David Mathisen is changing the way we think about Hercules |337|

I'm not sure about it either. I think one might need to make a distinction between what we might call 'record' (ie: this weird experience happened to me it was xyz) and 'method' (ie: this is how you get to xyz). David's language seems to fall between the two in a way... it appears not to be a 'how to' that can be decoded and impart some mystical knowledge (or is it?) and the fact that it's a myth seems to negate the argument for it being a 'record' of something. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

The word "myth" used to have a more intricate meaning than the "BS made up by superstitious people" one that has been popularized nowadays. Many of them could actually be records, yet presented in allegorical form. In fact, several are known to mirror historical events that we have recovered through other means.
 
This is high-quality interaction and I am enjoying seeing people with different areas of study / expertise and different life experience etc engaging with these ideas on this level.

I did want to respond specifically to one question posed in the above comments from Gabriel, following my earlier reply to Gabriel.

Gabriel wrote: "What I can say is I don't see why stars should carry complex ideas in simple and highly ambiguous shapes, especially when he's not offering any narrator or decoder."

To clarify further, it is my conclusion after some years of studying the evidence that it is not just "the stars" and the "simple and highly ambiguous shapes" that are being used to carry the complex ideas: it is the heavenly motions themselves -- the fact that the stars and heavenly bodies (including sun, moon and visible planets) can be seen to rise up from the eastern horizon, cross the sky and then sink down into the western horizon (only to pop up again on the eastern horizon) that becomes a very suitable metaphor for the descent OUT OF the realm of pure potentiality (to use a quantum-physics description, or what David Bohm calls the "implicate order") and INTO the realm of physical manifestation ("explicate order"). Or, to use older or more traditional terminology, OUT OF the realm of spirit (the Invisible Realm, the Dreamtime, the realm of the gods, the Infinite Realm) and INTO the realm of physical incarnation (the Ordinary Realm, the Finite Realm, the material world).

This is how the daily cycle (of the sun rising and setting, and the stars rising and setting) provides a perfect metaphor for discussing the interaction of the Invisible World and the Material World of ordinary reality. The annual cycle provides an even more useful metaphor, because it is calibrated even more finely by the divisions of the solstices and equinox, and the even finer divisions provided by the zodiac wheel (the sunrise taking place against the backdrop of a different zodiac constellation approximately every 30 days). There are even finer divisions within each zodiac station (decans), but the main metaphor involves the crossing down into this life and the things we are supposed to be learning and doing while we are here, which can be discussed in terms of different stages or stations along that "lower journey" (sinking into materiality, and then becoming aware that the material is not all there is to this life, and then doing something about it -- and I very much believe that traditional disciplines such as Yoga, Tantra, certain forms of kung fu and Tai Chi and Daoist meditation, mantras, mudras, etc were seen as ways of integrating spirit and body and "turning back upwards" on this downward journey here on the "lower half" of the zodiac wheel, where everyone reading this is presently traveling, assuming everyone reading this is an incarnate being and we don't have any spiritual visitors participating in the forum).

By the way, I believe I can make a very strong case that Gabriel, who stands in the presence of the Most High, is associated with a specific constellation (may also be associated with a specific planet). Plenty of evidence from scriptural passages, as well as from artistic representations of Gabriel down through the centuries, can be offered in support of this argument. The planet which stands in the presence of the Most High, and which thus becomes the Divine Messenger in many cultures, would of course be Mercury.

You can specifically see language within Biblical scriptures which is appropriate to celestial description -- terminology which describes precise astronomical motions. For instance, Adam is told that he will return to the dust from whence he was taken (this is of course an accurate description of what a constellation does on a nightly basis, due to the rotation of the earth: it rises up from the dust of the eastern horizon, courses across the clear crystal sphere of the sky, and then returns to the dust when it sinks down into the western horizon). Or, you can see John the Baptist declare "He must increase: I must decrease" (because John the Baptist is associated with a specific constellation that sinks down into the west when the constellation which is carrying a winnowing fan on its shoulder is rising up from the east).
 
There are biblical references to astronomical/astrological phenomena - the distinction wasn't clear cut until much later. The Magi, interpreted variously as wise men or kings and depicted representing different nations, were said to have followed a star to a remote Mediterranean backwater based on prophecy. This assumes a link between ancient wisdom traditions and celestial interpretation, and presumably opens a bridge between those wisdoms, Judaism and a new covenant that transcends each.

Which part should be taken literally? A multi-national pilgrimage of astrologers pursuing anomalous aerial phenomena with far reaching consequences? Should we look for super nova in the history, or was the star a UFO, some kind of intelligent mobile object capable of halting its heavenly arc over a Bethlehem stable? I would argue that doing any of these misses the point and takes a literal reading of a text that is not primarily historical, but a pointer to a bigger message. It's nails in the Ark stuff, an objectification of tropes and analogies. That's why biblical deconstruction without mediation through history, metaphor, prophecy is doomed to failure.

So many revisionist readings fall into the x = y trap, cherry picked equivalences between disparate ideas and contexts. So while I'm open to the night skies containing symbolic meanings, incIuding useful clues about when to sow crops, slaughter cattle and how to navigate the seas, I don't think the relationship between those symbols and human life is born out as more than background to more useful ideas. Another idea worth exploring: if man is able to travel to a different part of the solar system, would the new juxtapositions contain a fresh set of instructions on the nature of reality?
 
Which part should be taken literally? A multi-national pilgrimage of astrologers pursuing anomalous aerial phenomena with far reaching consequences? Should we look for super nova in the history, or was the star a UFO, some kind of intelligent mobile object capable of halting its heavenly arc over a Bethlehem stable? I would argue that doing any of these misses the point and takes a literal reading of a text that is not primarily historical, but a pointer to a bigger message. It's nails in the Ark stuff, an objectification of tropes and analogies. That's why biblical deconstruction without mediation through history, metaphor, prophecy is doomed to failure.

I'm going to go back to the contention that is ALL about just one thing: literalism versus metaphor. That's all there is. Nothing else. All spiritual traditions are valid in so far as they are not a 'literal' take. Anything which degenerates to the literal then becomes the opposite of the esoteric path (for want of a better word). This does not apply just to religions but to all human enterprise: the either/or is in fact the literalist/metaphoric duality.

One thing that is necessary to do though is to define what 'literalism' means in this context because it does not mean - in this reading - merely taking a text at face value of some sort of fundamentalist approach. I'd define it by its opposite in this way: the mind cannot know the ineffable or the numinous. But something in us can glimpse it. If we get such a glimpse and then try to explain it or define it then, that is what I mean by literalism. Religions sometimes do this but not always, the idea of 'mystery' - though out of favour nowadays - is at the heart of religion. Hence 'faith' which is not, as usually promoted, mere belief in a dogma but, rather, an acceptance that there are things we cannot know and that a metaphor (as opposed to a fact) stands in for those things as a placeholder.

All religions have this. I'd go even further and say that all Scripture - certainly Judaic, Islam and Christian scripture - actually purposefully contains deliberate built-in contradictions so as to prevent literalism and signal to those capable of the metaphoric approach. I am not being an apologist here for factual errors (like the notorious Quirinius mistake in the Gospels for example) which obviously exist but rather these contradictions are philosophical and deliberate or else so obviously ridiculous that the writer must have intended them. Here are some examples from religious tradition:

* The two creation stories in Genesis put together in a way - by someone - where each explicitly contradicts the other
* The philosophical/theological underpinning of the Genesis story where is God that is lying and the Serpent telling the truth
* The Satanic Verses in the Qur'an
* Islamic hadith which explicitly state that Qur'an has hidden meanings for various levels of understanding

These quotes are interesting too:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16 (Morning Star is actually Lucifer and stated as such many times)

"And their dead bodies are upon the broad-place of the great city (that is called spiritually Sodom), and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified," Revelation 11:8

Regarding the Magi, these were surely Zoroastrians, a religion which has a very profound astronomical and astrological core. The Star may be a superfluous element here or wrongly emphasised. Imo, I think the motif is a linker intended to show the continuity and essential unity between that old tradition and the new coming one. It is essentially a statement of Perennialism.
 
Regarding the Magi, these were surely Zoroastrians
That may be falling into the trap I was talking about, but you raise some interesting points. I don't accept that all religion is all metaphor. I'm not a biblical scholar, don't speak Aramaic or Greek and my Latin is rusty, but some passages in the NT read sufficiently like description to at least offer pause for thought. For instance the narrative of the apostles hiding in a back room before being confronted by a leader they'd seen scourged and nail to a plank, suggests a human incarnation of an idea, as though ancient prophecy becomes reality. The followers, still concerned about suffering the same fate are only transformed when a mighty wind - described as the holy spirit - blows through the house and changes them into fearless polyglot teachers. That could be simply another rendition of a transformation myth, or, given the growth of the cult into a global religion, a manifestation of prophecy into something more solid.

Between equivocation and acceptance rests the difference between taxonomy and belief. We alight on that which speaks to us.
 
Once again thank you Alex for another very thought-provoking podcast and many thanks also to David Mathisen for his friendliness and willingness to engage with Skeptiko listeners. I cannot say I have fully grasped the significance of David's theories but I intend delving deeper into the subject and for the time being I have in any case gleaned some very interesting concepts from the podcast itself and from David's useful clarifications in his posts here.

Just a few questions from me to understand things better, and apologies if I will bring this cosmic discussion somewhat "down to earth" :). I have just read this very thought-provoking post by David, recommended by him in one of his posts (where he was referring to the phenomenon of synchronicity - which is the subject I am most interested and I dare say "versed in" due to personal interest). http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2016/12/15/two-metaphors-for-the-material-and-non-material-realms?rq=two metaphors. I know that he is referring to other people's theories (Alvin Boyd Kuhn and Laird Scranton) which I have not yet had the time to explore in more detail, but my question is going to be about David's working theory rather than those of these two authors.

I quote from David's post: "In his own metaphor, Alvin Boyd Kuhn says that this is like "sedentary occupation and brain work" -- there is perfect knowledge, and there can be pure contemplation. But we are compelled to come down to the material realm because it is only in this realm that we can act and interact, and in doing so we can develop and unfold characteristics which, until manifested, exist only as potentialities (or as "unevolved latencies," as Kuhn calls them). They exist only in "seed form" until then.
Kuhn describes our need to plunge down into the incarnate realm in the analogy of the desire to "rise from sedentary occupation and brain work" and experience muscular activity outdoors."

Who is this "we", exactly? Does this imply that we are 'avatars' of beings in the "spirit realm" and if so why are we not aware of this? Why the mystery? Why can "help" only be provided to us in such oblique ways as you suggest - I quote you again ("premonitions and synchronicities may be ways in which the Invisible Realm tries to get messages to us here in this Visible Realm." ; but this would also be implied in your hypothesis whereby the celestial sphere is some kind of huge clue on the nature of our existence here, in service I suppose to these spirit beings, which I am not sure whether you would call "our higher selves" or separate beings from us; I must admit that I have never understood the concept of "higher self": if I am not able to feel that it is part of me, then I cannot usefully call it 'self').

Maybe I am distorting your thoughts but really I would like to pin down the key message in these theories (about the relationship between the spiritual and the material realms): this material existence would be some kind of fun mystery tour for spiritual entities in a different dimension, entities which however we are not able to identify with (consciously at least). Why this impossibility for us of certain identification with them, again? Wouldn't we be more motivated to do things better in the material world if we were sure that there is a significance in what we do that goes beyond this material existence? (after all many spiritual experiences often lead to this belief, but not many have transformative spiritual experiences - so why is this not "the normal way" for us to experience our lives? Moreover, even spiritual experiences only give us "beliefs", but why can we not be certain? Who sets the rules of this mysterious "game"? The players themselves or "something" in charge of the system? Only asking for your opinion here of course.)

Incidentally, you say that Kuhn wrote this in the 40s "The game or battle will yield him adequate thrills, since in it he will find coming to function still unevolved latencies of his own measureless being. Each act will enhance his sense of power and glory." It doesn't surprise me because this formulation sounds pretty "old-fashioned macho", a very stereotypically "masculine" way of seeing existence....as a woman I am not interested in "enhancing my sense of power and glory", and "games and battle" fail to give me thrills; I see them as a waste of time or energy at best. Anyway :)

Finally, I wonder if you are aware of this (I'm sure there will be plenty similar things out there). http://www.bethlehemstar.com
I suppose it's a way of appropriating one of these "stories in the sky" as evidence for one of them in particular (in this case, the Bible). What do you make of this? Is it "true" and "not true" at the same time, in that it can be found in other traditions - if it is, I honestly don't know (I'd like to point out that I am an agnostic, not a Christian, and was only made aware of this website very recently by a friend)

Just seen Tarquin's post which I liked a lot (literalist vs metaphorical approach) but I wonder - since the mystery is so impenetrable, should we (are we supposed to) just give up and stop investigating the mystery and get on with the business of "enhancing our sense of power and glory" in this material universe (some kind of spiritual "shut up and calculate" :))? Or can we ("should" we) endeavour to get closer to the Truth, as it were asymptotically? Is our existence here all about "experiencing the material" and therefore are we here on Skeptiko wasting the time that we should be using to get thrills in the playground? Or are we being encouraged (by all sorts of "paranormal nudges") to understand what we are doing here, maybe to avoid coming back to this ultimately pointless and destructive playground/battlefield again?

I quote you again "we are plunged into the interplay of matter and spirit, the great Battle of Kurukshetra described in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita (with parallels in many other myths around the globe)." Probably. The Battle metaphor rings very true to me. But is this "battlefield" a playground (because "someone" behind the scenes knows that the outcome of the Battle will not make any difference, it's just "something to do") or does what happen here (and in the spirit world) matter "for real"?
 
Last edited:
but I wonder - since the mystery is so impenetrable, should we (are we supposed to) just give up and stop investigating the mystery and get on with the business of "enhancing our sense of power and glory" in this material universe (some kind of spiritual "shut up and calculate" :))? Or can we ("should" we) endeavour to get closer to the Truth, as it were asymptotically? Is our existence here all about "experiencing the material" and therefore are we here on Skeptiko wasting the time that we should be using to get thrills in the playground? Or are we being encouraged (by all sorts of "paranormal nudges") to understand what we are doing here, maybe to avoid coming back to this ultimately pointless and destructive playground/battlefield again?

I often wonder this same thing. The nearest I get to an answer is I imagine me and an atheist friend experiencing something awesome that takes your breath away. It doesn't have to be supranormal; looking up to the night sky with that feeling of being alone in amongst millions of stars would do it.

That feeling where there are 'no words' is, in this case, a common bond. We're both experiencing the same thing and on the same page. No division. If I then try to start telling him that this feeling of awe is 'God' or he starts trying to tell me that his feeling of wonder is the opposite, then we're moving away from the experience. We can believe whatever we like about the feeling and sensation, but if it gets in the way of the experience of it then we've lost it. And the next step is we start to argue about who is right in an attempt to regain it, to find again that 'truth'. In many ways it's a sincere and nobel impulse. But it takes us away from the thing itself.
 
That may be falling into the trap I was talking about, but you raise some interesting points. I don't accept that all religion is all metaphor. I'm not a biblical scholar, don't speak Aramaic or Greek and my Latin is rusty, but some passages in the NT read sufficiently like description to at least offer pause for thought. For instance the narrative of the apostles hiding in a back room before being confronted by a leader they'd seen scourged and nail to a plank, suggests a human incarnation of an idea, as though ancient prophecy becomes reality. The followers, still concerned about suffering the same fate are only transformed when a mighty wind - described as the holy spirit - blows through the house and changes them into fearless polyglot teachers. That could be simply another rendition of a transformation myth, or, given the growth of the cult into a global religion, a manifestation of prophecy into something more solid.

Between equivocation and acceptance rests the difference between taxonomy and belief. We alight on that which speaks to us.

Yes, I agree. Surely it is not all metaphor but it hinges on metaphor. It's hard to imagine the teaching of Jesus without the parables for example - of which he said:

Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Which is interesting in this context no? It surely argues against the orthodox literal renderings of later Christian dogma if one proceeds from the fact (obvious to me at least) that the figure of Jesus is at odds with later Christian ideals.

Re the Magi: doesn't the Bible state that they are? Perhaps it just says 'wise men', can't remember. Certainly is the official Catholic dogma that they were. There's another contradiction there too actually which I quite like - they visit Jesus and 'his mother' in a house. Not a stable. Is quite clear and unequivocal.
 
Yes, I agree. Surely it is not all metaphor but it hinges on metaphor. It's hard to imagine the teaching of Jesus without the parables for example - of which he said:

Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Which is interesting in this context no? It surely argues against the orthodox literal renderings of later Christian dogma if one proceeds from the fact (obvious to me at least) that the figure of Jesus is at odds with later Christian ideals.

Re the Magi: doesn't the Bible state that they are? Perhaps it just says 'wise men', can't remember. Certainly is the official Catholic dogma that they were. There's another contradiction there too actually which I quite like - they visit Jesus and 'his mother' in a house. Not a stable. Is quite clear and unequivocal.
Is Jesus referring to a real but unknowable realm and using simplified analogies, or talking in riddles, turning a manifest reality into a problematized one? Impossible to say, but I err on the side of rabbi, instructor, guide, not cosmic joker. One can read Jesus as peacenik, sage, prophet, and different ages have done so (Pullman's The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ shows the reinvention continues), but it's impossible to accept any of them in isolation and be true to the text as a whole.

So far as the stable goes any nuances of translation are beyond me. The Orthodox church depicts the Magi visiting a cave, Western Christianity has it as a stable, one assumes the humility of the birthplace is the message, not the exact topography. The worldly transformation is not one of wealth or power, but turning the established order on its head.
 
Is Jesus referring to a real but unknowable realm and using simplified analogies, or talking in riddles, turning a manifest reality into a problematized one? Impossible to say, but I err on the side of rabbi, instructor, guide, not cosmic joker. One can read Jesus as peacenik, sage, prophet, and different ages have done so (Pullman's The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ shows the reinvention continues), but it's impossible to accept any of them in isolation and be true to the text as a whole.

I don't think it's impossible to say as such - but interpretations can vary, as on anything. The Church obviously has an agenda and a doctrine which it shapes its particular Jesus to fit and opponents who wish to deny this characterisation have their view too. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming imo to an impartial observer. Things we know as facts:

  • Regardless of divine status or not, there were many mystical teachers running around Palestine at the time
  • Jesus bears a strong resemblance to many of these teachers - John the Baptist is one example.
  • There were countless magical/esoteric groups in the region and elsewhere expounding a specific doctrine
  • These groups very often have a Jesus-like figure - or even Jesus himself - as a teacher in their texts
  • Their texts have been suppressed by the Church
  • Nothing in the 'Church Jesus' as derived from the Gospels (as opposed to non-Canonical dogma) runs against these Gnostic and other teachings
So even if Jesus were proved to be a myth, or if the 'Church-Jesus' was proved to be true, it doesn't much matter. The argument is that esoteric groups existed before and after this alleged Jesus (and probably still do now)< they deal in myth and the creation of 'stories' and they have teacher figures that are indistinguishable from the archetypal Jesus figure. It doesn't rest on him at all. In this reading he is just one link in a chain that stretches from Zoroaster, Buddha, Moses, Pythagoras and Muhammad and onwards.
 
I'm going to go back to the contention that is ALL about just one thing: literalism versus metaphor. That's all there is. Nothing else. All spiritual traditions are valid in so far as they are not a 'literal' take. Anything which degenerates to the literal then becomes the opposite of the esoteric path (for want of a better word). This does not apply just to religions but to all human enterprise: the either/or is in fact the literalist/metaphoric duality.
interesting take. thx. if all is an illusion metaphor might be our best shot :)
 
interesting take. thx. if all is an illusion metaphor might be our best shot :)

Yeah, it could well be! It might be worse than that though. I sometimes entertain the fantasy that what we believe - actually is the reality. We co-create with God as it were. That way all is metaphor and all is true at the same time.

It would explain the differing NDE experiences of different faiths and also why atheists/materialists are perhaps so vehement. Maybe they're 100% correct - for themselves. They made that reality.
 
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!!!
 
Last edited:
I was watching John Berger last night in a sort of commemoration of his life now he has recently passed. I wasn't thinking of any of the topics we've been talking about but it's kind of mind-blowing how he nails things, as he so often did.

The vid is called 'About Time' and you can check it out here - appalling quality I'm afraid:


He starts off telling stories and makes the point about storytelling being the primary means of communication humans have traditionally employed down the ages. All of it is relevant and interesting but the key bit here is around 19.10 where he makes the point that storytelling began with the night sky and those that first named the constellations were telling a story.

I think that may be all we're dealing with here: stories. Stories of the heros, stories of gods (and God), stories of Jesus and djinns and magic lanterns and.......

It's all stories. Passed down, retold. There is no literal truth but to even say that and argue for this position is, in itself, a form of literalism.

We might be looking in the wrong place. It might not be whether something is true or means X, Y or Z. It might be something that it does to us. An effect it can cause. If we let it. If we don't try to dissect it.
 
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. !

Thank you very much for your very interesting post, I will try to explore at least some of the many resources you referred and linked to, and of course I respect your reluctance to tell us your working theory of "what this is all about" , but I'd like to reassure you: I am not at all the type of person who would follow so-called "ancient sages" or "modern enlightened beings" (I'm quoting you here) - I was interested in your take in the same way as I'm interested in the working theories of other intelligent and knowledgeable people out there: as food for thought in my own quest for the Truth. Certainly I would have been very interested in straight answers from you to my straight questions ("why the mystery?" and related questions, in particular), but never mind, I appreciate your kind responses anyway. However, since you did (under point 8 above) tell us at least one of the things that you believe we are supposed to be doing in this incarnate life, I would like to ask you how this links back to your other consideration above, namely that it's all basically an endless unfolding and re-folding back into the Infinite. This may well be the case. But if so, what would be the purpose of elevating the spirit? A way of facilitating this re-folding from the material into the non-material? Is this even necessary if this endless process is going to happen anyway? Thank you in advance for your reply. I am not at all being flippant (apologies if that's the way I sound - English is not my mother tongue), I'm simply trying to understand how this "system" is supposed to function - and why it has to be so mysterious/esoteric/metaphorical/elusive - even you said that you spent 20 years of your life 'doing the wrong thing', i.e., taking things too literally I understand.
 
Sorry -- I thought that I had answered the questions but I guess I did not answer what you were getting at -- these are all very insightful questions and comments and thank you for the interaction. I don't feel any of those interacting here are being flippant or insincere and certainly did not intend to imply that in any way in my own comments.

More specifically I will try to answer some of the direct questions from hypermagda's earlier post (reply #66) and in the post above (#75):

1. "Why the mystery?" -- I believe that the message is given esoterically not in order to be mysterious but because that turns out to be the best way to explain concepts that our linear-thinking intellect would "choke" on or "balk" at. There are different ways of thinking that are useful for different forms of thinking or understanding. The linear intellect that is so essential for some tasks (such as doing algebra or remembering phone numbers etc) actually gets in the way when we are trying to shoot a 3-pointer in a basketball game just before the buzzer, under pressure from a defender, or when we are trying to use our martial arts training in an actual situation (which is why Mr. Miyagi used an esoteric method to teach Daniel-San in the Karate Kid), or when we are trying to process some of the aspects of the way the universe actually seems to operate and its implications for the human condition. The principles of quantum physics, for example, are not actually very complicated to explain -- but they are very difficult to accept or to process intellectually. They imply things that defy the way of thinking that we found so useful in getting through our years of high school or undergraduate education. The principles of Zen Buddhism deliberately confront or challenge this type of thinking (such as the famous question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" and other similar Zen koans). It may be that the answer to some of these questions about human existence and our purpose for coming down here into the realm of finite material "boundedness" from the realm of infinite immaterial potentiality are not so easy to explain in a linear or intellectually-satisfying way, but rather that they must be glimpsed or "caught" in the same way that a Zen koan invites us to grasp a new understanding. This, incidentally, is also related to the concept of gnosis, which means knowing -- but in a deep sense that is not the same way as "knowing how to do algebra." I would argue that the way Mr. Miyagi proceeded to teach karate to Daniel-San in the movie was intended to produce gnosis of karate -- and that if Mr. Miyagi had tried to explain it step-by-step using angles and arm-positions etc. then that would simply have caused Daniel-San's intellectual mind to jump in with all kinds of doubts and unhelpful questions, such as "are you sure this will really work? What if Johnny does this instead?" etc. This is illustrated in the story of doubting Thomas. The lower mind is helpful, and we use it every day to function in this world, but there is something higher -- and Thomas eventually submits to that Higher Self, which is the correct relationship. The lower tools are informed and directed by the Higher way of knowing and doing. I have written some posts to try to discuss this more coherently; one of them is here: http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2016/09/esoterism-mystery-and-schwaller-de.html

2. "Who is this "we", exactly? Does this imply that we are 'avatars' of beings in the "spirit realm" and if so why are we not aware of this? [. . .] Wouldn't we be more motivated to do things better in the material world if we were sure that there is a significance in what we do that goes beyond this material existence?" -- All terrific questions. I'm sure that I don't really know the answer to any of them. As I said, I personally believe that we should go to the myths with these questions, and if we are listening (with an understanding of the language that they are speaking) then I believe they will give us some answers. For instance, in the Bhagavad Gita (which I believe to be using celestial metaphor to describe descent into this incarnate life, and to guide us towards what we are supposed to be doing here), Krishna tells Arjuna in so many different ways one main central message: "Do what is right, without attachment to the results." This seems simple but it is not so easy. We often refrain from doing what is right because we fear that the result is already going to be futile ("I can't do anything to stop these criminal wars of aggression being waged endlessly using my tax dollars") or because we fear that the result will be harmful to us ("If I speak out the way Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out, then I will probably be subject to violence just as he was"). Krishna tells Arjuna to do what is right without attachment to the result -- a profound message, in my opinion. I also believe that Krishna specifically says we should do what is right without hoping for personal gain as a result of doing what is right. So, this addresses the question of "Wouldn't we be more motivated to do things better in the material world if we were sure that there is a significance in what we do that goes beyond this material existence?" We are supposed to do what is right without worrying about the incentive of reward in this life or in another. So, in my reading of the myths based on my understanding thus far, I believe that the answer to what we are supposed to be doing here is helping others, opposing violence and racism and oppression, and trying to "do what's right" as best we understand it. I also believe that practices such as meditation etc may be extremely helpful in achieving more of that state of "without attachment to the results" that Krishna urges upon Arjuna in the Gita.

[later edit: I realize I did not really address the "avatars" question -- I'm not positive on that, but believe that our "Higher Self" is in a way part of us or very closely connected to us -- it is our divine nature which is actually present at all times but forgotten when we plunge down to incarnation. It is the "friend which sticketh closer than a brother" described in Proverbs, or the "treasure in the field" that the farmer did not realize he had, but that was there all along, as described in one of the Nag Hammadi texts, the Gospel of Thomas, section 109. I guess this Divine Twin could be said to occupy the invisible or infinite realm and thus to be "separate" from us, but I actually believe the right understanding is that the invisible realm or infinite realm is always present, and so this is mistaken. Likewise, this would argue that we are not really "avatars" when we are here in the material realm -- we are really present in "both realms" all the time, even though we are not aware of the invisible one. But all this terminology is probably just a way of helping us to understand what is going on -- it is itself a metaphor or simplification so we can grasp what we have a hard time seeing or grasping. Hope that is helpful, anyway.]

3. [In response to the description or depiction in the Tao Te Ching of] "endless unfolding and re-folding back into the Infinite. This may well be the case. But if so, what would be the purpose of elevating the spirit? A way of facilitating this re-folding from the material into the non-material? Is this even necessary if this endless process is going to happen anyway?" and, related to that subject: "Just seen Tarquin's post which I liked a lot (literalist vs metaphorical approach) but I wonder - since the mystery is so impenetrable, should we (are we supposed to) just give up and stop investigating the mystery and get on with the business of "enhancing our sense of power and glory" in this material universe (some kind of spiritual "shut up and calculate" :))? Or can we ("should" we) endeavour to get closer to the Truth, as it were asymptotically? Is our existence here all about "experiencing the material" and therefore are we here on Skeptiko wasting the time that we should be using to get thrills in the playground? Or are we being encouraged (by all sorts of "paranormal nudges") to understand what we are doing here, maybe to avoid coming back to this ultimately pointless and destructive playground/battlefield again?"
-- I also like Tarquin's posts and observations and agree with many of the assertions he makes. I do not know if what we do here is in order to transcend the "cycles of incarnation" (if there are indeed multiple "cycles of incarnation," which I believe the ancient myths seem to imply). I do believe that a strong case can be made that the myths are telling us what we are supposed to be doing in order to transcend the cycles of incarnation and move on to something different (something different which we don't need to worry about too much at this point, since we're still at the stage of learning and doing what we're supposed to be learning and doing in the "cycles of incarnation"). I also believe that the literalist interpretation (which I believe to be a grave misinterpretation) may be causing a lot of men and women to completely miss the things they are supposed to be learning and doing in order to transcend the cycles of incarnation. There is much evidence that we are supposed to be working on what various traditions call our "diamond body" or our "energy body" or our "light body" while we are here in this physical body. Alvin Boyd Kuhn argues that this is also related to the solar bark or "ship of the sun" described and depicted in the texts of ancient Egypt (and he provides quotations from Plato and from Plotinus and others to back up his assertions). I discuss this in a fairly recent blog post here: http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2016/12/souls-do-not-die.html To summarize: I absolutely do not believe that what we do here is pointless or that we should not be asking these kinds of questions and trying to find answers. But I also believe those answers do point us towards trying to "do what is right" (to the best of our understanding) "without attachment to the outcome" (and I would argue that we all get plenty of opportunities to be challenged to do that during the course of our lives). I believe there are disciplines and practices which are given to us to help us to be more effective at "doing what is right without attachment" and perhaps also to help us to work on the diamond body which is connected in some way with transcending the cycles of incarnation, but even if there is no transcending of the cycles of incarnation, I would argue that doing what is right and helping others (and blessing others) appears to be part of what we're supposed to be trying to do (for whatever reason -- and without too much attachment to that reason, whatever it may be).

4. "Finally, I wonder if you are aware of this (I'm sure there will be plenty similar things out there). http://www.bethlehemstar.com
I suppose it's a way of appropriating one of these "stories in the sky" as evidence for one of them in particular (in this case, the Bible). What do you make of this?"

-- I'm pretty sure you can discern from my earlier response what I think of this specific attempt to literalize the story of the visit of the Magi and to identify the star of Bethlehem, but just to be completely direct: I feel this entire website [bethlehemstar.com] and the arguments it offers are completely misguided,* and have offered my own argument that the story is based on celestial metaphor and involves movements in the heavens, not movements of literal persons upon the planet's surface. The star they are talking about is almost certainly Vindemiatrix in the constellation Virgo, which is the star identified with the child of the Virgin (in ancient Egypt as well as in this particular Biblical account). To give credit where credit is due (as I do in previous places I have written or spoken about the interpretation of the Magi-visit and the identity of the star), this interpretation is based upon the arguments of Robert Taylor, who spoke about it in the early 1800s and who I believe is entirely correct in his interpretation of this particular event.

* [later edit: Perhaps I should not say "completely misguided" in that spending time studying ancient scriptures and stories is not a waste of time nor is it misguided to do so: the author of that website is trying to make sense of an episode that is based on celestial metaphor, and is doing so by looking to celestial events -- so that is reasonable and also not misguided. However, the author of that site and associated video presentations is trying to look at the celestial events in order to support a literalistic interpretation of the birth of Christ and visit of the Magi episodes, as if these events took place on a specific place on earth in a specific time in history (September of AD 2 and the following months, according to the interpretation offered). This is the part which I believe is misguided. Not an uncommon mistake, however, since there have been about seventeen centuries of widespread teaching that these esoteric texts must be taken literally (and serious penalties during most of those centuries for those who suggested that they are not intended to be taken literally). So, I guess saying "completely misguided" was probably not the right thing to say. It's not that author's fault if he is honestly trying to figure out the texts. He's a victim of seventeen centuries of misdirection. However, I will also say that the explanation of the star and the visit of the Magi which was offered by Robert Taylor has been published since 1851 and is freely available for reading on the web -- I would argue that anyone out there investigating the explanation of the star and the Magi should, as part of his or her due diligence, avail themselves of Taylor's arguments and at least consider them, if not address them directly, which this author does not do.].

-----

Hopefully that answers the questions more directly. If anyone feels I am not addressing a question or point that they would very much like me to address, please let me know if I am missing it or ignoring it. I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone -- these are great discussion points and observations that are being kicked back-and-forth here. Often the discussion probably goes better without me trying to jump in all the time!
 
Last edited:
If one regards human beings as inherently myth-makers, making their myths in an attempt to explain all they do not know (to assuage the uncomfortable sensation of ignorance), then as long as they are incarnate (and therefore uncomfortable?), they will continue to construct myths.

I've come up with a tentative hypothesis. It strikes me that there are now, and always have been, two levels of myth. The first is literalistic. The second is figurative, but for all that, potentially nearer the truth: unfortunately, it seems the actual truth cannot be precisely articulated.

The two levels interpenetrate; in earlier times, the literalism may well have included celestial phenomena. In present times, at least in the West, it centres more on materialism. The source of figurative interpretation comes from people who, in their time, are somewhat ahead of the curve of general understanding. They piggy-back their insights onto literalistic myths because they know (intuitively, perhaps sometimes explicitly) these latter are widely accepted -- or at least well-known -- and therefore there's a chance that their more figurative interpretations will be taken on board for consideration.

To employ a metaphor, these interpretations are like Greeks hiding inside a Trojan horse. The horse needs to be carted back to the city and left unattended as the citizens carouse in celebration of their great victory. Little do they know what is about to happen...
 
Last edited:
Hopefully that answers the questions more directly. If anyone feels I am not addressing a question or point that they would very much like me to address, please let me know if I am missing it or ignoring it. I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone -- these are great discussion points and observations that are being kicked back-and-forth here. Often the discussion probably goes better without me trying to jump in all the time!

David, I don't know how to thank you for being so generous with your time and knowledge, and for answering my questions with goodwill and sincerity. Your values, attitude and style of communication are certainly the best possible "advertisement" for your beliefs - the beauty of your soul shines right through your words.

I can't say I radically disagree with what you wrote, it's just that I can't understand why we would have to be like 'soldiers in the field' somehow obeying orders (which themselves are not clearly spelled out either) without adequate, clear information about what is going on (it's not about the "rewards", it's about the point of "fighting" in the first place). I would like to know exactly why we should do what you suggest and which I agree is a very noble task ( "We are supposed to do what is right without worrying about the incentive of reward in this life or in another. So, in my reading of the myths based on my understanding thus far, I believe that the answer to what we are supposed to be doing here is helping others, opposing violence and racism and oppression, and trying to "do what's right" as best we understand it.") Why is this necessary? Why is the material universe not a place where there are no "evils" and no plain inbuilt faults in its very design to grapple with in the first place? Is this a dualistic universe or is it just a game of hide -and-seek it is playing with itself (which, for me at least, would feel pointless and utterly "demotivating")?

I guess I'll die with my questions unanswered but at least I will have asked them :-) - I believe that even the questions that cannot be answered should be asked.

Thank you once again for everything and congratulations on your impressive work!
 
Sorry to jump in late here and I have to also admit that I haven't listened to the podcast yet. I plan to soon.

David - just curious what you make of the alignment of stars and planets which occurs on 23 September 2017.

More information at:

Basically, he is arguing that Revelation Chapter 12 is fulfilled in the heavens on 23 September 2017.

Just curious what you think. Thanks.
 
hypermagda said:
I guess I'll die with my questions unanswered but at least I will have asked them :) - I believe that even the questions that cannot be answered should be asked.

Personally I went through some of these types of questions during one of the most challenging periods of my life. I had no interest in whether there was reward or punishment for one's actions, that struck me as too abstract and I found it impossible to connect with the very concept. The questions I had were more on the lines of, "Why do anything at all?. At the end of each day we go to sleep. At the end of each night we get up. Why do either?". I struggled desperately with the most basic moment to moment existence.

Quite suddenly and unexpectedly I encountered two insights. One, that God exists and two, that reincarnation occurs. After that, I was able to pick myself up and carry on. It wasn't that I had any answers to any of my questions "Why do anything at all?", I didn't have the answer then and I don't have an answer now. For me it was sufficient to understand that such questions could in principle have an answer, that the question itself had a meaning.

I should add that I had another unexpected insight which came to me in a dream around that time, which was giving the simple answer "Love" to these questions. These things may seem trite or banal when repeated, personal experience is impossible to convey.
 
Back
Top