him, but he was later to find manifestations of "the One'
in even odder places. Had Julian been what he thought b
was-a philosopher in the tradition of Plato-One might haw
understood his dislike of the Christian nonsense. He would
have been like you and me. But Julian was concerned
finally, with the idea of personal immortality, the one obsession
Christians share with those who are drawn to the old mystery cults.
Despite everything Julian wrote on the subject, I have never
understood precisely why he turned against the religion of
his family. After all, Christianity offered him nearly everything
he needed. If he wanted to partake symbolically of the bod
of a god, why not remain with the Christians and eat their
bread and drink their wine instead of reverting to the bread
and wine of Mithras? It is not as if there was anything lacking
in Christianity. The Christians have slyly incorporated mos
of the popular elements of Mithras and Demeter and Dionysos'
into their own rites. Modem Christianity is an encyclopedi
of traditional superstition.
I suspect the origin of Julian's disaffection is in his family.
Constantius was a passionate Christian, absorbed by doctrinal
disputes. With, good reason, Julian' hated Constantius.
Therefore, he hated Christianity. This puts the matter f
too simply, yet I always tend to the obvious view of things since
it is usually the correct one, though of course one can never,
get to the bottom of anything so mysterious as another man's
character, and there is a mystery here.
Julian was Christian in everything except his tolerance of
others. He was what the Christians would call a saint. Yet
he swung fiercely away from the one religion which suited'
him perfectly, preferring its eclectic origins, which he then
tried to systematize into a new combination quite as ridiculous
as the synthesis he had rejected. It is a strange business and
there is no satisfactory explanation for Julian's behavior. Of
course he claimed that Bishop George's partisanship disgust,
him as a boy, and that Porphyry and Plotinus opened his:
eyes to the absurdity of Christian claims. Well and good. But
then why turn to something equally absurd? Granted, no
educated man can accept the idea of a Jewish rebel as god.
But having rejected that myth, how can one then believe that
the Persian hero-god Mithras wasbom of light striking rock,
on December 25th, with shepherds watching his birth?
am told that the Christians have just added those shepherd
to the birth of Jesus.) Or that Mithras lived in a fig tree which
fed and clothed him, that he fought with the sun's first
creation, the bull, that he was dragged by it (thus symbolizing'
man's suffering) until the bull escaped; finally, at the command
of the sun god, Mithras stabs the bull with a knife and from
the beast's body come flowers, herbs, wheat; from the blood,
wine; from the seed, the first man and woman. Then Mithras
is called up to heaven, after celebrating a sacramental last
supper. Time's end will be a day of judgment when all will
rise from their graves and evil will be destroyed while
the good will live forever in the light of the sun.
Between the Mithraic story and its Christian sequel I
see no essential difference. Admittedly, the Mithraic code of
conduct is more admirable than the Christian. Mithraists
believe that right action is better than contemplation. They
favor old-fashioned virtues like courage and self-restraint.
They were the first to teach that strength is gentleness. All
of this is rather better than the Christian hysteria which
vacillates between murder of heretics on the one hand and
a cringing rejection of this world on the other. Nor can a
Mithraist be absolved of sin by a sprinkle of water. Ethically,
I find Mithras the best of all the mystery cults. But it is absurd
to say it is any more "true" than its competitors. When one
becomes absolute about myth and magic, the result can only
be madness.
Julian speaks continually of his love of Hellenism. He
honestly believed he loved Plato and reasonable discourse.
Actually, what he craved was what so many desire in this
falling time: assurance of personal immortality. He chose
to reject the Christian way for reasons which I find obscure,
while settling on an equal absurdity. Of course I am sym-
pathetic to him. He dealt the Christians some good blows and
that delighted me. But I cannot sympathize with his fear of
extinction. Why is it so important to continue after death? We
never question the demonstrable fact that before birth we did
not exist, so why should we fear becoming once more what
we were to begin with? I am in no ,hurry to depart. But I
look on nothing as just that: no thing. How can one fear no
thing?
As for the various ceremonies and trials the Mithraic initiate
must undergo, the less said the better. I understand that one
of the twelve tortures is the pulling out one by one of the pubic
hairs, a most spiritual discipline. I was told that part
of the ceremonies are conducted while everyone is roaring
drunk and trying to jump over ditches blindfolded, a symbol
no doubt of the bewildering life of the flesh. But men are
impressed by secret rites, the more gruesome and repellent the
better. How sad we are, how terrified to be men!
Libanius: It is not often one finds a philosopher so entirely
lacking in the religious sense. It is like being born unable to
perceive colors which are plain to everyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment