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.
GOD STAR
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.
Methodology
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'.
Sources
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.
See:
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm
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:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
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:
HYMN LIII
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.
From:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av19053.htm
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!
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ ... &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:
CHAP. XI.--DEMOCRITUS; HIS DUALITY OF PRINCIPLES; HIS COSMOGONY.
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:
http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut1.htm 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:
http://books.google.com/books?id=agd-eL ... #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).
From:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm
'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:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vmYH ... #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.
From
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe26/sbe2653.htm
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.
From
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01050.htm
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
http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/c ... 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?
