On the Reality of Divine Beings

By: the Pagang Trinity

Noticing the responses to our recent channel poll, we have decided to make a short essay
establishing our own viewpoint and hopefully compelling some of you to re-evaluate your own.
If you do not think that there are things beyond the material, then you are a ​materialist​, by
definition, and if you do not think there are ​beings​ beyond the material, then you are an ​atheist​,
by definition. Whether or not there’s anything wrong with being these things is another topic, but
if you are either, then you ​cannot​ call yourself a Pagan, and you ​certainly cannot​ call yourself a
Traditionalist when you adhere to ​17th century Enlightenment​ ideas. The ​real​ tradition, that all
peoples have always been aware of and practicing until very very recently, is the existence and
veneration of higher beings.

Generalizing and rejecting myth as mere expressions of a collective unconsciousness, much

like taking myth and believing it at face value, shows a poor understanding of our ancestral
folk-ways. Our ancestors did not believe myth to be literal, nor did they see “archetypal” symbols
or metaphors. Rather, they adopted a nuanced understanding of myths, while not debasing
them to mere explanations of forces of nature (Sallustius, ​On the Gods​, IV). This modern
bastardization of the real traditions of our forefathers and their denigration to the level of
“psychology” is a vile corruption of divine truth. ​To take the perennial truth our ancestors
possessed and disembowel it is worse than just taking one of the false paths to enlightenment
the modern world has defecated out for you.

Granted, this is not to throw out the idea of archetypes entirely. ​Archetypes are Divine, but
Divinity is not archetypal.​ Archetypes are rooted in the Divine ideal forms, and not vice versa, in
the same way that both the actual rays of the Sun on one’s skin, and the glowing orb in the sky,
are both the Sun. The rays emanate from the Source, being the Sun, and themselves are a
component of the totality of the Source. In this way, the rays can be both the Sun and a
seperate, unique entity. To say that Athena is the archetype of wisdom is not wrong because
she ​embodies​ wisdom, or in other words, she is the perfect Divine form of wisdom. However,
Athena is ​not​ merely the embodiment, but rather the ​Source​ of wisdom, and the embodiment of
perfect wisdom by virtue of being its source, in the same way that mountain spring water is
regarded as the best and purest water. To claim otherwise is insanity.

Elaborating further, is this Source a ​conscious agent​ or a mere mindless ​force​? Besides the fact
that our ancestors believed the former, as evidenced by things such as votive offerings and
primary sources, to attribute the manifestations of these beings to profane natural forces in a
materialistic manner is flawed. Edward Butler puts it best in his article ​Polycentric Polytheism
when he says “That which is supremely unique is not what distinguishes itself from everything
else by increasingly trivial differences, but rather that in which the attributes shared with other
things are uniquely its own. This is the kind of existence we recognize in Beings that we call
‘who’ rather than objects we call ‘what’“. In other words, in existing with relation to other things
(in the case of the Gods, their effects on the physical world), then they have an ​individual
existence, and as such they necessarily have consciousness​. There are other ways to argue
this point but that is a book in and of itself.

Reiterating, this purely “archetypal” interpretation is an incorrect examination of the truth behind
the myths. This kind of subversion cannot be tolerated as respectable Pagan literature or
worldview, as it is in direct opposition with how our ancestors truly saw the Gods, and the world
at large. This is exceptionally important to those like us, who wish to be a source of knowledge
for any interested parties -- we have a DUTY to speak truthfully, and provide good and accurate
information to those who are ill-informed. Their path, and how and where they will take it, rests
in what we provide to them. To give a hungry soul any atheist materialist nonsense, is like
feeding salad to a cat; the soul will starve, and the world will be all the worse for it.

Sources: Butler’s article and Sallustius’ work have both been posted in the channel as well, or
can be found online for free