The Science of Spirit?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:26 am

Steve Smith wrote:Post the God Star critique here. I'm sure Dave Smith will not object to the length ...

Grey Cloud wrote:If Dave Smith gives it the okay then I'll post it.

As Steve is responsible for the TPODs and has asked for it in this thread, and as it relates to God Star, a published work of one of the Thunderbolts team then I can't see a problem with it. As we do generally discourage the posting of lengthy articles of original research, I do appreciate you asking for the OK but I think under the circumstances it is entirely appropriate. So go right ahead.

Cheers, Dave Smith.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:29 am

Here we go then. It's too big to post in one piece as it contians 117005 characters and the max is 60000.
Part 1 of 2.

If this book had been titled 'One Star' it would have been nearer the mark. Far from being a work of comparative mythology, the book reads like an exercise in psychology (suggest, repeat and reinforce; note Cardona's use of emphases throughout the book). It is more akin to a ransom note, with words and phrases cut from various sources and pasted together to form Cardona's message. Nowhere in the book is a single mythological tale used, let alone analysed. Instead the reader is presented with Cardona's opinion on what he is about to read, what he is reading and what he has just read, supported by certain key words and phrases culled from everywhere and anywhere and arranged to suit Cardona's 'theory'.
Given that this theory is approximately thirty years old it speaks volumes for it that Cardona has to resort to the sort of literary legerdemain found in God Star. There is nowhere near 493 pages of theory (or evidence) in this book. Half as many pages would have been more than sufficient.
But what exactly is Cardona's theory? On several occasions throughout the book, the goal posts are moved leaving the reader uncertain as to what it is that is being advocated. His hypotheses only begin on page 140 and the full set of 18 does not appear until pages 491-2. Nowhere in the book does he state in one place, and in full, exactly what his theory is.

Cardona's methodology, such as it is, consists of presenting his case non-sequentially while at the same time taking some mythological concept out of its context and inserting it into his own. This can be seen in the chapter order where Chapter 12 on page 261, i.e. half way through the book, is titled 'In The Beginning'. Two chapters later, we have 'The Dawn of Creation' (p283), followed much later at Chapter 22 (p458) by 'Cosmic Genesis'. Throughout God Star, Cardona quotes from and cites Van Over's 'Sun Songs: Creation Myths From Around The World' regardless of whether it is actually creation he is considering. As long as Cardona can find and use one of his buzz-words such as 'darkness' or 'blackness' for example, then he is content to do so.
The chapters themselves are broken down into smaller sections which further serve to break the continuity.

He constantly tells the reader what they have learned and what they are, or should be, thinking. This begins with the first sentence of Chapter 1 on page 1: "The first criticism that will be levelled at this work is that it is based on nothing but myths and legends". This statement is somewhat at odds with the blurb on the back of the book where we find: "Thus, apart from the mytho-historical record, the theory presented within the pages of this book includes evidence from geology, paleontology, astrophysics, and plasma cosmology. It also serves to elucidate various dilemmas that presently encumber these and other disciplines".

"As we all know, the sun does not send forth its rays into a circle; it does not reside in a ring" (p25). I thought that the Sun resides in a ring of planets and also had a magnetosphere (though technically spherical rather circular) and that the Sun sends its rays out in all directions; does Cardona think it only radiates at the Earth? Cardona does not explain how his Saturn, proto- or otherwise, sends forth its rays into a circle or how it resides in a ring, given that, according to his explanation, the inhabitants of Earth could not see anything other than darkness, semi-darkness or haze (depending upon where the goal posts are situated at the time).

"The question that should now be asked is: Is it possible that the planet we know as Saturn could have once radiated as a sun?" (p153). But he has already primed the reader to accept this: Saturn 'the star of the Sun' (p121) and 'Irradiates like the Sun'. (p128).

"Think about it: We have seen that Earth had been a satellite of what is now the planet Saturn, which planet was described as having been near enough to Earth to be remembered as a sphere, which sphere, in turn, was described as a sun that shone at night during a time when no other heavenly body could be seen. What could have been more prominent?" (p192). Cardona's emphasis.
He's only just introduced the notion of Earth as a satellite. The ancients knew that all the planets were spherical, Saturn wasn't a special case. He began the book with a discussion on flat Earth/round Earth. He has by this point covered the 'shone at night' question, but not 'at a time when nothing else was visible'. This also begs the question of what was shining during the day in order for there to be a night for Saturn to shine in.

He makes statements about what he is going to do but never gets anywhere near doing them.
"On the contrary, I hope to show beyond a reasonable doubt that these tales truly reflect events that, bizarre though they may seem, actually transpired in ages past" (p1). He doesn't actually use any 'tales'.

"True it may be countered that these ancient religions were based on false premises. What I aim to indicate, on the other hand, is that these premises were anything but false" (p1). Cardona's emphasis. He never mentions the premises on which any religion is based and constantly either ignores or rides rough-shod over what the religious texts are saying.
"And I shall also endeavour to show, the contents of the world's mythology indicates exactly that – a sorrowful longing for the condition of a past age" (p2). Again, he doesn't actually use 'the contents of the world's mythology'. Nor does he get around to addressing the 'sorrowful longing' issue. In fact, this is the last we hear of it.

"Myths, as I intend to illustrate, arose as eye-witness accounts of what was actually seen and, in that sense, no author need be invoked" (p4). While one may not need an author, surely one needs an eye-witness? Mostly Cardona uses secondary, tertiary and, in some cases, quaternary sources. This begins on page 1 with the first footnote of the book. According to the text, it is one Franz Xavier Kugler being quoted but when one looks at the footnote it turns out to be L. C. Stecchini who quoted Kugler, and Stecchini was in turn quoted by De Grazia in a book about Velikovsky.
Then there is Sanchoniathon who we get from Philo Byblos, who in turn we get from Eusebius, and who Cardona gets from Velikovsky. Sanchoniathon is circa 700 BCE, Philo c. 64-141 CE, and Eusebius c. 263–339 CE. In other words, there is aproximately 1,000 years between Sanchoniathon and Eusebius. Eusebius was a Christian bishop which makes anything he writes about a pagan somewhat suspect.

Authoritative statements are made which are either irrelevant to his theory or baseless. "Such events, when witnessed, must have awed our primitive ancestors. The occurrences would have been remembered with fear and even reverence" (p77). "Such objects, when found, would have been thought to be magical, possessing benign or evil powers, if not both. It is understandable that such objects, now known as meteorites, would have been collected, preserved, and even revered" (p77). Here Cardona uses the phrase 'our primitive ancestors' and implies that they were ignorant and superstitious. Yet these same ancestors furnished the 'astronomical lore' which he mentions frequently throughout his 'work'. He also fails to explain how these same people could come up with such works as the I Ching, the Vedas, or any of the other sophisticated philosophical works from around the world.

He makes statements which are gross oversimplifications but allow him to name drop or otherwise imply that he has searched high and wide. "Socrates, because he preached against the gods, was accused of blasphemy and corrupting the youth of his time" (p47). Socrates did not 'preach' on any subject and he certainly did not do so against the gods. There is a difference between being charged with something and actually having done the thing. The charges according to Plato's Apology (24b): 'Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young and of not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new divinities'. These were two separate charges.

"For Alan Watts, the prime paradox was that myth conceals while it simultaneously reveals" (p2). Unfortunately this quote comes from an Alan Watts book which I do not have. But being somewhat familiar with the work of Watts, I would imagine that he is talking about the esoteric meaning of a myth. That is to say, the inner meaning which one has to think about in order to understand. There is no way that Watts would have subscribed to Cardona's literalist approach.
Frequently he introduces a subject only to immediately announce that he will cover it later in the book, or more commonly, in 'a later work'.

Cardona constantly refers to God Star as a 'scholarly work' yet there is absolutely no discrimination in his sources, with which he goes for quantity rather than quality. Throughout he uses such 'scholarly' sources as Newsweek, AEON, KRONOS, SIS Review, Equinox, Bible-Science Newsletter, etc., etc. At the other end of the scale Cardona cites several foreign language publications, e.g. French, Dutch and German. He also uses some ridiculously obscure sources such as J. Lewy, 'The Old West Semitic Sun-God Hammu', in Hebrew Union College Annual 1943-44. (This to back up his claim that Saturn, not Venus is the Morning Star (p206)) and Ting Ying Ma whose work is only available from the library of Columbia University (and who, in any case, Cardona has not actually read).
This quantitative approach serves two purposes: first it suggests that Cardona has left no stone unturned in his search for the facts, and secondly it serves to produce information overload in the reader and to dissuade them from checking the footnotes and sources. For example on page 474 Cardona writes: "Or, as the renowned physicist David Bohm has been known to claim: 'Plasmas are the origin of everything'". If, at this late juncture, one still has the energy to check the footnote then one finds that the actual quote is by Peratt in 2002. Bohm died in 1992. This is hearsay and in any case is a gross oversimplification of Bohm's views.

On page 375 the reader is presented with an absolute rat's-nest of sources under one footnote. The majority of which are of such an arcane subject that only someone who works in these fields would even think of looking at them.

Despite Cardona's constant use throughout the book of the phrase 'the mytho-historical record', rarely is an original or ancient work cited, but it is, wherever possible, the original or ancient one being quoted. The lack of a bibliography serves to hide how few original or ancients texts have actually been consulted.

"It is therefore telling that Brahma, too, was described as having originally been alone: 'He hovers, alone, above everything'" (p196). The quote is not taken from the Vedic literature but an essay in a journal, 'Asiatic Mythology'.
The quote does not say Brahma is alone. It states that he 'hovers, alone' which to me implies that he is the only thing hovering. This is confirmed by the fact that he is above everything, which implies that there is something. Brahma is the One God – he is God One – he is the creator god, the 'father of men and gods' and 'Lord of Creation'. He created Saturn. He is not Saturn.
Likewise Raven (see p197) is alone because he has not created anything yet. He also is not 'alone' alone as he has the void – Kaos.

See the first paragraph of Chapter 12 (p261). For once he appears to be actually quoting directly from the original source, in this case the Rig Veda although he doesn't give an actual edition, e.g. translator or publisher. If one consults the cited passages from the Rig, then it is obvious that it is not talking about Saturn in any way, shape or form. This is metaphysics, there is no physical universe at this point.
"Thus the later compilers of the Rig Veda could philosophically state that, before there were any gods, there was neither 'existent' nor 'non-existent'. And yet there was something which was described in the same source as 'that One Thing' and 'this 'All' (p261).
The complete Hymn 129 of the Rig, in full:

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2. Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3. Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not
Taken from:

Note that Cardona has altered the meaning of the beginning of Verse 1. Notice also that Verse 1 clearly states that there was no air and no sky and implies that there was not yet water.
Verse 2 states clearly that there were no mortals ('Death was not then') or gods ('immortals'). Cardona actually quotes the part where the verse states 'apart from it there was nothing whatsoever' but he somehow contrives to make this mean that there was nothing whatsoever except Saturn, the planet Earth and its population, who although living in total darkness appear to have vision. The remaining four verses of Hymn 129 tend to confirm my interpretation rather than Cardona's.

In the section 'Tao' (p263) Cardona cites four references. The first two are verses from the I Ching but in Cardona's usual manner they aren't directly from this wonderful little book. They are instead taken from 'Deceptions and Myths of the Bible' and 'The Wisdom of China and India'. The third, given as a quote from Lao Tzu, is taken from 'The World's Great Religions' and the fourth is lifted from the Encyclopaedia Britannica but via Velikovsky.
The relevant chapter from my copy of the I Ching (Bart Marshall trans.) is below:
Twenty Five

Formless no-thing.
Precedent of heaven and earth.
Timeless, unchanging, solitary, silent.
It is the mother of the ten thousand things.

I do not know its name.
I call it Tao.
If forced to describe it,
I call it great.

Great implies vast reaches.
Vast reaches implies far away.
Far away implies return.

Tao is great.
Heaven is great.
Earth is great.
Man, too, is great.
In the realm there are four greats,
and a noble man is one.

Man follows the way of Earth.
Earth follows the way of Heaven.
Heaven follows the way of Tao.
Tao is the great Way.

This is not the physical universe – it is that from which the physical universe emerged and continues to emerge. Saturn, like everything else, emerged from it. Note that it uses the present tense. In terms of cosmogony, this chapter from the I Ching follows on logically from the Vedic hymn above.

"We move to India. We browse through a few more pages of ancient texts" (p275). This is followed by a quote from the Rig Veda but is actually taken from 'A. A. MacDonell in Swami Nikhilananda, The Upanishads (London 1968)'. He then gives a second translation of the same passage from the Rig, this time attributed to a book called 'The Vedic Experience'. A third passage is taken from 'The Laws of Manu but no translator or publisher is given. All three passages concern the creation of the Universe, they are nothing to do with Saturn.
Throughout this entire chapter, the only texts that Cardona cites that can be possibly construed as 'ancient' are the unattributed 'Laws of Manu', Budge's 'Egyptian Book of the Dead', Wheeler's 'The Sacred Scriptures of the Japanese' and Nelson's 'Popul Vuh'. So much for 'we browse through the pages of a few more ancient texts'. There is an interesting little footnote, if you will, regarding Swami Nikhilananda. On page 439 the Swami is cited again but this time the footnote reads 'Swami Nikhilananda, The Upanishads (N. Y., 1963, abridged edition), pp 221, ff., as cited by D. Talbott, loc. cit.)'. So, one up for Cardona whose edition was not abridged. But the question comes to mind as to why, if Cardona has read the Swami's book, has he to quote from Talbott?
Cardona writes "This is paralleled in the Atharva Veda which states that 'Time created the earth…' (p311). He cites XIX:53:6-10. All of Hymn 53 is reproduced below for context:
A hymn to Kala or Time
1. Prolific, thousand-eyed, and undecaying, a horse with seven reins Time bears us onward.
Sages inspired with holy knowledge mount him: his chariot wheels are all the worlds of creatures.
2. This Time hath seven rolling wheels and seven naves immorality is the chariot's axle.
This Time brings hitherward all worlds about us: as primal Deity is he entreated.
3. On Time is laid an overflowing beaker: this we behold in many a place appearing.
He carries from us all these worlds of creatures. They call him Kala in the loftiest heaven.
4. He only made the worlds of life, he only gathered the worlds of living things together.
Their son did he become who was their Father: no other higher power than he existeth.
5. Kala created yonder heaven, and Kala made these realms of earth.
By Kala, stirred to motion, both what is and what shall be expand.
6. Kala created land; the Sun in Kala hath his light and heat.
In Kala rest all things that be: in Kala doth the eye discern.
7. In Kala mind, in Kala breath, in Kala name are fixt and joined.
These living creatures, one and all, rejoice when Kala hath approached.
8. Kala embraces Holy Fire, the Highest, Brahma in himself.
Yea, Kala, who was father of Prajapati, is Lord of All.
9. He made, he stirred this universe to motion, and on him it rests.
He, Kala, having now become Brahma, holds Parameshthin up.
10. Kala created living things and, first of all, Prajapati.
From Kala self-made Kasyapa, from Kala Holy Fire was born.

So things are, once more, not quite as clear-cut as Cardona makes out. In his quote he uses the word 'earth' with the small 'e' but is implying that it is Earth the planet. This translation of the hymn uses the word 'land' which would be consistent with 'earth'. The hymn also mentions the Sun, who by Cardona's account should not be there and also features Brahma and Prajapati both of whom are supposed to be Saturn. So here we have Time/Saturn embracing Brahma/Saturn within himself and fathering Prajapati/Saturn.

"A curious passage concerning creation in a Hindu Brahmana brings various elements together: 'Then the seed [of Creation] became a year. Before that time there was no year'" (p311). The Brahmanas are commentaries on the Vedas so there will be nothing curious about this passage if one refers back to the Veda it is commenting upon. What is not clear from Cardona's abuse of this passage is exactly which Veda it is referring to (let alone what book, chapter or verse). We are not even informed as to which Brahmana it comes from.
There are many different 'years' in Hinduism but because it is presented bereft of any context, it is impossible to make any sensible judgement on the worth or relevance of the passage. Cardona is, in any case, getting this from Van Over's Sun Songs.
Cardona continues: "Thus, despite the fact that the waters of chaos were said to have been born of Time, as we have seen above, the reverse was just as true. As it was said, the waters of chaos themselves produced the year, 'the ordainer of the days and nights'". Cardona fails to inform the reader as to where exactly 'the waters of chaos were said to have been born of Time' or where 'we have seen above'. The hymn to Kala does not mention the waters of chaos. His 'ordainer' quote comes from the Rig Veda X:190:2 and below is the entire hymn:
HYMN CXC. Creation.
1. FROM Fervour kindled to its height Eternal Law and Truth were born:
Thence was the Night produced, and thence the billowy flood of sea arose.
2. From that same billowy flood of sea the Year was afterwards produced,
Ordainer of the days nights, Lord over all who close the eye.
3. Dhatar, the great Creator, then formed in due order Sun and Moon.
He formed in order Heaven and Earth, the regions of the air, and light.

Once again the passage does not seem to offer quite the literalist reading Cardona has suggested. It actually says 'days nights' not Cardona's 'days and nights'. The next part, 'Lord of all who close the eye' would suggest that it is not a translation error (though it appears to be missing an apostrophe). Cardona goes on: We also have it from the Maitri Upanishad that 'the year, verily, is Prajapati [that is Saturn, who] is Time'". Looking at this Upanishad (VI:15) we find:
15. There are, assuredly, two forms of Brahma: Time and the Timeless. That which is prior to the sun is the Timeless (a-kāla), without parts (a-kala). But that which begins with the sun is Time, which has parts. Verily, the form of that which has parts is the year. From the year, in truth, are these creatures produced. Through the year, verily, after having been produced, do they grow. In the year they disappear. Therefore, the year, verily, is Prajapati, is Time, is food, is the Brahma-abode, and is Atman. For thus has it been said:—
· ’Tis Time that cooks created things,
· All things, indeed, in the Great Soul (mahatman).
· In what, however, Time is cooked—
· Who knows that, he the Veda knows! ... &Itemid=27

Elsewhere in God Star Cardona states that Prajapati is Saturn but nowhere does he mention how Saturn is food which the above passage seems to say. My own, first impression, of this passage is that it saying that time exists only in this physical universe. In the underlying Universe there is no time (nor space as we understand it ('without parts' – it is One)). Time has parts, specifically four parts. Everything in the physical universe works to a four-phase cycle. The day, the month, the year and the flora and fauna all work to the same four 'seasons' – winter (darkness, preparation), spring (growth), summer (maturity, fruition), autumn (decay, death). This is an Upanishad so one thing is certain, it is not to be read literally or superficially.

"Out of Indic lore comes an echo of the same phenomenon. As related in the Hymn of Narayana, this being, elsewhere considered 'The Primordial Lord', had 'sat above' in 'eternal solitary shade' in 'impenetrable gloom' before 'things unexisting to existence sprung'" (p429). Again, it turns out that Cardona gets this not from the Hymn of Narayana itself but Van Over's 'Sun Songs: Creation Myths From Around the World'. Notice that Cardona has here taken three phrases from Van Over's book and cobbled them together to form the passage. The chapter itself is supposed to be about the Axis Mundi but Cardona is again pulling in material concerning the Creation to suit his own theory. Narayana is one of the names of Vishnu and is also identified as the original man, Purusha. Unfortunately Google cannot find any reference to a Hymn of Narayana nor can I find Van Over's book to read online.
The Hindu texts used in the above, Atharva Veda, Rig Veda, Maitri Upanishad, Hymn of Narayana and the unnamed Brahmana, apart from all being Hindu are all concerned with Creation. It is therefore not entirely surprising that they tend to agree with each other. 'Same bloke, different haircut' as the saying goes. Cardona however, uses them wherever they suit his purpose. Furthermore, none of these works are designed to be read at face value. They are all meant to be studied and meditated upon, especially the Upanishads which are the esoteric side of things.

"What is interesting, however, is that, according to Hippolytus, phaos rhyentes was said by the Sethians to mean 'the downward flow of light from above'" (p446). Again, checking the reference, we find that it is not actually Hippolytus that has been read but one W. Barnstone and a book called 'The Other Bible'. This is revealed via an op cit. on page 446 which traces back to page 429. From what direction would Cardona expect light to come from? Cardona makes no attempt to explain who or what 'Sethians' are or how they are relevant to his theory.

Quite often the quotes used don't actually say what Cardona says they do.
On page 226 we have the passage from the Book of Job (23:8-9) and Cardona's translation. His rendering actually contradicts his argument as it states that "He hideth himself in the south, that I cannot see him". Cardona does not explain how or why 'Saturn' is in the south. In any case, and as per usual, the Job passage is taken completely out of context. Job is trying to make contact with his god but not by going to a physical location. This is a mental struggle, not a trek. If one reads the Book of Job, one will find that Job has enough on his plate without worrying about where Saturn has got to.

Frequently the quotes actually contradict what Cardona is saying. "'On the 6th day of Farwadin, the day Khurdah, is the Great Nauroz, for the Persians a feast of great importance. On this day – they say – God finished the creation, for it is the last of the six days...On this day God created Saturn'" (p204). Cardona quoting Al-Biruni. Cardona's emphasis.
Cardona actually emphasises 'God created Saturn' but still somehow contrives to see Saturn as the creator. Also, as this is on the sixth day it doesn't actually support Cardona's conjecture of Saturn being the first. And Al-Buruni was medieval not ancient. Cardona is getting this from a book from 1879.

Sometimes they don't make any sense at all – either for or against Cardona.
"Before there is knowledge, there must be memory. Yet few subjects remain so unknown, so obscured in metaphor and myth. According to the ancient Greeks, life is the act of recollecting knowledge the soul forgot at the moment of its birth in a body…Later thinkers noted the perversity of memory – how nothing imprints them more strongly than the desire to forget" (p20). Cardona's emphasis. This is lifted from a Newsweek article titled 'Memory'. I've still not figured out exactly how Newsweek fits into the 'mytho-historical record' that Cardona constantly mentions.
The statement itself is nonsense. Knowledge must precede memory if only because you must have knowledge of how to remember before you can remember anything and you must have knowledge of what to do with a memory once you have it. You must also have knowledge of what the memory refers to.
The ancient Greek concept being alluded to is called amenesis (unforgetting) and souls are not 'born' into bodies, they enter them, souls are immortal. Plato, for example, addresses this subject in various works. The final sentence, despite Cardona's emphasis, is utter nonsense.

Referring to a line from 'The Papyrus Of Ani', "I am the lord of the crown. I am in the Eye, my egg… My seat is on my throne. I sit in the pupil of the Eye", Cardona writes: "And yet, enigmatic as these words are, together with others pertaining to different themes, an in-depth study will reveal their coherence and even logic once the key to the symbolism behind them is understood" (p22). I happen to have two PDF versions of 'The Papyrus of Ani' (translated by Budge) and in both of them the complete sentence reads: "My nest is invisible, my egg is not broken". Nowhere in the passage in which this sentence occurs are the 'Lord of the Crown', 'seat of the throne' or 'pupil of the eye' to be found. Nor can I find anything resembling the quote used by Cardona, despite searching for various combinations of words and phrases. For convenience the passage is reproduced below:
"That which is an abomination unto me is death; let me not go into the chamber of torture which is in the Tuat. I am the delight of the Khu of Osiris. I make to be content the heart[s] of those who dwell among the divine things which are beloved [by me]. They cause the fear of me [to abound], they create the awe of me to be in those divine beings who dwell in their own circles. Behold, I am exalted on my own standard, and upon my throne, and upon my seat which is assigned [to me]. I am the god Nu, and those who commit sin shall not destroy me. I am the firstborn of the primeval god, and my soul is the Souls of the Eternal Gods, and my body is Everlastingness. My created form is [that of] the god Eternity, the Lord of Years, and the Prince of Everlastingness. I am the Creator of the Darkness, who maketh his seat in the uttermost limits of the heavens, [which] I love. I arrive at their boundaries. I advance upon my two legs. I direct my resting place. I sail over the sky. I fetter and destroy the hidden serpents which are about my footsteps [in going to] the Lord of the Two Arms. My soul is the Souls of the Eternal Gods, and my body is Everlastingness. I am the exalted one, the Lord of the Land of Tebu. I am the Child in the city: "Young man in the country" is my name. "Imperishable one" is my name. I am the Soul Creator of Nu. I make my habitation in Khert-Neter. My nest is invisible, my egg is not broken. I have done away the evil which is in me. I shall see my Father, the Lord of the Evening. His body dwelleth in Anu. I am made to be the Light-god, a dweller in the Light-god, over the Western Domain of the Hebt bird".
Recall that Cardona titled a section of his book 'Egyptian Explicitness' and elsewhere states that the Egyptian language was designed to 'express the concrete'. Even I cannot make head or tail of this passage and I am nowhere near the literalist that Cardona is. And as for Cardona's 'an in-depth study' etc., Cardona doesn't even attempt this with any of the texts he cites, let alone The Papyrus of Ani.

Cardona's example of a problem with the standard interpretation of myth:
"Thus, for example, Ra was often lauded as 'Lord of the Circles' and as 'he who entereth [or liveth] in the Circle'. He was described as 'sender forth of light in the Circle', and as the 'Governor of [his] Circle' (p25). The inner quotes are from Budge, 'The Gods of the Egyptians', pp339-40. So we have four chunks from two pages of Budge joined together to make two sentences of Cardona. Pages 339 and 340 of 'Gods of the Egyptians Volume 2' (which is cited) are just a list of gods' names and their hieroglyphs. The is no text as such. The pages in Volume 1 are about 'Ra, The Sun God and His Forms'. Unfortunately I cannot find an online version to read.

"Meanwhile, the discoveries of anthropology and archaeology keep adding evidence not only of the antiquity of man's basic faith but also of its thematic structure" (p43). It is this very same thematic structure which Cardona purposely ignores and avoids. Instead he takes a bit from here and a piece from there and cobbles them onto his own ramshackle structure.

After detailing the story of Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus, Cardona asks several questions some of which are naive in the extreme (due, in large part, to his literalist reading): "What philosophical insights could lay buried within this tale of incest, revenge, castration, patricide, cannibalism, stupidity (for how could a god have mistaken a stone for his infant child?) and deception?" (p47).
"What, then, could have impelled the Greeks to equate this pin-point of light [planet Saturn] with the abstract idea of time?" (p47).
"Better still, what does it mean that Zeus deposed Kronos?...What could it mean that the planet Jupiter deposed the planet Saturn?" (p47).
"Despite what philosophers, mythologists, and students of ancient religion might have written in the past, the tale recorded above can have no philosophical meaning – at least none that is not strained" (p47).
So much for Cardona's "…an in-depth study will reveal their coherence and even logic once the key to the symbolism behind them is understood" on page 22. On this topic Plato wrote:
“'There is, first of all,' I said, 'the greatest lie about the things of greatest concernment, which was no pretty invention of him [Hesiod] who told how Ouranos did what Hesiod says he did to Kronos, and how Kronos in turn took his revenge; and then there are the doings and sufferings of Kronos at the hands of his son [Zeus]. Even if they were true I should not think that they ought to be thus lightly told to thoughtless young persons.'” Plato, Republic 377e (trans. Shorey). Or, apparently, to thoughtless persons of any age. And what about Cardona's last comment above about any meaning being strained? Cardona interpretation of events involves Earth wandering about in outer space where it is captured by Saturn. The two then journey some unknown distance to our solar system, where, upon entering it, Saturn deposits Earth which then takes up its current position.

From the god = planet debate: "This not only proves that stars and gods were thought of as being truly synonymous as far back as written records reach, it also indicates that the very concept of God has its origin in a star" (p63). There are battalions of scholars and academics who would disagree strongly with this statement. And from what I have read, certainly in the case of Talbott, they have been doing just that for a number of years although without Talbott, or apparently, Cardona, taking any notice. Every creation myth and cosmogony I have read involve one god creating all the planets. As Cardona said: "After all, when it comes to what our ancient forefathers believed, it is our ancient forefathers that we must believe" (p64).

"In other words, planets were gods; gods were planets: planets and gods were one and the same" (p63). How is it then, that there were twelve Titans and twelve Olympians but only ever seven planets. How come heroes such as Hercules and Orion were elevated to become constellations and not planets?

"All of these preoccupations, which went far beyond those required for an agrarian calendar, showed their obsessive interest in infinity – whether of time or space – also an anxiety in the face of the passage of time". G. Anequin, 'The Civilisation of the Maya'. (Geneva, 1980), quoted on page 89. Yet according to Cardona the ancients were concerned (apparently to the point of obsession) with Saturn, only Saturn and nothing else but Saturn.

On page 112 Cardona writes: "Democritus, who lived sometime during the fifth century B.C., one of the founders of atomic theory, was probably the greatest of the Greek physical philosophers". Cardona's emphasis. This is Cardona name-dropping. Democritus was an atomist, not a founder of atomic theory. In any case, the term 'atomist' is a modern one. Democritus' work has not come down to us so how Cardona can claim he is probably the greatest physical philosopher is beyond me, especially as he was a natural philosopher. Cardona goes on to quote from Hippolytus regarding Democritus but in his usual fashion edits the quote to suit his ends. For convenience the unabridged passage is reproduced below:

And Democritus was an acquaintance of Leucippus. Democritus, son of Damasippus, a native of Abdera, conferring with many gymnosophists among the Indians, and with priests in Egypt, and with astrologers and magi in Babylon, (propounded his system). Now he makes statements similarly with Leucippus concerning elements, viz. plenitude and vacuum, denominating plenitude entity, and vacuum nonentity; and this he asserted, since existing things are continually moved in the vacuum. And he maintained worlds to be infinite, and varying in bulk; and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, while in others that they are larger than with us, and with others more numerous. And that intervals between worlds are unequal; and that in one quarter of space (worlds) are more numerous, and in another less so; and that some of them increase in bulk, but that others attain their full size, while others dwindle away and that in one quarter they are coming into existence, whilst in another they are failing; and that they are destroyed by clashing one with another. And that some worlds are destitute of animals and plants, and every species of moisture. And that the earth of our world was created before that of the stars, and that the moon is underneath; next (to it) the sun; then the fixed stars. And that (neither) the planets nor these (fixed stars) possess an equal elevation. And that the world flourishes, until no longer it can receive anything from without. This (philosopher) turned all things into ridicule, as if all the concerns of humanity were deserving of laughter.
Notice the sentence right after where Cardona ends his quote. It clearly states that, according to Democritus, the Earth was created before the stars. This is in accord with the world's mythologies but not with Cardona 'theory', so it has to be chopped off. Notice also the use of the word 'gymnosophists' (naked philosophers) see below re Cardona's caption under the Diana illustration.
Cardona follows this with another quote which he says is from Democritus:
"…worlds are produced when many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus intertwined, there are transmutations into other bodies, and that created things wax and wane through necessity" (p113). From Hippolytus, Against All Heresies. This is actually Leucippus (Chapter X), Democritus (Chapter XI) was his student. The Leucippus passage is actually following on from the section on Parmenides (Chapter IX). I have read this book and although Hippolytus was Christian, his expositions of these philosophers is very good, largely because he thinks they are too ridiculous to need distorting.
See: for both of the above quotes.

"It was Diodorus Siculus, sometime in the first century BC who first reported to the Hellenistic world that the Chaldeans regarded Saturn as the most prominent of the planets: 'But above all on importance, they say, is the study of the influence of the five stars known as planets…the one named Cronus by the Greeks…is the most conspicuous…' (p120).
Note the use of ellipses in this passage, Cardona must have done it out of habit as they are not actually needed. The very next sentence of this passage reads: 'The brightest of them all, and which often portends many and great events, they call Sol;'. The passage is about astrology and is at odds with Cardona's theory on several points, not least in that it states that the Chaldeans claim to have been studying the stars for 470,000 years (by the time of Alexander). The passage can be found here: ... #PPA126,M1

"This however, seems to have been the bane of the mythologists from day one, in that they have always had the audacity to proclaim that, thousands of years after the fact, they are in a better position to know what the ancients believed than the very ancients themselves" (p142). Kettles and pots spring to mind here. Cardona anyway fails to provide any examples of this behaviour.

On page 51 Cardona makes much of Saturday being Saturn's day all over the world. The same is equally true of Sunday, Monday etc. so the import lies not in Saturn's involvement per se, but that the gods and days are in the same order and have the same attributes associated with each. Why is that? That is the question which should be raised.
"In fact, whether celebrated at New Year festivals or not, there is really nothing strange about the fact that Saturnian festivals were conducted at night. After all in today's skies, it is at night that Saturn shines, as so it must have shone in ancient times" (p153). So what, in ancient times, shone during the day? Either Cardona's Saturn shone continually, in which case there would be no day or night, or if something else shone during the day, e.g. the Sun, it makes nonsense of Cardona's theory.
Nine pages later: "Ancient sources impel us to believe that, although brighter than the Moon at night, Saturn was not as bright as the Sun. In fact, as will be indicated in a future work, additional evidence indicates that, during the day, Saturn paled in comparison to the Sun" (p162). Here we have another example of Cardona giving the conclusion before the evidence is presented. This time the evidence will be in a 'future work'. I wont be holding my breath.

"It should also be kept in mind that I am not here attempting to make a case for Saturn having been highly luminous in historical times, despite the fact that I have cited historical sources as evidence. It must be stressed that these sources allude to past events – that is, even though themselves ancient, their allusion is to an even older system. In actual fact, my contention is that Saturn shone as a nocturnal sun in prehistoric times – that is before the age of writing" (p162). Cardona's emphasis. And in order to prove this contention, he will use what? Again, if Saturn was the nocturnal sun, then what was the diurnal sun?

"Moreover, the combined evidence that led me and my immediate predecessors to this rediscovery was not culled from mythic sources; it was not based on mythic interpretation. Granted that volumes could literally be filled with such complimentary evidence, the fact must be stressed that the original impetus behind this assumption came from what can best be described as ancient astronomical assertions" (p163). Cardona's emphasis. Where then are these 'astronomical assertions'? If Cardona has at his disposal all this mythic interpretation and astronomical assertion, why is he using secondary and tertiary accounts written for the most part by modern western authors? Again, he is telling the reader the conclusion without supplying any evidence.
"As I have already stated, ancient astronomical knowledge can be complimented by mythologists. Much more than that, mythology will end up shouldering the main burden of the scenario we are about to reconstruct" (p165). If myth is complimenting astronomical knowledge, then why is myth shouldering the burden and why is Cardona writing a book based on myth and not astronomy? What Cardona constantly refers to as astronomy is in fact astrology. To the ancients, what was happening in the heavens was directly related to what was happening here on Earth. This was one of the major reasons for studying the stars. 'And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years' Genesis 1:14 (Hebrew Bible).
'Thus then, and for this reason the night and the day were created, being the period of the one most intelligent revolution. And the month is accomplished when the moon has completed her orbit and overtaken the sun, and the year when the sun has completed his own orbit. Mankind, with hardly an exception, have not remarked the periods of the other stars, and they have no name for them, and do not measure them against one another by the help of number, and hence they can scarcely be said to know that their wanderings, being infinite in number and admirable for their variety, make up time'. Plato, Timaeus (trans. Jowett).

In chapter 9 he begins with the Hebrews but his first quote is the Al-Buruni one used earlier. Preceding the quote is the line: 'The connection of Saturn with Creation is not restricted to Hebrew tradition'. The quote doesn't say what Cardona says it does here either, because it still does not show any connection between the Creator-god and Saturn other than the Creator created Saturn on the sixth day (p204).

Cardona titles one section 'The Egyptian explicitness' but if there was one thing the Egyptians were not it was explicit, their mythology is obtuse, subtle and complex. "When we come to Egypt, there is no longer ambiguity concerning the Saturnian characteristic we have been investigating. In a hymn to Ra, the deity is addressed with these words: 'O thou firstborn, who dost lie without movement…' Here, once again, it remains for Egyptologists to explain why, if Ra was truly the Sun, it was described as lying 'without movement', Ra, it was said, 'rests on a high place'" (p214). Firstly, note the ellipsis. The full paragraph is reproduced below:
'The merchant Qenna saith: (18) "Homage to thee Heru-Khuti-Tmu, Heru-Khepera, mighty hawk, who dost cause the body [of man] to make merry, beautiful of face by reason of thy two great plumes. Thou (19) wakest up in beauty at dawn, when the company of the gods and mortals sing songs of joy unto thee; hymns of praise are offered unto thee at eventide. The starry deities also adore thee. O thou firstborn, who dost lie without movement, (21) arise; thy mother showeth loving-kindness unto thee every day. Ra liveth and the fiend Nak is dead; thou dost endure forever, and the (22) fiend hath fallen"'.
The passage can be found here: ... #PPA135,M1

Ra is not the Sun. The Sun is the eye of Ra. Ra is the Creator and is present in all of creation. The Sun is Ra's presence in our solar system (or our physical universe). Ra in this instance is Fire (the element), Ra is spirit. Everything in creation has a spark (or seed) of the Creator in it – it is what makes things work or go – it is what we call 'life'. Notice also that Ra is called 'firstborn' – not self-created or similar. The Creator is itself created. All this is covered in the various creation myths and cosmogonies from around the world. If as Cardona maintains, this is Saturn then who is Saturn's mother? And the phrase 'on high' generally means in the heavens, not at the North Pole.
"Talbott, who embraced the meaning of this god's name [Imhotep] as 'the one who comes forth while standing in one place' seems to have no doubt" (p216).
Does the Sun not 'come forth while standing in one place' due to the Earth's rotation? And what relevance are Talbott's doubts or convictions? How does Saturn 'come forth' when according to Cardona and Talbott it is at permanent anchor at the North Pole? The phrase 'comes forth while standing in one place' also refers to the gods actually being in the non-corporeal world where there is no time or space. Or, in other words, they come (or project their consciousness) into this universe while remaining in their original place. See the illustrations of the Egyptian gods in God Star. Those associated with the after-life or realm of the immortals have one foot and generally the body is merely outline but the head is still detailed. They are not physical beings, hence no body. The are forms of consciousness, hence the head (= mental). They do not have one foot because they are Saturn hopping up and down at the North Pole as per Cardona's interpretation. See the passage above from the Maitri Upanishad about Brahma and time and timeless. Egyptian imagery generally shows the subject with the left foot extended forward. This is saying that they are in this physical universe, which is dynamic and changing, it moves forward and everything in it is doing the same. It is what Heraclitus meant by 'you cannot step into the same river twice'. It is what Lao Tzu meant with 'The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows, both empty and full. Moving, it brings forth, endlessly'. Nothing, but nothing, is fixed, permanent, static or unchanging in this world. This is the paradox; this is part of the Mystery – that which we call physical (or material, or solid) is not real; it is what the Hindus call 'maya' (light, illusion, magic). That which we call mental (or immaterial, or non-corporeal) is Real. As the Kybalion states 'All is mind; the Universe is mental. As U. G. Krishnamurti put it 'you are just the thought of a thought'. This is one of the major reasons why ancient writing, whether philosophical, religious or mythological, is cryptic or otherwise obscure. It is designed to make you think; to use your mind. It is not designed to be accepted at face value and memorised (and regurgitated upon demand). This is what the concept of amenesis, mentioned above, is about. If you think (deeply) you unforget.

Having put the Egyptologists' house in order, Cardona turns his attention to the Indologists. "The belief in Surya's immobility was so ingrained that he continued to be remembered as 'the immovable centre of his system'. So how can Indologists continue to perpetrate the disinformation that Surya is the Sun?" (p216). The source for this he gives as the Satapatha Brahmana, IV:3:4:9 and V.S. Agrawala, Sparks From The Vedic Fire.
Leaving aside the slur on the Indologists, I ask why is the opinion of the Indologists of prime importance? Why not see what Brahmins or Swamis have to say on the subject? The relevant passage from the Satapatha Brahmana reads:
9. He offers with this gâyatrî verse (Vâg. S. VII, 41; Rig-veda I, 50, 1), 'The lights bear on high that divine knower of beings, Sûrya, that all may see him,--Hail!'--for the gâyatrî is this earth, and she is a safe resting-place hence he thereby stands firmly on this safe resting-place.
And if one checks the verse from the Rig, I:50:1, which is here mentioned:
1 HIS bright rays bear him up aloft, the God who knoweth all that lives, Surya, that all may look on him.
2 The constellations pass away, like thieves, together with their beams, Before the all-beholding Sun.
The full title of the Agrawala book is: 'Sparks From The Vedic Fire: A New Approach To Vedic Symbolism'. But Cardona doesn't do symbolism.
Cardona continues: 'Even Brahma, we are told, does not rise and set. He 'remains alone in the centre'. This he attributes to the Chandogya Upanishad, III:ii:1-3. This section actually reads:
III-ii-1: And its southern rays are its southern honey cells. The Yajus verses are the bees. The Yajur-Veda is the flower; and those waters are the nectar.
III-ii-2: Those very Yajus verses pressed this Yajur-Veda. And from it, thus pressed, issued forth as juice, fame, splendour of limbs, alertness of the senses, virility, and food for eating.
III-ii-3: It, flowed forth; it settled by the side of the sun. Verily, this it is that appears as the white hue of the sun.
From ... tml?page=3
I'm guessing that Cardona hasn't actually read this Upanishad but has lifted the reference from another book. Note III-ii-2, does this sound like the usual depiction of Saturn as a decrepit old man?
Cardona next brings in the Chinese, stating that "the planet Saturn is Zhenxing which means the 'Stable Star' or 'Stable Planet'…" (p217). His source for this is 'Sima Qian, Shiji-tianguanshu (early first century B.C.)'. Are we expected to believe that Cardona has actually read this?
Next up the Greeks, where he begins with four lines about the 'bizarre astronomical system of Philolaos, the Pythagorean philosopher from southern Italy…' (p217) which he gets from a Lynn Rose article in KRONOS. He immediately follows this with a quote by Rose from the same article:
"Historians of philosophy are fond of referring to the 'dark sayings' of Heraclitus. If Heraclitus was at times reflecting back to conditions during the Age of Kronos, perhaps we are now in a position to understand some of his mysterious remarks. The Central Fire is always at the same location in the sky (as viewed from one spot); this may be why Heraclitus asks, 'How can anyone hide from that which never sets?'" (p217). Cardona's emphasis. There are several things wrong here. This is name-dropping by Cardona – he has not read Philolaos or Heraclitus. Heraclitus was most definitely not a Pythagorean (see Heraclitus Fragment 40: 'The learning of many things teacheth not understanding, else would it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hekataios', or Fragment 129: 'Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchos, practised inquiry beyond all other men, and choosing out these writings, claimed for is own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many things and an art of mischief').
There is no mention of a 'Central Fire' in the fragments of Heraclitus, nor does he mention Saturn/Kronus. Heraclitus does however mention the Sun, 'the Sun is new every day' (Fr 6) or 'If there were no Sun, it would be night' (Fr 99). With regard to hiding from that which never sets: If, as I maintain, the Sun is the Eye of Ra (or the Creator) then you cannot hide from it even if it is night and you have the Earth between you and the Sun.
What we have of Philolaos is just as fragmentary as Heraclitus. There is nothing particularly 'bizarre' about his system despite the nonsense written by Rose and repeated by Cardona: "Even some of the Philolaos fragments, although their authenticity has been questioned, make more sense now. We are also told that 'it [the Central Fire] is ruler and teacher of all things; it is God, One ever-existing, stable, unmoving, itself like to itself, different from the rest', and that it 'remains One for ever in the same position and condition'" (p217). Presumably Rose's emphasis. No source is given for the inner quotes. As I stated, there is nothing bizarre in any of this. The Central Fire is the Sun of the Universe. It fills the same role as our Sun does in our solar system – it is the Eye of Ra writ large. Why would either Philolaos or Heraclitus, both c. 5th century BCE, be writing about Saturn when Saturn was no longer perched at the North Pole, but was in fact at the other end of the solar system? And, for that matter, why would either be describe Saturn as 'stable, unmoving' or 'One for ever in the same position and condition' after it had moved?

Staying with the Greeks, Cardona next turns his attention to Helios: "Greek knowledge of the immobile Saturnian sun, however, was not restricted to the 'garbled' version of Philolaos. In his evaluation of the Greek Helios and other so-called ancient sun-gods, E. A. Butterworth also came to the conclusion that this luminary 'is not the natural sun of heaven, for it neither rises nor sets, but is, as it seems, ever at the zenith…" (p217). Looking at the footnote for this we find that, once again, it is not in fact Butterworth but Talbott from whence Cardona has taken the passage. We are not even informed of the title of Butterworth's book. We are expected to accept as proven the 'Greek knowledge of the immobile Saturnian sun' and to accept Cardona's word that Butterworth, via Talbott, is talking about the same thing. Incidentally, the only book by Butterworth that Google could find was 'Some Traces of the Pre-Olympian World in Greek Literature and Myth'.

In the chapter titled Polar Station, Cardona cites one A. J. Wensinck, 'The Ideas of the Western Semites Concerning the Navel of the Earth' in Afdeeling Letterkunde. Are we to believe that Cardona peruses Dutch language journals? (p227).
Cardona also uses one W. F. Warren (1885) for support: "The religions of all ancient nations signally confirm and satisfy this antecedent expectation. With a marvellous unanimity they associate the abode of the supreme God with the North Pole, 'the centre of heaven', or with the celestial space immediately surrounding it" (p227). Cardona's emphasis. The title of Warren's book Cardona gives as 'Paradise Found' but its title is actually 'Paradise Found—the Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole'. This puts a slightly different gloss on things. Not least because Cardona envisions a plasma column between Saturn and the North Pole which is merrily forming the Arctic Ocean by vapourising everything in its path.

If, as Cardona maintains, Earth was enveloped in the placental cloud of Saturn, then the ancients would not be able to see that there was a heaven (or space, cosmos, sky, etc). Might it also be that the ancients are not, in fact, talking about the terrestrial pole but the celestial pole?
He immediately admits the problem here but doesn't so much clear it up as add to the confusion when he writes: "And to be sure, we will posit here that, while Saturn shone as a sun, no stars, except perhaps those of first magnitude, could have been seen, in the night sky" (p229). So which is it? Other stars can be seen; other stars cannot be seen; or some stars may possibly have been seen? Why is this only being posited on page 229, almost half way through the book? Again the question: what was in the day sky?

On page 229 Cardona quotes from N. Schwarz (from the Velikovskian), 'If the Babylonians had been like the Greeks, Spanish, British, etc., they would have put their Prime Meridian through Babylon; but they did not!' Cardona then adds "Instead they chose the north pole. But how does this relate to Babylonian geography?". How did the Babylonian meridian get to the North Pole? Surely it must have gone through somewhere on route? Just as the Greenwich Meridian goes through Greenwich and both poles (and all points between).
Page 229 ends with: "As we explained in relation to the circumpolar stars themselves, once the planet Saturn was removed from its North polar placement, the Pole Star would have been seen to have taken its place" (p229). The Pole Star would have been quite a bit smaller and less dramatic than Saturn had been. And what Pole Star as Earth moved to its new berth? If the ancients knew where the planet Saturn now was in the sky, why should they concentrate upon where it had been?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
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.
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:33 am

Part 2 of 2.

On page 241 Cardona uses a quote from Manly P. Hall for which he cites: 'An Encyclopaedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy'.
This is a good example of how Cardona operates throughout his book.
1. The title he gives for Hall's book is actually the subtitle. The title itself being 'The Secret Teachings Of All Ages'. The subtitle continues: 'Being an interpretation of the Secret Teachings concealed within the Rituals, Allegories, and Mysteries of all Ages'. Using the subtitle implies that Cardona has delved into matters Masonic, Hermetic, Qabalistic, Rosicrucian, symbolical and philosophical in his determination to get at the truth. But it turns out that he gets his Santa quote not actually from Manly Hall but from Talbott in AEON.
2. Secret Teachings runs to some pp649, yet all Talbott or Cardona can get from it is one snippet, and that about Santa.
3. The actual quote from Secret Teachings is taken totally out of context as Cardona is using it as evidence to support his notions about the north terrestrial pole. (Talbott has done this also, on the EU Forum). If, however, one looks at the passage from which the quote is taken, an entirely different context is revealed. It is actually about the building of the (alleged or allegorical) original Temple of Solomon. For convenience the passage is reproduced below.

"Other authors consider Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius as the three murderers of the sun, inasmuch as Osiris was murdered by Typhon, to whom were assigned the thirty degrees of the constellation of Scorpio. In the Christian Mysteries also Judas signifies the Scorpion, and the thirty pieces of silver for which he betrayed His Lord represent the number of degrees in that sign. Having been struck by Libra (the state), Scorpio (the church), and Sagittarius (the mob), the sun (CHiram) is secretly home through the darkness by the signs of Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces and buried over the brow of a hill (the vernal equinox). Capricorn has for its symbol an old man with a scythe in his hand. This is Father Time--a wayfarer--who is symbolized in Masonry as straightening out the ringlets of a young girl's hair. If the Weeping Virgin be considered a symbol of Virgo, and Father Time with his scythe a symbol of Capricorn, then the interval of ninety degrees between these two signs will be found to correspond to that occupied by the three murderers. Esoterically, the urn containing the ashes of CHiram represents the human heart. Saturn, the old man who lives at the north pole, and brings with him to the children of men a sprig of evergreen (the Christmas tree), is familiar to the little folks under the name of Santa Claus, for he brings each winter the gift of a new year.
The martyred sun is discovered by Aries, a Fellow-Craftsman, and at the vernal equinox the process of raising him begins. This is finally accomplished by the Lion of Judah, who in ancient times occupied the position of the keystone of the Royal Arch of Heaven. The precession of the equinoxes causes various signs to play the rôle of the murderers of the sun during the different ages of the world, but the principle involved remains unchanged. Such is the cosmic story of CHiram, the Universal Benefactor, the Fiery Architect: of the Divine House, who carries with him to the grave that Lost Word which, when spoken, raises all life to power and glory. According to Christian mysticism, when the Lost Word is found it is discovered in a stable, surrounded by beasts and marked by a star. "After the sun leaves Leo," writes Robert Hewitt Brown, "the days begin to grow unequivocally shorter as the sun declines toward the autumnal equinox, to be again slain by the three autumnal months, lie dead through the three winter ones, and be raised again by the three vernal ones. Each year the great tragedy is repeated, and the glorious resurrection takes place." (See Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy.)". Secret Teachings, p529. It can be read here:

Cardona writes: "Although this may be new to the public-at-large, I am not revealing any esoteric secrets" (p243). That is because he does not know any, in fact, he appears to be totally oblivious to any esoteric or inner meaning at all. A good example is given early in the book. On page 17, Cardona writes: "Need I even state that the invention of writing revolutionised the ancient world? And yet, despite its many advantages, writing does carry one disadvantage with it, a point that was not lost on the ancient Egyptians. Here the point I wish to make is best illustrated by the allegorical story of Thamus, a mythological king of Egypt, who, with the following words, reproached Thoth, the god of letters, for having invented writing: 'Most ingenious Thoth…one man has the ability to begat arts but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness… belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led, by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess. For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing…will discourage the use of their own memory… You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant…'". Cardona's emphasis and ellipses.

Indeed this is an allegory, and one where Cardona has completely missed the point. He is quite correct in that on the face of it, it is about the perils of writing as opposed to use of the memory. But, as I have stated more than once in this document, these things are not designed to be read superficially. One needs to think, if only for two seconds.
The one who is allegedly making the mistake is Thoth. Thoth is the Greek Hermes and Hermes/Thoth is much more than the 'god of letters' as Cardona calls him. Hermes is the god of wisdom, mind, knowledge and learning. He is also associated with guile and cunning. So, could it not be possible that Hermes has not already worked this out for himself and knows full well the problems inherent in his plan?
He is also the god of exchange and boundaries. So what, if anything, has been exchanged? And, what, if any, boundary has been crossed?
Notice also that Thamus says that mankind will have the appearance of wisdom but not true wisdom.
This wonderful little story is not Egyptian, it is Greek from the pen of Plato as Cardona's footnote plainly states.

Neither Cardona, Talbott or Cochrane appear to have any comprehension of the terms: symbolical, philosophical or allegorical in their approach to mythology, or any other ancient writing for that matter.

"As David Talbott noted from the very inception of his Saturnian studies, man described the creation of what has been termed the 'earth' as if he had been an actual witness to it all. He was there when it happened and saw it all unveil with his very own eyes" (p261). Here again, we have Talbott cited as an authority. If either Cardona or Talbott had read any of the Hindu literature pertaining to what they call 'the Golden Age', i.e. Satya Yuga, then they might have understood how it could be that 'man' 'saw it all unveil with his very own eyes'. When I say read, I mean read in the sense of study not read in the sense of parsing the text for words and phrases they can use to buttress their own theories. I also wonder why they never mention the Silver, Bronze or Iron Ages. And, if the insist on using Hesiod, the Heroic Age.

In the section 'Chaos' we are informed that 'Tohu wa bohu' can mean 'utter chaos', which Cardona gets from Curtis Taub and David Lorton to whom he is 'indebted' 'for this revelation'. But 'chaos' is here meant in its original sense of 'void'. On this subject see footnote 15 on page 263 where Cardona, after giving 'to gape' (Giraud) and 'yawning' (Graves), writes "The truth of the matter, however, is that the ancient root from which the word is derived has long been lost". On what authority does Cardona make this claim?
Next he gives us the 'dark chaos' of Philo Byblius, then Hesiod's 'chaos was first of all…' (p262). Note the ellipsis in the Hesiod quote (from Theogony 115-116). The line actually reads: 'Verily at the first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth,…'. Cronos is mentioned in the last sentence of the paragraph, way down the pecking order. The text can be found here:
Hesiod's account, in any case, does not make sense in terms of describing a logical sequence of events. But there again, Cardona's interpretation of it is even worse. He writes "Thus, according to Hesiod, in the beginning there was nothing but Chaos, 'vast and dark'. This Chaos was surrounded by Night, which means surrounded by, or enveloped in, darkness". So there you have it – dark surrounded by darkness. As Heraclitus said: 'Hesiod is most men's teacher. Men think he knew very many things, a man who did not know day or night! They are one' (Fr 57). I prefer to use the Orphic version of creation.

Cardona writes: "Giraud tells us that, among the Greeks, Chaos was 'a pure cosmic principle devoid of god-like characteristics'. In this, however, he was simply falling prey to a later philosophical doctrine" (p262). Cardona doesn't say what that doctrine was or in what manner Giraud fell prey to it. Kaos was one of the ‘protogenoi' – the first born. It wasn't a Titan or an Olympian so Giraud appears, to me at least, to be correct.

On page 265 we are treated to one of my favourite passages in the entire book. Here, Cardona introducing his idea of an 'accretion-disk' or 'placental cloud', writes: "Dramatic paintings of such clouds by noted space artists such as Chesley Bonestell have appeared quite regularly in astronomical journals and illustrated coffee-table books. Turning such pictures upside down, so that I could view the entire panorama from below instead of above, gave me an inkling of what Saturn might have looked like had it also been surrounded by a similar placental cloud". The mind boggles.

Mot is moot – whether 'mud' or 'water' what does it matter (no pun intended)? It's not describing a physical substance or thing – it is analogy, metaphor. It is describing the basic, the primeval, the fundamental, the elementary 'stuff' from which the physical universe and its contents emerge from, are created from. It is the amniotic fluid of the Universe (p266). See the section on Nu which follows this one (p267). Note the use of the phrase 'germs of all things' and compare the fact that Nu had no temples or worshippers with Giraud's assertion that Chaos was 'a pure cosmic principle devoid of god-like characteristics'.

Cardona writes: "Thus, in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Nu is made to state: 'I am the great god self created…'. But then the question is asked: 'Who then is this? And the answer given is: 'It is Ra…'. And it was Ra who was believed to have raised all that came into existence 'from out of Nu'" (p267).This is taken from Budge's 'The Gods of the Egyptians', page 134. The actual passage reads: 'I am the great god self created, Nu, that is to say, who made his names the company of the gods as god' and the answer to the question 'Who then is this?' is 'It is Ra who created names for his members and these came into being in the form of the gods who are in the following of Ra'.
Exactly. The Creator-god, Ra, creates everything out of Nu (Kaos, Tao, void, amniotic fluid, Mot). Notice that Nu is self created but Ra is not. Ra comes out of Nu too. Note also, that in mythology to name something is to (physically) create it (Name = word = sound = vibration; all is vibration, or 'Naming creates the ten thousand things' as Lao Tzu put it). Ra creates the other gods, including Saturn. And what is Cardona's interpretation of this? "Of special meaning to us is also the fact that Nu was also a name of Amen-Ra, our very own Saturn". So Cardona is in effect saying that Nu/Saturn created Ra/Saturn who then goes on to create the gods including Saturn. I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch about the philosophy department of the University of Walamaloo – 'Saturn, this is Saturn. And have you met Saturn yet?'. It can be found here:
And then, to confirm my interpretation, Cardona writes: "As Wallis Budge informs us: 'From various passages found in the religious, mythological, and funeral texts of all periods it is abundantly clear that in primeval times at least the Egyptians believed in the existence of a deep and boundless watery mass out of which had come into being the heavens, and the earth, and everything in them'" (p267). As is the case in every creation myth and cosmogony of which I am aware.
In the section 'The Whirl of Creation' on page 270, Cardona attempts to make various descriptions of this whirling void, Tao, etc. represent something physical and visible. It is neither. As the I Ching says:

Tao is hollow emptiness.

The substance of All,
it is absent of substance.
Dimensionless Void,
it is the source of the ten thousand things.

It blunts sharpness,
unravels entanglements,
diffuses brightness,
merges with dust.

Dark, invisible, it only seems to be.
It is the child of No-thing
and the father of God.

Heraclitus knew about this whirling but unfortunately Cardona doesn't know Heraclitus. Heraclitus called it flux. 'Heraclitus teaches that all things are flux or change; nothing is permanent, but everything is constantly becoming something else or going out of existence. In his dialogue Cratylus, Plato says that Heraclitus believes, "All things flow and nothing stands" (401d); after this, Plato says, "Heraclitus is supposed to say that all things are in motion and nothing at rest; he compares them to the flowing of a river, and says that you cannot step into the same water twice" (402a); see Plutarch, who adds "for fresh waters are flowing on" [Qu. Nat. 912c]). Heraclitus uses the river as a metaphor to describe the nature of all things: superficially a river may appear to be a permanent and stable entity, but closer inspection reveals that it continually changes, not being the same river from one moment to the next. As Plato puts it, "All things move like flowing streams" (Theaetetus, 161d)'. From:

"Over and over again, we hear that there was darkness – or a prolonged night – in which there was no Sun, no Moon, no stars". This is because he has been quoting from creation myths and Sun, Moon and stars haven't been created yet. The next sentence reads: "In the telling, of course, many of these myths acquired a fanciful cast and framework that sometimes borders on childish fable. But that after all, is the nature of allegory and myth" (p276).
Perhaps, but the core meaning of the story is retained. That after all, is the nature of allegory and myth. Nowhere in the entire book does Cardona address the concept of allegory in relation to mythology. A mythological tale or story can be relevant at several levels, from childish fable up to deep philosophical insight, at one and the same time. A good, fairly modern example of allegory which is most definitely not bordering on childish fable is 'The Grand Inquisitor' from Dostoevsky's 'Brothers Karamazov'. At one level it is a damning indictment of Catholicism, at another it is about the philosophical underpinning of Christianity, at yet another it is about freedom. There is also another more esoteric thread related to freedom. It can be found here: [An excellent site which I got from StephanR]

Cardona gives lots of examples which prove 'darkness' existed but none of them specifically refers to anything resembling Saturn. Cardona keeps saying they do but that is not the same as the myths saying it.

Chapter 14, page 283, opens with a series of quotes from 'The Book of the Secrets of Enoch'. Cardona's Emphasis, no translator or publisher given:
"I commanded in the very lowest parts that visible things should come down from invisible, and Adoil came down very great, and I beheld him, and lo! He had a belly of great light.
And I said to him: 'Become undone, Adoil, and let the visible come out of thee.
And he became undone". Cardona's emphasis. The whole of chapter 25 is reproduced below:
God relates to Enoch, how out of the very lowest darkness comes down the visible and invisible.
I COMMANDED in the very lowest parts, that visible things should come down from invisible, and Adoil came down very great, and I beheld him, and lo! he had a belly of great light.
2 And I said to him: 'Become undone, Adoil, and let the visible come out of thee.'
3 And he came undone, and a great light came out. And I was in the midst of the great light, and as there is born light from light, there came forth a great age, and showed all creation, which I had thought to create.
4 And I saw that it was good.
5 And I placed for myself a throne, and took my seat on it, and said to the light: 'Go thou up higher and fix thyself high above the throne, and be a foundation to the highest things.'
6 And above the light there is nothing else, and then I bent up and looked up from my throne.
For once Cardona has not overly abused the original. However, in the subsequent paragraph Cardona writes: "The name 'Adoil' also 'Idoil', probably derives from the Hebrew id El, that is 'hand of God' or, more appropriately, 'hand of El' that is Saturn. The coming undone of Adoil, meanwhile, presupposes that the planetary deity had originally been tightly coiled, which is not at odds with our hypothesized nebular cloud. Note, however, that Adoil is claimed to have had 'a belly of great light' even before he became undone to release that light" (p283). Cardona's emphasis. For his Hebrew Cardona cites R. H. Charles from 1913. Charles did seem to give this rendition, however, in the intervening ninety-odd years several others have been made See: ... &ct=result
There are a few points which can be made here. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch is also known as Second Enoch or the Slavonic Enoch, there being three different Books of Enoch. This particular one, as one of its aliases suggests, is written in Old Slavonic and is believed to have been translated from Greek. This puts Cardona's Hebrew etymology into perspective. And, as I have mentioned etymology, how does Cardona get 'tightly coiled' to be 'not at odds' with 'nebular cloud'?
On the face of it, this passage is obviously a variation on Genesis and 'Let there be light'. However, I get the feeling that there is something else going on, though at this point I'm not sure what. One thing I am sure of is that it is not as per Cardona's interpretation. He seems to be again saying that God/Saturn calls forth Adoil/Saturn to create the visible things including Saturn. In any case, this is the first moment of Creation so there are no humans stood on Earth gawping up at it (there's no Earth to stand on yet). This is Ra emerging from Nu, or One emerging from Tao.
"More importantly, Dupuis', or Schlegel's, as also Stecchini's, exposition do not explain what Saturn, even as Time personified, had to do with Creation" (p311). Perhaps not, but the various Creation myths do. This is not apparent in God Star because Cardona has deliberately presented each creation myth piece-meal, incompletely and in the wrong order or out of sequence.
Thus far, page 311, there is nothing from the 'mytho-historical record' to suggest Saturn moving from position A to position B. In fact, there is precious little of Saturn at all aside from Cardona's constant reference to it.

"Let me now state that nowhere in Mesoamerican lore is Quetzalcoatl identified as Saturn. If the identification is to hold, it must do so on the evidence offered by comparative mythology" (p315). How does this sit with Cardona's statements: "This however, seems to have been the bane of the mythologists from day one, in that they have always had the audacity to proclaim that, thousands of years after the fact, they are in a better position to know what the ancients believed than the very ancients themselves" (p142), or, "After all, when it comes to what our ancient forefathers believed, it is our ancient forefathers that we must believe" (p64)?
Surely 'mesoamerican lore' is Mesoamerican mythology? And if there is no reference to Quetzalcoatl as Saturn there, then it will not be found by comparison with the mythology of another culture? In any case, Cardona does not consult mythology only other people's opinions on it.
"Whatever might be is simply not there:
only murmurs, ripples, in the dark, in the night.
Only the Maker, Modeller alone,
Sovereign Plumed Serpent… glittering light" (p317).
This is prior to Creation, Quetzalcoatl is alone (in the dark; in the void).
At no point in the remainder of the chapter does Cardona use an ancient text (Mayan or otherwise). His 'comparative mythology' consists of linking a god from another culture who he has associated with a Saturnian characteristic to Quetzalcoatl. My idea of comparative mythology is to compare this passage with the passages from Second Enoch, those about Ra and those about Brahma.

Three-fifths of the way through the book (chapter 16, page 321) the goal posts are moved as Cardona introduces the idea that the Earth-Saturn combination originated outside our solar system. So much for the preceding chapters with titles such as: 'The Astronomical Lore', 'The Sun Star', 'The Sun of Night', 'Dead Suns', 'Primordial Satellite', 'Planetary Shuffle', 'The Immobile God', 'The Polar Station', 'In The Beginning', 'The Age of Darkness' and 'The Timeless Era'. This adds further weight to my questions above: if Saturn was the nocturnal sun, then what was the diurnal sun? If there wasn't one, then how did the ancients differentiate between day and night?

"Peratt's scholarly intuition is that 'it would be extremely difficult for a planetary plasmasphere to become opaque enough to entirely blot out the Sun'". Cardona's emphasis.
Cardona follows the Peratt quote with: "Thus, together with other evidence which I shall soon be supplying, the conclusion has been reached that, during the Saturnian age of darkness, the Sun was not merely hidden, that is obscured. Like the Moon it was actually absent. Which raises the question: Where could it have been?" (p321). Here, yet again, we have the conclusion given before the evidence is presented.
The phrase 'together with other evidence' implies that Peratt's statement is evidence when it is the very opposite, as Peratt implies that the Sun is there.
While Saturn and Earth were perambulating through the cosmos, would they not have come close enough to some other star to see anything through the tightly coiled nebulous cloud?

Cardona says (page 321) that "the concept that Earth had originally been exterior to the Solar System can be traced back to the Cartesian naturalist Benoit De Maillet (1656-1738)". So what? Is this part of the 'mytho-historical record', or the 'astronomical lore'? Is it anything to do with comparative mythology, or mythology at all? Nor does Cardona say how Descartes philosophy is relevant to this subject, but he is not one to let the opportunity to name-drop pass by.
The first part of this chapter has no relevance to the mytho-historical record – it is just the opinions of various writers from De Maillet onwards. These do nothing except suggest that science doesn't know anywhere near as much as it thinks it knows. But I already knew that.
The sole purpose of this part seems to be to show that Cardona is not some crack-pot or lone voice in this area. This part extends throughout nearly all of the chapter (up to page 337) where we revert back to myth.

The Absent Sun section begins with: "The myths we have so far enumerated may therefore be seen as constituting man's collective memory of that ancient time when Earth, in the company of its celestial primary, was travelling through the blackness of outer space, far from the Sun, illuminated feebly by Saturn's meagre glow, but basking in the warmth of that primitive giant which was, from time immemorial, the first – and for a while the only – god man knew" (p337). Saturn is still the only god Cardona knows. He hasn't enumerated any myths – all he has done is trawl through secondary and tertiary sources for words, phrases and quotes which, with suitable padding, could be construed as support. He has not (and, by his own admission, will not) examined the mythology of one culture as a unity or whole (let alone then compared it with the mythology of another culture).
As Earth travelled through the 'blackness of outer space', would no other stars be visible? Note the use of the suggestive 'blackness' to reinforce his message. How would mankind know they were travelling through 'the blackness of outer space' when according to Cardona the Earth is wrapped in the placental cloud?
If one actually reads the mytho-historical record then one sees that Saturn was not the first 'god' man knew. Saturn may have been the first to do this or that, but Saturn was not first.
Cardona asks, directly following the above quote: "Can the mytho-historical record further support this wild contention?" (p337). Good question, and to answer it one would have to consult the mytho-historical record which Cardona has said he is not going to do. Note 'further support' – he has not actually supported it yet.

"We must, therefore, reserve such records for their proper place in the chronology of the Saturnian events we are here attempting to reconstruct" (p338). This from Cardona who has just, (p321), shifted his own chronology.
He continually takes things from myth completely out of their own natural chronology and rearranges them to suit his own ends.

He finishes the Absent Sun section with an account of a modern Peruvian ceremony. This again has nothing to do with anything. It is certainly not part of the mytho-historical record. All it does is to insert another break in the continuity of his theory and further muddy the waters.

The next section, The Distant Sun, features a quote from Wal Thornhill: "the [Saturnian] celestial effects as viewed from Earth would have been so dramatic that it seems to have completely overshadowed even the growing appearance of the Sun as this loomed closer" (p339). Thornhill uses the word 'dramatic' whereas Cardona has, thus far, been emphasising unchanging, slow, steady, hazy, fuzzy etc, and not forgetting the blackness of outer space. With all due respect to Thornhill, this is more or less pure supposition on his part.
If Cardona is correct about the slow, steady hazy etc, then surely if a change was observed (e.g. as the Sun got closer) our ancestors would have paid this some attention – if only to break the monotony or for the novelty? Or superstitious fear?

"But then the reader might have – should have, really – noticed a discrepancy in our thinking at this point. How could the Sun, appearing no bigger than a star, have been visible through our plasmasphere when the same plasmasphere has been theorised to have been opaque enough to blot out the stars? Can we have our cake and eat it too? Of course not. And here a confession is in order" (p340).
"I have presented these mytho-historical snippets concerning the approaching Sun as if events took place during the age of darkness when, in truth, the events took place later. In other words, I have presented these data out of chronological sequence merely to make my point" (p340).
The sound of goalposts being moved again, and only twenty or so pages after the last one. So where does that leave the preceding 339 pages? Cardona makes a statement about this being dealt with in a future work and then begins a new chapter.

Chapter 17 begins with the sentence: "Would mankind have survived had Earth and its Saturnian sun not been captured by our present solar system?" (p343). Another red-herring. This question has nothing to do with his theory.

After a typically artificial and meandering first section of chapter 18, he ends the section with a typically artificial question: "All of which raises the question: Are seasons necessary for the propagation and sustenance of life?" (p351).
Another red-herring. That there were, at one time, no seasons is not a revelation or discovery by Cardona. He is correct that Saturn/Kronos is associated with this but reverts back to 'darkness' to support his argument.
It is the wrong 'darkness'. I thought that he had agreed (in the last confession) that he was referring to the post-darkness phase, or have we gone back to the darkness phase?
"What was not understood at the time that phenomenon of photoperiodism was named was that the response of plants is controlled by the duration of darkness and not of light – that is the length of the night as opposed to the length of the day. My we be bold enough to suggest that this might be a residue from an earlier environment in which the world was cast in perpetual semi-darkness?" (p361). Cardona's emphasis.
We are now in semi-darkness. May I be bold enough to suggest that this is entirely in keeping with the metaphysics as presented in the various mythologies? Darkness is the original condition. No alchemist would be surprised by this.

While dealing with the Arctic Circle on pages 361-2, Cardona repeats his usual trick by quoting from a book, of 1885, and using the quotes of others from this book. The longest quote used by Cardona, from the book itself, reads:
"One of the most startling and important of the scientific discoveries of the last twenty years[…]. It was a discovery totally unexpected and is even now considered[…]. My ellipses.
This is from 1885, so it is not exactly 'hold the presses'. The fact that it is from 1885 is not mentioned in the main text, only in the footnote. In 1885 geology and the Earth sciences in general were in their infancy. We are not here talking about an established discipline rocked to its foundations, let alone a new understanding which adds weight to something Cardona has thought up himself.

"Oswald Heer described 2,632 Arctic species, 1,627 of which were actually discovered by him. In his seven-volume epic on the subject, published between the years 1868 and 1883, Heer stressed the luxuriant plant life that thrived during the Tertiary in northern polar regions" (p368).
I have no problem with the age of this work as it is a reference work. What concerns me is that when one looks at the footnote it is not the 'seven-volume epic' which Cardona has consulted but snippets of it from Velikovsky which he has lifted.

The 'Polar Wandering' section of chapter 19 (p391), again starts with a seeming reference to a major academic work but closer inspection reveals that the major sources are in fact Hapgood's 'The Path To The Pole' and one of Ting Ying Ma's papers. Ma's main work being virtually inaccessible. Cardona devotes over a page telling us about Ma and his work despite not having not read it.

"What I will argue for is that the search for physical explanations have as its highest priority reckoning with the full implications of myth, wherever a definitive consensus is indicated. As more information is brought into the discussion this will require a continued willingness to reconsider previous speculations – with no qualms about modifying or even abandoning earlier frameworks". Talbott as quoted by Cardona (p415). First emphasis Talbott, the longer one Cardona. For the italicised part read: moving the goal posts.

"But what was this whirlwind, this spirit, or soul, that seems to be so intimately connected with traditions of Creation?" (p432). Cardona's emphasis. Could it be exactly what these traditions of Creation say it was? If he had read any of the Creation myths or cosmogonies he would find that they all start with a logical proposition and work their way forward in a logical and coherent manner to explain everything.

"In fact, as Donald MacKenzie indicated: '''wind' and 'breath' and 'spirit' were believed by many primitive peoples to be identical'" (p434). I happen to have this book and the very next sentence of MacKenzie's reads: "Her-shef was therefore the source of universal life". MacKenzie views Her-Shef as Ptah. The chapter in MacKenzie's book is 'Father Gods and Mother Goddesses'. Yet again, if one reads the ancient literature then one can see why this was so. Whereas, reading Cardona I had no idea what wind, soul, spirit etc have to do with Saturn, nor who his mother and father are.

On page 443 Cardona asks: "What was this sacred virile member attached to god?". Cardona's emphasis. Resisting the temptation to sarcasm, the simple answer is that it is a seed dispenser. The concept of seeds (and sperms and germs) is a prominent metaphor used in practically all mythologies. See also his comments about the castration of Ouranos above. Ouranos has had his bag of seeds removed. Kronos will now reap what Ouranos has sown. Etc. (And presumably, Ouranos has moved to the falsetto section of the heavenly choir).

"Although at this point, as noted above, the inclusion of Shu would be out of chronological sequence,…" (p443). Shu has a section dedicated to him on pages 437-8 although he is only mentioned in two of the six paragraphs and is again said to be out of chronological order.
On page 457 Cardona states: "As we have seen, the Egyptian Shu was described as light personified, which light acted as a prop of the sky". But if we go back to page 437 we find: "As Budge informs us, Shu was also considered 'a god of light, or light personified'. But light in this instance was also 'declared to be the prop of the sky'". So once more we do not have an ancient text but Budge and not even a continuous passage from him. Instead, Cardona has cut and pasted two phrases into his own interpretation of them. Budge's actual words are: 'An examination of the texts shows that Shu was a god of light, or of light personified, who made himself manifest in the beams of the Sun by day, and in the light of the moon by night, and his home was the disk of the Sun'. This is followed several lines later by: 'That which Tem, or Ra-Tem, has poured out is the light, and light was declared to be the prop of the sky'. And the following paragraph begins: 'From a number of passages examined by Dr Brugsch we find that Shu was a personification of the rays which came forth from the eyes of Ra and that he was the soul of the god Khnemu, the great god of Elephantine and of the First Cataract; he also represented the burning, fiery heat of the Sun at noon, and the Sun in the height of summer'.
So, that will be Saturn then will it? Budge's work can be found here: ... A#PPA90,M1

On page 448 Cardona rambles on criticising one Elmer G. Suhr, who I had never heard of. The only prior reference to Suhr was way back on page 67 where Cardona uses him for support.
On page 454 we are finally given an overview of Santillana and Dechend's hypothesis as presented in Hamlet's Mill. Cardona disagrees with their hypothesis though he has been using Hamlet's Mill for support throughout God Star. He does the same with Talbott, criticising Talbott's theory while citing him as an authority (on various subjects) all through God Star.

One of the subjects on which Talbott's comments are cited is alchemy. On page 137, Cardona after a typically confusing preceding paragraph about Helios = Sun = Saturn, states: "This belief was so inbred in the early sciences it even turns up in alchemy, the foster-mother of chemistry. When astrology embraced, and thus debased, what had commenced as a monopolised industry in the transformation of base metals into gold-simulating alloys by the priestly caste of Alexandria, ancient astronomical lore entrenched itself in mystical treatises that were to obsess alchemists well past medieval times. Among these astro-chemical echoes we encounter the statement that the planet Saturn constitutes 'the best sun', which reminds us of Saturn as the 'true sun' believed in by Hindu sages. As David Talbott well realised: '…it is unlikely that [the alchemists] themselves knew what to do with the idea. But that the tradition was passed down from remote antiquity is both indisputable and crucial'". Cardona's emphasis. For Saturn constituting 'the best sun' Cardona cites 'J. Schwabe, Archetyp und Tierkreis' and the Talbott quote comes from 'The Saturn Myth'. Where Cardona gets the priestly caste of Alexandria from, I do not know. At the period being referred to, there were dozens if not hundreds of 'religions' in the city. We are not informed as to how or why astrology 'embraced, and thus debased' this industry. Nor are we given any examples of 'astronomical lore' entrenching itself in mystical treatises. No alchemical text is given for the assertion that Saturn is 'the best sun'. As for Talbott's quote, I would argue that alchemists knew very well what to do with such ideas. Both Cardona and Talbott are talking through their hats.
The earliest alchemical text is Chinese (5th-3rd century BCE) and is a commentary upon the I Ching, which is full of alchemy. Homer's Iliad is also full of alchemy and predates the Alexandrian period by centuries. Alchemical texts are not designed to be read lightly, memorised and regurgitated. Quite the opposite in fact. Here are a couple of examples:
From Hermaphrodite Child of the Sun and Moon, translated by Mike Brenner.
[It is describing the symbolism in a diagram]

The planets in this figure have an occult order, with Saturn in the
first, or lowest, spot. From above, Saturn congeals the One Substance
(the ethereal Fiery-Water or the astral Watery-Fire with its ring of
coldness). It manifests right into the alchemist's hand and
continues throughout the Work. The golden Sun-Child already lays
concealed in It.

Jupiter is right above Saturn, the next step of the Work. The power
of Jupiter first lets black Saturn experience Composition, then
darkens the Sun and the Moon. Jupiter then sweeps up to paradise like
an airborne dragon, out of the stomach of Saturn. Jupiter transmutes
the dark Earth into the subtle elements from which the black child is
freshly born in the sky, the way a noble jewel is polished. Finally,
this enables Jupiter to completely discard the shadowy mundane world,
the old Adam.

At the top is the moon, snow-white Diana, the queen of solidity. She
starts her heavenly journey by drinking in and dissolving all the
tail colours of a Peacock in a heat. The Moon uses the Philosophers'
Stone to hermetically seal the pure liquid Air-Element. Continuing
through the dry gaseous Fire, the Moon journeys on the Path to the
celestial Solid Fire and the Red Tincture.

Next after the moon at the very top, is Mercury, the Initiator, the
Worker, and the Completer of the whole Work, the moist-radical or
base-moisture of the Stone. Now, Mercury swings from the top horn of
the crescent Moon down to Venus, entering through her silver chord.
Mercury starts out in liquid form at the Moon, but solidifies while
passing through Venus and Mars, penetrating through to the centre of
the Sun.
Then there is:
Norton, Proheme to his Ordinal of Alchemy.

All masters that write of this solemn werke,
Have made their bokes to manie men full derke,
In poysies, parables, and in metaphors alsoe,
Which to schollors causeth peine and woe;
Forin their practice wen they would assaye
They leefe their costs, as men see alle daye.
Hermes, Rasis, Geber, and Avicen,
Merlin, Hortolan, Democrit and Morien,
Bacon and Raymond with many moe
Wrote under coverts and Aristotle alsoe.
For what hereof they wrote clear with their pen,
Their clouded clauses dulled; from manie men
Fro laymen, fro clerks, and soe fro every man
They hid this art that noe man find it can.
By their bokes thei do shew reasons faire,
Whereby much people are brought to despaire:
Yet Anaxagoras wrote plainest of them all
In his boke of Conversions Naturall;
Of the old Fathers that ever I founde,
He most discloses of this science the grounde;
Whereof Aristotle had great envy,
And him rebuked unrightlfully,
In manie places, as I can well report,
Intending that men should not to him resort,
For he was large of his cunnying and love,
God have his soul in bliss above; And such as sowed envious seede
God forgive them for their mis-deede"

Notice that he mentions, Anaxagoras, Democritus and Aristotle all of whom predate the Alexandrian period. Alchemy is very simple to understand but deuced difficult to do. It is nothing to do with metal – it is mental.

It is not only in the text that Cardona tries to lead his readers. Many of the illustrations in God Star are full of symbolism (i.e. information) which Cardona simply ignores or is simply ignorant of. Frequently the text accompanying an illustration is designed to influence the reader's thought rather than reflect what the illustration represents. Some examples:

Page 30 Anath. The caption reads "Anath the goddess who went on a drunken rampage against mankind". But if one actually looks at the image it does not reflect this at all. (I'm not saying that the drunken rampage idea is wrong). In the image Anath's hands rest protectively on the shoulders of the two humans. The mouths of the humans are at just the right height to suckle at Anath's breasts.
Look at the three pairs of feet, the positioning is deliberate. It is part of the information being conveyed by this image. Notice also that the human on the left has two right hands and the human on the right has two left hands. Every detail in that image is information, including the patterns on her costume.

Page 44 Diana. Leaving aside the fact that it is a modern work, and one which I personally find beautiful, Cardona writes: "More often than not, such mythological subjects merely served as an excuse for the portrayal of the naked human body". This is nonsense. What evidence has Cardona for this statement? Athletics, for example, were perform naked in ancient Greece. Gymnos, as in gymnasium, means naked. See also the comment about gymnosophists above. In any case, whether true or not, it has no bearing on Cardona's theory.

Page 41 Witch. "A romantic depiction of a witch on her broom". This, un-credited (but possibly Boris Vallejo), modern depiction of the witch is part of Cardona assertions about comets. I do not have any great problem with that but there are other interpretations. These alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One of my understandings about witches involves alchemy and is related to what is going on in the alchemical passage above, kundalini and Tantra. Notice that she isn't riding side-saddle.

Page 54 Ares. "Ares, the blood-thirsty god of war, personification of the planet Mars" according to Cardona. Notice the cupid playing at the feet of Ares.

Page 55 Aristotle. Cardona: "Aristotle, who 'was proud to state it as known' that the gods were originally astronomical bodies". This is also stated in the main text. However, and there is usually an 'however' with Cardona's way with quotes, if one looks it is not actually Aristotle who said this but Santillana and Dechend. There is a quote by Aristotle directly below this (page 54) with a reference to Aristotle's Metaphysics, 12:8:19. For convenience the full paragraph from Metaphysics is reproduced below:

Aristotle Metaphysics 12:8:19

"Our forefathers in the most remote ages have handed down to their posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth, that these bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form with a view to the persuasion of the multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say other things consequent on and similar to these which we have mentioned. But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and take it alone—that they thought the first substances to be gods, one must regard this as an inspired utterance, and reflect that, while probably each art and each science has often been developed as far as possible and has again perished, these opinions, with others, have been preserved until the present like relics of the ancient treasure. Only thus far, then, is the opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us". ... book12.htm
Aristotle's own words seem to have little in common with what either Santillana and Dechend or Cardona are trying to make him say. There is no mention of pride, either Aristotle's or anyone else's. The passage is however, very interesting for what it does say.

Page 58 Mercury. "The Roman Mercury – Mirqurius, Mercurius – god of merchandise, who personified the planet of the same name" according to Cardona. The Roman Mercury was considered the god of merchandise but the Greek Hermes was the god of exchange which is a somewhat different concept. Both Cardona and Talbott use the Romans far too much for my liking.

Page 79 Elagabalus. According to the caption: Born Varius Avitus, high-priest of the Syrian god Elagabalus, proclaimed Emperor of the Roman Empire on May 16, 218, he was given the title of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Assuming the name of his god, he became popularly known as Emperor Elagabalus. When he moved from Emesa to Rome, he took the meteoritic 'image' of his deity with him, which 'image' also became known as the Elagabalus, and installed it in the temple of Kybele". Cardona's emphasis. To put this into some sort of perspective, we are talking about the third century CE and this guy came to the throne aged 14 and was dead by aged 22.
And why wasn't the 'meteoritic 'image' of his deity installed in the temple of Saturn? Kybele is the Earth.
For more info see:

Page 134 Ra. "Ra, who in Ptolemaic times, was actually identified as a representative of the planet Saturn". The Ptolemaic period is late (post-Alexander). The main text backing this up states: "In view of the ancient connections we have now discovered between Saturn and the Sun, we should not therefore be surprised to learn that an Egyptian ostrakon from Ptolemaic times actually identifies Ra as the Greek Kronos, which is the planet Saturn" (p134). An ostrakon no less. What is an ostrakon? 'People often used pieces of broken pottery or stone as a convenient surface for recording information or even doodling. These pieces are called ostraka'. Do I hear the sound of a barrel-bottom being scraped? From: ... rakon.aspx

Page 136 Helios. "Helios, the patron deity of Rhodes, whom Plato named as the planet Saturn". Firstly, look at the image. Does this look like Saturn? Old Father Time, the grim reaper etc. Compare this statue with the images of Saturn which Cardona uses a few pages later. On the previous page Cardona writes: Thus, for instance, Plato (or Philip of Opus) wrote that pre-eminent among the planets for its slowness was the one whom 'some call …Kronos,' which is Saturn. But, in the earliest copies of the text, the name used was not Kronos but, rather, Helios". Cardona's emphasis. First notice that there are only three words not written by Cardona. The source for these three words is given as: 'F. Boll, 'Kronos-Helios', Archiv fur Religionwissenschaft, XIX, (1916-1919), pp343 ff). Cardona writes: "As Franz Boll, whose illuminating study of this subject has long been ignored…". Granted that Boll was a renowned philologist and expert in ancient astronomy and astrology, are we to understand that Cardona has read this? Just how many languages is Cardona fluent in? Or has he lifted it from Velikovsky and forgotten to tell us?
The footnote for the Plato-Philip of Opus quote reads: "Plato, Epinomis, 987c. (NOTE: There are some who ascribe the authorship of this work to Plato's pupil, Philip of Opus)". A quick Google reveals "The Epinomis (Greek: Ἐπινομίς) is a dialogue in the style of Plato and traditionally included among Plato's works. Today it is widely considered spurious because of its contents and because already some ancient sources attributed it to Philip of Opus".
From . The actual passage from Epinomis is: 'For indeed they have received titles of gods: thus, that Lucifer, or Hesperus (which is the same), should almost belong to Aphrodite, is reasonable, and quite befitting a Syrian lawgiver; and that that which follows the same course as the sun and this together should almost belong to Hermes. Let us also note three motions of bodies travelling to the right with the moon and the sun. One must be mentioned, the eighth, which we may especially address as the world-order, and which travels in opposition to the whole company of the others, not impelling them, as might appear to mankind in the scant knowledge that they have of these matters. But we are bound to state, [987c] and do state, so much as adequate knowledge tells us. For real wisdom shows herself in some such way as this to him who has got even a little share of right and divine meditation. And now there remain three stars, of which one is distinguished from the others by its slowness, and some speak of it under the title of Saturn; the next after it in slowness is to be cited as Jupiter; and the next after this, as Mars, which has the ruddiest hue of all. Nothing in all this is hard to understand [987d] when someone expresses it; but it is through learning, as we declare, that one must believe it'.
This from: ... inomis.htm

Even if Cardona is correct about Helios = Kronos, there is nothing earth-shattering in this passage as it is describing the same solar system as we have today and contains no hint of it ever having been different. The 'eighth, which we may especially address as the world-order' is the fixed stars or the circle of the zodiac (Philip explains this earlier) and the fact that it is travelling in the opposite direction to the solar system is precession (and this writing predates Hipparchus who the academics tell us discovered it). This is almost the same description of the solar system which Plato gives in Timaeus.

Page 143 Osiris. "Three figures of Osiris – the nocturnal sun". The three figures in this illustration may well all be Osiris but they are not, I think, all him as the nocturnal sun. They would seem to be representations of Osiris in three of his aspects. Notice that in two of them he is 'standing on one foot'. In the third his head-dress is a combination of the other two. He is also carrying three different sets of implements. The third figure would appear to be him in judge of the dead mode as it is the same as the figure in the illustration on page 146 which is captioned 'Osiris as judge of the dead'.

Page 242 Mithra. "Mithra – slaying the Saturnian bull – whose festival in Rome was held on December 25th". That is, according to Cardona. According to Manly Hall in the Secret Teachings of All Ages: 'The most famous sculpturings and reliefs of this prototokos show Mithras kneeling upon the recumbent form of a great bull, into whose throat he is driving a sword. The slaying of the bull signifies that the rays of the sun, symbolized by the sword, release at the vernal equinox the vital essences of the earth--the blood of the bull--which, pouring from the wound made by the Sun God, fertilize the seeds of living things. Dogs were held sacred to the cult of Mithras, being symbolic of sincerity and trustworthiness. The Mithraics used the serpent as an emblem of Ahriman, the Spirit of Evil, and water rats were held sacred to him. The bull is esoterically the Constellation of Taurus; the serpent, its opposite in the zodiac, Scorpio; the sun, Mithras, entering into the side of the bull, slays the celestial creature and nourishes the universe with its blood'.
Manly Hall also states that: 'Alexander Wilder, in his Philosophy and Ethics of the Zoroasters, states that Mithras is the Zend title for the sun, and he is supposed to dwell within that shining orb. Mithras has a male and a female aspect, though not himself androgynous. As Mithras, he is the ford of the sun, powerful and radiant, and most magnificent of the Yazatas (Izads, or Genii, of the sun). As Mithra, this deity represents the feminine principle; the mundane universe is recognized as her symbol. She represents Nature as receptive and terrestrial, and as fruitful only when bathed in the glory of the solar orb'.

Page 438 "Shu, uplifting the sky who is represented by the arched body of the goddess Nut". Nut is not the sky. Nut is the heavens or the firmament. Also present in this image is Geb the Earth whose foot touches Nut's hand and whose hand touches her foot. Shu is not uplifting the sky, Shu is connecting the heavens to the Earth. He has one hand between the legs of Nut and the other on her breast (nice work if you can get it. One here thinks of poor Atlas holding up Ouranos). I would imagine that the former is representative of birth and creation and the latter nourishment and succour. Notice that Nut appears to have only one arm but two legs. Every detail in mythology is symbolic of something.


It may sound somewhat perverse after all of the above, but I enjoyed reading the book. I regularly read books with which I disagree or are otherwise outside of my 'comfort zone'. If nothing else, it helps me to fine-tune my own ideas.
While some of my comments and criticisms of God Star may seem like nit-picking or pedantry, I take knowledge and learning very seriously (because it is such fun. Laugh 'n' Learn) and it grieves me mightily when I come across things like God Star.
I did not go into Cardona's footnotes deliberately with a view to catching him out. I am one of those people who reads footnotes as they are usually a good source of further reading. In the case of God Star, some of the Vedic material in particular has tickled my fancy.
Nor is this document an attempt to show how clever I am; I am not. I have been studying philosophy, mythology and religion for only about five years. My main advantage is that I can read both fast and deep at the same time. It was this ability to read deeply which exposed the shortcomings of God Star. It simply has no depth. I also think a lot and can personally vouch for amenesis.
Both Talbott and Cardona frequently use the term 'Comparative Model' but they don't actually compare anything. Cherry-picking Model would be more apt.
Cardona fails to mention his relationship with Talbott and Cochrane (and there are others), both of whom he cites throughout the book. Given that Cochrane is the author of a book called 'Starf*cker' [sic] why would anyone want to cite him? He's hardly going for the intellectual high-ground with such a title. I've read some of Cochrane's material and found his sources also largely failed to deliver. Cardona's biographical details are on the very last page of the book. It mentions his involvement with KRONOS and AEON but not with Talbott and Cochrane. Nor does it mention his relationship with Thornhill or the Thunderbolts website.

I will let Cardona have the last word.
"After all, what is the point in attempting to reconstruct a cosmic history based on the mytho-historical record if one ends up tampering with that record in order to make the data fit a different model than the one dictated by the record?" (p246).
"In our own scheme, as presented in this work, we make no changes to the mytho-historical record. We do not assume anything that is not there spelled out. Our deductions are based on what we find recorded" (p246).
If I have the least bit of knowledge
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.
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:52 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Steven,
You wrote:
I was really taken aback by the astonishing degree of narrow-minded hubris displayed by Mr. Van der Sluijs' closing remark above! He seems to imply that every great sage, mystic and seer who has ever graced this planet with his or her presence have all been basically full of cow-flops.

I agree with you. Phrases such as 'scientists will ultimately have the last word...' fill me with a sense of dread regardless of the subject under discussion. To me, such phrases are stated as articles of religious faith.
I will stick with Lao Tzu, Plato, Heraclitus etc and Mr Van der Sluijs can keep his scientists and the polluted air, land, and water that they produce.

Ditto. The spirit is not a science equation. Consciousness theory may extended further then science can take it. Spiritual existance, soul existance, body existance. Planes of existance. Can science account for all planes of existance? I actually doubt that it can do that. The final theory of everything will have to include consciousness. The heart will emit PHI spiral harmonics when it is in agape love. The way a EM wave depolarizes across the heart is in a spiral. We can see the heart actually looks like the luxodrome of APM. Thats kinda freaky.

The idea that Gods heart runs the universe is kinda cool. Again APM Gforce. When I used to think of the mind of God I would think of mental attributes, that would be all the physics that his mind created. Now I think that what drives the mind of God, the physics of the universe, is His love, the heart of God. Of course we all have the impression of three brains within ourselves. Our head, heart, gut. I wonder about the beauty of three. Its everywhere and is the ultimate projection of the Gforce on the universe. Three forces, three atomic units, so wonderful in its design. Its inconceivable that we have five senses, five fingers, and would only have four and not five dimensions. Zome 3, 5, infinity was a wonderful thing to behold. Wow its all so amazing and incomprehensible, yet at the same time very connected and staring us in the face. Turns out Vortex theory is as old as theory itself. Its nothing new and at some point self evident if we look around. Imagine the faces of peoples past if they could see the spiral galaxies we take for granted today. Staring back at us, and almost no one see's it for what it is. The fundamental archetype form. Hidden within all these things is a massive force that pushes and pulls, a heartbeat for all practicle purposes. Imagine that.

We are supposedly made in His image. I notice that all alien forms of intellectual design, have the same basic form, if any of that is true. What is it about five senses that is common to life? What type of consciousness does a bee have? How far down does consciouness extend? To what plane of existance is it origin and what levels of existance are needed to create it? How can I reason and have logic and a spirit? Quite fantastic if you ask me. I wonder the level of consciousness the atom has vs the virus, vs the bacteria, vs the tree, vs the insect, vs the fish, vs the bird, vs the mammal. I wonder about sign language speaking gorillas and their view of the world. Quite incredible a bee remembers the face of another bee for about a week based on new experiments. (not sure how they could make a proper test for that and exclude chemical signatures) but I digress.

I am talking to another medical professional, who is very interested in the extension of the consciouness model. Now that I have the EU and APM I think it is the last page of the book. The explanation of consciouness and all the levels therein. I am walking him through the basic paradigms. In the end it seems that consciouness is the last frontier. He is a psychologist and is a blessed man in my life. He would like to write some work with me, based on our work on my system after my accident. Seems I am the gunina pig>
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Divinity » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:04 pm

Thank you, Jungelord. This will be a busy thread as we continue to add to our knowledge about science/spirit, in the coming years.... :D

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby moses » Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:08 am

The explanation of consciouness and all the levels therein. I am walking him through the basic paradigms. junglelord
The levels of consciousness are going to be actual experiencing, are they not ?
Then to explore these planes we need to be able to have such experiencing.
Which leads to what is retarding such experiencing. And so the study of the
levels of consciousness begins with the study of what retards such experiencing.
Thoughts and emotions get in the way. The past gives rise to these thoughts
and emotions. Freedom from the past is the subject.
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby mague » Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:16 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Here we go then. It's too big to post in one piece as it contians 117005 characters and the max is 60000.

Lots of work. You earned yourself a story ;)

Yowatashi Boshi; Stars that Pass in the Night

Japanese cared for orion as much as the ancient egypts. From the position of the japanese island the orion constelation showed when it was time to harvest rice for example.
The big difference between japanese and ancient egyptian orion is, that the japanese saw the constellation as a 3dimensional shape. For them the two trapezoids of orion display an hourglass shape, a vertrex. Until today the ko-tsuzumi is based on the orion constellation. Another musical instrument, the hyoushigi represent orions belt. The belt is the place where the upper and the lower trapezoid strike on each other.
Lore has it that the sleeves of the female kimono represent orion as well.

The orion constellation was very important for the japanese medival people. The two prominent opposite corners of orion are marked by Heike Boshi - Betelgeuse and Genji Boshi - Rigel. This is important, because at the end of the Heian era there was a war between the Miamoto family which was wearing the white color of Rigel and the Taira family which was wearing the red color of Betelgeuse. They fought the war of the stars. Stars that have been much more distant then any planet in our local system...

In 1988 a legendary japanese anime (animated japanese cartoons) series started on TV. Its name is "Legends of Galactic Heroes". It has inspired George Lukas when creating Starwars. He comitted that in public. The difference in the original anime is, that the empire and the rebels have their own space. Both space's form an hourglass shape and galactic battleships where only able to cross at the bottleneck of the hourglass. This was the place where the empire had placed the original deathstar. It was ment to be a roadbloacker and to prevent the rebellious starships to penetrate imperial space.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:24 am

Hi Mague,
Thanks for the very interesting info about the Japanese and Orion.
In the anime series, can you recall which side had which trapezoid? (Just me doing a bit of lateral thinking). Got this from the wiki article about the book:
"There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."
If I have the least bit of knowledge
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.
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby altonhare » Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:08 pm

If we are going to study X we will have to state what X is, else how can we be sure we're studying it?

To study "spirit" we will certainly first have to agree on "What is spirit?".
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:37 am

moses wrote:The explanation of consciouness and all the levels therein. I am walking him through the basic paradigms. junglelord
The levels of consciousness are going to be actual experiencing, are they not ?
Then to explore these planes we need to be able to have such experiencing.
Which leads to what is retarding such experiencing. And so the study of the
levels of consciousness begins with the study of what retards such experiencing.
Thoughts and emotions get in the way. The past gives rise to these thoughts
and emotions. Freedom from the past is the subject.

DMT is the spirit molecule and it does allow you to see and know the structure of the geometric space around you.
It allows much more then that, but a incredible find for myself just last week.
DMT the Spirit Molecule.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:44 pm

seasmith on Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:24 pm
junglelord wrote:

I look forward to any input to draw this out


"True Hallucinations"
by Terrence McKenna



Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Plasmatic » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:04 am

The concept of "spirit" was born out of reified planetary mytho-history. The spirit or heart was a visable form to the ancients with particular attributes. None of them are supernatural in origin.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:56 am

Plasmatic wrote:The concept of "spirit" was born out of reified planetary mytho-history. The spirit or heart was a visable form to the ancients with particular attributes.

And your proof for that statement is?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
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.
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Plasmatic » Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:30 am

GC , i know your anxious to discuss the Comparative Method with me. When I get some time and motivation for it Ill talk with you about it. Your criticisms that Ive read so far are mostly a matter of irrellevent form. The rest are answered by understanding the C.M. Ill ask a simple question.

Do you recognize that all ancient cultures had a similar substratum to there myth? I know youve said things to this effect but I want to be explicit here.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:42 am

Plasmatic wrote:GC , i know your anxious to discuss the Comparative Method with me. When I get some time and motivation for it Ill talk with you about it. Your criticisms that Ive read so far are mostly a matter of irrellevent form. The rest are answered by understanding the C.M. Ill ask a simple question.

Do you recognize that all ancient cultures had a similar substratum to there myth? I know youve said things to this effect but I want to be explicit here.

Hi Plasmatic,
It's not that I'm anxious to discuss the CM as much as I would like to know exactly what it is. Is there somewhere it is laid out? A link would do fine.

With regard to the highlighted question, the short answer is yes. I have laid out my (current) understanding of what I term the Ancient Wisdom here:
This, in essence, is what I maintain is the substratum underlying myth etc. This is also where I'm coming from in respect to part of my criticism of Cardona as laid out in the two posts near the top of this thread.
I know you don't subscribe to this Ancient Wisdom thing, which is fair enough, but from my point of view, the AW does not exclude the planetary catastrophe side of things. To me the catastrophe part is merely the mechanics, if you will. It is the 'how' but I am more interested in the 'why'.
This is probably the crux of our differences. You maintain that the catastrophe led to the AW, whereas I maintain that the AW came first and that the catastrophe is understandable in the context of the AW. That is a debate for another time and place.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
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.
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK


Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests