http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Thunderbolts Forum
For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology
A VERY BRIEF RESPONSE TO GREY CLOUD'S CRITIQUE
OF CARDONA'S GOD STAR
Grey Cloud posted a lengthy criticism of Dwardu Cardona's God Star here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1016&p=10555#p10555
For the purposes of this response, I will refer to Cardona as the
'author,' God Star as the 'book,' and Grey Cloud as 'GC.'
I do not necessarily agree with everything in the book, indeed I would
question the details of some scenarios, for example, the longevity of
the polar configuration. The author would be the first to admit that
this is a 'work in progress.' The book is to be followed with other
volumes, continuing the story of disturbances to the celestial order
where this book leaves off.
The author presents a remarkable case for a 'stranger than fiction'
picture of the human species' past. That being said, it seems to me,
that GC refuses to accept the validity of author's method of analysis,
opting for metaphorical interpretations, the implications of this
tendency will be explored further.
There is nowhere near 493 pages of theory (or evidence) in this
book. Half as many pages would have been more than sufficient.
This is a criticism which I find unwarranted, especially since GC is
guilty of the same crime, his critique could have been much shorter and
to the point, it fails to summarize or point out the general flaws in
the book, instead, it is filled with nitpicking and misconceptions.
Perhaps the author could have condensed his case to make it more
readable to the casual reader, however, this is not an introductory (to
planetary catastrophism) book. It is more of an advanced treatise in the
topic of planetary catastrophism. I for one, thought the author
constructs his case in a workman like manner paying attention to the
details. Perhaps GC would prefer the "Readers Digest" version, but I
found the author's meticulous style, necessary to assembling his case
and presenting evidence from many fields, including explanations derived
from the latest astronomical discoveries which hint at how such a
bizarre situation (polar alignment of planets) could develop. Current
revelations relating to the behaviors of plasmas in space, brown dwarf
stars/gas giant planets, the splitting up of Pangea, various geological
anomalies associated with the north polar region of the Earth,
Herbig-Haro objects, etc etc are discussed. Furthermore this evidence is
coordinated with the mytho-historical record, a record that caused
several uniformitarian mythographers over the last century to be
independently perplexed over references to Saturn as the first Sun or
night Sun, residing in a stationary position over the north pole. The
fact that numerous ancient references depict an unfamiliar and alternate
cosmogony yet display a descriptive consistency requires an explanation,
especially so, since the order described is thought to be impossible
according to accepted mainstream astronomy. Plasma cosmology and the
Electric Universe provide the mechanisms and supporting evidence that
lend credence to such outlandish claims. Traditionally, Saturn theory
and planetary catastrophism in general, were rejected on the grounds of
celestial mechanics, slowly but surely that argument is being eroded by
the realization that planets and stars are moving charged bodies and
space is a tenuous plasma conducting electric currents which in turn
create magnetic fields. The size of the work is necessary due to the
requirement that the author both present his scenario, its' comparisons
to mainstream interpretations, and competing alternative theories as
well, each of which must be explained and weighed against each other. I
cannot fault the author for attention to relevant detail, nor do I think
he is guilty of long windedness.
Nowhere in the book does he state in one place, and in full, exactly
what his theory is.
It is difficult to understand how GC could have missed the theory. The
author presents a set of hypothesis' which are gradually expanded and
refined. The hypothesis' are numbered and explicitly stated. At the end
of the book the author presents to the reader a numbered list of the
finalized hypothesis'. I had no problem figuring out what was the
proposed sequence of events: the events are explicitly described in
sequential order in pages 490-492.
The author's proposed scenario:
-the Earth was originally a satellite of a small brown dwarf star,
located inside of the dwarf star's plasmasphere which was in glow mode,
obscuring stars as seen from Earth, the remnant of this brown dwarf is
the body we today call Saturn
-the system was traveling through space alone for an unspecified, but
presumably long period of geological time, the brown dwarf (and its'
plasmasphere), was the sole source of warmth and light for the Earth
-they shared their axes of rotation, giving the brown dwarf the
appearance of a large stationary orb over the North pole
-the system eventually came under the influence of (was captured by) the
Sun disrupting the brown dwarf causing its' plamasphere to move into
dark mode, stars became visible on Earth, the brown dwarf shone brighter
presumably because of electrical stress, the Sun became visible
-the approaching Sun was first visible as a very bright star getting
larger and brighter as the dwarfs' system was in the process of being
captured, becoming a part of the Sun's system, during this time Saturn,
still stationary at the celestial pole, was visible in the daytime but
dominated the night sky and was described as a sun of night.
The rest of the story is left for a subsequent volume.
The thesis is explicitly stated, GC's above statement is perplexing.
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'.
Here GC (misunderstands or rather refuses to accept) the comparative
technique. He desires to have each myth told in its entirety and
analyzed, so the reader can learn the metaphorical meanings or ethical
lessons that are symbolized or defined. But this is not the way the
comparative method is properly used. It's purpose is not to explain the
detailed meanings of a single myth, rather it is a means of extracting
an unusual detail or motif and relating it to other myths from other
cultures with a similar unusual detail or motif. This process requires
that many elements of a specific myth must be ignored (it is a filtering
process) as local, and therefore irrelevant, embellishments. It is in
essence a forensic technique.
Noting that a myth depicts some bizarre or unusual occurence that is
repeated in other cultures is central to the technique. The
probabilities of the same bizarre or unusual events independently
appearing in myths of seperate cultures are exceedingly small, and an
explanation is required. The author explores this in detail taking
theories such as diffusion into consideration.
For example (pps 40-43), the figure of a straggly haired witch riding a
broom appears in Europe as well as Mesoamerica, also several cultures
associate comets with the broom. Through out Asia comets are called
"broom stars."
http://books.google.com/books?id=9JatFv ... #PPA107,M1
Furthermore, the Aztec witchs' broom is depicted entwined with a
serpent, also a well known cometary symbol.
It is therefore not a stretch to visualize various peoples in different
areas of the world, confronted with an impressive comet with visually
stunning plasma effects, independently arriving at a similar description
of the picture viewed on the screen of the sky. Whatever other elements
of the myth; such as the name of the witch, her purpose, her deeds,
ethical lessons, metaphorical meanings, etc are only relevant if they
are connected to a similar myth(s) from elsewhere, otherwise those
details that are unique to only a single story are irrelevant. The more
unusual and unlikely the motif, the more impressive is any commonality.
But GC's attitude is typified by the way he shrugs off this impressive
piece of evidence without offering any alternative, so what does GC
write concerning the example of the Mesoamerican broom riding witch?
Notice that she isn't riding side-saddle.
This comment betrays a tendency permeating GC's entire
critique...dwelling on irrelevant details and totally missing the larger
point. The fact that the picture in the book depicts a European witch
riding side saddle and the Mesoamerican witch does not, has absolutely
no bearing on the startling enigma of two unrelated cultures describing
a witch as riding a broom, both involving cometary imagery.
The author uses a technique analogous to that of a forensic investigator
interrogating witnesses and extracting information pertinent to solving
a crime. The detective discards extraneous information, keeping that
which is pertinent to the case. Most of this extra information in other
contexts may be interesting, but it is irrelevant to the investigation.
Most of the body of myth is festooned with local embellishments and
subjective interpretations, added on in telling and retelling, which
must be filtered out as extraneous detail. GC complains, because his
preferred approach is to consider every detail, so that some
metaphysical, ethical, or such meaning can be learned from the wisdom of
our ancestors, when all that this approach can accomplish is an
obscuration of the celestial events described, by a confusion of
inconsequential minutia. To paraphrase R. Buckminster Fuller, problem
solving is the process of dismissing irrelevancies.
GC's complaint that the author is selectively picking can only stem from
a misunderstanding of the particular technique.
True! the author is selectively picking, that is, he is picking those
common themes that appear all over the globe, as this is the very
essence of the method. The author is consistent and meticulous in his
methodology, GC's complaints notwithstanding.
"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
Again, I thought that the author was clear in bringing forth the
scenario he was developing, but GC does not get the picture being
presented. GC draws a comparison to the present order of the solar
system but the author is describing an entirely different type of
system. The criticism misses the point.
From my reading, the author is proposing....The basic picture described
is that of a brown dwarf star (Proto-Saturn) and Earth which shared the
same axis of rotation. The appearance as seen from Earth would have
undergone changes over time. Earth was immersed in the brown dwarf's
plasmasphere which was in glow mode. Surrounding the brown dwarf was an
expulsion disc forming a nebulous torus in the star's equatorial plane.
The shining orb of the brown dwarf cast a dim light, a perpetual
twilight on Earth. The sky would have an auroral type glow, with a
visibly more intense plasma connection between the poles of the star and
Earth. As seen from Earth, the star would appear as a large shining orb
stationary over the North Pole (axis of rotation) surrounded by a
circular halo (ring) of nebulosity and sitting atop an ethereal
mountain, tree, pole, etc, also known as the 'axis mundi.'
The ancients knew that all the planets were spherical, Saturn wasn't
a special case.
The author cites several instances where Saturn was not only known to be
a sphere, but also encircled by a system of rings. The fact that the
ancients knew that other planets were spheres in no way subtracts from
the author's thesis, on the contrary it will be shown ultimately, to be
in support. The question that really needs to be answered is:
How is it that the ancients knew the planets were spheres? Why would
they not assume that they were just bright stars that moved differently
than the fixed stars? as this is the present case as viewed from Earth.
They knew the planets as spheres because that is the what was observed.
The planets were at times much closer than what we see today. Like the
witch on the broom example that was cited earlier this is what was
displayed on the screen of the sky to all the peoples of the world.
As far as other planets being known to be spheres, again, that is
because they were at times closer to the Earth and were perceived by
observers as spheres. I assume, in the next volume some other celestial
bodies such as Venus, Mars, and others will be introduced into the model.
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.
GC brings up this question more than once in his critique, which I can
only explain as his misunderstanding of the dynamics of the scenario
proposed in the book. Again, the author explains this too.
First, proto Saturn would have shined in subdued light, which the author
calls a perpetual twilight, it is more akin to (but brighter and larger
than) the full moon. The difference being that proto Saturn was a small
brown dwarf star and was it's own light source, hence the categorizing
it as a "sun." The Earth was a satellite enveloped in the plasmasphere
(in glow mode) of this little star.
Later, the brown dwarf was captured by the present Sun. The Saturnian
system would have then been in orbit around the Sun, at this time the
plasmasphere of Saturn went into dark mode as it entered the
plasmasphere of the Sun. During this period, the present Sun provided
daylight illumination, and Saturn was the 'sun of night.'
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.
The criticisms here are largely irrelevant. The book has an abundance of
footnotes, they show where the author derived any particular statement.
GC is attacking the footnote itself not the content of the authors
statement, this is unwarranted. Kugler is one of the greatest experts on
Assyrio-Babylonian culture ever. His published works were in the German
language, so it is not out of order for the author to rely on others
interpretations and translations of those works. The important point is
that Kugler repeatedly expressed his uniformitarian puzzlement at
incongruencies in Babylonian tablets and cosmogony and that the author
resolves these issues using his theory.
Likewise, Sanchoniathon is known to us through other sources. It does
not matter that Eusebius was a Christian bishop or whatever, what he
wrote is to be assessed according to the comparative method which (and
this is the strength of the method) filters out subjective bias as was
already explained in a paragraph above. This line of criticism is the
equivalent of condeming the use of Plato's statement that the "Phaethon"
myth is based on a cosmic catastrophe because Plato got his info from
Critias, who got it from Solon, who got it from an Egyptian priest. The
topic is about events that took place in the beginnings of human
collective memory, of course many accounts would be handed down through
indirect sources! Most eyewitnesses perished with no legacy, those that
survived would have faced a world of no laws or social structure,
accompanied by geological upheaval. This is not conducive (as Plato
explained) to the preservation of first hand written accounts.
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.
Irrelevant. The detective does not worry about whether a potential
witness possesses some esoteric wisdom, only what that witness can
contribute to the solution of the case at hand. He does not want to know
if the witness is a great philosopher, only if he got the license plate,
make, model, and color of the getaway car.
At this point, my response has taken more time than the criticism
deserves, so I will break it off here. I have given some examples to
demonstrate that GC has by and large misunderstood the author's method
or has dwelled on irrelevant details. In short, GC has his own
interpretations of myth as a body of sacred knowledge, and bristles at
the suggestion that at its' root, it is an account of celestial events
of a catastrophic nature, this despite statements by Plato and Aristotle
indicating that the gods were celestial bodies and the anthropomorphic
details were added on later. He also ignores the evidence that the
catastrophic interpretation is supported, beyond mythology, by physical
evidence such as that presented by the Electric Universe and findings in
geology and astronomy.
The irony is that this book is open to some formidable questions and
counter arguments, such as:
-is the polar configuration possible according to celestial mechanics?
-how could humans have survived?
-are the time scales, both historical and geological, untenable?
-can the references to the polar configuration be explainable by
precession or other means?
-and so on...
GC does not even raise these questions, he could have made a better case
exploring these avenues of criticism.
Nick
User avatar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38323>
New post by *Lloyd
* Thanks a lot, Nick, for this extensive rebuttal of GC's criticisms. I
think you did a rather good job of it.
* I think one of GC's criticisms was that the myths cited are not very
ancient. Can you share with us some of the major sources for the myths
cited by Cardona? I think Dave Talbott has cited the Egyptian Bood of
the Dead as a very ancient source. Does Cardona cite it? Do you know how
old it is and how old the other sources are?
* It would be good to have a list of sources of ancient myths in
chronological order. Does anyone know of such a list? I guess the
Sumerian tablets are considered among the oldest.
* I see Wikipedia does have a list at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythologies.
* Here's what they have for Mythologies by time period:
Ancient mythologies by period of first attestation.
Bronze Age
* Proto-Indo-European mythology (reconstructed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology
o Proto-Indo-Iranian mythology (reconstructed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_mythology
* Mesopotamian mythology (Sumerian, Akkadian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_mythology
* Egyptian mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mythology#Mythology
* Hittite mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_mythology
* Hurrian mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_mythology#Religion
* Rigvedic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigvedic_mythology
Iron Age
* Classical mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mythology
o Greek mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology
o Roman mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mythology
* Etruscan mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_mythology
* Celtic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_mythology
* Germanic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_mythology
Late Antiquity
* Altaic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_mythology
* Slavic mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_mythology
* Arabian mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_mythology
Last edited by Lloyd
on Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lloyd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38324>
New post by *Grey Cloud Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:32 am
Hi Nick,
I’d like to address some of the faults you found with my critique.
The length of the critique was dictated partly by the length of God Star
(GS), partly by the number of faults I found with GS, and partly by the
number and length of the quoted passages I used.
You wrote:
The author would be the first to admit that this is a 'work in
progress.'
… however, this is not an introductory (to planetary catastrophism)
book. It is more of an advanced treatise in the topic of planetary
catastrophism.
So which is it? Is it a ‘work in progress’ or ‘an advanced treatise’?
The fact that numerous ancient references depict an unfamiliar and
alternate cosmogony yet display a descriptive consistency requires
an explanation, especially so, since the order described is thought
to be impossible according to accepted mainstream astronomy.
It was familiar to all the ancients and as an alternative to the BB, but
that in no wise means that it supports any of the Saturn theories. The
Saturn theories are thought to be impossible by mainstream astronomy but
the ancients theory has the advantage of being part and parcel of a
philosophy which incorporates all aspects of life. That the Saturn
theorists continually choose to ignore this is their problem.
Cardona’s hypotheses and theory. My point was that these hypotheses are
not stated together until p490-91, i.e. at the end of the book rather
than at the beginning. His theory itself it not stated at all other
unless one accepts the list of hypotheses as the theory. Nor are these
hypotheses entirely consistent. For instance On p140 he states: “…
Hypothesis #1 – to the effect that, according to the ancients, the
planet Saturn once shone as a sun.”. [Cardona’s emphasis]. On page 490,
“Hypothesis #1: That the present gas giant planet we know by the name of
Saturn had previously been a sub-brown dwarf star free floating in space
outside the demarcation of the present Solar System”.
“At this point we can add Hypothesis #2 to the effect that, still
according to the ancients, the primeval Saturnian sun shone during that
time that we call night”. [p153, Cardona’s emphasis].
“Hypothesis #2: That, from what can be deduced from ancient as well as
primitive astronomical lore, Earth had once been a satellite of this
proto-Saturnian sub-star, which, because of its proximity, loomed large
in the sky as a distinct disc larger than the apparent size of the full
moon”. [p490]. I couldn’t be bothered checking and typing up the rest.
“Here GC (misunderstands or rather refuses to accept) the
comparative technique. He desires to have each myth told in its
entirety and analyzed, so the reader can learn the metaphorical
meanings or ethical lessons that are symbolized or defined. But this
is not the way the comparative method is properly used. It's purpose
is not to explain the detailed meanings of a single myth, rather it
is a means of extracting an unusual detail or motif and relating it
to other myths from other cultures with a similar unusual detail or
motif. This process requires that many elements of a specific myth
must be ignored (it is a filtering process) as local, and therefore
irrelevant, embellishments. It is in essence a forensic technique”.
Yes I desire each mythological tale to be analysed in its entirety but
not just so the reader can learn metaphorical or ethical lessons. I wish
the tale to be taken in its context not to be cherry-picked for a word
or phrase then abandoned. That there are metaphorical, ethical and
allegorical elements to myths is not my invention, it has been
recognised for thousands of years, e.g. by Plato. A further point which
I made in the critique and have mentioned more than once on this forum
is that every part of a given tale is information – it is not padding.
I still do not understand your (and the Saturn theorists’) use of the
word ‘forensic’.
The witch, her broom and my comment about her not riding side-saddle. My
comments were directed to the illustration of a mediaeval witch, not the
Mesoamerican comet examples. My comment alluded to the sexual symbolism
of the picture which in turn involves the broom being a phallic symbol.
The concepts involved are related to Tantra and the use of sexual
energy. Perhaps now you can see why she is not riding side-saddle. I
have no problem with comets being associated with witches as such, my
problem was and is that Cardona’s image does not really reflect what he
says in the text, i.e. he is using a modern caricature of a mediaeval
European witch to illustrate his comments about Mesoamerican comet
depictions.
“As far as other planets being known to be spheres, again, that is
because they were at times closer to the Earth and were perceived by
observers as spheres. I assume, in the next volume some other
celestial bodies such as Venus, Mars, and others will be introduced
into the model”.
According to Cardona’s hypotheses and your interpretation of them, no
other body was visible, not even the Sun. As for your last sentence,
what happens in subsequent volumes has no bearing on Cardona’s evidence
in GS or my critique of it. Cardona has in fact released the next
volume, so are these other bodies introduced?
Saturn the night Sun. It is Cardona who constantly makes reference to
Saturn shining at night. See his hypothesis #2 above (the one from p153)
– “the primeval Saturnian sun shone during that time that we call
night”. This has nothing to do with your attempted explanation involving
different phases of this supposed scenario. There is no time we call
night without the planet revolving around its axis and a non-coaxial
illuminating orb.
Cardona’s use of his sources. I notice that you make no attempt to
explain away the discrepancies between what the sources actually say and
what Cardona says that they say, e.g. his use of ellipses and his not
actually having read the source he is ostensibly quoting from (i.e.
taking things out of context).
I do not deny that various ancient texts and mythology contain
references to celestial and catastrophic events, something you should
know as we have had this dance on several threads. Nor do I advocate
that said texts and mythologies contain only metaphysical information.
My position has always been that mythology and literature such as the
Vedas contains a wealth of knowledge pertaining to various subjects. It
is you and the Saturn theories on the contrary, who advocate that all
mythology and literature such as the Vedas contains only information on
celestial catastrophe. This is why they are forced to cherry-pick their
information and disregard the rest.
Let us take the Rig Veda as an example. If its subject matter is
celestial catastrophe and nothing else, then surely an in-depth
examination of the book would yield much information about such a
catastrophe(s). Or are the Saturn theorists suggesting that there is
only a small kernel of information about catastrophe and the rest of it
is just padding and flannel? Why would the authors of the Rig go to the
trouble of writing in verse 10 Mandalas containing over 1000 hymns for a
total of 432,000 syllables? It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to.
As far as I am aware, none of the hymns is addressed to Saturn (Shana or
Shanaishchara, though he might have another name in the Rig).
Incidentally the number 432,000 pops up in other cultures too.
As for me not addressing the science behind God Star, as I have stated
elsewhere I do not have the science knowledge to do so. There again, I
don’t see anyone with such knowledge leaping to support Cardona’s (or
Talbott’s) science – maybe I missed it?
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38328>
New post by Lloyd Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:25 am
GC said: My position has always been that mythology and literature
such as the Vedas contains a wealth of knowledge pertaining to
various subjects. It is you and the Saturn theories on the contrary,
who advocate that all mythology and literature such as the Vedas
contains only information on celestial catastrophe. This is why they
are forced to cherry-pick their information and disregard the rest.
Let us take the Rig Veda as an example. If its subject matter is
celestial catastrophe and nothing else, then surely an in-depth
examination of the book would yield much information about such a
catastrophe(s). Or are the Saturn theorists suggesting that there is
only a small kernel of information about catastrophe and the rest of
it is just padding and flannel?
* I've never noticed any catastrophist claim that any myths are about
catastrophes and nothing else. They have stated that the original
reports of catastrophes either were not written down by observers or the
writings were lost. The human mind may even have been different at that
time than now. Reports were handed down mainly or entirely by word of
mouth. Later generations that did not witness the catastrophes did not
understand their ancestors' reports, because conditions on Earth were no
longer the same. So they added ideas to the reports that made sense to
them, giving explanations for things that weren't in the original
reports. This led over time to entire systems of beliefs that were not
part of their ancestors' reports, but that often contained much wisdom.
And the only way for anyone to discover what the original reports were
is to find all of the things, i.e. motifs, that all of the ancient myths
had in common, not the many details added by later generations in each
nation.
Why would the authors of the Rig go to the trouble of writing in
verse 10 Mandalas containing over 1000 hymns for a total of 432,000
syllables? It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to. As far as I am
aware, none of the hymns is addressed to Saturn (Shana or
Shanaishchara, though he might have another name in the Rig).
Incidentally the number 432,000 pops up in other cultures too.
* They obviously felt that it was very important wisdom to pass on to
future generations, even if they didn't entirely understand the original
meanings of the original "myths", or ancestral eye-witness reports.
As for me not addressing the science behind God Star, as I have
stated elsewhere I do not have the science knowledge to do so. There
again, I don’t see anyone with such knowledge leaping to support
Cardona’s (or Talbott’s) science – maybe I missed it?
* Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this site and
the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's expensive book,
but many know the basic theme, based on some of the material here and
from Thoth and other sites.
Lloyd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38331>
New post by *Grey Cloud Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:09 am
Hi Loyd
I've never noticed any catastrophist claim that any myths are about
catastrophes and nothing else.
What about god = plaent full stop? What about Talbott writing that the
Iliad is entirely celestial?
Later generations that did not witness the catastrophes did not
understand their ancestors' reports, because conditions on Earth
were no longer the same. So they added ideas to the reports that
made sense to them, giving explanations for things that weren't in
the original reports. This led over time to entire systems of
beliefs that were not part of their ancestors' reports, but that
often contained much wisdom.
I accept that over time each body of myth was added to and subtracted
from etc. However the core meaning of the mythology was retained. The
underlying philosophy of the Orphics is no different from that of the
Iliad; or Pythagorus or Plato. The Mesopotamian philosophy is the same,
and essentially the same as the Greek. The Vedic is essentially the same
as the Mesopotamian and the Greek. The Egyptian maintains its coherence
throughtout Egyptian history and is essentially the same as the Greek,
the Mesopotamian and the Indian. It is similar with the Mesoamerican
which is essentially the same as the old world philosophy. All of these
philosophies emerge fully formed in the earliest accounts we have, they
do not evolve over time. The wisdom is there from the start.
Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this site
and the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's
expensive book, but many know the basic theme, based on some of the
material here and from Thoth and other sites.
Point me to the many scientists on this site and the forum who provide
evidence for the science involved in either Cardona's or Talbott's
planetary merry-go-round.
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38337>
New post by CTJG 1986 Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:48 pm
Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Loyd
I've never noticed any catastrophist claim that any myths are
about catastrophes and nothing else.
What about god = plaent full stop? What about Talbott writing that
the Iliad is entirely celestial?
Later generations that did not witness the catastrophes did not
understand their ancestors' reports, because conditions on Earth
were no longer the same. So they added ideas to the reports that
made sense to them, giving explanations for things that weren't
in the original reports. This led over time to entire systems of
beliefs that were not part of their ancestors' reports, but that
often contained much wisdom.
I accept that over time each body of myth was added to and
subtracted from etc. However the core meaning of the mythology was
retained. The underlying philosophy of the Orphics is no different
from that of the Iliad; or Pythagorus or Plato. The Mesopotamian
philosophy is the same, and essentially the same as the Greek. The
Vedic is essentially the same as the Mesopotamian and the Greek. The
Egyptian maintains its coherence throughtout Egyptian history and is
essentially the same as the Greek, the Mesopotamian and the Indian.
It is similar with the Mesoamerican which is essentially the same as
the old world philosophy. All of these philosophies emerge fully
formed in the earliest accounts we have, they do not evolve over
time. The wisdom is there from the start.
Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this
site and the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's
expensive book, but many know the basic theme, based on some of
the material here and from Thoth and other sites.
Point me to the many scientists on this site and the forum who
provide evidence for the science involved in either Cardona's or
Talbott's planetary merry-go-round.
Although I could get into a lengthy post regarding your preconceived
notions and ignorance of the "evidence" this site puts forth individuals
such as Nick and Lloyd seem to do a much better job of conveying the
technical aspects of such things than I do so I'll leave it to them.
But as Nick pointed out you seem to have no real grasp of comparative
mythology as a discipline, there is little "evidence" beyond the actual
myths themselves hence why we interpret and compare them in such a way
to try to understand them.
In regards to the EU take on Saturnian theory pretty much all of the
evidence for such a catastrophic event is laid out in the TPOD's here.
You ignoring that evidence isn't the problem of anyone but yourself.
Why are you on this site if you don't consider the opinions of
Thornhill, Talbot, Nick, Lloyd and many others to be of any credibility
and you ignore the work they put forward?
The wisdom is there from the start.
Maybe I'm misreading that statement but please provide evidence that
these first recorded philosophies were the 'start' and that prior word
of mouth passage of such information did not occur.
Although chronology is a sticky thing around here it's generally
accepted that the events that are laid out by Saturnian theory would
have occurred thousands of years before Plato or any of those other
philosophers were alive, their work is the end result of generations of
people passing on the 'myths' and adding to them and such and not the
'start'.
Most of the altering of the stories would have occurred prior to them
being recorded by such philosophers as once recorded it's far more
difficult to alter a story. Once recorded the only thing that can really
be "changed" is the interpretations of the story.
On this site an EU interpretation of mythology is presented and it
includes Saturnian theory.
If you disagree with that interpretation then that is your right but
ignoring the evidence you don't like or taking issue with the
comparative mythological context used is not the fault of Saturnian
theory or any of it's proponents.
Note: I'm not trying to be confrontational here but I've rewritten this
post four times and no matter how I word it it comes across that way. No
offense intended.
Jonny
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38341>
New post by *Grey Cloud Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:38 pm
Hi CTJG 1986,
Although I could get into a lengthy post regarding your preconceived
notions and ignorance of the "evidence" this site puts forth...
If you are going to accuse me of preconceived notions and ignorance then
the least you could do is to provide an example or two.
But as Nick pointed out you seem to have no real grasp of
comparative mythology as a discipline, there is little "evidence"
beyond the actual myths themselves hence why we interpret and
compare them in such a way to try to understand them.
I don't think Nick is foolish enough to accuse me of lack of knowledge
of comparative mythology. What Nick accuses me of is lack of knowledge,
or understanding, of the comparative method employed by the Saturn
theorists. As I've mentioned before, exegesis of myth is not a new
discipline, it has been around for thousands of years. Those exegetes
from, say, Plato's time, had access to records which we no longer have.
In regards to the EU take on Saturnian theory pretty much all of the
evidence for such a catastrophic event is laid out in the TPOD's
here. You ignoring that evidence isn't the problem of anyone but
yourself.
Again you make a stement without giving any examples or evidence. I have
never stated that there was no catastrophes. What I was referring to in
my post above was the quote from Lloyd:
Why do you ignore the many scientists who contribute to this site
and the forum? Most of them probably haven't read Cardona's
expensive book, but many know the basic theme, based on some of the
material here and from Thoth and other sites.
Maybe I'm misreading that statement but please provide evidence that
these first recorded philosophies were the 'start' and that prior
word of mouth passage of such information did not occur.
There is a certain irony in you calling for evidence but yes you are
misreading the single sentence. The preceding sentence read: "All of
these philosophies emerge fully formed in the earliest accounts we have,
they do not evolve over time". My point being that these supposedly
illiterate, traumatised people suddenly all appear with a coherent,
sophisticated philosophy and one which is moreover the same in all its
essential details. This is not some crack-pot idea of mine but has been
recognised by such as the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo and by modern
academics.
Have you studied mythology or do you just rely on what the Saturn
theorists tell you? What about ancient philosophies and religions?
Although chronology is a sticky thing around here it's generally
accepted that the events that are laid out by Saturnian theory would
have occurred thousands of years before Plato or any of those other
philosophers were alive, their work is the end result of generations
of people passing on the 'myths' and adding to them and such and not
the 'start'.
Most of the altering of the stories would have occurred prior to
them being recorded by such philosophers as once recorded it's far
more difficult to alter a story. Once recorded the only thing that
can really be "changed" is the interpretations of the story.
You seem unfamiliar with the work of anthroplogists who have studied
pre-literate societies, and the difficulties modern scholars have in
identifying scribal errors and interpolations in written documents. It
is much easier for a written document to become corrupted than for an
oral version. Well into the C20th century there were Brahmins who had
memorised the entire Rig Veda for instance - all 432,000 syllables.
Why are you on this site if you don't consider the opinions of
Thornhill, Talbot, Nick, Lloyd and many others to be of any
credibility and you ignore the work they put forward?
My reasons for being on this site are my own business. I have not
accused Thornhill of lack of credibility nor can I recall ever
criticising any of his work. As I said in one my my posts above, I don't
have the requisite knowledge to comment on the science side of things
which is why I limit my criticisms to the mythological aspects. Nick and
Lloyd are members of this forum just like you and me. I have had
sensible discussions with both of them in the past and am currently
having one with Lloyd on a different thread. I can agree with a person
on one subject and disagree with that same person on a different subject.
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38349>
New post by CTJG 1986 Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 pm
If you are going to accuse me of preconceived notions and ignorance
then the least you could do is to provide an example or two.
I wasn't accusing you of ignorance in general but in ignoring the TPOD's
that provide the evidence here on this site, whether you agree with the
interpretation of that evidence or not simply dismissing it completely
is not a wise move.
Your preconceived notions have to do with your prior studies of
mythology, which last I checked you openly admit too so I didn't realize
I needed to link to it(though I suppose I should have clarified that).
You stated:
Point me to the many scientists on this site and the forum who
provide evidence for the science involved in either Cardona's or
Talbott's planetary merry-go-round.
You can point yourself at the TPOD's and criticize them for the
interpretations they put forward, but they do provide evidence. Or
rather an EU Saturnian theory interpretation of the evidence.
I don't think Nick is foolish enough to accuse me of lack of
knowledge of comparative mythology. What Nick accuses me of is lack
of knowledge, or understanding, of the comparative method employed
by the Saturn theorists. As I've mentioned before, exegesis of myth
is not a new discipline, it has been around for thousands of years.
Those exegetes from, say, Plato's time, had access to records which
we no longer have.
That was poorly worded on my part I admit and apologize for, I wasn't
referring to your general knowledge of mythology or calling it into
question but simply your interpretation on this subject matter of Saturn
Theory and the comparative method used therein.
Again you make a statement without giving any examples or evidence.
I have never stated that there was no catastrophes. What I was
referring to in my post above was the quote from Lloyd: ...
I never said that you stated there were no catastrophes either, simply
that the evidence of such catastrophes is provided in the TPOD's and all
over this website.
Again, if you have a different interpretation of the evidence that's
fine but I don't see why you felt the need to make such a huge critique
about it(much of which was nitpicking) while ignoring the most important
questions such as the ones Nick mentioned in his OP here and dismissing
the evidence they provide as not being evidence.
There is a certain irony in you calling for evidence but yes you are
misreading the single sentence. The preceding sentence read: "All of
these philosophies emerge fully formed in the earliest accounts we
have, they do not evolve over time". My point being that these
supposedly illiterate, traumatised people suddenly all appear with a
coherent, sophisticated philosophy and one which is moreover the
same in all its essential details. This is not some crack-pot idea
of mine but has been recognised by such as the Indian philosopher
Sri Aurobindo and by modern academics.
Have you studied mythology or do you just rely on what the Saturn
theorists tell you? What about ancient philosophies and religions?
I only know or have read the work of three Saturn Theorists that I'm
aware of, and I'd say I agree with about 40% of their work at most. I'm
far more inclined to Perrat's theory of a Z-Pinch aurora in explaining
most of the evidence attributed to Saturn Theory but am still doing
research on that and other possibilities.
I just take issue with someone writing out a huge criticism of a theory
when 90% of the criticism is irrelevant to the actual theory and is
essentially just nitpicking. As a massively political person I recognize
such behavior quite easily, you should run for a position of power and
fit right in. :lol:
I have studied modern theology in great depth(historical theology only a
bit so far) and philosophy to some extent(reading the actual
philosophical works not investigating the authors or the chronology or
anything like that), that post was meant to be taken with the next two
paragraph's as a lead-up to my point that the "adding on" to the myths
occurred before they were recorded by the likes of Plato.
They didn't 'start' with that wisdom as you stated originally but
acquired it from prior sources.
The written history may start off with that wisdom but those that wrote
it acquired it from others who developed it over time based on their
experiences, that is logically the most likely time for such alterations
to occur as word of mouth is highly inaccurate. That was simply my
point, mistaken impressions and inaccuracies aside.
You seem unfamiliar with the work of anthroplogists who have studied
pre-literate societies, and the difficulties modern scholars have in
identifying scribal errors and interpolations in written documents.
It is much easier for a written document to become corrupted than
for an oral version. Well into the C20th century there were Brahmins
who had memorised the entire Rig Veda for instance - all 432,000
syllables.
Fair point, though I hope you aren't suggesting that passing information
on orally would be any near as reliable as using written works which at
least provide some kind of references.
My reasons for being on this site are my own business.
I never said they weren't, though I didn't think you'd take issue with
the simple question.
I have not accused Thornhill of lack of credibility nor can I recall
ever criticising any of his work. As I said in one my my posts
above, I don't have the requisite knowledge to comment on the
science side of things which is why I limit my criticisms to the
mythological aspects. Nick and Lloyd are members of this forum just
like you and me. I have had sensible discussions with both of them
in the past and am currently having one with Lloyd on a different
thread. I can agree with a person on one subject and disagree with
that same person on a different subject.
That's good and I have no problem with you either and have been
following many of your posts on many subjects without issue, maybe it's
just the internet at work and the lack of tones and inflictions but in
the case of your original criticism of God Star and your response to
Nick here it seemed to come across as being quite arrogant. It seems
like you are saying you know how it is and anyone who suggests otherwise
is a nut who believes in a 'merry-go-round' theory...
Being so dismissive on this site is in poor taste in my view, hence my
confrontational response(I really did try to lighten it up).
I'm sure that was just another misinterpretation on my part though.
Jonny CTJG 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38350>
New post by Grey Cloud Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:04 pm
Hi CTJG 1986,
For the record, I didn't take your tone as confronalional (I accepted
waht you said at the end of your first post).
I just take issue with someone writing out a huge criticism of a
theory when 90% of the criticism is irrelevant to the actual theory
and is essentially just nitpicking. As a massively political person
I recognize such behavior quite easily, you should run for a
position of power and fit right in.
It wasn't a critique of the Saturn theory, it was critique of the book.
Whether you are a massively political person or not, and I've no idea
what such a thing is, you know nothing about me. I realise your
statement was made in jest but it nowhere near describes me or my
values. I take the sentiments expressed in my signature very seriously.
The TPODs do not as far as I am aware directly address either of the
Saturn theories. They are mostly comments upon mainstream press-releases
from an EU perspective, with a lesser proportion of them dealing with
catastrophism. That some mainstream explanations can be better
interpreted from an EU perspective and that there are references to
catastrophe in ancient literature etc does not in any way, shape or form
constitute evidence that the planets once lined up as per Talbott's
theory or that Earth was a satellite of Saturn as per Cardona. If anyone
can point me to TPODs which directly address either Saturn theory then I
stand corrected.
They didn't 'start' with that wisdom as you stated originally but
acquired it from prior sources.
That is my point - the wisdom apears fully formed, i.e. it came from
prior sources or sources that are lost in prehistory. Therefore to
maintain that the ancient peoples originally started out with the
simplistic notion that god = planet and then gradually evolved and
elaborated their philosophy over the ensuing centuries or millenia is
untenable.
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38378>
New post by StevenJay Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:51 pm
Grey Cloud wrote:[...] therefore to maintain that the ancient
peoples originally started out with the simplistic notion that god =
planet and then gradually evolved and elaborated their philosophy
over the ensuing centuries or millenia is untenable.
Hi, GC -
For one who prides himself on the ability to align with the minds of
ancient authors, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that you seem to be
unable to grasp the mindset of a sentient race of beings who knew
nothing of want or need, and who very well may have known nothing of
fear. During those times, all they EVER saw above their heads -
untouchable - was a looming figure that looked very much like a human
eye. It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see how those
ancient, innocent terrestrial beings might have revered that all-seeing
eye as the Source and Provider of all things - which, indeed it would
have been.
If the break-up of the Saturn system took place over the course of
several, or even dozens of generations, then the collective perception
of the one, all-seeing eye of the benevolent provider might morph into
multiple all-powerful beings, who then, at the complete bewilderment of
terrestrial inhabitants, proceed to do deadly battle - resulting in MUCH
collateral damage.
Our species has been suffering the psychological trauma and emulating
that scenario ever since.
As I see it, the original rock-art record of what actually went down (as
well as the impetus behind it) was overlaid with all of the
philosophical (including religious) points of view regarding that
species-changing period of human experience, long (millenia) after the
fact. I see that outcome as being partly due to our ability to learn and
extrapolate from experience, and interpret it abstractly. I also see it
as a way of dulling, or re-directing, the cutting-edge of horrors that
were previously unimaginable.
You consistently maintain that the "humanities" cannot be examined via
the scientific (forensic) method but, rather, must ONLY be metabolized
in their larger philosophical context. Sorry, but that sounds
suspiciously pseudo-religious to me.
It's all a dance of perceptions.
StevenJay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38380>
New post by Sparky Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:14 pm
A quote from a John Wayne movie,"Is this a private fight or can anyone
join in?" :D
I would also like a link to an explanation of how Saturn could position
itself over Earth's N. Pole...
Also, a short explanation of what this means,"-a brown dwarf star
(Proto-Saturn) and Earth which shared the same axis of rotation. "
thank you...
Sparky
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38382>
New post by Grey Cloud Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:00 pm
Hi Steven,
For one who prides himself on the ability to align with the minds of
ancient authors, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that you seem to
be unable to grasp the mindset of a sentient race of beings who knew
nothing of want or need, and who very well may have known nothing of
fear. During those times, all they EVER saw above their heads -
untouchable - was a looming figure that looked very much like a
human eye. It doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see
how those ancient, innocent terrestrial beings might have revered
that all-seeing eye as the Source and Provider of all things -
which, indeed it would have been.
How do you know any of this to be the case?
Have you ever read any of the Vedic accounts of Satya Yuga? Or even the
Greek accounts of the Golden Age? Or the Egyptian accounts?
For two years or so I have been asking for somebody, anybody to provide
me with an ancient reference to an account of something that resembles
either of the Saturn theories’ configurations, or something which tells
of a re-arrangement of the solar system. I’m asking again.
If the break-up of the Saturn system took place over the course of
several, or even dozens of generations, then the collective
perception of the one, all-seeing eye of the benevolent provider
might morph into multiple all-powerful beings, who then, at the
complete bewilderment of terrestrial inhabitants, proceed to do
deadly battle - resulting in MUCH collateral damage.
Friggin big ‘if’. So you are saying that these formerly innocent but now
bewildered people created their theogony on the fly while all this was
going on? Then how come they all made up the same story? A story which,
according to this line of thinking, then developed into the same
philosophy? Or are you saying that they developed the theogony at a much
later date? How did they manage this when they are all supposed to be
suffering from collective amnesia? Or did they do it in the immediate
aftermath when they had nothing better to be doing but before the
collective amnesia kicked in?
Our species has been suffering the psychological trauma and
emulating that scenario ever since.
What evidence do you have that all or any of mankind is suffering from
any sort of psychological trauma? What do you mean by emulating that
scenario?
As I see it, the original rock-art record of what actually went down
(as well as the impetus behind it) was overlaid with all of the
philosophical (including religious) points of view regarding that
species-changing period of human experience, long (millenia) after
the fact. I see that outcome as being partly due to our ability to
learn and extrapolate from experience, and interpret it abstractly.
I also see it as a way of dulling, or re-directing, the cutting-edge
of horrors that were previously unimaginable.
The Lascaux cave paintings, for instance, are dated to 17,000 years ago,
how does that fit in with the Saturn theories?
If you are referring to the petroglyphs, I do not lump them all
together. I do see some of them as done by survivors of catastrophe, not
done by any sort of intelligentia but by ordinary folk. Others, some of
the Australian art comes to mind, are probably shamanic, similar to the
Lascaux-type art.
You consistently maintain that the "humanities" cannot be examined
via the scientific (forensic) method but, rather, must ONLY be
metabolized in their larger philosophical context. Sorry, but that
sounds suspiciously pseudo-religious to me.
Why do Saturn theorists and their supporters have to invoke the word
‘forensic’? Can a myth be recreated in a lab? The humanities are more
art than science as they rely on subjective judgement. Sure, artefacts
etc can be dated using scientific techniques but the Saturn theorists
don't accept the dating techniques, or the ice-core records or any other
science which disagrees with their theories anyway, so where does that
leave 'forensic science'?
What I actually maintain is that any mythological tale or episode should
be examined in context.
I don’t understand your reference to pseudo-religious. Am I being
criticised for the pseudo, the religious, or both?
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38383>
New post by Grey Cloud Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:02 pm
Hi Sparky,
Come on in, the water's lovely. :D
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38385>
New post by starbiter Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:29 pm
This is from Dr. Velikovsky, with footnotes.
http://www.varchive.org/itb/deif.htm
Deification of the Planets
The Sun and the Moon are two great luminaries, and it is easily
understandable that the imagination of the peoples should be preoccupied
with them and should ascribe to them mythological deeds. Yet the ancient
mythologies of the Chaldeans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindus, the
Mayans, preoccupy themselves not with the Sun or the Moon, but prima
facie with the planets. Marduk, the great god of the Babylonians, was
the planet Jupiter; so was Amon of the Egyptians, Zeus of the Greeks and
Jupiter of the Romans.(1) It was much superior to Shamash-Helios, the
Sun. Why was it revered by all peoples? Why was the planet Mars chosen
to be the personification of the god of war? Why did Kronos of the
Greeks, Saturn of the Romans, play a part in hundreds of myths and
legends? Thoth of the Egyptians, Nebo and Nergal of the Babylonians,
Mithra and Mazda of the Persians, Vishnu and Shiva of the Hindus,
Huitzilopochtli and Quetzalcoatl of the Mexicans, were personifications
of planets; innumerable hymns were dedicated to them and adventures and
exploits ascribed to them.
“The life of our planet has its real source in the Sun,” wrote E. Renan.
“All force is a transformation of the Sun. Before religion had gone so
far as to proclaim that God must be placed in the absolute and the
ideal, that is to say, outside of the world, one cult only was
reasonable and scientific, and that was the cult of the Sun.” (2) But
the Sun was subordinate to the planets, even though they are not
conspicuous, poor sources of light, and no sources of warmth.
The night sky illuminated by stars is majestic. The geometrical figures
of the constellations, such as the Pleiades, Orion, or the Great Bear,
rolling from the east in the evening to the west before morning, are
favorite motifs in poetry, no less than the Sun and the Moon. But the
discrepancy in the choice of motifs by the ancients becomes still more
obvious. The constellations of the sky took only a minor and incidental
part in the mythology of the ancient peoples. The planets were the major
gods, and they rule the universe.(3)
“It is not easy to understand the idea which was the basis for the
identification of the Babylonian gods with the planets,” writes an
author;(4) but the same process of identification of major gods with the
planets can be found in the religions of the peoples in all parts of the
world. The planets were not affiliated to the gods, or symbols of the
gods—they were the gods. In prayers and liturgies they were invoked as
gods. “The greater gods, even when addressed by name in prayer, were
regarded as astral powers.” (5) This or that planet is selected,
according to the text of the prayer, from “the multitude of the stars of
heaven” to receive a gift.
“The planetary gods are much the most powerful of all. Their positions
in the sky, their reciprocal relations . . . have a decisive influence
on all physical and moral phenomena of the world.” (6)
The great majority of us moderns pay no attention to these points in the
night sky, and probably not one in ten or even in a hundred is able to
point to Jupiter or Mars in the firmament. The planets change their
places, but not conspicuously. Were they indebted for their deification
to this slow movement, by which they differ from the fixed stars? Did
Zeus-Jupiter-Marduk-Amon become the supreme deity, the thunderer and
dreadful lord of the universe, only because of his slow movement—he
passes in twelve years the circle of the zodiac, traversed by the Sun in
twenty-four hours, and by the Moon even quicker? When seen with the
naked eye the planet Jupiter distinguishes itself from the fixed stars
of first magnitude only by this slow change of position.
Augustine, confused by the problem of the deification of the planets,
wrote in the fourth century:
But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these
gods. They call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other
star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the name of gods,
is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the
world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give him no
small property beside, namely all seeds.(7)
Mercury, the closest to the Sun, is barely visible, being hidden in the
Sun’s rays. But the ancients made the planet Mercury into a great
god—Hermes or Nebo. Why was it feared and worshiped? What is there
generally in the planets to inspire awe, so as to influence people to
build temples for them, to sing liturgies, to bring sacrifices, to
narrate legends, and to dedicate to them the domain of science, of war,
of agriculture?
The ancients were sufficiently enlightened to know that the planets are
large rocks like the Earth that circle on orbits.(8) And this makes the
modern scholars wonder: knowing that the planets are rocks, why did the
ancients believe that they are gods?(9)
The key to this problem, which is the major problem of all classical
mythology, is already in our hands. The planet Venus was deified because
of its dramatic appearance and because of the havoc it brought to the
world, as described in Worlds in Collision. I illuminated also the
events which made Mars a feared god. Divine qualities were ascribed to
the other planets because of the catastrophes they wrought in earlier ages.
In the Persian holy books it is said that “on the planets depends the
existence or non-existence of the world—wherefore are they especially to
be venerated.” (10) “The seven planets rule the universe,” says a
Nabatean inscription.(11) The Greeks and Romans believed that
“everything is, in fact, subject to the changes brought about by the
revolutions of the stars.” (12)
“The celestial orbs by their combined movements are the authors of all
that was, and is, and is to come.” According to ancient Hebrew
traditions, “there are seven archangels, each of whom is associated with
a planet.” (13) “The seven archangels were believed to play an important
part in the universal order through their associations with the planets.
. . .” (14)
The reason for the deification of the planets lay in the fact that the
planets only a short time ago were not faultlessly circling celestial
bodies, nor were they harmless. This is also expressed in a Mandaean
text: “How cruel are the planets that stay there and conspire evil in
their rage . . . the planets conspire in rage against us.” (15)
References
[These identifications are discussed below, Part IV: “Jupiter of the
Thunderbolt.” ]
Dialogues et fragments philosophiques (Paris, 1876), p. 168. [Cf.
Macrobius]
[For ancient planetary worship among the Babylonians, see Bartel L. van
der Waerden, Science Awakening, Vol. II (Leyden, 1974), p. 59; among the
Egyptians, see H. Brugsch, Astronomische und astrologische Inschriften
altaegyptischer Denkmaeler (Leipzig, 1883); E. Naville, “La Destruction
des hommes par les dieux,” Transactions of the Society for Biblical
Archaeology IV (1875), pp. 1-18; O. Neugebauer and R. Parker, Egyptian
Astronomical Texts (London, 1969); among the Hebrews, see M. Seligsohn,
“Star Worship” in The Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York, 1905); cf. L.
Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1925), vol. III, p.
371; vol. VI, pp. 66f.; among the Persians, see The Dabistan, transl. by
D. Shea and A. Troyer (Washington, 1901); among the Finns, see J. M.
Crawford’s preface to The Kalevala, (Cincinnati, 1904), p. xiv.].
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Strassburg, 1890), p. 134.
L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, (London, 1896), Section V.;
cf. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 48.
F. Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, (1912),
p. 120; cf. idem, “Le mysticisme astral,” Bull. Acad. de Belgique
(1909); also idem, “Les noms des planetes et l’astrolatrie chez les
Grecs,” Antiquite Classique IV (1935), pp. 6ff.
The City of God, transl. by M. Dods (1907), Book VII, ch. 15.
This was the teaching of Anaxagoras as reported by Diogenes Laertius,
Lives of the Famous Philosophers, II. 8.
E. Pfeiffer, Gestirne und Wetter im griechischen Volksglauben (Leipzig,
1914), pp. 24f. [The deification of the planets is advocated in the
Platonic Epinomis 471; cf. also Cicero, De Natura Deorum II. 21. 54-55.]
Yasnav I. 307. See J. Scheftelowitz, Die Zeit als Schicksalgottheit in
der indischen und iranischen Religion (Stuttgart, 1929), p. 2.
D. Chwolson, Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus (St. Petersburg, 1856), vol.
II, pp. 604f.
Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, pp. 113-114;
[cf. M. P. Nilsson, “The Origin of Belief among the Greeks in the
Divinity of the Heavenly Bodies,” Harvard Tr. Rel. 33 (1940), pp. 1ff.
and idem, “Symbolisme astronomique et mystique dans certains cultes
publics grecs,” Homages Bidez-Cumont (1949), pp. 217ff. Cf. also P.
Boyance, “La religion astrale de Platon a Ciceron,” Revue des Etudes
Grecques LXV (1952), pp. 312-350.]
J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (New York, 1939), p. 98.
Ibid., p. 250.
M. Lidzbarski, “Ein mandaeischer Amulett,” Florilegium, pp. 350f.
starbiter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Very Brief Response to Grey Cloud's Critique <#p38388>
New post by Grey Cloud Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Hi Michael,
That post is off-top, see the thread title.
Velikovsky answers his own question:
The Greeks and Romans believed that “everything is, in fact, subject
to the changes brought about by the revolutions of the stars.” (12)
“The celestial orbs by their combined movements are the authors of
all that was, and is, and is to come.”
That's what astrology is all about. It is no big mystery but is well
documented in the ancient literature and modern scholarship.
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------