An: God-Sky-Time-Being, and the celestial trinity of Eurasia

This text is part of the Zuist Doctrinal Handbook (Zúisk Kenningarbók).

This essay further develops the work begun in Zuist theology – The trinity of An, the seven deities, the word and the measures and De civitate Caeli. It discusses the three celestial forms of An, through a comparison with analogous conceptions found throughout Eurasia. The essay then discusses An’s essence as both time and being, and thus as organisation of space, and the role of the sovereign as An’s channel on earth in a celestial civilisation. The essay also strengthens the critique of the errors of Christianity seen from the Zuist theological and sociological perspective.

In all the traditional religions of Eurasia, God is conceived as a universal power whose visible manifestation is the vault of Heaven, with its stars, hinged at the ecliptic north celestial pole, the unmoving centre of the universe, with the precessional north celestial pole, and its nearby constellations, spinning around it. The fixed ecliptic north celestial pole is coiled by the constellation of the Dragon (Draco), while the moving precessional north celestial pole is umbegone by the constellations of the two Chariots (also called Dippers or Bears; Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), the Big Chariot and Little Chariot, which often represent its male and female aspect, respectively.1 Its centre, in the current epoch, is in α Ursae Minoris (Polaris), the first star of the “handle” of the cluster of the Little Dipper.

Artistic representations of the constellations of the Dragon (Draco) and of the Bears, the Little and the Great Bear (also known as Dippers or Chariots), at the north celestial pole, from Gaius Julius Hyginus’ Poeticon Astronomicon, dated 1482.


The ecliptic pole represents the quiescent heart of the supreme God of Heaven, while the precessional pole represents its changeful activity. A third aspect is its terrestrial power, and it is incarnated among humans by the sovereign of a divinely ordered civilisation and by the father of each divinely ordered family.2 This trinity of persons of the supreme God  is represented in all Eurasian religions. In the most ancient tradition, the Sumerian-Mesopotamian one, they are ① 𒀭 An (the supreme “Heaven”), ② 𒀭𒂗𒆤 Enlil (the “Lord of the Spirit”3) and ③ 𒀭𒂗𒆠 Enki (the “Lord of the Earth”), respectively Anu or Ilu/El, Ellil or Bel/Baal and Ea/Ya in the Akkadian-Semitic rendition. The three facets of the supreme God of Heaven are also conceived as the spirits of the three rings of the sky, and the respective constellations, revolving around the ecliptic pole.4 Zuism, which proposes itself as the re-embodiment of the Sumerian-Mesopotamian tradition, may therefore also provide a theological platform and reference point for all Eurasian religions.

Representation of the fixed north ecliptic pole (NEP) and the moving north celestial pole (NCP), which is centred in α Ursae Minoris (Polaris) in our epoch. Note that the two Little and Big Chariot (or Little and Big Dipper) are represented in the four phases of their rotation around it, imagining the blue ones as the current phase. The red Draco, otherwise, is not represented in its rotation.
This configuration of the northern culmen of the sky is known in many Eurasian religious cultures as representing the physical manifestation of the supreme God of Heaven, in its quiescent (NEP) and active (NCP) form. The seven stars of the Chariots are also regarded as the operative power of the God of Heaven, and they are reflected in the seven planets. In the Mesopotamian tradition the Dippers are also represented as the Bull of Heaven (Didier 2009, Vol. I, pp. 113–119).

In religious cultures which followed in time, and continued, the Sumerian-Mesopotamian tradition, the three aspects of God are represented as follows:

  • Taranis (Dis Pater), Esus and Toutatis in Celtic cultures;5
  • Tiān or 上帝 Shàngdì, 黃帝 Huángdì and 炎帝 Yándì in Chinese culture;6
  • Amun, Ra and Ptah in Egyptian culture;7
  • Odin, Thor and Frey in Germanic cultures;8
  • Jupiter (Deus Pater), Mars and Quirinus in Roman culture;9
  • Deivos or Svarog, Perun and Veles in Slavic cultures;10
  • Varuna, Indra or Mitra and Aryaman in Vedic Sanskrit culture.11

As explained by Wim van den Dungen in his analysis of Egyptian theology, the three aspects represent, reprectively, ① the hidden essence and principle of unity, ② the luminous presence and principle of filiation, and ③ the physical solidity and principle of realisation of the supreme God of the universe.  All the lesser gods are sparkles of the supreme God and they themselves manifest through such threefold nature.12 In Greek philosophy, the three persons of the God of Heaven are variously rendered in intellectualised formulations: ① The utmost, unknowable essence is the Form of Good in Platonism and the Primum Movens in Aristotelianism; ② the second person is the Logos (straightforwardly identified as Enlil in Sumerian-Mesopotamian theology by the Assyriologist Pietro Mander); and ③ the third person becomes the Anima Mundi, which descends from the Logos.13 The three aspects of God and three bands of the sky are also associated, as thoroughly studied by Georges Dumézil, to three functional classes in society and to three colours. The three functional orders are ① the magical and juridical function of the priestly class, ② the executive function of the warrior class, and ③ the productive function of cultivators, farmers and craftsmen.14 The colours are, in Mesopotamia, respectively, ① luludanitu—which is an ensemble of white, red and black—associated to An-Enlil, and to the inner ring of the sky (wherein Enlil himself is identified as MULApin, i.e. “STARPlough”, which is the constellation of the Triangulum), closer to the ecliptic north celestial pole (An itself) and centred in it; ② lapislazuli-blue associated to An-Inanna, and to the middle ring of the sky (wherein Inanna herself is identified as MULDili.bat, which may mean “STARForbearing” or “STARDaisy” and is Venus) between the inner and the outer rings; ③ jasper-green associated to Enki, and to the outer ring of the sky (wherein Enki himself is identified as MULIku, i.e. “STARField”, that is the constellation of the Square of Pegasus), farther from An. In later Indo-European cultures, the three colours are almost invariably ① white, ② red and ③ black,15 associated respectively to the sacerdotal, the warrior, and the productive function.16

Representation of the three bands of the sky around the ecliptic north celestial pole, with their constellations. This is also the wheel of the year, of the time of God, as described in the following parts of the essay.


The eight-arrowed star symbol of Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianism. According to Nad (2014) it represents “the compass, something that provides orientation, introducing order in the seemingly chaotic space, the geometric symbol of the universe”. It is a symbol of “stars”, God, the gods and men as gods.

Cross symbols, including the pan-Eurasian swastika symbol (also illustrated at page 2 of the present essay), the Mesopotamian An 𒀭 grapheme which is the same as the “Gate of God” (𒆍𒀭𒊏 Ka.dingir.ra in Sumerian, Babilu in Akkadian) and as the modern eight-arrows star symbol of Alexander Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianism and Fourth Political Theory,17 traditionally represent the organisation of the sky centred around the ecliptic north celestial pole, the operating heart of space-time, of the supreme God of the universe.18

As explained by Mander, the grapheme 𒀭 An, which means “Heaven”, but also more general “divinity” (dingir in Sumerian, ilum in Akkadian), also has the meanings of “spike”, “cluster”, “petiole”, and is also frequently interpreted as meaning “star”, “asterism”, though these, mul in Sumerian, are more precisely represented by doubling (𒀭𒀭) or tripling the An grapheme. On a philosophical level, its most appropriate rendition is “centre of irradiation” and “navel of the world” (a concept treated by Mircea Eliade), which emanates the web of the world (personified by the goddess Uttu, “Spider”, the last daughter of Enki19), which connects all things; it is the sacred centre shared by all entities. It is well represented by the Sumerian figurative meanings of the spike composed of many spikelets, the bunch of grapes, and the petiole from which the fruit (metaphor of the world) hangs.20

However, due to the centuries-long errors of Christianity, these symbols have lost their original meaning, and what they represent is no longer widely acknowledged. Christianity appropriated the triune conception of the God of Heaven from pan-Eurasian theology, reformulating it in the terms of ① God as the Father, ② God as the Holy Spirit and ③ God as the Son. The fault of Christian theology was to try to fix, to stiffen, the creative operation of the universe (the Logos, the second and third persons of God in traditional Eurasian theology) in a definitive way, as one single spatio-temporal person (Jesus of Nazareth), and at the same time to abstract the supreme God of the universe, no longer identifying it as visibly manifest in the order of Heaven hinged at the ecliptic and precessional north celestial poles, but conceiving it as a transcendent entity. Due to the same corruption of ideas, “Heaven” was no longer identified as the thisworldly sky, but as a future otherworld.21

As the selling of a relative spatio-temporal entity and way of thought (Jesus and his teaching) as the absolute truth, Christianity is a channelling of chaos in the world, inherently “madness and violence”, as it denies the worth of other ways to reach truth, philosophy—i.e. to understand the principle of the universe, God, in its multiple manifestations and operations as Heaven in the world. Christianity, ultimately, denies thought; smothers thought and smothers truth itself, denying its living and changing manifoldness.22

Moreover, Christian eschatology and the transcendentalisation of Heaven projects the thought of individuals away from the present and from the potentialities at play in it. According to the British anthropologists and psychiatrists Roland Littlewood and Simon Dein, Christianity is a psychosis. The fundamental features of Christian mindset are the same that are found in medical diagnoses of psychosis: “An omniscient deity, a decontexualised self, ambiguous agency, a downplaying of immediate sensory data, and a scrutiny of the self and its reconstitution in conversion”.23 The decontextualisation or alienation of the self—its eradication from mankind’s divine role in-between Heaven and Earth (𒀭𒆠 Anki),24 which is to co-work with the gods, through the 𒈨 me (the “measures”, “means”, “manners” or “morals”), for the continuous realisation of the cosmos; to co-create with the gods25—brings to its hypertrophy, illusory omnipotentisation, self-analysis of its own aspects and functioning, and estrangement from reality within an exclusive relationship with an all-seeing, non-existing “delocated” God of Christianity, so that the self is bereft of “any sense of naturalness or capacity for spontaneous action”, in a process which increasingly exacerbates self-alienation and loss of the world.26

As it is explained by Littlewood and Dein:27

As agency is withdrawn from the natural world, from others, from animals, plants, stars, and spirits, our individual agency appears enhanced and yet there remains the uneasy balance between the “is it me?” and the “is it something external?” […] Many external causes, spirits, and stars, not only no longer have agency but are no longer validated by our society, so any personal explanations of an external locus of control become increasingly idiosyncratic and divorced from our common social life. […] This type of estrangement from experience (later reinforced by a number of secular and religious developments) fits well with Sass’ criteria for the reflexive self-consciousness that has perhaps propelled us into schizophrenia.


The supreme God of the north celestial pole, An, is the essence of the consciousness and idea of the empire, that is to say the structuration of society in accordance with Heaven, spatiotemporally aligned with it, with the time of God, with God-as-Time which is God-as-Being.28 The imperial idea is the only one capable of realising the true essence of mankind: That is to say, to realise humanity as a polar phenomenon and to realise its role of bridge between Heaven and Earth, of the order of Heaven on Earth; building temples to the gods of Heaven, establishing and expanding the magical circle of the celestial empire. Such idea is embodied by the sovereign, the lugal in Zuism, whose duty is to commune directly with God on behalf of the entire reign, functioning as the latter’s axis mundi and antenna, channelling the ideas for the realisation of the divine city and its empire.29

According to the scholar Daniele Perra, who writes in the wake of the Fourth Political Theory opened by the Russian Eurasianist philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, the departure of mankind from the God of the celestial pole has broken the axis of conjunction between Heaven and Earth, the way for vertical ascension towards Heaven and horizontal expansion of its order, giving way to the loss of truth and trust, the disruption of societies into anomic and atomised individuals, the generation of beings in violence and their destination to wicked and egoistic existences. The empire tends to the a supreme idea, the idea of God, which is realised in shared, communal forms of human life, in which the individual becomes aware of his worth through the sense of actively belonging to a community that is at one time spiritual and political. The hierarchic structuration of society (the three classes mentioned in the foregoing parts of the present essay) in a celestial empire, gives to all the levels of society the sense of participating in a higher divine order, and therefore value, meaning and dignity—contrariwise to what happens in modern atomised and degenerate Western societies, where power is represented by anomic entities whose only aim is financial profit. Indeed, the imperial idea is diametrically opposite to the worldview of the modern era, and of the Western world, which revolves around the concept of an anomic, atomic, uprooted individual, forged by Christian alienation, the Protestant Reformation and the bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century. The empire is therefore the instrument for the liberation of mankind from wickedness (which is not part of the human essence, as maintained by the Christian doctrine); mankind’s liberation from unholy degenerating societies which have lost the link with Heaven; mankind’s spiritual redemption. There is no distinction between the city (i.e. civilisation) of God and the city of man. Freedom, in the society of a celestial empire, is trust towards the divine order of Heaven, of God-as-Time-Being, and its earthly channel, the sovereign and the forefather.30

Perra writes that the project of a celestial empire may be realised only by rejecting the idea of a linear progress of time, typical of Christianity and modernity, recovering the ancient conception of a circular time, which is the same order of the circular Heaven. An is indeed the root of the Latin annus, the “year”; An is God-as-Time, and thus God-as-Year. The supreme God of the celestial pole is time, and is the cycle of the year. Time “has to be interpreted as a divine manifestation”, a cyclical manifestation of the eternal source, which is therefore reversible, as it may flow both forward and backward. The return to the celestial empire, the project of Zuism, the return to An, is therefore a return to the moment when mankind “sublimated itself by sharing the eternal time of God”. The north celestial pole is, in the studies of the Dutch scholar Herman Wirth, “the point wherefrom the rays of civilisation spread towards the south of the world”, as the original Arctic mankind lived a direct cosmic-ecstatic experience of the Divine, of the divine light of the God-Year represented by the rhythm of the sun. Living within pristine time, always identical to itself, original mankind did not experience distinction between the created and the uncreated, being and thought.31

In the words of Wirth himself, according to a translation by Dugin:32

The sacred meaning of the Year is completely unknown to the modern, city-dwelling man. For him the year is only an abstract, temporal understanding in no way different from all other intervals of time along which modern “socio-economic” life operates. The year is known to him only on the calendar, in business records, and wardrobe changes. The modern urban man is no longer in step with the rhythm of creation. His encounter with the God-Year in nature occurs only sporadically, during vacations or natural disasters. In order to return to the experience of the Year, the modern man must “recover” from his civilized existence that is separated from the experience of being. As the pace of work and life is becoming faster, even the gap with the more human Year, with the cycle of man’s Destiny-Life, is increasing. In need of “recovering” are none other than those “social” people who, freed from all the natural laws of the God-Year, turn night into day, and day into night, and make “optimal use of time” while they are in fact killing time. The God-Year in nature refreshed men, but they can no longer find an inner path to it. If they understood its very meaning, they would have never set off in mad pursuit of Mammon, making money into a goal of life; they would have not started believing that senseless industrialization and the enlargement of cities is inevitable; and they would not be mired in such deep materialism that seals the poverty, weakness, and nothingness of their soul, the soul of “modern humanity”. The main reason for all ills is modern men’s fall from the eternal rhythm of the God-Year. They themselves do not live, but are lived by something extraneous, something alien. They rot in their bodies and souls and grow old even in youth.

The Hawk Lady, an artwork by Dragoš Kalajić, a Serbian philosopher and artist whose style is called “Hyperborean realism” and represents the essential forms of the original experience of an enlightened Arctic mankind. Here, the circle represents the cyclical time of the God-Year, and there is an eagle, symbol of heavenly wisdom (𒍪 zu) and spiritual ascension (Parpola 1993, p. 198, n. 143).
© Courtesy of

About the worldview of the original Arctic mankind, and its civilisation which is the Hyperborea (i.e. “Over-the-North”), which consisted in the immediate experience of An, of pure Time-Being, Dugin writes:33

The whole world was permeated  with divine energies, and people themselves were seen as children of the Sun, descendants of gods, as angelic, supreme beings professing a particular world view, a God-worldview, or Gottesweltanschauung. […] They worshipped the One World imbued with the presence of the One God whose signs of manifestation changed, unfolding in time and space, but while remaining essentially the same, the Self. […] [Wirth] believed that the great sacred formula lying at the heart of polar civilization was not simply a description of the external world, but magical thought itself given flesh. “God creates thinking”, Wirth quotes the famous phrase of an Icelandic runic song. Knowledge is Being, both coinciding and each having no right to eminency.

This immediate experience of An is the root of Dugin’s reading of the Dasein (“Therebeing”), the logical power to put order into the Chaos of primordial matter, institutionalising time and creating organised space, handling the weapon of the name-giving Word to establish measures (me34) of things. It is what Dugin calls the original political (from politus, politicus, which originally meant “clean, cleansing”, at the same time referring to the divinely ordered city35) ontological topography.36 Zuism is meant to be a channel for this return to the God-as-Sky-as-Time-as-Being, for the re-establishment of the holy circle of the divine city and its empire, of the empire of the celestial Hyperborea.

This image represents Indara (Indo-European god of thunder, corresponding to Enlil as Ishkur) slaying the Dragon, in a Hittite seal of 2000 BCE. Indara, with the astral square (attribute of Enki) on his head and holding an axe or carpenter’s square in his right hand, symbolises the power to make order out of chaos, the Dragon, symbol of primordial undeterminacy which at the same time is infinite potentiality, by channelling and applying the creative craft from Heaven. He is therefore an image of the cosmic sovereign.

Zuist Church, October 2018

The article is also availabe in PDF and on Academia

CC BY-SA 3.0, except for Dragoš Kalajić’s artwork


1. In Germanic European folklore, the Little Dipper is often defined as the Woman’s Wagon, while the Big Dipper as the Man’s Wagon (or Odin’s Wagon). For more, see: Hinckley Allen, Richard (1963). “Ursa Major, the Great Bear”. Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning. Dover Publications.

2. Mander 2011, p. 16.

3. The Lil 𒆤 is the “Breath”, the “Spirit”, the Logos, thus the magical enlightening “Word” (Utu 𒌓; Latin Oratio) begetting, shaping and linking all things, which is also the human power of “naming” entities, thus shaping their fate. See: Mander 2011, p. 6. It is the equivalent of both 理 (“Reason”, Latin Ratio) and 氣 (“psychophysical stuff”) in Chinese. See: Zuist Church 2018b, pp. 5–6.

4. The triune supreme God of Heaven and its astral connections are well explained throughout: Zuist Church 2018a & 2018b.

5. Duval 1989, passim. In late British mythology, in the Arthurian Cycle, the supreme person is Uther Pendragon while the second person is the son Arthur (the “Bear”).

6. Didier 2009, passim. Particular Chinese religions present peculiar formulations of the trinity of God. For instance, Taoism represents it as the 三清 Sānqīng, the “Three Purities”.

7. Van den Dungen 2002, passim.

8. Dumézil 1973, passim.

9. Dumézil 1941, passim. The Hellenic equivalents are Zeus Pater, Ares, while the third had no univocal equivalent; in the older tradition the triad was rather OuranosKhronos, Zeus (“Day”) and Poseidon (the “Lord of the Earth”).

10. Kushnir 2016, p. 40, where the three aspects of God (Rod in Slavic Rodnovery) and the three colours (white, red and black) are also associated to the three aspects of reality: Prav, Yav and Nav.

11. Achuthananda Swami 2018, p. 22. In Hinduism, the original trinity has been variously reformulated throughout history. The well-known modern trinity is composed of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

12. Van den Dungen 2002, passim.

13. Mander 2011, p. 6.

14. De Benoist 2002, passim.

15. Cf. the Norse poem Rígsþula of the Edda, but the three colours are well documented in other literature about the Indo-Europeans. Also see: Kushnir 2016, p. 40.

16. Zuist Church 2018a, pp. 4–5; Zuist Church 2018b, p. 10 ff.

17. Zuist Church 2018b, p. 2. 天门 Tiānmén, the “Gate of Heaven”, in Chinese thought.

18. Ibidem, p. 5.

19. Mander 2011, pp. 12­–15.

20. Ibidem, pp. 5­–6.

21. Zuist Church 2018b, p. 6.

22. These are among the critiques to Christianity moved by Porphyry of Tyre (233/234–305 CE) in his Against the Christians (Contra Christianos).

23. Littlewood & Dein 2013, passim.

24. Zuist Church 2018a, p. 3; Zuist Church 2018b, pp. 5–6. 天地 Tiāndì (“Heaven–Earth”) in Chinese thought.

25. Zuist Church 2018a, p. 10; Mander 2011, p. 14. In Chinese, the 禮 lǐ and 祖 , “rites” and “ancestral patterns”, and the latters’ names and thus destinies, 名 míng and 命 mìng.

26. Littlewood & Dein 2013, passim.

27. Ibidem.

28. An is Time and is Being, is Time-Being. It is worthwhile to note how in the ancient Greco-Roman tradition Ouranos/Uranus (“Heaven”, intended as the space of the vault of the sky) and Chronus/Kronos or Saturn (“Time”) represent God as Space-Time, while Zeus/Deus (from the Indo-European Dyeus; “Heaven”, but also “Day”) represents God as the most immediate Being from human perspective, thus the Day and the Year.

29. Perra 2017, passim; Mander 2011, p. 18. Regarding the words “empire” and “emperor”, it is worthwhile to note that their pristine meaning is the same as “interpreting” and “interpreter”, as witnessed by etymology. The emperor is one who “brings forth/arranges from within” (literal meaning of the Latin imperō, imperāre, a variation of in+‎parō, parāre, which also has the meaning of “learning”), the same as an interpreter, one who “fathers/makes from within” (the Latin verb interpretor, interpretārī). For these etymologies see: Zeizlindt 2018, p. 144, n. 493.

30. Perra 2017, passim.

31. Ibidem.

32. Dugin 2008, passim.

33. Ibidem.

34. Mos, mores, meaning “customs” or “morality” in Latin, even related to “man”, “mind” and “medium/middle”, probably come from the same root as the Sumerian me. See: Pokorny 1959, pp. 703–706 ff: *me-, *mo-, *met-, *med-; pp. 726–728: *men-.

35. Pokorny 1959, p. 798 ff: *pel-, *pelə-, *plē-.

36. Zeizlindt 2018, p. 155.


0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *