Evolutionism, however, is different. People get worried and frightened when they hear it questioned. This alone demonstrates that it is not merely a scientific theory like any other. It is a piece of quasi-theology to which people are emotionally attached.

As was pointed out in the Feminine Universe, in other spheres of science, from the study of sub-atomic particles to the study of the galaxies, ninteenth-century mechanistic-materialistic ideas have come to be questioned and rejected in favour of much subtler ideas. In the case of evolution, all the energy of the science has gone into preserving the nineteenth-century doctrine - adapting it, perhaps, but never daring to reject it. That is because evolutionism is a special case. It is not just a scientific theory to be questioned like any other scientific theory. It has a special Protected Status as the keystone of the twentieth-century worldview; and until that worldview itself is questioned, evolutionism will be defended to the death by those who have an emotional vested interest in the Pit-as-it-is.
Sushuri Novaryana

Sep 11th, 2005 - 10:29 PM
Re: The Aristasian Creation Story

You are quite right. A thing that should perhaps be borne in mind is that the "creationism" of some fundamentalist opponents of evolutionism is even more unlikely than transformism itself - many of them believing in a "young earth" some 4,000 years old and even in the literal creation of the earth in six twelve-hour days. These ideas have nothing at all to do with the scientific criticism of the deeply flawed theory of evolution, but for many people they appear to be the "only alternative".

Aristasians should not be regarded as "creationists" in the popular sense of the word. We believe in the manifestation of the universe out of the Divine - the Unoriginated Origin of Being.

Logically there must be a transcendent Creatrix, because any other theory merely pushes the question backward without solving it. The Big Bang theory, for example (which is probably correct as far as it goes), is still left with the task of explaining wherefrom came the materials for the Bang itself. Some suggest an "explosion" corresponding to an equal and opposite "implosion" of an "anti-matter universe". Excellent. But where did the anti-matter universe come from? Only with a transcendent Creatrix can the buck ever stop.

Manifestation is not as simple a theory as creationism, but the story of the Creation can be regarded as valid and as the best way for human beings to understand the elements of manifestation. However, certain things must be borne in mind.

Clearly the story is not talking about the creation of one planet. It is talking about the creation of the total cosmos out of Dea, of whom it is said "When nothing was, She was." Therefore, references to the sea, the sky and the heavens logically must be understood as referring to the archetypal realities which these earthly phenomena represent to us - just as our sun represents for us the Single Light of the universe.

Once we understand this - and also understand that what are depicted as events in time are actually "events" before time, and therefore not events in any sense that we can understand the word, we may begin, without the foolish literalism of the fundamentalist, or the equally foolish reductionism of the atheist, to meditate upon the story of the creation and begin to understand - as far as our powers of understanding will take us, which depends upon the depth of our contemplation - its real meaning.