#this is... long.

destination

Sumeru’s culture

As is apparent for any discerning players, Sumeru is steeped in influences from the Islamic Golden Age and philosophies from Western Asia.

The Akademiya as an institution is inspired by the scholars of old, all of whom had constructed colleges and spaces for all walks of life to share their observations and synthesize their learnings into writing.

Sumeru’s culture is centered on the the pursuit and refinement of knowledge. Learning and wanting to learn is such a big part of the culture that the first friends we meet in Sumeru are those who are eager to learn— Collei who wants to be a capable forest ranger, Haypasia who wants to connect with Irminsul.

Humans in Teyvat (and in real life) understand, by order of pedagogy, that knowledge must be unsullied by the voices and opinions of others— critical and unbiased, that the truth must be universal and all-encompassing— universizability is a concept deeply ingrained in philosophy.

But these ideas, as they are human ideas, are supposed to be complex, flawed, and nuanced. Knowledge that is biased is still true, as are truths that are complicated and tangential. This is what Nahida meant when she said that Kaveh’s understanding of truth and wisdom is almost perfect because he believes that the truth isn’t meant to be pigeonholed into digestible concepts. From Kaveh’s story (Old Sketchbook (unlocked at Friendship Lv. 4)):

Know that truth has never existed for the sake of individuals. The logic of the world coexists with nature, and this will not easily change whether it is interpreted as such or not.

In essence: the world does not exist for humanity and deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise is folly.

Sumeru’s faith

At the metaphorical level, Sumeru’s god and Archon is truth, the amalgamation of knowledge in Teyvat, personified. Nahida, Rukkhadevata, and all incarnations before them are beings of old dating back millennia that are susceptible to the whims of erosion and external tampering. Yes, the truth has been tampered with but it is true nonetheless and to deny it is foolish.

It’s what you do with the truth, what your values and prior experiences tell you, is what really matters. That’s wisdom.

There’s a reason why the constructed god made to replace Nahida, the God to be Saved (「正機之神」, in EN they localized this into “Shouki no Kami, the Prodigal,” but philosophically speaking, this removes it of its context), is one with the title “the Everlasting, Omniscient, Lord of Wisdom and Mercy.” This is what the Sumerans see as sacred— a god that knows all in its wisdom. But this is misguided. What this is is a separation of the text from its context, a wisdom that must be rational, critical, clinical and unfeeling.

But because it is artificial, human-made, it can never be perfect. The god itself views itself as fallen and broken and one that is the perfect object of salvation, yet hasn’t been and stays within that broken state unwilling to make moves of its own towards salvation.

Nahida and her predecessors, as the chosen Archon of Sumeru, signify not just the amalgamation of knowledge, but also the willingness to accept loss, change, to learn from others of their volition. This is why the Archon has to grow, learning and wanting to learn is part of the wisdom.

This is also reflected in Nahida’s overarching story in the Archon quests, fearing that she’s not good enough as Archon because she lacks the knowledge of what all the other Archons have done up to that point. She can’t access Irminsul from her cage, so she continues to let herself be caged, afraid that her actions thus far are not Archon-like. She doesn’t know any better so she doesn’t do anything about it.

deflection

The Rtawahist darshan

Nahida’s caged existence and playing at godhood for the past 500 years can be easily compared to Plato’s Forms, his shadows in the cave. She rescued countless through miracles, convened with them in their dreams, spoke in riddles and metaphors. But never once has she manifested physically or visually to these children. No one knew what Lesser Lord Kusanali looked like beyond the sages. These miracles and dreams are what she thinks is godhood because these ideas are what godhood is in stories and scriptures told to children in Sumeru.

This concept is the root of Rtawahist’s teachings— there is a reason why Haypasia, Setaria, and Azar are important NPCs in the Archon quest, all part of the Rtawahist darshan.

The Rtawahist darshan, according to the Parade of Providence (Act I - Comings and Goings, Opening Festivities) quest, centers itself on Illuminationism, astrology, astronomy, etc.

From the Western standpoint, it’s hard not to be a little confused by Rtawahist’s teachings because the other darshan are rather straightforward— Spantamad is about geology and the elements, Amurta is about biology and ecology, Vahumana is about history, archeology, and etiology, etc.

So, what the hell does fortune-telling and getting high for a couple days have to do with astronomy? Well, you gotta remember that this is a fantasy setting and that the sky is fake.

Spantamad, Vahumana, and Rtawahist all have the most in-game conceptual overlap. As mentioned by Layla in the Parade of Providence (Act II - Beginnings and Endings, Competition on the Sands):

Do you ever get the feeling that the Ley Lines have a regular flow, similar to the way that celestial bodies follow fixed orbits? If we were looking down from on high, I wonder whether we'd find that the Ley Lines are just the reflections of the stars upon the earth? Not all astrological phenomena can be directly observed. Some are deductions based on other details that we know. It's the same situation with the Ley Lines. The parts of them that are hidden underground can be identified via elemental energy, sound, and other phenomena.

Rtawahist, then, is focused on the flow of fate and how to interpret it. This is why Mona Megistus’ Steambird columns are such a big hit (Layla Voice-Overs, About Mona) in the darshan, why fortune-telling is common, and why its scholars train via Satyavada Life to try and connect to Irminsul. The truth is the flow of events past, present, and future— in the lay of the land, the politics of man, and the stars that tell us everything.

Illuminationism

Illuminationism, you see, is an Iranian metaphysical philosophy that takes great inspiration from Plato’s Forms, Aristotelian teachings, and period-appropriate Islamic mysticism. Persian Philosopher Shihāb ad-Dīn Yahya ibn Habash Suhrawardī, often just called by Sohrevardi (though that’s really just where he’s from. In this, I’ll be calling him Shihab al-Din) was the one who penned and expanded on the idea in his less than forty years on Earth.

The philosophy itself, though I am perhaps butchering it in an attempt to narrow this down, is centered on the idea that an individual’s essence, their light, is a reflection and refraction of a one true light and essence (God). The light every being has can be refracted and reflected onto others, and it trickles down on and on. Our lights affect each other, but all our lights come from the same source.

The one true light, in Shihab al-Din’s philosophy is essence incarnate, the truth, God. And the rest of us, though we cannot create light, can most certainly emit an essence that is similar or close to God, just in our own forms or versions. Thus, in reviewing, you can hypothetically trace back to the truth of all things if you follow the trail (given that you don’t get lost in doing so. See: Azar).

Which isn’t necessarily the point. This is why one of the Akademiya’s six sins (originating from the Temple of Silence (Temple of Silence Member, Djer)) is investigating the origin of words.

The point of Illuminationism, in real life and in-game, is to understand the trajectory of light, seeing it from all angles to understand what it’s saying, where it came from, and where it’s headed. As I’d explained in my Sethos fic, studying the stars and connecting to Irminsul isn’t about controlling your fate or bemoaning it, it’s about how you see your fate going forward and how you react to it, having the knowledge and the wisdom to use that information.

direction

Now, I’ve discussed the Akademiya extensively throughout this breakdown and haven’t once touched upon the desert.

Amun, dead as he is, is long-forgotten for two specific reasons.

First: forbidden knowledge.

After learning about what happens moving forward from Nabu Malikata (thus causing her death (Weapon Ascension Material, Oasis Garden’s Truth), the pain of her loss and the futility of his dreams (Staff of the Scarlet Sands) led him to trying to attain forbidden knowledge in order to fulfill them.

It’s unclear whether this knowledge is abyssal, from beyond Teyvat, or erased Irminsul knowledge, but the memory and glory of Amun and his rule was erased en masse when Rukkhadevata erased the forbidden knowledge of it to save the his people from its effects.

Second: the Temple of Silence.

Say what you want about plot contrivance, but the fact that the desert mercenary groups like Ayn al-Ahmar and, well, most of the modern-day desert dwellers, were ignorant of the cause of Amun’s death and the Dendro Archon’s involvement with it is also due in large part because of the Temple of Silence.

Kasala’s final act, as Amun’s priest, was to plead to his people, Amun’s followers, to respect the Dendro Archon, to live in harmony with the forest dwellers and to cease the in-fighting. This plea was buried under the sands for centuries. But the Temple knew about these events, and even had records about Apep (Temple of Silence Member, Asenath).

Now, it’s unclear whether Kasala was part of the Temple of Silence (he has the Tighnarian headdress), but I operate under the idea that he wasn’t, and thus his philosophies and motivations differ greatly from Hermanubis’ which was largely upheld by the Tighnarians that followed him (because he was allegedly a Tighnarian himself) into the Temple of Silence.

All that to say, Hermanubis’ philosophy on the truth is that some of it must be kept tightly under wraps to maintain order and prosperity.

This is why the Towers of Betrayal remain “Towers of Betrayal” even though they were once infused with Rukkhadevata’s power and, once activated, can create small oases to battle against the Withering. No desert dweller knows about these, not even Temple members (Temple of Silence Member, Djer). Desert dwellers refuse to tamper with them. The temple doesn’t even try. These tombs, temples, plinths, and towers aren’t reactivated until the Traveler comes along, and the histories behind them remain undiscovered to most of Sumeru.

Studying these towers would lead to questions, “Why build them?” “What was it that King Deshret found?” “What caused the Withering?” Discovering the answers would lead to the spread of forbidden knowledge again.

Sethos and come disrupt this silence

As the actual leader of the Temple of Silence, Sethos is stuck between the importance of tradition and the need for progress.

Bamoun’s deal with Cyrus had proven to be a setback for the Temple, as (for reasons unknown) Hermanubis’ severed fragments led to the deterioration of the Temple itself. But that’s mostly an allegation. The real setback was the previous leaders’ choice to isolate themselves, the Temple pulling away from the Akademiya and the forest, and the desert.

The desert dwellers, after this period of isolation started, rapidly grew ignorant of their histories and learnings, knowledge and wisdom only passed down through traditions from a leftover faith of a mad god. Since no one but scholars were doing tomb spelunking, none of the desert dwellers were to interpret the structures and murals about their own history for themselves (Golden Slumber, An Introduction to Indoor Archaeology).

This is not to say that the Akademiya was not at fault for what became of Aaru Village— they certainly have their fair share of in-game ethnocentrist propaganda— but like Nahida, the desert dwellers weren’t willing to dig and delve deeper of their own volition, eventually stagnating after centuries of believing and operating under the Akademiya’s lies.

Sethos’ introduction to the canon should, hypothetically, usher in a new era for the desert’s narrative.

He’s aware of what the Temple needs and has a finger on the pulse of the Akademiya’s culture and customs. Yet, he is a young man with the burden of leadership at a young age, one starved for interaction after spending most of his life (Sethos Voice-Overs, More About Sethos: V) in isolation at the Temple. Add in the recent loss of his grandfather, his innocence, and his remaining nostalgia for the authority of tradition over progress, and you have a character who has the potential to overturn the lived experience of all desert dwellers ready to go off at any moment.

A majority of his character stories are centered on hearing other people’s stories, only sharing things about himself only to insert a bit of doubt into his storytelling. He loves looking at the stars and seeing reality reflecting itself over and over upon humans’ fates. As in his Vision story:

Along the way, Sethos spotted two more beasts — one large, one small — lying dead at the bottom of a cliff. Looking at them from a distance, Bamoun remarked, "Most likely a parent and a child. The larger one was probably chasing the smaller one, trying to drag it back, before it too lost its footing and they were blown down together." "They were with that pack of beasts just now... But weren't there quite a few smaller ones? This large one died trying to save just a single one, and now the other small ones will be left unprotected. The losses far outweigh the gains... It shouldn't have taken the risk," said one of the other members, shaking their head. Trying to rescue your children first from quicksand, then a storm... It sounded like an almost impossible task. Sethos had noticed, though, that Bamoun had been staring at that spot the whole time, as if it had reminded him of something. But in the end he said nothing more. Having survived the disaster, the group slowly departed, with Sethos bringing up the rear. Before leaving, Sethos glanced back down at the scene below to regard the unsuccessful beast one last time.

Nothing is said in this Vision story that means anything in particular to Sethos in that moment, but you can see the mysticism in Sethos’ perspective, of seeing meaning in moments and actions that aren’t his but could reflect upon his own life. Of Bamoun looking at a dead pair of Sumpterbeasts with no particular expression, pondering those left behind, and Sethos making the connection to Bamoun’s inevitable death and departure and how that would affect him and the Temple.

No one is saved in this sacrifice. This is just avoiding one death to walk into another. Sethos receives his Vision quickly after this interaction and you, the reader, are supposed to infer what this means for Sethos’ character that he found this remarkable when receiving a Vision.

As I was writing my Sethos fic, I was mostly critiquing this lack of exploration into his character in fan works and canon. His introduction in Cyno’s second story quest and his unique perspective injects a much needed nuance into all that was left after the end of the Archon quests. The mysticism on top of the empirical is important, the symbolism that he and Cyno embody, the priests of Sumeru’s desert and forest.

Because Nahida’s liberation doesn’t mean desert dwellers’ lives have become easier.

Azar, the corrupt sages, and the Farrokhazadan were overthrown and put into community service; Ayn al-Ahmar is in charge of guarding Setaria for the revitalization projects for the desert; and, the desert dwellers are now in charge of their own futures moving forward.

But.

Dori Sangemah Bay still owns most of Aaru Village’s lands, a disruption so massive the people of Aaru Village can’t even build a public library. (Kaveh Hangout Event, The Price of a Wish)

There’s still the undeniable fact that it’s very very hard to get resources (and people!) past the Wall of Samiel, an idea they introduced in Dehya’s trailer before the end of Act V but never brought up again.

The ethnocentrism in Akademiya texts and scholars is still narratively uncontested.

These ideas are not changed just by freeing Nahida and letting her be Archon, but it’s a step in the right direction that Hoyoverse has yet to write a narrative for even with Sethos’ introduction.

So I ended up picking up the slack with my fic.

Take it or leave it.

conclusion

This was a huge breakdown of a lot of my thoughts on Sumeru’s ethnonationalist politics, the Sumeru Archon quests, Sethos, and Sumeru’s cultures.

Hopefully I wasn’t too overindulgent in writing these that I ended up glossing over some things. I’m pretty sure I’ve written down most of my thoughts as eloquently as I could but it’s also 3AM and English isn’t really my first language so. Grain– no, chunk of salt.

1: "Many Christians have answered questions about such matters as gender, gay marriage, and abortion in the wrong way, sometimes coming across as intolerant of people who hold different views."

Coexisting with those who share different beliefs than you is the bare minimum required to be a good human being. Not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye, but the key is listening to opposing viewpoints and being respectful of them. Now, many Christians who have, say, queer friends or know someone who had an abortion are kind to them. But to Evangelical Christians, the Bible, especially the New Testament, demands witnessing to others. Christians aren't supposed to keep their beliefs to themselves; they're supposed to, quite literally, spread them across the planet. To many of them, caring means prostelyzing- and Answers in Genesis is no different. They've actively called for Roe v. Wade to be legalized again and strongly oppose gay marraige to the point of refusing to marry a gay couple / attend a gay couple's wedding. Although I'm iffy about my stance on abortion, I do know it's physically and mentally healthier if victims of rape aren't forced to give birth. Also, homosexuality is not a disorder in the DSM, and is considered a natural type of human sexuality. Real science supports these things. The general consensus on Christian pseudoscience does not. Therefore, it's intolerant by nature.

2. "Most Christians don’t truly understand that to be Christian means to have a Christian worldview that is built upon the Bible as the foundation for that worldview. Yes, they may use the Bible and quote passages, but that doesn’t mean they understand how to explain their worldview foundationally."

A lot of Christian denominations don't take the Bible fully literally, yes, but other than that this point makes no sense. I feel like Ken's saying that if Christians want to make their point without stepping on any toes, they should study up on what the Bible says about a certain issue (or what they interpret it to say about that issue) and use that as a base. The Bible was written over thousands of years by lots of different authors, and though the overarching story can be pieced together decently on a casual read, there are contradictions and errors in the text (measurement differences, for example) as well as attitudes that were purely of their time (slavery anyone?). Basing your worldview on a supposedly divinely-inspired book that contains errors is like trying to sit on a house of cards. There's some structure, but it falls apart quickly, and there's no bigot-proof glue you can use to stick the cards together other than kindly and empathetically stating something fundementally incorrect.

3. Most secularists (wrongly) don’t think they have a worldview, and they think what they believe comes from just looking at evidence.

Also makes no sense. Atheists and agnostics (like me!) can be, and are, just as outspoken about their worldviews as Christians are. And there are a wide variety of worldviews we can have: Skepticism, Marxism, Humanism, being Repbulican or Democrat, etc. Facts are objective, unchangeable, but many people see those facts through different viewpoints, or desire to respond differently to those facts. I've found that a great deal of us believe that people are worth loving and helping. Science, with its many studies proving that people are happier identifying and presenting as who they are inside, is a huge proponent of that. Women are more than capable of being in positions of leadership over men. Humans are empathetic creatures in general (though I don't want to invalidate or disrespect those that don't experience empathy), and naturally want the world to be a better, happier place. You don't need to believe in a god to believe in that.

4. Many secularists misinterpret a Christian’s disagreement with their worldview as being intolerant of them personally, instead of understanding there’s a clash of worldviews because of the difference foundationally and where those worldviews come from.

This is exactly the issue. When a Christian's worldview is so completely different from secular people's (and by the way, the Bible encourages Christians not to identify with the world's beliefs in any way whatsoever), to the point they can't find any level footing with their peers except that they're both sinners deserving of hell, that's beyond unwarranted and unfair. Especially when the "sin" is something like consensual premarital sex or existing as a trans person.

-☆-

The Bible, in my opinion, is not a good basis on which to build your worldview, no matter how meticulous or loving you are about it. Religion can be helpful in explaining the unanswerable questions about the universe, but it shouldn't target others or advocate such widespread oppression as the Evangelical church often does. Ken Ham's four points are based off a Christian's need to have something to hold on to as society becomes progressively more liberal and moves away from traditional Christian values. In order for Evangelical Christianity to maintain its power and influence, it needs to keep up with the times. This article is focusing on more personal relationships with God, and not the overarching churches, but I feel like it's important to point out.

Now, we'll look at pieces from the rest of the article, which is Ken's elaboration on truth and worldviews.

"For a Christian, the Bible makes it clear that one is either for or against Christ (Matthew 12:30) and that one walks either in light or in darkness (Matthew 6:22–23)."

This is a very black-and-white way of thinking. There are non-Christians who find value in the teachings and character of Jesus. Many secular folks are genuinely good, moral people. But once again, to a Christian, sin nature means nobody's a good person. If you're not on God's side, you're in the dark. My older sister, who's still Christian, compares it to seeing people who don't know they're in a burning building, and knowing she has to warn them about it. With those flame-tinted lenses, anything that falls under grey matter (drinking, gambling, a certain tabletop RPG [no I'm not kidding]) is seen as evil. All humans are misguided at times, but that doesn't mean we're all right or all wrong. It's exhausting to live in a world where you feel like you're responsible to help save people who are just trying to get through their day like you. It's not healthy to be in that mindset.

"A worldview is like the walls and the roof of a house, but every worldview has a foundation. And ultimately, there are only two foundations. One starts with the Word of One who knows everything and who has revealed to us all we need to know to build the correct worldview. The other one starts with the foundation that fallible man determines truth."

The Bible is a product of its time. It was written by human hands who wanted to explain how the world works from their point of view and also believed some frankly bigoted things. To learn about women's rights, you need to speak to a woman and ask her about the discrimination she faces. The Bible's narratives about women rarely give them autonomy, and focus on the necessity of marraige and childbirth. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably around 16 when she became pregnant with Jesus. An up-to-date manual on how to navigate society hasn't been written; people need to go out in the world and experience it to understand it. Is there trial and error? Absolutely! But most Christian denominations can't even agree on what the Bible means about everything, so we're even.

"Thus, founded in God’s Word beginning in Genesis, marriage is one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24); there are two genders, male and female (Genesis 1:27); and abortion is murder because man is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and murder is wrong (Genesis 9:6)."

Here's where Ken states his beliefs outright. It's incredible how much of Evangelical Christian beliefs have been drawn out of the Biblical account of creation. Yet again, though, that's the point of religion: to try and make sense of the world. I have to give the story credit for laying out its themes in such an efficient manner.

"Now (non-believers) will often object and say the Bible is not true. When they do this, we need to pause to ask them why they believe this and what arguments they have against the Bible. Then we do our best to answer their claims (using apologetics) to show we can defend the claim that the Bible is true—it is God’s Word. Then we can get back to explaining that our worldview comes from the Bible."

There is no way to prove that the Bible was written by a higher power. No matter how much Ken hates it, scientific evidence will always supercede supernatural claims. Again, there are numerous errors and contradictions in the Bible. You could argue that it was penned by fallible human authors, but for those who believe that every single sentence in the Bible is 100% true, this is a genuine faith issue.

"Often secularists claim they start with evidence, but the Bible is evidence and they reject that (Romans 1:21–22)!

The Bible is possible evidence. There are artifacts and extrabiblical sources that prove some events in the Bible did happen. But on the whole, the Bible is not proven. How many times do I have to repeat this?

"Once we’ve explained all this, we can point out that the reason there is a clash of worldviews is because we have two different starting points. Until we both have the same starting point, we won’t have the same worldview. This will also help them understand that when a Christian disagrees with them on gay marriage, abortion, or multiple genders (other than male or female), they are not being hateful; they have a different worldview and that’s where the clash is occurring."

I am a queer person living in a Baptist Christian household who supports Answers in Genesis. My family loves me and makes sure I know I'm appreciated by them through hugs, driving lessons, and watching cartoons together. My family also refuses to use my chosen name and pronouns, strongly encourages me to date a man (I'm bi and open to dating any gender), and witnesses to me regularly. This is not hate, but it isn't exactly tolerance, either. I'm still being hurt by them.

"Now there will be those who say they are Christians and they agree with gay marriage and/or abortion. If they claim they are Christians, then we need to make sure they understand their worldview has a starting point—and it has to be the Bible. If they agree to that, then we have to talk about why they interpret the Bible differently than other Christians do. And until we can solve that issue, the worldview clash will not be alleviated."

Are Christians who don't take the Bible as 100% factual not true Christians? Not all Christians are creatonists, either! This line of thinking falls under the no true scotsman fallacy, which states that someone doesn't belong to a particular group because they do or believe something different than many others do. I've been attacking the validity of the Bible a lot, but there are plenty of queer and liberal Christians who use their faith for good, spreading love and tolerance to those who need it most in today's society, and that deserves to be acknowledged. It isn't a sin to care for gay and trans people. It isn't a sin to care for people who get abortions. If there is such a thing as sin, it's refusing to associate yourself with people in your group who support marginalized communities.

"Ultimately, it’s all about foundations—God’s Word or man’s fallible, finite word. The battle started in Genesis 3:1, when the devil tempted Adam and Eve to doubt God’s Word and decide truth for themselves and thus be their own gods. This battle has raged for 6,000 years and continues to rage."

Though the Bible doesn't explicitly state the age of the universe, creationists generally believe that it's only existed for 6,000 years, citing it to a different method of dating fossils and rock than is the scientific standard. I need to do research on evolution and learn about it, but even without much knowledge, this seems like a bizarre way to get your data. Also, the snake in Eden is not stated to be Satan- apologists put those clues together on their own. The snake's just random talking animal befriending a naïve woman who literally didn't know any better than to eat the forbidden fruit because who wouldn't be curious about a forbidden section of a perfect garden in a perfect world without any pain or suffering or death? It. Makes. No. Sense.

"This is the battle that begins in Genesis and runs through the entire Scripture to Revelation. It’s described as a battle between

- Good and evil,

- Light and darkness,

- A house built on the rock and one built on sand,

- For Christ and against,

- Gather and scatter,

- Life and death."

Many of these dichotomies are ones Ken Ham has used throughout the article. Christians love Biblical metaphors and word pictures because they can make explaining difficult things easier. Jesus told parables partially for this reason. The split here is very simple, though. There isn't some blood barrier separating people like Ken thinks. This isn't about the damned and the saved, it's about non-Christians and Christians, and converting people to Christianity.

-☆-

This mindset is not tolerant, it can be hateful at worst, and it certainly isn't a way to find common ground with others. LGBTQ+ people and AFABs/intersex folks capable of pregancy are suffering because the Evangelical church feels they shouldn't be allowed to have autonomy, and will assure so in any means possible even if it means divulging into the political sphere. Community and relevance is found in the here and now, in what humans can see and quantify around them, not in a vague spiritual threat. We grow, we learn, we adapt, and we survive. Evangelical Christians have been using the same tactics since they caught a foothold- stay in the spotlight, and never consider opposing voices.