>So the Aryan might bring Light and Beauty into the world, but that's a demonstration of his character, not the goal of his actions.
The Aryan is defined by this character and solely exists for this. What he does is what he is and comes to this world to achieve his purpose as his character is in line with his soul. Lest he surrounds himself with Light and Beauty, he withers on the vine, dry and full of sorrow. The end goal is renewed every day.
I reject the "no attachment" vibe as if liking the physical form things can take in this realm were base. I am attached to it because of the opportunities it provides for the expressions of what I believe in, as being a field of sensations and experiments. The physical realm is neither good nor bad, it is what we make out of it.
I see no issue in making art to make money too
. The real difference stands in how money is made and what it is used for.
The war against "materiality" (and its implied rule of property) has been a staple of Christianity, Communism and a lot of pro-detachment beliefs.
It is just that some people want to possess something for the sake of possession and to show it off, others want to possess that same thing for all its existence and creation implies.
>Maybe the life-giving property of Sol makes it feminine in some cultures, but it seems that those properties which would have otherwise been masculine have to be represented elsewhere in another god or another celestial body.
it's hard to say because these cultures have a variety of Gods dedicated to all sides of life but usually respect the idea of strength related matters being given to male essences.
Then, Greeks had a female hunter and also a female war goddess, Norse people had female deities taking care of rune lore and vows.
I could also see how in a cold environment, the warmth of the sun could be likened to that of the mother's embrace, and the coldness of the moon to the severity of the father. Moon and sun orbiting Earth and spinning around it day and night also creating an averaged androgynous principle.
> If everyone thinks that they have the chance to get into Valhalla, they will throw themselves into battle...but we can't have everyone doing that.
But not everyone thinks that and Valhalla is apparently limited to physically battling people. Half of the dead warriors go to Valhalla btw, not all of them. What goes on for men of wisdom, for scholars, is not clear.
It also seems that few religious systems make a difference between inspired craftsmen and mere peasants. This deserves more digging.
Men of value and virtue should definitely get a reward based on the quality of their acts, regardless of the nature of such acts.
>I think that the oldest ones are the most interesting to study - maybe because I'm less familiar with them. The question is, if we find opposing principles - say, between Gauls and Roman mythologies - do we have to rank one as more appropriate than the other? I'm mostly Celtic-blooded, but most of my mythological knowledge is Greek, Egyptian, or Norse.
Gaulic culture has been largely lost and the Celts covered Europe from East to West and evolved into varying subgroups.
Religions are best seen as bags of tools. The plebs will believe in anything good if it's properly hammered down. So we should pick what fits and serves our interests and adapt the findings to the current era and vision of the world.