Re: Theos-World Re: Jerry- History, Mythology and the resurrection of the dead
Apr 06, 2006 10:10 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
1. The Daily News- 99% accurate and 1% error-prone
Such optimism. :-)
To gain information about
unrecorded history and/or lost books, one must either look to
metaphysical writers claiming supernatural revelation about the pre-
historic ancient world, or engage in direct supernatural
communication with beings who are eons old.
Personally, I take either source with a grain of salt. I put more stock
in archeology, though that does not mean that I necessarily agree with
their interpretations either.
I'm hoping that you at least get my general idea. I'm hoping to
advance beyond the mere realm of historical specifics here, and
introduce a few ideas which go beyond the recorded texts.
I understand. However, unless your general ideas are also more or less
consistent with the data, I can't get too excited about them.
I am not referring exclusively to Egyptian heiroglyphs, nor to a
specific time period. That was simply one example. Heiroglyphs
exist internationally. Heiroglyphs often contained chronological
picture records of the deceased's primary life events, acting as
historical accounts. These historical accounts may also have
contained creative vision concerning potential afterlife events, but
they were not restricted to such.
This is a very general usage of hieroglyphs. That is fine. But I
cannot comment upon your own or other's visions. Some art works,
obviously (to me) depict visionary experiences. Others do not. I think
I have a very good sense of distinguishing between the two. However, I
have no way of knowing whether we would agree upon which are visionary
and which are not. Anyway, I seem to be more eclectic about these
things. Yes, I have had a lot of visions, and based partly on those
experiences, I readily recognize visionary art. However, my
understanding about what I see also comes from my studies in history,
literature, cultural studies, archeology, comparative religious studies etc.
I'm sorry, but I don't necessarily accept the speculations of a
limited number of historians concerning the 30,000 year dating
timeline, insofar as a very large portion of historians do not agree
with such a timeline.
I believe the 30,000 year or so dating is well established and was
derived from carbon dating.
However, the date is not very relevant to the point: The Lascaux
paintings exhibit techniques not developed in Europe until the
Renaissance and after.
10,000 BC, or even a 100 AD date would still be significant to the point
I was trying to make.
You may refer to the volumes that I had
referenced earlier, entitled "Chronology of World History" as
published by ABC-Clio/Hutchinson, which begin dating any such
materials as no older than 10,000 BC. Again, historical accuracy
and dating begins to get a bit hazy the further that we go back.
I have lots of history books in my library with lots of points of view.
I try to take everything on balance.
This is not the case with all languages. Are you suggesting then
that languages never evolved, but rather devolved?
I am suggesting that language evolves with the culture. French is an
especially good legal language. English is an especially good business
language (for reasons beyond its increasingly wide usage). Sanskrit is
an especially good language for expressing spiritual concepts.
Rather than
languages beginning with ten words and increasing to ten thousand
words, they started with ten thousand words and devolved down to ten
words? Don't you think they had to start someplace? I'm not quite
certain where your precise point of disagreement is.
Vocabulary size has little to do with it. It is the ability of a
language to express ideas. This has more to do with the language's
structure and the interfacing of the language to the speaker's
perceptions. For instance. With a moment's reflection, I think it would
be obvious to you why in English we have a single word for ice. Yes,
the Eskimo have many words. Obviously, snow is a far more important
part of their culture and life style than to ours. So, vocabulary is a
product of human experience and environment.
In early Victorian times and earlier, scientists had a notion of
"primitive languages." Languages based upon some minimal grammar and
limited vocabulary. The Tarzan novel was based upon this notion: "Me
Tarzan, you Jane." When the first British explorers encountered the
Aborigines in Australia, the sounds they made sounded like gibberish and
they assumed that they had no real language at all. Now we know that
there is no "primitive" language anywhere, regardless of the culture.
My point about languages "dumbing down" is in reference to the
progressive simplification of our modern European languages. Classical
Greek, Latin, Sanskrit etc.
were declined languages. Of the modern European languages, only German
has retained a remnant of this. The language of Alexander the great was
very complex, while the Koine Greek, which the New Testament was written
is much simpler in its structure. The Latin of Augustus was a declined
language, but this no longer exists in modern Italian. I have here an
ethnographic paper of an 1870s period anthropologist who lived with the
Pueblo Indians of New Mexico for several years. He learned their
language with great difficulty. He found that their language has a
similar structure to ancient Greek, and just as sophisticated. .
To give you some examples of structure and the expression of ideas. I
recall in a linguistic class, we were discussing one of the African
tribal languages. In tenses, we basically have past, present and
future. But this language was structured for distant, intermediate and
near past, several kinds of present tense, we have nothing to compare
to, and numerous future tenses. Another example, in English we have the
term "you" which can be used in second person singular or plural (unless
you are from Texas, where "you all" is allowed :-) . Otherwise, the
listener has to figure from context which is meant. Yet, I remember in
studying Latin, the language allowed us to designate not only singular
and plural, but the gender of the singular or plural, or in plural,
whether it was a mixed gender. In English we can speak to three men and
say, "you guys" or three women and say "you gals." What do we say for
two men and a woman? I ran across many things of that nature, where
modern English was unable to accurately translate the meaning from the
Latin without an explanatory footnote.
The Egyptian tombs were
sealed after the deceased was entombed.
Are you certain? Or is that what you were taught?
We know this from written records. The tombs were sealed to protect the
treasures within them, and we closely watched. During the great
archaeological explorations of the nineteenth century, and ending with
the spectacular finding of Tut's intact tomb, the archaeologists would
come across sealed tombs only to find that they were broken into via
tunnels dug to enter from the side etc. Interestingly, the major thief
at the time were the people who built the tombs in the first place. We
have written records of them being caught and tried.
Are you
referring to individual sarcophagi perhaps?
No. The tombs in the Valley of the Kings, Armana and elsewhere.
Not all tombs contained
their heiroglyphs solely on the inside, nor were they all
necessarily immediately sealed.
Have you specific records of Egyptian tombs that we not sealed once the
mummy was interred?
Although we may perhaps today retain
the impression that you suggest, insofar as our interpretations of
history are often strained through the limititations of our own
present-day cultural experiences.
As I say. We have good written records about tomb making, including
records of the day to day lives to the tomb makers preserved in little
notes etc. scratched into pieces of wet clay.
Again, I am not restricting my
references to Egyptian tombs either.
I can only comment upon what you specifically identify.
Some have paintings, some do not. How do you interpret
pictures? Well, pictures are culturally bound. If we understand the culture, then we can understand the pictures.
I suggest otherwise. Even within those selfsame cultures, strings
of pictures may be interpreted any number of ways, even as strings
of words in a sentence may have multiple interpretations.
Still I maintain that the meaning, whether of strings of pictures or
strings or words, is culturally bound.
And the pictures more flagrantly than the words. Simply because two or more
people originate from the same culture, does not mean that the
images will be identically interpreted.
Individual differences--fair enough. Still, if they share the same
culture, they share cultural meanings.
Are you suggesting that the ancients did not engage in misinterpretations in their days?
Misinterpretation of some current glyph or story painting made by a
member of their own tribe? No. Not likely.
Wars, as you mention, were common historical events which were
recorded in heiroglyph murals upon the walls, ect. within a king's
burial labyrinth. Finally we have some point of agreement here.
I believe that you inadvertently pasted together two sentence fragments
of mine into a single one of a different meaning than I had intended.
In Egypt, the records of the King's conquests were put on monuments in
public places for all to see.
And even the divine mythologies of the ancients were accorded as
ancient history by their authors.
Divine mythologies were treated in an entirely different way. They were
communicated by priests or bards. Typically the sacred stories were
ordered to be only told at certain times of the year. Typically the
most sacred stories were told in the winter. Some stories were told to
mixed audiences, some to children, some only to the men. These
generalizations were pretty universal, whether it be Native Americans,
Greeks, Egyptians or Celtic tribes.
Heiroglyphs containing images of
ancient elder gods and goddesses were not mere make-believe,
fashioned after the manner of fantasaical metaphor, within the
context of the belief systems of the ancient theists. They were
considered by the authors to be literal historical events.
There is a lot of discussion among Egyptologists regarding how the
Ancient Egyptians understood their gods, and I doubt if many of these
questions will ever be answered. I don't think that the simplistic
notion that the Egyptians (or even Greeks for that matter) regarded
their myths as historical events is held by more than a few die hards of
the Victorian world view. Especially once you consider the very
different way history and myth was handled by these ancient cultures.
Among the Greeks, I think I earlier pointed out to you that they even
has words to distinguish between them: Historia (history); Mythos
(Myth); and Logos (a words of many meanings, but in this case, the basic
facts free of interpretations).
Have you ever carefully read Homer's Odyssey? It is such a rich and
complex work, which at the same time entertains (it is a comedy) yet
teaches. It would have been considered no more historical than
Tolkein's Lord of the Rings would be considered historical today.
Amazing statement. The common wisdom is that story paintings were
depictions of already extant oral traditions.
This is true also. But common sense would also assert the reverse.
Common sense also suggests to me that oral traditions preceded the
"story paintings."
Who have you been reading
that argues that oral traditions derived from paintings?
Take the Bible as one example. The Old Testament. Temple
illustrations would be a common example of this.
What temple illustrations?
This is an amazing scenario. You are assuming that ancient people
thought the same way that we do today.
And you're projecting an assumption of your own, in that you believe
that I have made such an assumption. Why do you believe that I
would assume this?
Statements you have made over the past exchanges left me with this
impression. We had a discussion earlier where I had gone into some
detail about how the notion of history has changed over the centuries,
and is quite different now. You did not agree at the time. Perhaps
you can clarify your position?
Further, in what ways do you believe that the
teaching styles are different from today? I have not referenced
that our primary teaching methods of today are extrapolations of
murals on walls. I don't see the consistency in your reasoning.
It is the difference between orality and literacy. The most famous
treatment on this was done by Walter Ong (Orality and Literacy), and
remains an important classic. All cultures begin in orality, and most
have changed to one of literacy, once they adopted a written language,
but not necessarily. India, for instance, remained primarily an oral
culture in spite the fact that they had more printed texts than any
other culture, up to the time of the mechanical printing press. The
Greeks were still and oral culture during the time of Plato, though
writing was becoming pretty extant. One of the earliest literary
cultures was Alexandria, though morality still had a powerful sway. It
wasn't until the European medieval period that the written word came to
be held supreme.
Sorry, but none of this hangs together.
Quite a blanket statement to say the least. You seem to have your
mind made up.
I simply concluded that your lengthy logical string did not hold
together in my mind because of the numerous instances that I gave.
Perhaps you will be able to answer these objections. In that case, I
might be better able to better perceive the connections you are making.
Metaphor is a natural part of ancient cultures.
And history is not?
Metaphor is a linguistic element common to all ancient cultures that I
know of. History, as I explained above, has changed meaning. To the
Greeks, "historia" meant an inquiry--not a narrative of past events.
What we now call history would better fit the Greek term: logos--but
even then different from our modern notions of history. Again, mythology
was the precinct of priests and bards. Accounts of wars won and public
works built were recorded on public monuments commissioned by the
rulers. One is sacred, the other secular. One is logos: the other is
mythos.
I suggest that the two are not in strict
opposition to each other. Rather, they intertwine together.
I'm guessing that you mean here mythology and history (as opposed to
metaphor and history, which would not make any sense to me). I am
saying that they were clearly differentiated and handled in different
ways, as I described above. However, you have no doubt noticed that
often the names of real people and places whom and which were commonly
known to the people were used in mythologies. This was done as a
literary device--not to communicate history. For instance, one could
compose a modern story about Hitler marching into Hell and outsmarting
the Devil and threatens to do more evil on earth. Because I chose
Hitler, this story would have an obvious special meaning that would not
be there if I had chosen, say, John William Smith. In other cases in
mythology, the names themselves were suggestive. In more near modern
times, we borrowed this literary device. For instance, in a dramatic
story of a battle between Dishonest John and Dudley Doright, I don't
think even a child or five would have any problem distinguishing by the
names alone, who is the "good" guy and who is the "bad." There are many
other literary elements which make history and mythology (logos and
mythos) easy to distinguish. If you are really interested, at a later
time, we can go through some of them.
So, the distinctions between history and mythology were clear (at least)
in ancient Mediterranean cultures, were still clear to the educated
during the classical periods under Roman occupation, and did not become
completely confused until around the late fifth of early sixth
centuries. There are clear reasons for this change, but I will save
that for a later discussion--if you are interested.
Based upon what you have written so far, you must believe that the Egyptians, for instance, really believed that their god and goddesses literally had human bodies and animal heads!
That is partially correct, but you're getting a bit overly-
simplistic here. Your apparent assumption is that the Egyptians
simply envisioned the head of an animal and the body of a human
being (or vice versa), and attached the two of them together as some
descriptive form of metaphor. But such an assumption is entirely
incorrect, and merely serves to reflect a metaphysically
unenlightened interpretation of the historical records, at least
regarding this particular matter.
In reality, what the Egyptians (among many other cultures) were
attempting to communicate, through the use of icons and idols, was
that the archonic species of the astral planes, whom they worshipped
and encountered, were a mixture of man and beast. These icons were
then used as visual focal points for meditation periods, wherein
religionists would attempt to commune with their goddesses and
gods.
If you were talking about the Aztec culture, there is a lot of clear
evidence that many of their entities were beings in astral realms. We
even know quite a lot about their visionary practices. For Egypt it
isn't so clear and there is quite a spectrum of opinion on the matter.
Yours may even be represented somewhere. I can't say that your idea is
correct or incorrect. I can say that based upon what I understand about
Egyptian religion, your idea leaves too many loose strings for my
satisfaction.
Christians would refer to these goddesses and gods
as 'demons'. (Even today, Roman Catholics use similar icons as
meditative focal points to commune with 'GOD' through departed
saints, although they aim for a higher spiritual realm.)
As did the Jews. Their god was God, and everyone elses gods and
goddesses were demons.
I have directly encountered such hybrids myself, amidst my own
astral experiences.
OK
You have referenced prior that you believe such
metaphysical experiences to be inherently dangerous, and so you
allowed fear to get the best of you at that time.
Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I had previously stated
that I have had natural abilities since childhood. They were not the
result of any practices. My mother had the same abilities, and my
father also, but of a different nature. Also, my mother's mother. I
did not know my father's family. So, we did not attach any special
value to these phenomena. I also told you that I have had many visions,
so the experiences you have so briefly described are already very
familiar to me. I did, however, warn you that getting too carried away
with these things is, in my opinion, dangerous. You seem to have caught
my meaning, so I let it drop with no further comment. Also, out of
regard for a hint of defensiveness which I (rightly or wrongly sensed) I
let the entire discussion concerning spiritual practices drop.
You will not discern this knowledge yourself through the reading of history
books, for they are metaphysical in nature. I suggest that you do
not limit yourself to such finite resources in this regard.
My sources are many, and not limited to books.
I believe that you are in error, insofar as you are merely projecting your own cultural colorizations upon the historical records.
Whether my opinions are errors or not, they are based upon years of
study of comparative religions, cultures, and literature of cultures
different from my own. They derive from my explorations of many books,
conversations with knowledgeable people with many diverse opinions, and
yes, my own visions and intuition.
Are you then asserting that you have some form of 'authority' on the
matter, on the basis of your public education and personal studies?
I suggest that studies in literature are inadequate to gain
metaphysical interpretations of historical texts. There is
something more needed.
I am asserting that my opinions are based upon study and and a life time
of personal experience and searching. My metaphysical interpretations
(which I have not shared) are not based upon studies in literature. I
know of no public or private university which offers courses on
metaphysical interpretations of literature.
And where do you believe heaven to be, if not here on our earth? Is
heaven a distant place up above from you in your perspective? The
Christians believe in both ascension into heaven and the universal
resurrection of the dead. Even as the Egyptians did. The two
doctrines are not mutually exclusive.
Since you asked, I believe that heaven is a state of consciousness.
The reason that it sounds like 19th century speculation is likely
because you're straining it through your 19th century perspective.
OK. I see that at this point the tone of our discussion is moving
towards ad hominem attacks. Such, IMO, is not conducive for productive
discussions. So, I will stop at this point until I hear from you again
in a different tone.
Best wishes,
Jerry
Vincent wrote:
Jerry-
When I refer to history, I will refer to three basic categories.
1. The Daily News- 99% accurate and 1% error-prone
2. Modern to Ancient History- possessing reasonable to nominal
accuracy, according to the quality of recording methods and the age
of the original manuscripts; mostly accurate, albeit incomplete and
riddled with various errors, even as the Bible is
3. Ancient Mythology- 1% accurate and 99% error-prone
Beyond this, there is also the realm of unrecorded history (or, as
in many cases, those portions of ancient history wherein the ancient
texts were irretrievably lost). To gain information about
unrecorded history and/or lost books, one must either look to
metaphysical writers claiming supernatural revelation about the pre-
historic ancient world, or engage in direct supernatural
communication with beings who are eons old.
You wrote:
I'm not sure how to understand your meaning here. If you are talking about the notion of history in the modern sense, it really began around the time of the Renaissance. It became a fad to dig up old Roman
statues and use them in their gardens for decorations. So, people began to become interested in who the statues represented, when did they live, and what their lives were like. The most famous work to come out of this tradition was Gibbon's multi volume work, the Decline and Fall of the Roam Empire. Historical writings based upon archeology began in the 1840s when a few wealthy hobbyists began looking for ancient treasures and mythological cities. Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered Troy was the most famous of these. The beginning of scientific archeology was motivated by a desire to more clearly understand the Biblical narratives--particularly to prove that the Bible is indeed an historical account. The movement instead has tended to backfire, beginning with Ernest Renen's controversial Vie de Jesus which attempted to put Jesus in an historical and political setting based upon the archeology of the time. The research also inspired a school of "Higher Criticism" which asked hard questions and threw doubt upon the Bible as an historical work.
The so-called historical works of the medieval period, were usually
hagiographic accounts of kings and saints. The accounts are written
according to formulas. Butler's Lives of the Saints is a famous
example of this.
As we move back into the classical period, we find that the Romans
are
probably the only group that thought very nearly like us. But even
Suetonius' Annals of Rome, is more in the form of still current
oral
memories. Plutarch's lives is more interested in communicating
moral
and philosophical lessons than an exacting account of history.
Herodotus also moves back and forth between oral history, personal
observations and moralizing.
There is also a tremendous body of literature that extends back
into
earliest antiquity. Some of it takes the form of folk tales,
legends,
fabula, and mythology. The ladder is found in all cultures of the
world, has a distinct structure, and was universally held as
sacred.
I am referring to this full gamut of recorded history and beyond.
Actually, if I remember my linguistic classes correctly, syllables
always represented sounds. Chinese and classical Japanese
characters
were modified glyphs which represented images which were
associated with
sounds. The Egyptian Hieroglyphs represented associations of
images and
sounds. For instance, the appearances of certain snakes in a
cartouch
would approximately represent our modern "S" sound--like the
hissing of
a snake.
I'm hoping that you at least get my general idea. I'm hoping to
advance beyond the mere realm of historical specifics here, and
introduce a few ideas which go beyond the recorded texts. Perhaps
you can look beyond my psuedo-history lesson, and interpret my text
more as a parable, not focusing so much on historical specifics, but
rather metaphysical concepts.
Actually the tombs were decorated by a group of specialists in that
field--sort of priests-scribes who formed the hieroglyphs and
paintings
according to an ancient set of guide lines. They were very precise
in
their exposition. It was only with the reign of Amenhotep XIV that
the
style was changed--and then, only temporarily. The painted scenes
were
mostly about an idealistic afterlife, based upon the interests of
the
deceased. If the deceased, for instance, liked to hunt birds, then
there would be a scene of him hunting birds in the afterlife. The
Hieroglyphs were mostly prayers, and formulas from the Book of the
Dead.
I am not referring exclusively to Egyptian heiroglyphs, nor to a
specific time period. That was simply one example. Heiroglyphs
exist internationally. Heiroglyphs often contained chronological
picture records of the deceased's primary life events, acting as
historical accounts. These historical accounts may also have
contained creative vision concerning potential afterlife events, but
they were not restricted to such.
As for "artistically acute" I think we need to be very careful
about judging ancient art from our own standards. For instance,
the
Lascaux cave paintings in France, which have been dated to over
thirty
thousand years old, show examples of all of the techniques used in
art
today--including perspective, which was only reintroduced into
Europe
during the Renaissance.
I'm sorry, but I don't necessarily accept the speculations of a
limited number of historians concerning the 30,000 year dating
timeline, insofar as a very large portion of historians do not agree
with such a timeline. You may refer to the volumes that I had
referenced earlier, entitled "Chronology of World History" as
published by ABC-Clio/Hutchinson, which begin dating any such
materials as no older than 10,000 BC. Again, historical accuracy
and dating begins to get a bit hazy the further that we go back.
Refined languages? I have in my library a textbook on Egyptian
Grammar. It is an oversize book of over 600 pages. I was
interested in
making a study of it and found the language incredibly
sophisticated and
almost overwhelming. I have in the past studied Latin as was
spoken
during the time of Augustus, dipped into Sanskrit and Greek. In
structure, these languages are far more sophisticated than modern
English. When I studied Latin, I remember translating phrases
which I
perfectly understood, but because of the limits of the English
language,
could not be properly translated. I would say, that instead of
languages becoming more refined, they have been dumbed down over
the
centuries.
This is not the case with all languages. Are you suggesting then
that languages never evolved, but rather devolved? Rather than
languages beginning with ten words and increasing to ten thousand
words, they started with ten thousand words and devolved down to ten
words? Don't you think they had to start someplace? I'm not quite
certain where your precise point of disagreement is.
I don't know of any culture that created tombs, or even caves to
teach
history--particularly to "little children."
That's okay. Perhaps it will make sense to you over time.
The Egyptian tombs were
sealed after the deceased was entombed.
Are you certain? Or is that what you were taught? Are you
referring to individual sarcophagi perhaps? Not all tombs contained
their heiroglyphs solely on the inside, nor were they all
necessarily immediately sealed. Although we may perhaps today retain
the impression that you suggest, insofar as our interpretations of
history are often strained through the limititations of our own
present-day cultural experiences. Again, I am not restricting my
references to Egyptian tombs either.
We will probably never answer
all of the questions about the Lascaux caves but most
archaeologists
believe that the caves was used for initiation purposes--for the
initiation of adults, or of those being initiated into adulthood at
puberty. Ancient caves were used in the Mediterranean world and
in
India for sacred initiations also. This seem also to be true of
Asia in
general. Some have paintings, some do not. How do you interpret
pictures? Well, pictures are culturally bound. If we understand
the
culture, then we can understand the pictures.
I suggest otherwise. Even within those selfsame cultures, strings
of pictures may be interpreted any number of ways, even as strings
of words in a sentence may have multiple interpretations. And the
pictures more flagrantly than the words. Simply because two or more
people originate from the same culture, does not mean that the
images will be identically interpreted. Are you suggesting that the
ancients did not engage in misinterpretations in their days?
If you mean events such as winning a war, it was the kings which
commissioned the art to commemorate the event. Of course, the
event was
portrayed according to how the king wished. Paintings and
carvings at
the Ajunta and the Elephanta caves, for instance, portrayed gods,
goddesses, Buddhas, etc. They had a strictly religious sense
which was
commonly understood in the relevant religious community. Some
represented myths (if you will), which were also the common
heritages of
that religious community.
Wars, as you mention, were common historical events which were
recorded in heiroglyph murals upon the walls, ect. within a king's
burial labyrinth. Finally we have some point of agreement here.
And even the divine mythologies of the ancients were accorded as
ancient history by their authors. Heiroglyphs containing images of
ancient elder gods and goddesses were not mere make-believe,
fashioned after the manner of fantasaical metaphor, within the
context of the belief systems of the ancient theists. They were
considered by the authors to be literal historical events.
I'm not aware of any culture that had such a practice.
That's okay. I'm not requiring you to know.
Amazing statement. The common wisdom is that story paintings were
depictions of already extant oral traditions.
This is true also. But common sense would also assert the reverse.
Who have you been reading
that argues that oral traditions derived from paintings?
Take the Bible as one example. The Old Testament. Temple
illustrations would be a common example of this.
This is an amazing scenario. You are assuming that ancient people
thought the same way that we do today.
And you're projecting an assumption of your own, in that you believe
that I have made such an assumption. Why do you believe that I
would assume this? Further, in what ways do you believe that the
teaching styles are different from today? I have not referenced
that our primary teaching methods of today are extrapolations of
murals on walls. I don't see the consistency in your reasoning.
Sorry, but none of this hangs together.
Quite a blanket statement to say the least. You seem to have your
mind made up.
Metaphor is a natural part of ancient cultures.
And history is not? I suggest that the two are not in strict
opposition to each other. Rather, they intertwine together.
Based upon
what you have written so far, you must believe that the Egyptians, for
instance, really believed that their god and goddesses literally had
human bodies and animal heads!
That is partially correct, but you're getting a bit overly-
simplistic here. Your apparent assumption is that the Egyptians
simply envisioned the head of an animal and the body of a human
being (or vice versa), and attached the two of them together as some
descriptive form of metaphor. But such an assumption is entirely
incorrect, and merely serves to reflect a metaphysically
unenlightened interpretation of the historical records, at least
regarding this particular matter.
In reality, what the Egyptians (among many other cultures) were
attempting to communicate, through the use of icons and idols, was
that the archonic species of the astral planes, whom they worshipped
and encountered, were a mixture of man and beast. These icons were
then used as visual focal points for meditation periods, wherein
religionists would attempt to commune with their goddesses and
gods. Christians would refer to these goddesses and gods
as 'demons'. (Even today, Roman Catholics use similar icons as
meditative focal points to commune with 'GOD' through departed
saints, although they aim for a higher spiritual realm.)
I have directly encountered such hybrids myself, amidst my own
astral experiences. You have referenced prior that you believe such
metaphysical experiences to be inherently dangerous, and so you
allowed fear to get the best of you at that time. You will not
discern this knowledge yourself through the reading of history
books, for they are metaphysical in nature. I suggest that you do
not limit yourself to such finite resources in this regard.
Closer to the truth, I would say that "mythological metaphor" was
degraded into literal "truth."
I believe that you are in error, insofar as you are merely
projecting your own cultural colorizations upon the historical
records.
Sorry. I'm not convinced.
I was not attempting to convince you, but for some reason you
believe that you need to be convinced.
My masters degree was in literature, and I
spent a lot of years studying the structure of ancient and modern
literature, and on how language constructs our realities. When I
was in
France, however, I did visit a lot of medieval cathedrals. The
door
ways were often decorated with images of the devil devouring
sinful
people, or people otherwise suffering the torments of hell. Be
even
here, this was artistic followings of medieval theology in order
to
scare their illiterate congregations into conforming to their
faith.
Are you then asserting that you have some form of 'authority' on the
matter, on the basis of your public education and personal studies?
I suggest that studies in literature are inadequate to gain
metaphysical interpretations of historical texts. There is
something more needed.
Which demonstrates the evolution of Christian theology.
Or perhaps the 'convolution' of Christian theology.
Most cultures had the human species come from the sun or moon, or
from
under the earth.
Thereby representing a broader perspective that the human species
firstly originated from the universe. But this metaphor is not
isolationist in nature. They cultures also commonly believed that
the goddesses and gods originated from the universe, while
simultaneously co-creating it. And then subsequently creating and
pro-creating with the human species.
But the human species was usually created by a god.
Or more accurately, through gods. Through direct creation or
procreation. Correct.
Loki, in German mythology;
Actually, Loki is reputed to have sired many humans and beasts
through direct crossbreeding with other species in a procreative
fashion.
Thoth in the Egyptian;
Crossbreeding is also reported with Thoth, albeit there is the
additional story of the direct creation of a 'light-soul'.
I suggest that the concepts of creation and procreation are not
mutually exclusive among the goddesses and gods. It's not simply
one of the other.
Yaldabaoth in certain
gnostic sects....
I've not directly studied classical gnosticism, but you seem to be
referring to the Christian demiurge.
Yes, resurrection was an Egyptian doctrine. But it was Osiris who
is
resurrected in heaven, as the people believed they would also do.
Once
they were osirified--they would live with the father in heaven.
And where do you believe heaven to be, if not here on our earth? Is
heaven a distant place up above from you in your perspective? The
Christians believe in both ascension into heaven and the universal
resurrection of the dead. Even as the Egyptians did. The two
doctrines are not mutually exclusive.
Where did you read this? Sounds like some 19th century
speculation.
The reason that it sounds like 19th century speculation is likely
because you're straining it through your 19th century perspective.
Actually, the ancient doctrines of physical immortality and the
resurrection of the dead, two concepts which are not mutually
exclusive, originate from ancient mythology. These similar ideas
are littered throughout both the bible and mythological texts. They
will not be found in your modernized history books, if that's what
you're looking for. I would also suggest not getting too caught up
with the idea that the Egyptians had originated the idea. They
merely shared these ideas with the Jews and other earlier religions.
Why they practiced mummification is still a matter of
controversy. But
we know now that the Egyptians believed that each person had
several
souls, one which would remain near the earth for a time, and one
which
resurrects in heaven. The mummification was apparently to extend
the
life of the earthly soul.
Yours is perhaps a narrower interpretation. I suggest that you do
not limit yourself to your 'certified' history books. Historians
are not typically qualified to interpret metaphysical realities.
They miss many things of a metaphysical nature.
Yes, the Jews followed after the Egyptians in the burial custom,
and the
Christians followed the Jews. The Jews also learned circumcision
from
the Egyptians.
And the Jews and Egyptians learned many of these things from still
others.
First I have heard of this. Every culture which I am familiar,
which
believes in some form of reincarnation, believes that the final
goal is
to join the gods in the invisible worlds.
It sounds like you're gravitating a bit towards modernized
Christianity, and perhaps straining your reincarnational readings
through it. The ancient mythologies teach that the elder gods came
physically to the earth, even departing from the 'invisible' worlds
as you term them. It was believed among Jews, Egyptians and
virtually every pagan religion which ever existed that immortals had
walked the earth. I further suggest that no world is invisible,
except to those who are blind to see it. And each and every
metaphysical dimension is either more or less uniquely material than
our own.
Who? Which ancients?
The elder gods which existed prior to the dawn of ancient history.
Which culture? Which religion?
All of them in some way, shape or form. Metaphysical realities and
universal truth are not restricted to one culture against another,
nor one religion against another.
Blessings
Vince
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...>
wrote:
Dear Vince,
Of course, a stange thing occurs the further that we go back in
recorded history. History begins to convert to mythology, with
no
fine line inbetween the two.
I'm not sure how to understand your meaning here. If you are
talking
about the notion of history in the modern sense, it really began
around
the time of the Renaissance. It became a fad to dig up old Roman
statues and use them in their gardens for decorations. So, people
began
to become interested in who the statues represented, when did they
live,
and what their lives were like. The most famous work to come out
of this
tradition was Gibbon's multi volume work, the Decline and Fall of
the
Roam Empire. Historical writings based upon archeology began in
the
1840s when a few wealthy hobbyists began looking for ancient
treasures
and mythological cities. Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered Troy
was
the most famous of these. The beginning of scientific archeology
was
motivated by a desire to more clearly understand the Biblical
narratives--particularly to prove that the Bible is indeed an
historical
account. The movement instead has tended to backfire, beginning
with
Ernest Renen's controversial Vie de Jesus which attempted to put
Jesus
in an historical and political setting based upon the archeology
of the
time. The research also inspired a school of "Higher Criticism"
which
asked hard questions and threw doubt upon the Bible as an
historical work.
The so-called historical works of the medieval period, were
usually
hagiographic accounts of kings and saints. The accounts are
written
according to formulas. Butler's Lives of the Saints is a famous
example of this.
As we move back into the classical period, we find that the Romans
are
probably the only group that thought very nearly like us. But
even
Suetonius' Annals of Rome, is more in the form of still current
oral
memories. Plutarch's lives is more interested in communicating
moral
and philosophical lessons than an exacting account of history.
Herodotus also moves back and forth between oral history, personal
observations and moralizing.
There is also a tremendous body of literature that extends back
into
earliest antiquity. Some of it takes the form of folk tales,
legends,
fabula, and mythology. The ladder is found in all cultures of the
world, has a distinct structure, and was universally held as
sacred.
This is because modern phonetic-based
languages descended from picture-based alphabets containing
thousands of visual symbols. An ancient Oriental alphabet might
contain 1000 different characters, for example, as opposed to a
mere
26 characters in phonetic english. Each syllable represented a
picture prior to phonetics.
Actually, if I remember my linguistic classes correctly, syllables
always represented sounds. Chinese and classical Japanese
characters
were modified glyphs which represented images which were
associated with
sounds. The Egyptian Hieroglyphs represented associations of
images and
sounds. For instance, the appearances of certain snakes in a
cartouch
would approximately represent our modern "S" sound--like the
hissing of
a snake.
And before ancient alphabets concisely contained 1000 letters,
languages first existed as heiroglyphs in caves and tombs. (For
example, in Egyptian pyramids). The walls of caves and tombs
recorded the life histories of the dead, as documented by ancient
news reporters who weren't that artistically acute.
Actually the tombs were decorated by a group of specialists in
that
field--sort of priests-scribes who formed the hieroglyphs and
paintings
according to an ancient set of guide lines. They were very precise
in
their exposition. It was only with the reign of Amenhotep XIV
that the
style was changed--and then, only temporarily. The painted scenes
were
mostly about an idealistic afterlife, based upon the interests of
the
deceased. If the deceased, for instance, liked to hunt birds,
then
there would be a scene of him hunting birds in the afterlife. The
Hieroglyphs were mostly prayers, and formulas from the Book of the
Dead. As for "artistically acute" I think we need to be very
careful
about judging ancient art from our own standards. For instance,
the
Lascaux cave paintings in France, which have been dated to over
thirty
thousand years old, show examples of all of the techniques used in
art
today--including perspective, which was only reintroduced into
Europe
during the Renaissance.
These
heiroglyphs constituted the most accurate of ancient recording
methods, prior to the introduction of refined languages.
Refined languages? I have in my library a textbook on Egyptian
Grammar. It is an oversize book of over 600 pages. I was
interested in
making a study of it and found the language incredibly
sophisticated and
almost overwhelming. I have in the past studied Latin as was
spoken
during the time of Augustus, dipped into Sanskrit and Greek. In
structure, these languages are far more sophisticated than modern
English. When I studied Latin, I remember translating phrases
which I
perfectly understood, but because of the limits of the English
language,
could not be properly translated. I would say, that instead of
languages becoming more refined, they have been dumbed down over
the
centuries.
However, the little children had a problem learning the history
lessons which were embossed on the walls of caves and tombs.
After
all, how do you interpret the pictures?
I don't know of any culture that created tombs, or even caves to
teach
history--particularly to "little children." The Egyptian tombs
were
sealed after the deceased was entombed. We will probably never
answer
all of the questions about the Lascaux caves but most
archaeologists
believe that the caves was used for initiation purposes--for the
initiation of adults, or of those being initiated into adulthood
at
puberty. Ancient caves were used in the Mediterranean world and
in
India for sacred initiations also. This seem also to be true of
Asia in
general. Some have paintings, some do not. How do you
interpret
pictures? Well, pictures are culturally bound. If we understand
the
culture, then we can understand the pictures.
So ancient historians
interpreted the historical storylines, that the ancient news
reporters had embossed on the caves and walls.
If you mean events such as winning a war, it was the kings which
commissioned the art to commemorate the event. Of course, the
event was
portrayed according to how the king wished. Paintings and
carvings at
the Ajunta and the Elephanta caves, for instance, portrayed gods,
goddesses, Buddhas, etc. They had a strictly religious sense
which was
commonly understood in the relevant religious community. Some
represented myths (if you will), which were also the common
heritages of
that religious community.
The ancient
historians (even as you consider yourself to be a historian) took
the children directly into the caves and tombs, as per common
classroom settings of the time, and read history lessons from
walls
as opposed to from books.
I'm not aware of any culture that had such a practice.
Oral traditions began to follow the
pictures of antiquity.
Amazing statement. The common wisdom is that story paintings were
depictions of already extant oral traditions. Who have you been
reading
that argues that oral traditions derived from paintings?
However, even among the teachers, different interpretations of
the
historical picturelines began to occur. And the unintentional
creation of mythology invariably resulted, despite the best
efforts
of ancient news reporters who would never resort to base
metaphor.
This is an amazing scenario. You are assuming that ancient people
thought the same way that we do today. Sorry, but none of this
hangs
together. Metaphor is a natural part of ancient cultures. Based
upon
what you have written so far, you must believe that the Egyptians,
for
instance, really believed that their god and goddesses literally
had
human bodies and animal heads!
The ancient histories became more and more distorted over
successive
generations, until literal truth was degraded into mythological
metaphor.
Closer to the truth, I would say that "mythological metaphor" was
degraded into literal "truth."
Hence, mythology is little more than bastardized
history. Same thing goes for the Bible. The authors intended
quite
literally what you and I interpet to be mere metaphor.
Sorry. I'm not convinced. My masters degree was in literature,
and I
spent a lot of years studying the structure of ancient and modern
literature, and on how language constructs our realities. When I
was in
France, however, I did visit a lot of medieval cathedrals. The
door
ways were often decorated with images of the devil devouring
sinful
people, or people otherwise suffering the torments of hell. Be
even
here, this was artistic followings of medieval theology in order
to
scare their illiterate congregations into conforming to their
faith.
Pseudepigraphal literature was deemed even less reliable than
apocryphal literature. This is despite the fact that some of the
canonized authors had also written books that didn't make it into
the bible, such as Paul and Ezekiel. Or what about the
uncanonized
book of Enoch, still existant in a halfdozen ancient languages?
The
biblical book of Jude directly quotes the book of Enoch as
authoritative, even though it is rejected by the bible's modern-
day
canonizers. Some books were good enough for the early church
fathers, but not good enough for the modern church. One-hundred
ancient canons were rejected in favor of a modernized one.
Which demonstrates the evolution of Christian theology.
Did you know,
that prior to the onset of Darwinism, the ancients commonly
believed
that the human species descended from immortal gods, and that the
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead originated as early (if
not
earlier) as the most ancient Egyptians?
Most cultures had the human species come from the sun or moon, or
from
under the earth. But the human species was usually created by a
god.
Loki, in German mythology; Thoth in the Egyptian; Yaldabaoth in
certain
gnostic sects....
Yes, resurrection was an Egyptian doctrine. But it was Osiris who
is
resurrected in heaven, as the people believed they would also do.
Once
they were osirified--they would live with the father in heaven.
The earliest recorded Egyptians believed in the Christian
doctrine
of the final resurrection of the dead which was to occur at the
end
of time. (Or at least their version of it.)
Where did you read this? Sounds like some 19th century
speculation.
They believed it so
much, in fact, that they began mummifying the dead in
preservative
wraps, simultaneously extracting their organs into jars, so that
their organs may still be available for their end time
resurrection.
Why they practiced mummification is still a matter of
controversy. But
we know now that the Egyptians believed that each person had
several
souls, one which would remain near the earth for a time, and one
which
resurrects in heaven. The mummification was apparently to extend
the
life of the earthly soul.
We still preserve bodies in coffins today, not
allowing their full decay after the model of the Egyptians, even
though we are not commonly aware of why preserving dead bodies
was
started in the first place.
Yes, the Jews followed after the Egyptians in the burial custom,
and the
Christians followed the Jews. The Jews also learned circumcision
from
the Egyptians.
Of course, the antithesis of the ancient doctrine of immortality
was
reincarnation. If one should not accomplish the re-acquistion of
physical immortality, as is the birthright of our species, having
descended from the elder (immortal) gods, then may that one be
cursed to near-endless reincarnational cycles, until such time as
she/he becomes spiritually reawakened to the inherent physical
immortality contained within our species.
First I have heard of this. Every culture which I am familiar,
which
believes in some form of reincarnation, believes that the final
goal is
to join the gods in the invisible worlds.
May the wicked be cast into ever-repeating reincarnational hells,
until such time as they should venture to awaken physically
forever,
as per the final evolutionary cycle of the human species. Herein
being the immortal physical resurrection of all dead souls, once
having been trapped in reincarnational cycles, both dying and
birthing from hellish dimension to hellish dimension, despite the
immortal birthright contained therein, which was bestowed upon us
by
our ancestral elder gods. This is what the ancients believed.
Who? Which ancients? Which culture? Which religion?
Best,
Jerry
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
