- Site Admin
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm
Within the framework of the reconstruction offered here, there's a point at which the relationship of Kronos to his "father" Ouranos becomes self-evident. Most commonly the first subject of the creation myth is the primeval, "all-containing" Unity, whose name often passed into words for "heaven" (or even more crassly, "sky"). The original meaning is a concrete sphere holding within itself the undifferentiated male and female powers (unborn goddess and hero). The literal meaning offered by the model is seen in the superimposed spheres in the illustration I gave above. Do you see one mythic figure, or three? To understand the fundamental relationship of Kronos to his father you must see one and three. "From one god, I became three," says the creator Atum in the Egyptian version of the creation legend.
As I've emphasized, the dynamic and at times violent evolution of the configuration involved many transformational phases. And these, in the course of story telling, often found expression in the concept of lineage. The Egyptian Atum, through differentiation, produced three powers from himself--the dominant luminary of the sky, Ra; the first form of the goddess, Tefnut; and the first form of the warrior-hero, Shu. The stories of these three powers answer to the archetypal stories of Saturn, Venus, and Mars. Does this mean that Atum was a separate identity from Ra? No, it does not. Even after the primeval differentiation of powers, it was perfectly natural for Egyptians to think of Ra as "Atum-Ra." And within the framework of the model, how could it have been otherwise? You cannot separate Saturn before differentiation from Saturn after differentiation.
Here I can only urge readers to see the issues concretely in terms of the relationships between evolving forms in the sky. The more clear these relationships become, the more obvious will be the underlying explanations of the mythological themes, where the implications are direct, inescapable, and readily testable.
Of course Greek accounts are complicated by the assimilation of diverse cultural traditions into single poetic narratives and by the dilution of memory that naturally occurred over the centuries. Nevertheless, the underlying symmetry with the Egyptian material is clear. Ouranos is "all-containing heaven," the Greek counterpart of Atum, the "All"; Similarly, Kronos the archaic "star of the sun," answers to Ra, the primeval sun; Aphrodite to Tefnut, and Eros to Shu.
The cresentine blade of flint, by which Ouranos was emasculated, will be the massive crescent that appeared on the sphere of Saturn in connection with the "separation" or "raising up" of heaven. Thus the crescent of the Babylonian god Sin, whom more than one cuneiform scholar identified as Saturn, will have much to tell us on this subject.
The severed "testicles" of Ouranos, from which Aprhodite was born (along with her son Eros, who accompanied her in her birth and wandering on the "sea" of heaven), corresponds then to the feminine eye and its masculine pupil in the Egyptian system. Eye and pupil mean Tefnut and Shu. The "foam" from which the goddess Aphrodite and Eros emerged will be the same thing as the "seed" ejected by Atum in the Egyptian account, from which Tefnut and Shu emerged.
Shu was the Egyptian demiurge, the active will or desire of Atum. Similarly, the Greeks recognized Eros as the active will of heaven, laboring on behalf of the creator.
The overriding message here is that the mythic images are not based on abstractions, but on concrete forms and events.
- Posts: 2477
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
- Location: NW UK
I do not understand how you are getting Ouranos as the 'all-creating unity'. I cannot recall ever
reading anything which equates either Ouranos or Saturn with the All. The bottom line is that the All is exactly that - the All. 'The All is in all and all is in the All'.
Neither would I equate Atum with the All. I would equate Atum with Khepera in the passage below and (perhaps) Neb-er-tcher with the All.
As regards the question of lineage, I am not suggesting it was any sort of biological lineage. The father/son metaphor used in myth is used to illustrate a change in the stages of a process. Similarly, the husband/wife and sibling/sibling metaphors are used to illustrate relationships within the process. The ancients did not willy-nilly invent new words such as gravity, neutrons, neutrinos etc, to explain the process. Instead they used allegory, metaphor, simile and the like. They are still describing the same thing as we 'moderns'.THE HISTORY OF CREATION. (Brit. Mus. Papyrus No 10,188). Trans. Wallis E. Budge.
The story of the Creation is supposed to be told by the god Neb-er-tcher, This name means the "Lord to the uttermost limit," and the character of the god suggests that the word "limit" refers to time and space, and that he was, in fact, the Everlasting God of the Universe. This god's name occurs in Coptic texts, and then he appears as one who possesses all the attributes which are associated by modern nations with God Almighty. Where and how Neb-er-tcher existed is not said, but it seems as if he was believed to have been an almighty and invisible power which filled all space. It seems also that a desire arose in him to create the world, and in order to do this he took upon himself the form of the god Khepera, who from first to last was regarded as the Creator, par excellence, among all the gods known to the Egyptians.
When this transformation of Neb-er-tcher into Khepera took place the heavens and the earth had not been created, but there seems to have existed a vast mass of water, or world-ocean, called Nu, and it must have been in this that the transformation took place. In this celestial ocean were the germs of all the living things which afterwards took form in heaven and on earth, but they existed in a state of inertness and helplessness. Out of this ocean Khepera raised himself, and so passed from a state of passiveness and inertness into one of activity. When Khepera raised himself out of the ocean Nu, he found himself in vast empty space, wherein was nothing on which he could stand. The second version of the legend says that Khepera gave being to himself by uttering his own name, and the first version states that he made use of words in providing himself with a place on which to stand. In other words, when Khepera was still a portion of the being of Neb-er-tcher, he spake the word "Khepera," and Khepera came into being. Similarly, when he needed a place whereon to stand, he uttered the name of the thing, or place, on which he wanted to stand, and that thing, or place, came into being. This spell he seems to have addressed to his heart, or as we should say, will, so that Khepera willed this standing-place to appear, and it did so forthwith. The first version only mentions a heart, but the second also speaks of a heart-soul as assisting Khepera in his first creative acts; and we may assume that he thought out in his heart what manner of thing be wished to create, and then by uttering its name caused his thought to take concrete form. This process of thinking out the existence of things is expressed in Egyptian by words which mean "laying the foundation in the heart."
In arranging his thoughts and their visible forms Khepera was assisted by the goddess Maat, who is usually regarded as the goddess of law, order, and truth, and in late times was held to be the female counterpart of Thoth, "the heart of the god Ra." In this legend,however, she seems to play the part of Wisdom, as described in the Book of Proverbs, 1 for it was by Maat that he "laid the foundation."
Having described the coming into being of Khepera and the place on which he stood, the legend goes on to tell of the means by which the first Egyptian triad, or trinity, came into existence.
Khepera had, in some form, union with his own shadow, and so begot offspring, who proceeded from his body under the forms of the gods Shu and Tefnut. According to a tradition preserved in the Pyramid Texts this event took place at On (Heliopolis), and the old form of the legend ascribes the production of Shu and Tefnut to an act of masturbation. Originally these gods were the personifications of air and dryness, and liquids respectively; thus with their creation the materials for the construction of the atmosphere and sky came into being. Shu and Tefnut were united, and their offspring were Keb, the Earth-god, and Nut, the Sky-goddess. We have now five gods in existence; Khepera, the creative principle, Shu, the atmosphere, Tefnut, the waters above the heavens, Nut, the Sky-goddess, and Keb, the Earth-god.
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
- Site Admin
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm
Grey Cloud, If you'll check my post above, you'll see I didn't call Ouranos "all-creating unity," I called the god "all-containing unity." Discerning comparative symbolists such as Carl Jung certainly recognized Ouranos as the archetypal "all-containing" power before differentiation of the original unity. But what do these expressions mean?
Primeval Unity: the One, the All.
Abstract modern concepts of "heaven" are the farthest thing from the archaic traditions, which describe concrete, visible forms. The Egyptian creator-god, who was personified alternately as Atum and as Khepera, signifies the state of undifferentiated "chaos", out of which occurred an event called "creation". Originally, he appears as a solitary god, "the god One" in the Egyptian texts. He is indeed an "all-containing" unity, the male and female polarities being present within him as latent potential. "I came into being of myself in the midst of the Primeval Waters", states the god in the Book of the Dead. (He existed before differentiation, and had no parents.) More than once the Coffin Texts recall the time when Atum "was alone, before he had repeated himself" (referring to the process of subsequent differentiation). He "was alone in the Primeval Waters", the texts say. "I was the Primeval Waters, he who had no companion when my name came into existence".
The texts describe him wandering to and fro, looking for a resting place, then finding it, as creation begins.
Atum can be translated (and is often translated) as "the All" in the fundamental sense of the original Unity holding within itself all that was later differentiated in the creation. He did possess a central eye, however, which in the first phase of creation took form as the goddess (Tefnut); and within that eye rested a "pupil," the first form of the warrior-hero (Shu).
[Once I began digging past the surface expositions of mythologists, a general rule became clear to me: amongst the world cultures, the active phases of "creation" are inseparable from the activity of the goddess and hero. But the point is usually missed because the goddess and hero were recorded tribally under thousands of different names, then combined through assimilation into more complex narratives. The most archaic sources thus hold the advantage of both simplicity and authenticity (closer to the original events).]
The explicit condition of Atum's original state accords precisely with our reconstruction, though to see that this is so proves little until one can verify the vastly larger accord which, if confirmed, could not be a coincidence.
With completely different words and symbols, the Sumerians and Babylonians preserved the same underlying idea in the imagery of the creator An (Anu), who contained within himself the divine male and female powers, these later becoming active as independent personalities (the mother goddess Inanna and the warrior-hero Ningirsu, for example).
So the question to be addressed is whether the references to the primeval "heaven" god become most clear and meaningful in terms of something actually seen, or merely as an abstract "open heaven", or "everything." My purpose in the coming months will be to demonstrate the former as clearly as possible: the myths describe concrete forms, though neither the descriptions nor the pictorial representations answer to any object or event in our sky today.
I believe that once the more archaic tradition is clarified, readers will have no trouble seeing the underlying principles--and seeing them even in the more fragmented and syncretic narratives written up to two thousand years later (e.g., within Greek and other cultures).
- Site Admin
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm
I think you misunderstood Cardona's point. I'm certain that Cardona knew the standard lineage (Ouranos as father of Kronos) reported by Sanchoniathon, but my best recollection is that--elsewhere--Sanchoniathon does indeed suggest an equation of Kronos and Ouranos.Grey Cloud wrote:My point about the Cardona quote was that he was citing Sanchoniathon but Sanchoniathon did not in fact say what Cardona stated. At best this is shoddy scholarship and at worse a case of using obscure sources to bamboozle his readers. Cochrane exhibits similar traits.
But of course this kind of "identification" based on overlapping attributes and story elements (such as "son castrating his father") was extremely common in the face of rampant cross-cultural assimilation over time. The real problem is that attempts to identify mythic figures with Saturn indirectly in the absence of more straightforward evidence, will generally add confusion, not clarity. The reconstruction of things seen in the heavens must have its foundation in undeniable patterns--patterns that are present to an extraordinary degree. Confidence in planetary identifications can only come from working upward from this secure foundation.
As for Dwardu Cardona and Ev Cochrane, both have emerged as major contributors to the discussion of the Polar Configuration hypothesis. In terms of accurate reporting of historical sources, both have achieved a superb record, though I've suggested that, in his interpretations, Cardona holds too closely to the material I originally circulated from 1972 to 74.
Both Dwardu and Ev took my reconstruction seriously enough to determine for themselves its underlying credibility. Both devoted their lives to exploring its potential. Since reading my book The Saturn Myth in 1980, Ev has dug into one culture after another to test out elements of the reconstruction, always going to the best authorities and most original sources. His referencing is exceptionally dependable. His contribution deserves much more recognition.
More recently a prodigious researcher, linguist Rens van der Sluijs, without accepting or rejecting the proposed roles of planets, has devoted his life to exploring the subject. Rens has gathered more than 70,000 references which, in his own words, confirm the presence of the celestial forms beyond any reasonable doubt, irrespective of the planetary issues.
Then of course, there is the equally prodigious work of plasma scientist Anthony Peratt, whose confirmation of the celestial forms comes from a completely independent research path, discussed in the thread Plasma Science
On the other hand, you could look far and wide for a substantial challenge to the ancient presence of these celestial forms, and you would find nothing worth mentioning.
- Site Admin
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm
No need to worry about the English. There’s an underlying thought in your post, with which I’m sympathetic. When I use the expression “as above, so below,” I simply add, “as before, so again.” You can see the principle operating through all of the ancient cultures as they sought to retain or restore a sense of connection to the gods, to relive memorable episodes in the lives of gods and heroes, and to fortify their magical defenses against an anticipated return of Doomsday.mague wrote:(bear with my english please)
I am a reader and follwer of the EU, but i am also a person with geometric visions.
We should be very careful when interpreting ancient symbols into "with the eye" visible plasma colums and discharges.
There is the egyptian rule: As above so below. I personally rather call them the endless repetitive rules and patterns.
It doesnt matter if people do wittness a huge plasma column above the horizon or a tiny one within the electric/energetic circuit of a human body. The sparc follows the same universal rules.
I d like to think people once about somehitng else within the EU. So we do have more or less complex circuits within our universe. Are we humans part of the circuit ? And is it possible that the "big" flow of Energy contains something like a modulated signal (similar do radio transmissions) ? No, i dont talk about Aliens. But is it possible that everything within our "circuit" (sun, moon, mars, venus, jupiter, ect.) is leaving his own information or fingerprint in the great flow ?
Have ancient seer, shamans and oracles been able to read those informations ? Are symbols sometimes the visualized expression of abstract modulated informations ?
I would say that the closer we get to the truth on any subject, one dependable result will be simplification. The three-dimensional world of human perception is too complex and broken. It’s only as we discern patterns and principles operating beneath the confusion, that a sense of coherence and meaning is possible. Internal vision is essential.
Of this principle, world mythology is perhaps the best example available to us. When it comes to making sense of its maddening and seemingly hopeless confusion, the essential skill to cultivate is pattern recognition. Only the underlying patterns could have preserved the original memory against the relentless force of cultural distortion, forgetfulness, and contradictory interpretation. The patterns stand out as the residue of the myth-making epoch itself. They could not be there apart from the celestial provocation.
If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re asking whether the forms reconstructed in the “Saturn hypothesis” might be due to a more subtle cosmic connection than we’ve proposed. Could a larger or deeper “electromagnetic” contribution have imbued humans with special visualization capabilities, enabling them to project intelligible, perhaps geometric forms and story elements outward?
Early in my own research I actually held a question of this sort in mind, wondering if the archetypes might simply reflect an internal drama with its own structure, tensions, and contradictions, but lost to awareness as human attention was progressively captured by the external details of life.
But in the final analysis, the evidence itself answered the question. Forms were seen in the sky, moving in ways that demand three-dimensional perception. The sizes of named planets are a crucial factor. Changes in their respective positions produced huge variations in what was seen. The same external forms were seen in axial alignment, then substantially off axis. Material erupted from celestial bodies, producing clouds of dusty, electrified plasma. The material behaved in the unique ways that dusty plasma behaves in high energy discharge instabilities. Light cast on Saturn from the Sun produced the precise behavior of a crescent required by the polar position of the planet.
So while I commend you for thinking deeply, I can only urge you to follow the patterns of evidence, as we are able to set them forth in coming weeks and months.
Hope its of some use to everyone
Fantastic site for the novice (like me)! Thanks for the link. Because all of this has huge implications for mankind, I'm looking for any hidden agendas in all of this. That's the major concern for me. Who wants what? All of this is so sweeping in scope that the most important factor is the motivation behind the material (if any). I think it's a huge question mark (but I'm new to the topic so I have no current opinion).Forgive me if this has been posted already, or if this does not seem appropriate for this thread (delete if need be), but i found this website today that has quite alot of detail on the Saturn idea and Plasma based explanations for some of history
You should have a glance at my thread "EU theory meets conspiracy theory (vatican)" in the mad ideas forum. Im not sure if this is what you were referring to, but its clear to me anyway that the Vatican is well aware of EU theory and its implications in history, both past and present. They use Saturn symbology all over the place!! I don't think i would be wrong in considering the Vatican to be "the gatekeepers of world mythology"..
Sorry if this is no where close to what you were talking/asking about, if thats the case, please ignore me
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Can you elaborate on what parts are misleading? Unforunately i only know as much about the Saturn theory as Dave Talbotts work has permitted on the internet (i don't have his book ). Sorry if i've posted a total duff website.. it was not my intention.Plasmatic wrote:The above saturninan site is full of rampant speculation and quite misleading in many ways. The Comaparative Method does not support most of his speculations.
The site "Recovering The Lost World" states that all of this is speculation. It's a great overview. If everything is speculation then great overviews are what is needed. The EU and plasma theory are the main thrust of the book (it's actually more a book than a website). The only disagreements I would see, as a layman, are what I would call minor details (though scientific types are all about just those kind of details). Broadly, the site seems to be agreeing with EU and plasma theory.
- nick c
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
I have to agree with Plasmatic, that the linked site has a lot of details that are not supported in any way.Plasmatic wrote:
The above saturninan site is full of rampant speculation and quite misleading in many ways. The Comaparative Method does not support most of his speculations.
Can you elaborate on what parts are misleading? Unforunately i only know as much about the Saturn theory as Dave Talbotts work has permitted on the internet (i don't have his book ). Sorry if i've posted a total duff website.. it was not my intention.
The thing that makes me cringe is the chronology, I don't know how he arrives at dating these events. He seems to be combining Cardonna, Talbott, Velikovsky, and others and coming up with his own speculative scenario. How does he arrive at so many very precise dates? Ancient chronology is a mess, in my opinion the mainstream ancient history was totally demolished by Velikovsky in the appendix to Peoples of the Sea however, his replacement chronology is not by any means satisfactory. And since then there have been any number of patches to, and radical revisions of, by various scholars, and no one revision established with certainty.
Before recorded history, what dates can be relied upon? Radiometric dating, estimates of sedimentary deposits, ice cores, etc have all been challenged and shown to be based on uniformitarian assumptions.
So I don't know how he arrives at most of his dates.
Basically, certainly some parts may be correct, how can we know which? You could read worse things, but take it with a grain of salt.
If your looking for a good assortment of on line catastrophic and EU reading material go to Thoth newsletter:
I like Talbott's installments on "Velikovsky's Comet Venus."
Thanks for the insights though, appreciated
- Site Admin
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm
My own recommendation to folks is to stay with fundamentals. Generally, that means principles which, on investigation, inspire a high level of confidence. Plasmatic is right in saying that the site is filled with speculation, and Nick is correct that the material provides no basis for determining what is substantial and what is not. The problem is that a heap of guesses, when placed alongside foundational levels of the Saturn hypothesis, will only convince people that no bedrock is available to us. And that is far from the truth.
The other side of this two-edged sword is that Jno Cook has devoted much time to producing an interdisciplinary "reconstruction." Occasional worthy fragments are embedded in the work, if someone could just find a way to recognize them before wasting too much time.
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:17 pm
I was reading this page today : http://www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/Journal ... rtents.asp
They mention the spinning comet as it related to Venus. Dave you explained how the Egyptian crowns were achieved through the conjunction of Venus and Mars in various phases, and so I wondered why no Pharaoh ever wore a swastika crown?
The four-oars/four baboons/etc. seem to be the only reflection of the swastika phase. Is this because by the time Venus was spinning swastika-fashion, it was no longer connected to or related to the king-in-the-sky (or his regent)? I imagine that Venus minus it's male-heart might not be considered a ruler anymore. Without a male-head to frame, would it be silly to then call these particular discharges a 'crown'?
Ok, that's enough speculation from me. Just wondered what you thought. Thanks.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests