Collected Writings on Ishtarian and Tunarian Beliefs

Excerpts from the essays of Kangae, Ishtarian theologian, c. 914

A DISCOURSE ON GOOD AND EVIL

"...and while many things came from pure chaos, only two of them could exist without being reclaimed. These are, according to the Story of the Threat of Nothing, structured chaos and entropy. To understand why these are the only two things which can exist separate of pure chaos, one could think of them in terms of perfection; structured chaos is perfect good, and entropy is perfect evil.

"Specifically, Ishtar and Primaer are the perfect good. As children of perfect good, it is our duty to oppose the force of entropy in any way that we can. This is our purpose in life..."

A DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE OF MORTALITY

"...It can be interpreted to mean, therefore, that life and death are but mere reflections of the cycle of energy rising from structured chaos and then falling back to pure chaos.

"However, the question remains as to what is it to be mortal.

"To the vast majority of the uneducated populace, mortality is defined as the simple ability to die. However, there is the convincing argument, in the story of the three creations, that death came even before mortals. The prevailing opinion amongst theologians, mages, and other scholars is that gods can indeed die. Obviously, then, a new and different definition of mortality is needed.

"In response to this, some philosophers have offered the explanation that to be mortal is to face the inevitability of death. Yet think on this; if gods can die, and they exist forever, and given the infinite span of possibilities of chaos, doesn't it make sense that each and every god will eventually fall back into pure chaos? Is it not the nature of chaos to eventually experience all things possible -- even death? To avoid any one thing, even death, is perverting chaos into something else entirely.

"Having discarded the two most prevalent definitions, we are still without a definition of mortality. Therefore, I wish to tentatively propose a new one of my own creation...

"The lesser gods were the first creation of Ishtar and Primaer and thusly (and arguably) the most imperfect. The knowledge gained from the creation and existence of the lesser gods was used by the Mother and Father of All in the creation of mortals. It follows, then, that more knowledge was put into the creation of mortals than that of the lesser gods. If it were not generally considered blasphemous to say so, it would have been suggested many years before that one way to view mortality is to consider it the more perfect form of existence out of the two. It could even be said that mortality is third type and form of godhood.

"Why is it considered blasphemous to say that mortals are more perfect than the lesser gods? It is because it implies, by association, that they are more perfect than Ishtar and Primaer themselves. We tend to think of the three on an hierarchy of decreasing perfection that corresponds with their creation; the less time the beings have been in existence, the more imperfect. It is commonly accepted that Ishtar and Primaer are the most perfect beings possible, and many belief systems are based on this. Therefore, to suggest that humans are not the least perfect beings is to suggest, to many, that they are the most perfect beings, and that Ishtar and Primaer are in fact the least. And, naturally, to say this is to challenge the founding beliefs of religions across all of Gaera.

"I am not arguing, however, that we mortals are more perfect than the First Two. I believe that they are the most perfect beings possible -- only through this were they spared the reduction into pure chaos to which we others are fated. However, does this necessitate that the lesser gods are the second most perfect beings possible? I personally believe that the answer is no. And here, the language of the story of creation is misleading.

"We tend to think of the three on an hierarchy of perfection that corresponds with their order of creation. It is not fair to think of it in this way, however, because Ishtar and Primaer were not truly created. Creation implies a sentient agent; however, pure chaos is but a mere force, and not an thinking being. Of the trio in question, only the lesser gods and the mortals were created by beings. Therefore, it does make sense and it does not challenge fundamental beliefs to consider Ishtar and Primaer as the most perfect, followed by the mortals, and then the lesser gods..."

A COMPARISON OF ISHTARIAN AND TUNARIAN BELIEFS ON CREATION

"While there are myriad stories of creation, the most commonly accepted are the Istharian and Tunarian stories. These two share many similarities, however there are still many significant differences between the two. These differences are cause for much heated debate amongst scholars of each respective school of belief, each convinced of their own right. An examination of the two reveals some fascinating similarities and differences.

"While both Ishtarians and Tunarians generally agree that Isthar and Primaer were the ones to create the lesser gods, they differ on the question of who made mortals. Indeed, it is from this difference that the two respective schools of thought derive their common name; Ishtarians claim that Ishtar created all mortals, while Tunarians maintain that Tunare was the one to do so. Tunarians further claim that Ishtar and Primaer leave the world to its own affairs, and that Tunare is the one to watch after and occassionally guide mortals, while Istharians say that the First Two are still very active in world affairs.

"Support for Tunarian belief hinges on many things; however, most of the stronger arguments rely on the words of the Tunarian scriptures, which have only gone through one major translation. The Ishtarian texts, meanwhile, have gone through at least two, therefore supposedly leaving more room for error. This argument, however, might not be very convincing, when it is taken into account that the single translation of the Tunarian Book of Ishtar was performed and recorded by an elven scholar at a time of particularly intense conflict with the drow. This can be seen, perhaps, in the fact that Tunarian philosophy maintains a low level of importance for chaos -- an element revered by drow."

Excerpts from the writings of Aenrune Willowbranch, Tunarian theologian, c. the late 1200s

UNTITLED (translated into Common)

"...All has come from Nothing, and to Nothing must All once return. In time All will be Nothing, as was Fated in the beginning at the Beginning of It All. To fear the coming of Nothing is to fear the inevitable. To try to impede it is futile. Nothing is our Fate as Mortals. This we must accept..."

-- Pdrydia

UNTITLED (translated into Common)

"...it has been many Phases since I have written, hunted by my fellow brother for my differing beliefs. My following is small, but unfortunately, the masses do not realize that we are not a cult, but rather, an enlightened group. I have been ostracized for the belief of the return of Tunare in her final form -- one of anti- Creation. From the beginning we were designed to believe All would end, completing the Cycle, but many have strayed. It makes no difference. Someday, the Lúrë will come, and Nothing will begin. Then it will all be undenyable. No longer will the people refute my claims -- and no longer shall I care, as we shall have returned to Nothing. The truth will shine.

"I fear not my own death, for I have realized the cycle of life and death is unstoppable, and do not wish to try. Were it possible, I would disregard the possibility, the possibility itself being a violation of the laws of Creation. My death will not be an end, but the first of many, for as I lie bleeding, expunged as a heretic, or my feet swing in the gallows, I will be praised on high in an existence more glorious than our own. I will cease to exist. I will be as God."

Excerpts from the writings of Lambë Heru, c. 1293

SOME NOTES ON THE TRANSLATION OF AENRUNE'S WRITINGS

"...it is often said Aenrune was as chaotic as his writings depict, but further evidence of such can be divined from reading his writings in their original form. Aenrune's hasty notes are barely coherant, even to the most fluent speakers, and many of his ideas are either too poetic to translate literally or have no translation whatsoever which fits in any context.

"An example exists in Aenrune's usages of the word hroa, literally translating to body, although it can be used in other contexts as a general substitute for the concept of 'physical matter.' Aenrune describes, in some cases, his concept of the perfect being as being 'without body,' but, according to contextual details, his allusions are more towards the ultimate form of existence as being nonexistence--which, when read in elvish, is a terribly paradoxical statement, even moreso than in the common tongue. Elvish etymology indicates a lack of a word truly describing 'nonexistence,' so Aenrune chooses to insert poetic notes, sometimes referring to it as pendë, or 'slope, depression,' and occasionally as yáwë, or 'cleft, ravine.'

"Lastly is Aenrune's usage of the word lúrë, a word describing 'dark weather.' His usage of it as a proper noun renders it untranslatable within context, but outside of my linguistic knowledge, I am forced to ponder: is it a reference to the end of creation?"

-- Archmage

Excerpts from a study of religion by Bridget Mondieu, religious scholar, c. 1282

AN INTRODUCTION

"...Certainly, Aenrune's beliefs are not typical of Tunarian philosophers of any time perioud. Most Tunarians agree with Ishtarians that Nothing is something we can and should work together to avoid. Aenrune himself, on the other hand, has a rather fatalistic and pessimistic view of Nothing. Perhaps this is a result of the influence of the recent fall of Britiana.

"Of course, we cannot dismiss the value of Aenrune's writings purely based on the fact that we may not like the possibilities his thoughts suggest. Returning briefly to a previous discussion, remember that Kangae himself was poisoned by a colleague -- murdered for advocating what were, in his time, unconventional beliefs. We often forget this today when reading his works, forgetting that the reason why Kangae's beliefs appear unoriginal at first glance is because he set a standard for theological thought and analysis for years to come.

"Of course, just because Kangae's views are widely accepted does not mean that Aenrune's might one day become such. Rather, the importance of Aenrune's musings lie not in their wide following, but rather in the influence of their small following. While Aenrune has since passed on today, his original followers continue to exert a noticeable influence on Kalshanan politics today, despite their small numbers..."

-- Pdrydia