Many insightful comments and observations above -- I'll try to give some of my own perspectives as appropriate:
1. My intention is primarily to provide greater understanding of the code or language that the ancient scriptures, myths, and sacred stories around the world appear to be using. Taking the time to try to learn this language will, I believe, enable men and women to consult the myths for themselves and ask
them what they are trying to teach (as opposed to asking me, since I am not an ancient sage or modern enlightened being or anything similar).
2. On the other hand, I do have some suggestions as to what they might mean, based on my own engagement with the myths, which may (or may not) be helpful to others, and I share those in hopes that if they are helpful to others that's good and if they are not so helpful then perhaps they will spur engagement with the myths to find out what they say.
3. Further, I also feel pretty strongly that taking them literally (as I actually tried to do within my own adult life for close to twenty years) can lead to serious misunderstanding of the myths or texts. If they are in fact speaking an esoteric and metaphorical language (as I am convinced that they are) then it stands to reason that trying to interpret them as if they are speaking a literal language will lead to misunderstanding. I actually believe it leads to an
inversion of their message in many cases, because literal-historical interpretation by its nature externalizes and physicalizes what I believe to be primarily an internal and spiritual teaching. I recently responded to a question on one of my videos on YouTube with a couple examples of how this can happen (and has happened) with two specific Biblical examples (one from the so-called Old Testament and one from the so-called New Testament), which you can check out
here:
[you'll have to use the actual link given above or click "watch on YouTube" in the video in order to get to the comments section -- if you just watch the video it in the browser here on Skeptiko then you will not see the comment to which I am trying to refer].
Specifically, if an interpretation condones violence, racism, sexism, oppression, colonialism, conversions and other crimes against other men and women (each of whom, according to the metaphors presented in the myths, contains a divine spark and an inner connection to the Infinite and is in fact an entire universe in microcosm), then the message is clearly being inverted.
3b. I am sensitive to the point that the word "literalism" is a broad-brush term and needs further definition in order to draw useful distinctions between levels of literalism. I have actually addressed this point at some length in my books. I understand that one can maintain for example that Jesus or Moses were actual persons who appeared on the stage of literal human history (which I would categorize as "literal"), while still retaining an understanding that much of scripture contains poetical and allegorical material and teachings in parables etc. I however use the term very broadly to say that I am using it to include the insistence that Jesus or Moses must have been literal persons existing in human history in order for the scriptures to have value or truth. I disagree with that, just as I would disagree with the same statement for the figures in the Odyssey (the Odyssey contains profound truth, but I do not insist on believing that Odysseus and Penelope existed as literal human beings in terrestrial history in order to benefit from the profound wisdom in the Odyssey).
4. More than one person in the chain of observations and comments above has brought up the visit of the Magi (and the star of Bethlehem). I believe that this is a very clear example of a passage in the Biblical scripture which cannot be taken literally i.e. as literal-terrestrial history as written (although literalist preachers and teachers continue to try very hard to present literal interpretations of it). How do wise men
from the east follow a star which they themselves declare that they
have seen in the east and end up anywhere near Bethlehem in Judaea (unless they circumnavigated the globe on their journey)? The episode as written does not work for Magi on the surface of the earth -- but it works very well for Magi who are associated with specific stars (as does the later declaration that they "returned to their own land another way -- that is to say, they returned to the east after they set in the west: the "other way" is the underground way [from west to east], metaphorically speaking, as opposed to the "crossing the sky" way [from east to west]). I have addressed this at some length in a
blog post here and in a
video here.
5. I do not take the literal-historical existence of a figure Jesus as established at all and in fact find much in the text to suggest that the accounts in the gospels follow the same pattern of celestial metaphor which we find in other myths around the world (with some very strong parallels at important points to certain episodes in the Odyssey, in fact). I elaborate on these celestial metaphors at length in
Star Myths of the Bible (2016). You can read some sample content from that here:
http://www.starmythworld.com/books/ (click on the image of the cover of a book to see the sample content in online pdf format, or use the links below the panel of book-cover images). In the epistles of the writer calling himself Paul (likely a celestial name as well -- "Saul / Paul" being phonetically solar and related to Sol / Pol, with the sound "Pol" appearing in the names Apollo and Pollux), the emphasis is upon an internal and spiritual reality (a "Christ within"). Following others, I have argued that the writer called Paul was likely teaching from an understanding we could broadly categorize as gnostic (another term that requires some distinction and qualification, but I am here using it in a broad sense and one that can also be understood to be anti-literalist and in fact vigorously opposed by early literalist church authorities). See for instance
this previous post and also
this previous post.
6. The interaction between Jesus and Thomas is also important, and has some strong parallels to the interaction between Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, immediately prior to the descent into the battle on the plain of Kurukshetra. I again believe that the Jesus-Thomas interaction contains clear signals pointing to celestial metaphor, and that its meaning is profound and important but does not require acceptance of literal or historical figures named Jesus or Thomas (and indeed, the way this encounter is interpreted by literalist interpretation is different from the way I believe we interpret it if we approach it as esoteric [or even 'gnostic'] metaphor). I have written about this encounter at length in the sample material in the preview pdf for
Star Myths of the Bible, as well as in several blog posts such as "
Who is 'Doubting Thomas'?" , "
The Gospel of Thomas and the Divine Twin" and "
The Gospel of Thomas and the Everlasting Spring." All of these posts and videos to which I am linking should give some insight into what I believe the ancient scriptures and myths are trying to convey to us, but again I emphasize that no one should really care what I myself (David M) thinks they mean. "Go to the myths for yourself" is my motto (and don't try to read them literally, is my suggestion).
7. The quotation from Alvin Boyd Kuhn to which
hypermagda thoughtfully objects is just one snippet of Kuhn's from a 600-page book
Lost Light which is massive but really worth the read. I have just linked to it in a visually-pleasant online version (link in the previous sentence). Of course Kuhn does use some metaphors which we might want to phrase differently today, and he was after all born in 1885 and raised in a very different time, but I personally believe that after reading large amounts of his work we can say pretty confidently that he really was not being sexist, and in several places he explicitly states that he is speaking of all men and all women (he also argues that in order to gain the experiences and make the transformations for which we come down into this incarnate life, one go-around is never enough, and that the ancient scriptures imply pretty strongly and in some cases even state explicitly that we come down here for multiple incarnations, sometimes as men and sometimes as women -- and Kuhn, appears to believe, also as animals and even as plants, apparently, although I'm not sure about all that). In any case, I find Kuhn to be very insightful and helpful, even if I don't agree with his every word or his every interpretation. The specific passage about activity and battle and "winning the glory" (I believe) is Kuhn's attempt to give us a sense of the difference between the soul in the spirit realm and the soul when incarnate. He is trying to draw the distinction between disembodied contemplation and incarnate engagement (we are presently undergoing the "incarnate engagement" part of the cycle -- and we can probably all agree that in some ways it is a kind of struggle or battle). We don't have to embrace the unfortunate early 20th-century "joy of battle" way he is saying what he is saying, but I really believe he is trying to make that contrast using metaphorical language there. And, in fact, the ancient myths (in my interpretation) can be clearly shown to use a "great battle" as a metaphor for this incarnate life. The Bhagavad Gita itself is a passage in the ancient Sanskrit text Mahabharata, and it is a conversation between Arjuna and the Lord Krishna just prior to the commencement of the apocalyptic battle of Kurukshetra. Arjuna, in fact, does not want to engage in the battle -- he declares that he wants to "sit this one out" (note that Achilles does the same thing in the Iliad). I believe that these huge battles depicted in the ancient myths such as the Trojan War and the Battle of Kurukshetra, which can be shown to depict the two opposing sides in celestial terms (terms related to the "upper half" and "lower half" of the zodiac wheel or circle of the year) are metaphorical representations of the cycles of incarnation (descent into materiality, forgetfulness of the connection to spirit and the presence of the Invisible Realm or divine realm at all points and at all times even in this material realm, eventual recognition of the presence and importance of something beyond the merely physical, and then re-integration with it and elevation of consciousness or spirit). I have written about this in some previous posts, such as "
Descent into Kurukshetra" and also many others which can be found by searching the blog for terms such as "Arjuna" or "Krishna" or "Gita" etc. I would also suggest that one can read the Tao Te Ching in much the same way -- the metaphors are different (no elaborate mythical battle scenes) but the underlying concept is the same (the eternal interplay of Yin and Yang, and the unfolding of the "myriad things" and their re-folding back into the Infinite, again and again endlessly). I write a bit about the Tao Te Ching in a recent "New Year's" post here:
http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2017/01/a-blueprint-that-sits-behind-creation.html
8. I personally believe that one of the things we are supposed to be doing in this incarnate life is "elevating the spirit," in ourselves and in others. I believe this concept is closely related to the term "blessing" (as opposed to cursing, which involves "beating down the spirit" in ourselves or in others: denying the spiritual and "forcing to the level of the animal" or saying to someone that they are "just a physical body" -- all forms of racism and sexism being examples of identifying someone as "just a body" and all forms of swearing or cursing being related to bodily functions or bodily descriptions, for the most part). I believe that there are ancient disciplines to help us "elevate the spirit," and that these include meditation, Yoga, Tantra, certain martial arts, what is today called Qi Gong (a modern term but describing a practice that appears to be ancient), breathing exercises or breath work (breath being a kind of mediator between the realms of spirit and of matter) and even chanting or singing (chanting or singing or music being a related mediator between the realms of spirit and of matter). I don't think any of us would say that a very advanced Yogi (whether man or woman) is likely to be interested in "games and battle" and "glory" of the early-twentieth-century stereotypical western variety! But I do think that they are probably participating in the kinds of activities which the ancient wisdom encourages us to practice in this life (including
blessing and the raising the consciousness of themselves and of others).
9. Hope these suggestions are helpful. If not, please feel free to ignore (doesn't hurt my feelings) and to explore the myths directly for what they have to teach!!!