• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

J.M. DeMatteis (Marvel Cosmology Split)

I would like to add something for those who keep pointing out that his stories are written outside just his work.
  • This is true but it holds no real value. For example, his stories in DC like Green Lantern, Spectre, and Larfleeze clearly, the events that transpired are mentioned outside his own stories. Yet, we takes his view of the Cosmology over small things like this.
The Cosmology aspect is important because they're pretty much identical in every way in Marvel and DC and are only separated by name.

Example:

Divine Presence and Divine Creator also called God is the central figure in his Cosmology. A Oneness that underlines duality, precedes form, and always acts through some sort of Avatar. Literally, in Justice League Dark “Brahma-Dass” refers to God as a Magician that pulled Reality as his trick, and guess what? In Doctor Strange story they mentioned the concept of the Golden Age which surfaces across Silver Surfer, Man-Thing, and Moon Knight which in DC is mentioned several times as well. Into Shamballa literally calls God, a Magician, and that Reality is his trick, which is a shared element in his magical side of stories. Also, in an older Marvel story by DeMatteis, there's a character literally called “Shiva-Dass” as someone equal to “Brahma-Dass.”

Creation stories is exactly the same. God was unconscious then he had an urge then came everything: duality, consciousness, and Creation.

  • We have Oblivion describing Creation as coming from him and will return to him. Kind of weird since that's the exact description of the Sea of Brahma. Also, Mahapralaya and Pralaya have been referenced in both stories in the same manner: the dissolution of the Universe.
  • In Shamballa, Stephen Strange mentions Krishna's flute that will bring about Sleep. This idea was part of the “Night of Brahma” storyline in Doctor Fate, a vampire named Andrew Bennet played it to bring about Mahapralaya. Also, mentioned again in the Last One about the Krishna flute. The older story involving Shiva-Dass mentions the same flute as well. The weird thing is his Strange and Fate stories were almost released near each other in publication and that's not to mention that he was employed by both companies and went back and forth with his scripts between the companies.
  • Maya is in both companies. The same logic, the same name, and the same premise.
So, for the people telling me not to compare the two as one of my reasoning. Then how is DeMatteis getting away with a composite Marvel Cosmology, but not DC? When his work is literally recycled and the same? The comparsion is very fair and very much should be a part of my reasoning.
 
Last edited:
VeryGoofyToddler said:
I would like to add something for those who keep pointing out that his stories are written outside just his work.
  • This is true but it holds no real value. For example, his stories in DC like Green Lantern, Spectre, and Larfleeze clearly, the events that transpired are mentioned outside his own stories. Yet, we takes his view of the Cosmology over small things like this.
The Cosmology aspect is important because they're pretty much identical in every way in Marvel and DC and are only separated by name.

Example:

Divine Presence and Divine Creator also called God is the central figure in his Cosmology. A Oneness that underlines duality, precedes form, and always acts through some sort of Avatar. Literally, in Justice League Dark “Brahma-Dass” refers to God as a Magician that pulled Reality as his trick, and guess what? In Doctor Strange story they mentioned the concept of the Golden Age which surfaces across Silver Surfer, Man-Thing, and Moon Knight which in DC is mentioned several times as well. Into Shamballa literally calls God, a Magician, and that Reality is his trick, which is a shared element in his magical side of stories. Also, in an older Marvel story by DeMatteis, there's a character literally called “Shiva-Dass” as someone equal to “Brahma-Dass.”

Creation stories is exactly the same. God was unconscious then he had an urge then came everything: duality, consciousness, and Creation.

  • We have Oblivion describing Creation as coming from him and will return to him. Kind of weird since that's the exact description of the Sea of Brahma. Also, Mahapralaya and Pralaya have been referenced in both stories in the same manner: the dissolution of the Universe.
  • In Shamballa, Stephen Strange mentions Krishna's flute that will bring about Sleep. This idea was part of the “Night of Brahma” storyline in Doctor Fate, a vampire named Andrew Bennet played it to bring about Mahapralaya. Also, mentioned again in the Last One about the Krishna flute. The older story involving Shiva-Dass mentions the same flute as well. The weird thing is his Strange and Fate stories were almost released near each other in publication and that's not to mention that he was employed by both companies and went back and forth with his scripts between the companies.
  • Maya is in both companies. The same logic, the same name, and the same premise.
So, for the people telling me not to compare the two as one of my reasoning. Then how is DeMatteis getting away with a composite Marvel Cosmology, but not DC? When his work is literally recycled and the same? The comparsion is very fair and very much should be a part of my reasoning.
Click to expand...
@Eficiente @Qawsedf234 @SuperAPM @Firestorm808 @EmperorRorepmeThree @Elizio33 @MarvelFanatic119 @Catzlaflame @Lightning_XXI @Deagonx @Eseseso @LuciferX @Excellence616 @ByAsura @Emirp sumitpo @Quantu @IdiosyncraticLawyer @PrinceofPein @LordTracer @ProfectusInfinity @M3X_2.0 @Maverick_Zero_X @Dark-Carioca @ObberGobb

Your input would be appreciated here. 🙏
 
Eseseso said:
With the Demattis statement about him not viewing his stuff as truly canon and instead sort of his own thing, I switch to a sad but fair agreement with the OP
Click to expand...
To be honest, I never liked splits either and I wish they didn't exist. It's just since we use them in VSBW, might as well. The rest I think can stay but with DeMatteis, it is kind of a given to split, at least on this website.
 
VeryGoofyToddler said:
Yeah, there's really nothing to take away from it. Plus, I change my mind about using Eternity and Dormammu. As for some characters like Chthon, Strange, and also the Defenders, in general, I'm not going to make separate keys.
Click to expand...
As the guy who did most of the revisions for Strange and Dormammu, I genuinely think that a key split for them based on this would be... complicated to say the least.
 
Eseseso said:
As the guy who did most of the revisions for Strange and Dormammu, I genuinely think that a key split for them based on this would be... complicated to say the least.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suggested to Ultima that we'd make a Shamballa key but he just told me that isn't necessary.
 
VeryGoofyToddler said:
However, with that being said. I would want a key for Franklin Richards.
Click to expand...
Agreed. He very arguably has the best feat in DeMatteis' Cosmology, and his portrayal and extent of his capabilities significantly contradict his normal portrayals. But I'd like to hear your reasoning behind it to see if we're both on the same page, if you don't mind.

I also plan to re-read the comics now to gather scans and such.
 
The_2nd_Existential_Seed said:
Agreed. He very arguably has the best feat in DeMatteis' Cosmology, and his portrayal and extent of his capabilities significantly contradict his normal portrayals. But I'd like to hear your reasoning behind it to see if we're both on the same page, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...
What I had in mind for the key name would be something like “full potential” given that in the more recent story, he has lost his powers and regained them in some moments. You're right on the notion that he was far stronger than he normally is in Daydreamers. Thus, it would be a disservice not to include what he has done during that short mini story.
 
I mean name a character that can casually destroy and recreate Creation easily. Only, character that can do that on the same scale of Franklin would be Job Burke from Marvel or Elaine and Michael Demiurgos from DC.
 
VeryGoofyToddler said:
Which description are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I don't know about me, I stopped reading Marshall in Immortal Thor #7, someone I knew said that toaa could not be 0 because of the Toba, toaao duo, hierarchy, but my friend said that the explanation of Al Ewin in Immortal Thor #11 and there would be enough, but I wonder, I couldn't look at the series due to some problems right now.
 
I... just read it. Uh, firstly, it's in Issue 12, not 11. That had me really confused for a moment.

It describes The One Above All as the combined creative force of all the real-life writers, authors, and readers. So he isn't "just" a representation of the Authors anymore. He is also described to be a metaphor of God from the Bible.

How the f*ck the bolded sentence translates to an tier though in a way that doesn't completely break the system is anyone's guess.
 
The_2nd_Existential_Seed said:
I... just read it. Uh, firstly, it's in Issue 12, not 11. That had me really confused for a moment.

It describes The One Above All as the combined creative force of all the real-life writers, authors, and readers. So he isn't "just" a representation of the Authors anymore. He is also described to be a metaphor of God from the Bible.

How the f*ck the bolded sentence translates to a tier though in a way that doesn't completely break the system is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t because it was already accepted that One Above All is meant to represent the authors. If that’s really the crux of the issue then we can take the Writer from DC and his name at face value to “break” the system.
 
The_2nd_Existential_Seed said:
I... just read it. Uh, firstly, it's in Issue 12, not 11. That had me really confused for a moment.

It describes The One Above All as the combined creative force of all the real-life writers, authors, and readers. So he isn't "just" a representation of the Authors anymore. He is also described to be a metaphor of God from the Bible.

How the f*ck the bolded sentence translates to an tier though in a way that doesn't completely break the system is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
thank you for correcting my mistake
 
Sorry for the late response, I forgot about this thread tbh.

VeryGoofyToddler said:
Yeah, no…both are obviously based on Kabbalah but the similarity ends there. For one, one is the male aspect of God, which is not shared with Ewing’s take and correlated to Cleito, the female aspect of God and the mother of the Dreamer. Disconnect the logic there and you already separate a major accordance of the existence of Adam K’ad-Mon as the father of the Fallen Stars, the first in the lineage of men whose jobs is to seek and ripple people in the truth to uncover the one true Creator mask by making them realize of Cleito's illusions. This isn't a shared traiy with Adam Kadmon.

I mean if you want a closer connection other than both being based on the archetypal man from Kabbalah then include these logic:

  • Where would Adam Kadmon link with the Fallen Stars and being the father of them and of Creation?
  • Where's Adam Kadmon's relation dwelt with the Man-Thing as guardian of the Nexus alongside his partner that formulates the love symbolized by the Creator?
  • What role does Adam Kadmon play in dwelling deeper into knowing that everyone's true essence lies not within the limited Reality of Maya, but in the Creator whom they always were?
I could go on but the only similarity is that they share a role in being the “first” and “prominent” men and that's only because of where the name comes from since Ewing and Matteis both base it off the Kabbalah Adam.
Click to expand...
VeryGoofyToddler said:
Yeah, so the connection becomes even looser.
Click to expand...
You have two main issues in your logic, I have already brought them up before but I'll emphasise it more here.

The lack of evidence regarding a detail in either cosmologies is not merit to decide that these cosmologies cannot coincide with each other. First and foremost, you come to the conclusion that the story has to prove the connection between DeMatteis's comics with the rest of Marvel, which isn't necessary in the same sense that any other author wouldn't need to verbatimly cross-reference previous works to be under the general continuity of Marvel.

Or how I'd like to summarize this: The notion of an 'explicit' continuity is simply not how Marvel (or any shared comicbook universe) looks at their stories, anyway.

Obviously, the only way this logic no longer applies, is when there is a clear incompatibility between two comics on certain affairs, which, essentially none of your listed reasons to split DeMatteis's stories from the rest of main Marvel really do, with the general theme being something along the lines of "this detail was shown in this DeMatteis story, and wasn't shown outside of his stories".

Now, since the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, jumping the gun because there are details in one story that don't appear in other stories is pretty faulty and unnecessary.

So, do use this as mnemonic for my stance on this idea for the rest of the thread.

VeryGoofyToddler said:
That's a theory that's not at all mention in the actual story. You can feel free to interpret it but at the end of the day, God from DeMatteis is not tied or bound to any religion. He's much closer to Parabrahman or Dharmakaya than he is to Ein Sof or the One.
Click to expand...
I would direct you below for a case on the pattern that DeMatteis's cosmology and the main cosmology share.

VeryGoofyToddler said:
Which I point rather was pointless and irrelevant. It very much is inconsistent as I pointed out in detail. Whatever, you believe of how malleable creation origin is rather not the real contingency of this argument. It does, however, supplement my point more though.
Click to expand...
It is relevant. Your issues regarding the cosmologies being influenced by different traditions is already something that we have an accepted explanation for.

VeryGoofyToddler said:
Just to note. DeMatteis has always been specific of his own Creation myth and he isn’t likely to consider most people take on it as the same as his. That’s why all his creations pertaining to the Cosmology(Maya, Oblivion, Scrier) was because he plays with his own takes of the Hindu physiology and nothing else other than short inspiration like Cleito which is Atlantic, Adam K’ad-Mon which is Kabbalstic, and etc..
Click to expand...
VeryGoofyToddler said:
I've talked with Matteis for a while and I know how he writes and much more. He doesn't aspire to a canon, he does what he wants from his heart and the creation myth from Avatar Baba, not a universal canon.
Click to expand...
I think this is a case of a non-sequitur: Any author "follows their heart" while writing a story, that's sort-of what the creativity aspect of writing is.

Though, in questions where DeMatteis was much less vague regarding connection between his works and the main continuity, he has been clear about not wanting not wanting to step over any writers works, not considering writing elements out of stories to be ignoring the continuity, and most importantly, finding the beauty in collaborative Universes, where everyone contributes and builds upon each story, something that is also discussed in the second thread here.

So looking at that conveniently asked question, and DeMatteis's answer to it as "he doesn't stick to any continuity, bro" is just something that DeMatteis himself doesn't agree with.

Going back to the cosmology.


I'd also like to actually cover the similarities between the aforementioned Marvel meta-cosmology of some sort, and DeMatteis's general pattern/idea of what existence and God are, but first, lets break down that system into a number of facts:
So, in essence, the cosmology is a cumulative 'ladder' that conforms by the intellect; The process of self-contemplation expands the Universe to suit the evolution that the mind goes through, this evolution is unending, because the Journey towards understanding the Divine itself is unending.

This is already relatively the same idea in DeMatteis's aforementioned concept of Adam K’ad-Mon and mankind falling in the illusion:

Each descendent of K'ad-mon was iniciated into the mysteries. Accepting his role as keeper of the dream. But as time (the dream of time) passed, the men of the lineage fell deeper into the illusion. More and more they began to forget who they were, what they were, their part in the holy play. And it became more difficult for the fallen stars whose role it was to guide these men out of sleep to awaken the sons of K'ad-mon tο their destiny. So at last one man of the lineage turned his face away from the stars, unable to see their glory. Un-able to see anything but illusion. and that man's actions, the book concluded, had dire consequences for all the infinite dreams contained..
Click to expand...
The men of the lineage falling into the Dream, and their role to rediscover who they are, and thus, crawl from the depths of illusion is interestingly an almost identical role to what is described in Ewings Kabbalstic framework as well.

For starters, since God exists within everyone–as the actual dreamer of the dream–rediscovering him through the understanding of everything being a dream, jives pretty well with the idea of the Kabbalah being the Journey towards understanding the Divine and oneself, via understanding that God exists intrinsically within everyone, and that the way to discover that, is through the contemplation of who you are, and what you are.

So that much isn't entirely exclusive to either parties.

Obviously, the idea that both authors have to agree on the specific proper naming of things for it to be consistent is something both authors have explicitly disagreed with: DeMatteis clearly operates under a religiously plural framework, as seen in Silver Surfer (1987) #138: The Cosmic Messiah is essentially the amalgamative Messiah of every philosophy, religion and mystic tradition, and the story focuses on his endeavour towards merging the Universe back with God, and to make an important note: It was not a reference to any specific 'God' of a religion or tradition, such as the aforementioned Nirguna Brahman, rather, the God that can be deduced from the contemplation of all religions.

Likewise, Ewing’s semantics on the primal realities as 'patterns' in existence is also considerably in support of this, since a pattern isn't particularly an inherently measured thing, you can assign any name to the motifs, and you'd still get the general theme of the framework of the cosmology.

Interestingly, you do say that DeMatteis's cosmology is modeled after Advaita Vedanta, which is in itself religiously pluralist/inclusivist. In regards to the ideas of relative truths (Vyavaharika Satya) and absolute truths (Paramarthika Satya), relative truths being 'truths' insofar as they exist in the phenomenal, illusory world, the school of Advaita Vedanta would, then, regard all religions as relative truths (as many philosophers in the school have taught), all of them being ways to realize the inner true-self (Brahman), the absolute truth. Something that is seen in DeMatteis's works in both DC and Marvel with the commentaries regarding all messianic figures and their teachings ultimately leading into the discovery of the true self, as displayed above.

Again, to reiterate, this idea that the cosmology exclusively sticks to a specific tradition is simply not a thing, not really. But to put a cherry on top, Adam K’ad-Mon is a Kabbalstic concept in DeMatteis's works, so that's definitely saying something in regards to the idea of "distinct traditions" as well.
 
Last edited:
NHTkenshin2 said:
The lack of evidence regarding a detail in either cosmologies is not merit to decide that these cosmologies cannot coincide with each other. First and foremost, you come to the conclusion that the story has to prove the connection between DeMatteis's comics with the rest of Marvel, which isn't necessary in the same sense that any other author wouldn't need to verbatimly cross-reference previous works to be under the general continuity of Marvel.
Click to expand...
This is pointless because cross-referencing works and more so of the story in general is something that’s generally seen as fine that works externally of Cosmology split.
NHTkenshin2 said:
Obviously, the only way this logic no longer applies, is when there is a clear incompatibility between two comics on certain affairs, which, essentially none of your listed reasons to split DeMatteis's stories from the rest of main Marvel really do, with the general theme being something along the lines of "this detail was shown in this DeMatteis story, and wasn't shown outside of his stories".

Now, since the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, jumping the gun because there are details in one story that don't appear in other stories is pretty faulty and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Pretty weak reasoning there about the same premise Profectus made about that with no regards on how the canons connects. You’re free to say that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” but all you’re detailing on that topic is saying, no to my points because it sort of “jump the gun” is a weak reason and doesn’t countertude my point.

Also, this element is shared with why DeMatteis Cosmology was split with mainline DC under the same notion, with the large part of it that his story does not connect to the larger canon as he writes his own things based on personal belief and setting. The updated OP literally explains that and I hope you read it prior to answering back because you’ve touch on nothing really, if all you summed up of my conclusion as “some parts of his story doesn’t work outside his own canon.” There’s a lot more things I put that merits a split and I’m under the impression you haven’t been keeping up with the updates I added.
NHTkenshin2 said:
It is relevant. Your issues regarding the cosmologies being influenced by different traditions is already something that we have an accepted explanation for.
Click to expand...
Given that most fiction does adhere to a multitude of Creation origin is widely regarded as acceptable. In this case, that Creation origin is very specific and fixated on personal belief of Hindu than anything else. Hence, why the main continuity seems to favor a holistic religious view, while DeMatteis focuses more on experience and journey from India in which almost all the traditions taught were Hindu and very specific in that regard. This isn’t shared with the more open main continuity.
NHTkenshin2 said:
I think this is a case of a non-sequitur: Any author "follows their heart" while writing a story, that's sort-of what the creativity aspect of writing is.
Click to expand...
Not really, the way I asked and the times I’ve talk with him prior, and not to mention how he writes in his blog deviates from the norm. His heart and passion was following the teaching of Meher Baba and the Cosmology effects of his teaching influenced how DeMatteis structure not just his writing, but his characters. Often, no one follows that type of muse and most author in Marvel at least try to follow their heart on smaller aspect that give essence to characters, but not to change entire origin point, introduce characters that exist as important part of the Cosmology(which they don’t seem to go beyond his stories), and a very personal view of the Creator with clear intent on being a non-dual fountainhead.
NHTkenshin2 said:
Though, in questions where DeMatteis was much less vague regarding connection between his works and the main continuity, he has been clear about not wanting not wanting to step over any writers works, not considering writing elements out of stories to be ignoring the continuity, and most importantly, finding the beauty in collaborative Universes, where everyone contributes and builds upon each story, something that is also discussed in the second thread here.
Click to expand...
Writers say this. That holds no value when discussing if they truly were trying to keep a canon or just saying their intent wasn’t to step over anyone’s work.

The latter portion is clearly being expressed here since DeMatteis wouldn’t intentionally want to ruin previous work. This is why the character and their core essence is what he works with. The spiritual, cosmological, religious aspect, however are skewed and tethered to what he wants them to be, if it doesn’t follow the previous canon.

Just in case, you don’t know what this means. It’s quite simple, a character like the Silver Surfer on the surface, is a good cosmic rider destined to bring fairness, but to also work with Galactus insuring that the planets he gives his master are free of life and not out of a chaotic mishap. That’s the “work” that DeMatteis doesn’t want to overlap, but it doesn’t account for adding Maya being the Cosmology itself, as illusion Reality, that hides the true potential of souls. So DeMatteis taking story elements into his hands is something special for him, but the character core essence of what makes those character special is something he isn’t changing. The rest, he’s free to do as he likes as he mentions since editorial gave him a lot of “freedom” writing these stories and his collaborator work around his ideas while they write the scripts and plots.
NHTkenshin2 said:
So looking at that conveniently asked question, and DeMatteis's answer to it as "he doesn't stick to any continuity, bro", then taking that and saying it is "very explicit" in your response to is just something that DeMatteis himself doesn't agree with.
Click to expand...
He was also asked so many time of the position of some of his character that goes beyond just his work like “Oblivion.” He gives the same response as the story and nothing more because he told them whatever they did to Oblivion is up to the writer in question since Marvel owns his character and not himself since none of it was creator-owned.

So, if I were to tell DeMatteis they changed Oblivion a bit and ask why he isn’t treated as the literal unconscious of an ineffable God then he’ll probably say “I don’t know.” So please, spare me this banter because you clearly don’t know where you’re differentiating my take to DeMatteis being respectful to his colleagues by not making some random claim of characters they work on, as oppose to what I’m claiming that his personal vision warrant different ideas from previous authors.

So, he won’t change the origin or core essence of an already established character. However, the background and fixing of the Cosmology is where he’s free to do whatever he wants, wherever his minds takes him, and almost any case a Hinduic traditional take on the Cosmology.
NHTkenshin2 said:
Going back to the cosmology.


I'd also like to actually cover the similarities between the aforementioned Marvel meta-cosmology of some sort, and DeMatteis's general pattern/idea of what existence and God are, but first, lets break down that system into a number of facts:
So, in essence, the cosmology is a cumulative 'ladder' that conforms by the intellect; The process of self-contemplation expands the Universe to suit the evolution that the mind goes through, this evolution is unending, because the Journey towards understanding the Divine itself is unending.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with DeMatteis. I already told @ProfectusInfinity and @Alonik of things like this.

DeMatteis is not a pioneer for things like mind shaping the Universe or God emanates form. That’s something that most writer naturally come to when talking about the Cosmology. Where, how, when, and what character fitting it and establishing the exact message behind those are what makes them different. So Ewing taking of Kabbalah is reflective of his words like DeMatteis is to Baba teaching which originates from Hinduism which last time I check isn’t Kabbalah.

Your second scan doesn’t even match the spiritual growth and journey of Souls. Since all of its is just illusions made to fit the Soul when adventuring across the Cosmos that’s always been one and the same. The Soul just plays different roles at different stages by losing physical sense in each level. So point by point, it’s not very accurate to each other, much less the larger idea not even being the same.

NHTkenshin2 said:
This is already relatively the same idea in DeMatteis's aforementioned concept of Adam K’ad-Mon and mankind falling in the illusion:
Click to expand...
It’s really not when you already read both stories.
NHTkenshin2 said:
The men of the lineage falling into the Dream, and their role to rediscover who they are, and thus, crawl from the depths of illusion is interestingly an almost identical role to what is described in Ewings Kabbalstic framework as well.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not because Kabbalah does not refer to Soul being ignorant that they are God because that’s a blasphemous claim in Kabbalstic teaching. Humans trying to understand the unknowable nature of God/Ein Sof isn’t the same as human being ignorant that they are God dreaming of the illusion the whole time. In fact, that’s literally not even the same, that’s the opposite of the same.
NHTkenshin2 said:
For starters, since God exists within everyone–as the actual dreamer of the dream–rediscovering him through the understanding of everything being a dream, jives pretty well with the idea of the Kabbalah being the Journey towards understanding the Divine and oneself, via understanding that God exists intrinsically within everyone, and that the way to discover that, is through the contemplation of who you are, and what you are.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not how the teaching goes. Ein Sof depending on which interpretation we use emanates his light down the Tree from which his energy bores the Sefirot and Creation ordeal. So that each human can try to understand the notion of “God” but the teaching goes that it is forbidden to talk about God because placing thoughts and concepts on him “limits him.”

This is not at all a teaching of Hinduism. Especially you consider the fact, that each Soul is God, which is rejected in all traditions of Abrahamic religion, and their sects such as Judaic Kabbalah.
NHTkenshin2 said:
So that much isn't entirely exclusive to either parties.

Obviously, the idea that both authors have to agree on the specific proper naming of things for it to be consistent is something both authors have explicitly disagreed with: DeMatteis clearly operates under a religiously plural framework, as seen in Silver Surfer (1987) #138: The Cosmic Messiah is essentially the amalgamative Messiah of every philosophy, religion and mystic tradition, and the story focuses on his endeavour towards merging the Universe back with God, and to make an important note: It was not a reference to any specific 'God' of a religion or tradition, such as the aforementioned Nirguna Brahman, rather, the God that can be deduced from contemplation of all religions.
Click to expand...
You do realize that DeMatteis God is meant to be portrayed as non-religious, right? That each religion is trying to figure out a way of grasping their true nature. Some religious view would disagree with it, but the point it that all forms will dissolve into the unity of God, so that he, himself, would dream of himself as one of this religious Godhead to help Souls attain their true Enlightment as God. Which is a personal teaching of Meher Baba, not at all meant to be taken as a serious statement on all religions.
NHTkenshin2 said:
Likewise, Ewing’s semantics on the primal realities as 'patterns' in existence is also considerably in support of this, since a pattern isn't particularly an inherently measured thing, you can assign any name to the motifs, and you'd still get the general theme of the framework of the cosmology.
Click to expand...
That literally has no connection to your point on the Cosmic Messiah. Just looks like a random point of you trying to connect a loose less thread.
NHTkenshin2 said:
Interestingly, you do say that DeMatteis's cosmology is modeled after Advaita Vedanta, which is in itself religiously pluralist/inclusivist. In regards to the ideas of relative truths (Vyavaharika Satya) and absolute truths (Paramarthika Satya), relative truths being 'truths' insofar as they exist in the phenomenal, illusory world, the school of Advaita Vedanta would, then, regard all religions as relative truths (as many philosophers in the school have taught), all of them being ways to realize the inner true-self (Brahman), the absolute truth. Something that is seen in DeMatteis's works in both DC and Marvel with the commentaries regarding all messianic figures and their teachings ultimately leading into the discovery of the true self, as displayed above.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you’re not going to tell me Christianity would accept the talk of Meher Baba being the “Avatar of God” as nothing more than hearsay. This point is completely irrelevant. I mention that point in my thread because of how the entire of DeMatteis “God” is base of these teachings specifically, and that Ewing never drew his take from this. The only similarity of description put between Ewing and DeMatteis is that both are technically aren’t fully religious, so to appease the codes of ethics they tend to say “whatever you believe God to be” so that they don’t get hated, if they favor a certain view of God.
NHTkenshin2 said:
Again, to reiterate, this idea that the cosmology exclusively sticks to a specific tradition is simply not a thing, not really. But to put a cherry on top, Adam K’ad-Mon is a Kabbalstic concept in DeMatteis's works, so that's definitely saying something in regards to the idea of "distinct traditions" as well.
Click to expand...
I made this clear, that both Adam are based on Kabbalah as their only similarity since most of the Cosmology aspect is borrowed from religious philosophy and not their personal idea. Writing comics about it in the framework of Marvel, is where they make their twist on those philosophy and DeMatteis is quite different when it comes to wanting to keep a canon, and not just randomly do his own things as he mentioned several times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VeryGoofyToddler2
DC/Vertigo Cosmology Redo (Part 2 of 2)
2 3 4
Replies
158
Views
16K
TuNtAM
TuNtAM
Eseseso
1-A Upgrade for the Astral Plane and the Abstracts (Marvel Comics)
2
Replies
62
Views
6K
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
ProfectusInfinity
  • Locked
Miscellaneous Marvel Additions
Replies
22
Views
2K
ProfectusInfinity
ProfectusInfinity
VeryGoofyToddler2
  • Locked
J.M. DeMatteis Cosmology Revision
4 5 6
Replies
236
Views
26K
Antvasima
Antvasima
VeryGoofyToddler2
  • Locked
DC/Vertigo Cosmology Redo(Part 1 of 2)
9 10 11
Replies
428
Views
44K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top