Re: Theos-World Re: Jerry- History, Mythology and the resurrection of the dead
Apr 07, 2006 08:29 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
If you or someone else wants to pick up the string, I will be happy to
continue a dialogue. Responding is one thing, but I can't afford the
time I would need to compose essays.
Cass Silva wrote:
Please don't stop, you are providing us all with a University degree in classical and ancient cultures. Not to mention your spiritual encounters. Why is it that those who have experience and knowledge of entities on the Astral Plane are adverse to sharing it? I am so curious about it and would love a further explanation of what HPB said in regard to the existence of forms other than our own.
Jerry Hejka-Ekins <email@example.com> wrote: Dear Vince,
1. The Daily News- 99% accurate and 1% error-proneSuch optimism. :-)
To gain information about
unrecorded history and/or lost books, one must either look to
metaphysical writers claiming supernatural revelation about the pre-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.
historic ancient world, or engage in direct supernatural
communication with beings who are eons old.
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.
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.
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.
The Egyptian tombs were
sealed after the deceased was entombed.Are you certain? Or is that what you were taught?
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.
Still I maintain that the meaning, whether of strings of pictures or
strings or words, is culturally bound.
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.
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.
Common sense also suggests to me that oral traditions preceded the
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.
What temple illustrations?
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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 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
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.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.
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
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
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
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
=== message truncated ===
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application