Primordial Chaos and the Contra-Gnosticism of Indo-European religion

I love <3 the Demiurge

A month or two ago, my good friend Veteran_Rangers sent me a rather interesting essay about Indo-Iranian cosmology and the “cosmic man”. Since I had first become interested in Indo-European mythology, I was aware of the myth and it was one of my favorites. As, like the essay points out, this myth reflects a very early dwelling upon the concept of a “first cause” or “God”. The reputation of this figure varies quite heavily. In Hinduism, the primordial being Purusha is identified heavily with Brahman, the ultimate reality before the formation of provisional existence. Purusha is viewed benevolently and is seen as having sacrificed himself to create the world. The essay also delves heavily into the attributes of Yima which are likely descended from the original motif of the cosmic man, although Yima has some separate characteristics on account of, well, not being primordial.

It was a very good essay. I don’t know if I can share it, because from what I’m told the person who wrote it wanted me to read it, but wrote it for academic work. I know that my clique being associated with something in academia will cause his peers to shriek in pain and terror like demons being licked by the flames of holy fire. I had only a few issues with it, and not necessarily from a point of disagreement but more from a point of confusion. But I don’t want to spend this whole essay talking about it. That’s not the point. What I wanted to talk about, was the primordial creation myth’s implications. Particularly, that their implications are quite the contrary from that of Gnosticism.

That is, in Gnosticism (and related traditions), the Demiurge is a malevolent trickster who fashions the world, either from his own substance “material” or from. Meanwhile, in initial Indo-European paganism, the Demiurge is identified as a benevolent force, and that the source of darkness in the world actually comes from that which runs against the Demiurge. As, of course, the Demiurge can’t just be everything, since the Demiurge is not The One. The Demiurge, however, unlike the Abrahamic God, is not identified as God. Because God, by the nature of being a “first cause” is simple. The Demiurge may be called the “mind of God”, or what the Platonists called ‘nous’. But, he is not God. God is simple and all-encompassing, and in some sense utterly ineffable if we are to believe Plato.

The malevolent source, which I don’t think is the same as evil, is chaos. The demiurge is responsible for taking substance, and ordering it into discrete objects. In the creation myth, the demiurgic figure creates the world from the primordial body, but in doing so someone must confront the residue resulting from this, disordered substance. Through this struggle, the hero tames the world and brings about order. The gods are associated with the demiurge, and the enemies of the gods are associated with this primordial residue which must exist if there is to exist this qualified figure the Demiurge.

In the Germanic tradition, the primordial man is Ymir, who fed off of the primordial cow Auðumbla, who fed off of the salt in the rinds of ice surrounding the primordial void, Ginnungagap. Eventually, Auðumbla licks a second man out of the ice, Búri, whose three grandsons Odin, Vili, and Vé killed Ymir and used his body to build the world. However, Ymir’s descendant Bergelmir would go on to form the race of Jotunn. The demiurgic action here is clearly represented by the actions of the Aesir. Odin, Vili, and Ve. Meanwhile, the Jotunn, the enemies of the gods, are part of this primordial residue which came from Ymir. I believe it is specifically stated in the Prose Edda that Ymir is bad on account of his being the ancestor of the Jotunn.

The Greek tradition also begins with Chaos, and the first being after Chaos is Gaia, the Greek representation of the earth. Albeit, at this point, bare and formless. Gaia is not necessarily painted as bad, but the enemies of the Olympian gods are associated with Gaia or in general are a primordial force. The Giants, of course are the spawn of Gaia once soaked with the blood of Ouranos, and are the iconic enemies of demigods like Heracles. The Titans are also representative of something primordial to the Gods, but Kronos and Ouranos both serve a special role which I’ll get to later. Most significantly is Typhon, the last spawn of Gaia. A massive snake-limbed monster who wanted to destroy Olympus and take power over the world. Typhon would also father other monsters, like the Hydra. Zeus defeats Typhon, and Heracles defeats the Hydra and several giants. Apollo defeats the Python, which a Gaian serpent just like Typhon. Through their vanquishing of primordial and chaotic beasts, our heroes beat the world into shape just as Odin and his siblings shaped the world from the remains of Ymir. Among Greeks, Zeus is the primary figure identified with the demiurge for obvious reasons. Although, it is important to clarify that there is Zeus, but there are also “Zeusian” triads. which make up a greater Zeus, somewhat similarly to how Modalists view the trinity. This is why some Platonists refer to Poseidon and Hades as the “Zeus of the Seas” and “Zeus of the Underworld” respectively. Zeus, Kronos, and Ouranos may also form a sort of demiurgic trinity through their shared office.

Hinduism is a little bit tougher of a nut to crack. In early Hinduism, Indra takes up a role extremely similar to Zeus. He defeats the chaotic serpent Vritra, first-born of dragons, which causes water to flow into the world and create the mountains. He is king of the gods and, like Zeus, is granted epithets which teeter on suggesting omnipotence. Albeit, it is a bit different from the bible. Many gods are granted such exaggerated epithets because that’s a sign of respect when you are praying to a god or singing in their favor. In later Hinduism worship is more directed towards gods associated with the supreme reality itself. Brahma, who is something of a demiurge, is not worshipped because he is clearly not the supreme personality of the Godhead. Brahma isn’t seen as malevolent though. Maybe somewhat degenerated in times of darkness, but not intrinsically malevolent, in the way the Demiurge is seen among Gnostics.

Zoroastranism, which had very strong influence on Abrahamic religion (although, as I’ll later argue, Abrahamism ultimately missed the point), doesn’t have a very clear ontology. The main issue is that Ahriman, the evil spirit, is not suggested to be a product of Ohrmuzd, the supreme deity of the Zoroastrians. Either we are left with Dualism or monistic Zurvanism, which suggests that Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were both products of an initial singular being “Zurvan”. Either way, Ohrmuzd is essentially the demiurgic figure in this scenario. Ohrmuzd is the creator of the universe, while Ahriman seeks to decompose it.

Near Eastern myths also contain the Chaoskampf motif, although this may be inherited. The myth of Marduk slaying Tiamat is strikingly Indo-European, a storm god who slays a primordial sea-serpent goddess and uses her body parts to form the world. But, Marduk wasn’t a very significant god until later in Babylonian history, and this myth largely comes from the Enuma Elish, which is dated to pretty late in Babylonian history. After significant Indo-European influences from the Kassites, Hittites, Mitanni, and Iranians. It is likely that the Leviathan myth is heavily influenced by the Marduk myth, or otherwise directly from Iranian and Greek myths.

Speaking of Yahweh, I think that the biblical Yahweh diverges primarily from gods like Ohrmuzd or Zeus by virtue of his conflation with the supreme principle. It’s not a very stable position, which is why there begins to develop certain Gnostic elements to Abrahamism during antiquity. Christianity is definitely more Gnostic than Judaism, which is not to say that Judaism doesn’t have its own separate issues. One of my earliest Substack posts talks about this more in-depth. It’s one of my favorites, so please read it! Although Kabbalah is very DARK and evil, full of falsehood, and I have actually almost been killed by Kabbalic mages before! I will say, the Jews provide a decent conceptual understanding of this element I speak of which is sort of the anti-demiurgic force of chaos. They call it Tzimtzum. The idea is, that God had to contract to create the world, to create “conceptual space”, and the sin in the world is the gap in divine presence. The big issue is this idea that the resulting personality is still God, when it isn’t. It’s like the Elder Scrolls. Anu is not “The One” by virtue of not being Padomay. “mind” and discrete ideas require this sort of multiplicity, where there is an emptiness, but this emptiness is not actually empty it’s just utterly ambiguous substance.

So ehh, yes… Point being, demiurgic activity is benevolent in Indo-European mythology, while the malevolent (but not necessarily evil) force in the universe is something entropic and dissolving the fundamentally demiurgic discrete boundaries of the world.. You should probably try and emulate the demiurge by exacting your will onto space! But uhh, don’t get any pretty ideas about Utopias or heaven-on-earth. Humans cannot make that. Maybe read that post I linked, ok? Also, exacting your will onto space does not mean doing whatever you want! Obviously behavior which is self-contradictory and self-destructive is unproductive and completely contrary to what I’m speaking of. Like uhh, cutting off your own penis and whatnot. And this isn’t a invitation to shun “knowing thyself” and understanding the supreme unity of everything. But, don’t go blaming the provisional reality on the demiurge n shieeet! Whatever happens, happens.