In Plato’s Symposium, we see an example of this given by Pausanias, who uses the two different traditions about the origin of Aphrodite to talk about the nature of love. In this text, Socrates and several other notable Athenian men are all gathered together to celebrate Pausanias’ lover, Agathon, winning a prize for his first tragedy. They are all making speeches in honor of Eros, the god of love and sex. Each man takes a turn to give a speech, often using their own means of expanding on and further developing the ideas of love as it existed in the minds of high profile men within Classical Athenian society. Pausanias’ speech primarily deals with the topic of pedestry, which is a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy. Although, in a modern context, we understand these relationships to be morally questionable, in the ancient world they were a practice that was relatively widespread and built directly into societal expectations for boys, not unlike rites of passage that many young girls also went through with marriage, as reflected in myths such as the Rape of Persephone. In fact, in many cases these relationships were often lifelong in the same way that marriages were and carried with them similar marking of status for both parties. The speech as given by Pausanias is as follows:

“Pausanias, who was sitting next, then takes up the tale: - He says that Phaedrus should have distinguished the heavenly love from the Earthly before he praised either. For there are two Aphrodites - One the daughter of Uranus, who has no mother and is the elder and wiser goddess, and the other the daughter of Zeus and Dione, who is popular and common. The first of the two loves has a noble purpose, and delights only in the intelligent nature of man, and is faithful to the end, and has no shadow of wantonness or lust. The second is the coarser kind of love, which is a love of the body rather than of the soul, and is of women and boys as well of men. Now, the actions of lovers vary, like every other sort of action, according to the manner of their performance. And in different countries there is a difference of opinions about male loves. Some, like the Boeotians, approve of them; Others, like the Ionians, and most of the barbarians, disapprove of them; Partially because they are aware of the political dangers which ensue from them, as may be seen in the instance of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.

At Athens and Sparta there is an apparent contradiction about them. For at times, they are encouraged and then the lover is allowed to play all sorts of fantastic tricks; he may swear and forswear himself ( and ‘at lovers’ perjuries they say Jove laughs’ ); he may be a servant, and lie on a mat at the door of his love, without any loss of character; but there are also times when elders look grave and guard their young relations and personal remarks are made. The truth is that some of these loves are disgraceful, and others honorable. The vulgar loves of the body which takes wing and flies away when the bloom of youth is over, is disgraceful, and so is the interested love of power or wealth; but the love of the noble mind is lasting. The lover should be tested, and the beloved should not be too ready to yield. The rule in our country is that the beloved may do the same service to the lover in the way of virtue which the lover may do to him.”
--- Plato, Symposium: Benjamin Jowett Translation

In this passage, we see Pausanias acknowledge and use the two traditions on the parentage of Aphrodite to make a point about different kinds of relationships, denoting that pursuing someone purely for things like youthfulness, wealth or power are “common” like the younger Aphrodite, but the pursuit of love for knowledge or for a growth of the mind is noble and more like that of the elder Aphrodite. In the literal sense, neither of these two ideas about Aphrodite were likely written to complement each other, being populated by two competing ancient traditions - The Homeric and Hesiodic - which long predate their use in this particular piece of writing. However, it is through the figure of Aphrodite in these two contrasting traditions that Pausanias is attempting to make his case about what kind of love he believes to be noble. This metaphorical reading of mythological literature, over a more literal reading which might pit the two different versions against one another, is an example of a more hermeneutic approach and gives one the ability to hold both traditions in coexistence with each other.

In the modern day, Hermeneutic approaches to texts and various traditions within every religion is common practice. While there is some discussion about the literalness of some elements of some of our legends, such as those depicted in the Illiad and other works of the Epic cycle, this practice does give us the ability to continue to honor traditional texts that might be more magical in nature or outside the boundaries of provability based on archeological evidence. When you start getting into most esoteric traditions, this skill not only is important to recognize, but is a fundamental part of what these traditions are based on and will be necessary for engaging with many of them in a way that is still grounded in reality.

I bring you the following questions to think about for today's discussion.
These are just things to get the discussion started and you can feel free to explore other ideas or thoughts if you have them:

• How do you think that the gods feel about being used as metaphorical devices? How might this relate to the idea of inspired works, such as in the case of the poets, who some believe we’re only able to create their works at all in the behest of the muses, or who were sometimes considered possessed in their creation, not unlike the possession that were trademarks of other forms of enthusiasm? Do you think that the gods always agree with how they are used and represented in myths? Why or why not?
• Do you think that Pausanias’ interpretations of the two Aphrodites does justice to both traditions? Do you think that he shows preference for one of them over the other in his interpretation? Do you think this says something about which traditions he prefers or is it just a rhetorical device that he’s using in this instance in order to further whatever goal he has in mind? What are some ways that we might be able to tell the difference between those two things.
• In the modern day, many traditions also use hermeneutic interpretations to further other metaphysical ideas. We discussed one such example in a previous daily, with the destruction of Kama by Shiva, where some people talk about this myth as being metaphorical for self-control against the desires of this world. How is Pausanias’ speech similar to these traditions within the dharmic religions? How is it different? What does this tell us about the role of religious texts for those who engage with them?

Using a god or other mythological figure who has two or more conflicting accounts of them - Including Aphrodite, if you would like - and write a short speech or argument in favor of a value that you personally believe that god or figure has. If at all possible, try to make specific references to the text itself, but don’t feel beholden to the literal interpretation of it. This practice is an exercise in understanding Hermeneutics and the way that they work within a religious context, so in this particular example it's more important to pay attention to the ways that elements of the texts can be used as literary devices. After writing your speech, spend some time thinking about the way things are done similarly in other traditions - Does disregarding the literal meaning of the text for its metaphorical applications make the values that you believe that your god or mythological figure has less true? What does this tell us about the way people understand their gods in other traditions? Write a journal entry or spend some time talking to your gods about the answers to these questions and your personal feelings about them.

how can we really say they aren't their metaphorical devices though?? because to me, aphrodite is love, the same way that thanatos is death, and selene is the moon. they are divine because to me, nature in itself is divine because life is a one chance miracle. the gods are nature, and so are humans, though we have strayed. i do think the gods could dislike some of their myths, if they were truly bad and indefensibly immoral and things they stand against themselves, but i don't think they care generally. because they're higher beings, and it's not like they physically did those things, we can't really hold them to our morals anyway.

Aγαπητόπρόβλημας:

Thats a good answer!! I think understanding the gods as aspects of nature is a really interesting contribution to this discussion. Like, we do not expect the moon to make a moral stance on our current world climates, so the idea of asking a god to do the same - if you see the divine in this way - is equally silly. I also think this adds a neat idea about the inability to like "lie" or "trick" the gods in a way -- If Aphrodite herself is love, then you can't really trick her into believing that you love someone who you don't yknow? It opens interesting questions about our relationship with the gods, though and the way we percieve things like morality. There does come the question of when following our "natural instincts" for instance might be the incorrect thing to do and how the gods play into things like that.