The Odyssey - Manual of Secret Teachings?

[Johnno]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Perhaps there's also an esoteric meaning to this idea of hospitality. I can't find the exact quote, but Gurdjieff spoke of paying for every moment in full. If I understand correctly, he was speaking of experience, to pay for our lives by giving our entire being so as to receive the full experience of every moment. And then life becomes a positive feedback loop of being and experiencing.

If we don't treat every experience, which to me would represent thoughts and emotions, with the spirit of hospitality, giving to every experience fully - even the unpleasant ones - then we will inevitably fail the theoxony; to receive or hear the calling of the soul, the higher emotional center, our divine aspect, which inevitably results in a personal apocalypse: physical death. And then the "one just man" who remains IS the soul.

My understanding, feel free to correct me on any misconceptions.

EDIT: The more I think about the Odyssey in this new light, especially the three-ring structure, the more I'm realizing that a lot of the concepts of Gnosis were woven into this narrative format.

Laura has written that it could have several layers of meaning

Just to toss this in the mix: As ya'll may know, Iman Jacob Wilkens, author of "Where Troy Once Stood", thinks that these epics are initiatory (particularly the Odyssey), but ALSO that they encode sailing directions, a mental map of the world known to the ancients. Refer back to the map I posted earlier. We have scanned the maps from the book and will be posting better resolutions of them for those who want to examine them carefully.

Anyway, so we now have multiple levels of interpretation:

1) a lesson and commentary on human beings and their interactions with one another

2) a lesson and commentary on society/humanity at large and how breaking the "rules of the gods" brings on destruction

3) A map of initiation a la "The Work"/ The Mysteries/Gnosis

4) A literal map of the physical world...

... and probably more.

I'll find some more really good analytical excerpts to post for ya'll to parse when I get a few minutes. Our internet was down for a day and a half and I've got a LOT of catching up to do!

On a practical real wold level.

Coming from a new world western culture, it is a real eye opener to visit friends with families from more traditional cultures. There are two sitting rooms, the well used one (usually used by the family) and the immaculate one with the expensive lounges, chairs and carpet for the guests. Food and drinks are bought out on the best china and silverware. As a guest one brings a gift and as a host one provides comfort. One thing that took me awhile to get used to was the haggling offering food. The host offers something to eat or drink, the guest refuses as they are full, just ate or aren't hungry. The host offers again and again to much tut-tutting. Finally the guest gives in and eats, then conversation begins.

On the initiatory level it is interesting that Zen master Rinzai has several references to the host and the guest. "Host" in Rinzai's terms means someone in the know of the nature of reality (possibly a teacher) whereas the "guest" is the has no idea what is going on and sometimes is the student.

But students nowadays do not know the Dharma. They are like goats, nuzzling and nibbling at everything they come across. They cannot distinguish the servant from the master, nor the guest from the host. They enter religion with a wild heart, shouting noisily.

One cannot call them true leavers of home; they are just ordinary laymen. A man who has left home should know how to see clearly and calmly, should know Buddha from Mara, the true from the false, the worldly from the sacred. If he has got this knowledge, he can truly be called a leaver-of-home.

If he does not know Buddha from Mara, then in effect he leaves one home only to enter another, and is what is called a karma producing living being. He cannot yet be called a true leaver-of home. For if Buddha and Mara happen to appear in one form, he could not differentiate them. Yet, as the gander king knows how to drink only the milk from a mixture of milk and water, so does the clear eye (know how to differentiate).

Interesting a "guest" has left the comfort of "home" and has gone on a "way".

and

Followers of the Way, as the Zen school sees it, life and death are under a certain order. In interviews the student should consider the smallest details. When host and guest appear, there is an exchange of discourse.

Sometimes form is shown as corresponds to things. Sometimes the whole body (essence) is brought into function. Sometimes the full power of solemn authority is exercised to evoke awe. Sometimes half the body (essence) is revealed. Sometimes the lion is mounted, sometimes the elephant (respectively Manjusri's and Samantabhadra's mounts - wisdom and compassion).

a. In the case of a true student, he gives a Katsu[a zen shout]; then he puts out a tray with sticky lacquer. The teacher does not discern this device, falls into the trap, and at once begins to elucidate fanciful theories. The student gives a Katsu. If the other still cannot let go, it becomes a disease that has penetrated to the very marrow (become incurable). This is called "guest sees host."

b. Or it may be that the teacher does not posit anything at all, but follows the student's lead, and then snatches the question away from him. Though robbed, the student cannot drop it and clings to it till death. This is called "host sees guest."

c. Or else the student comes to the teacher with some device of purity. The teacher discerns it as but a device, grabs it and throws it into a pit. The student exclaims: "What a great teacher." (The teacher) responds: "Bah! You don't know bad from good." The student then bows. This is called "host sees host."

d. Again, a student wearing cangue and chains presents himself before the teacher. The teacher then puts another set of cangue and chains on him. The student is overjoyed. Neither the one nor the other are capable of discernment. This is called: "guest sees guest."

So, in any case there are three sorts of relationships. Host/host, both recognize each other and know what is going on. Host/guest where one knows whats up and the other doesn't, and guest/guest where both don't know or understand the reality of the situation. There's a couple of quotes in this thread which relate Theoxeny as a genre of myth explains why hospitality is sacred: any guest could be a god in disguise. , in this case the guest is actually a host (after all a God will have rule over all things) and the household host will actually be a guest. There's some parallels for Gnosis here as the "host" opens his "house" to the influences of the gods ie the B influences.

It is also interesting that Odysseus take on a "disguise" and acts as a guest but is really a host ....him being king and all disguised as a beggar, only those who can see through things and act as a good host seem to be able to see through the disguise. The term "blessing in disguise" come to mind, various nasty characters we've come across the years have indeed been that...although they have been obnoxious guests!

As Laura writes on her comments on Mouravieff's Gnosis.

The point is that it seems that until a person fully SEES the illusion - the layers and layers of it - they have no hope of becoming free of it. Until we are trained, step by step, to discern the lies from the truth, we have no internal consistency and are subject to the whims of the Control System at every turn. And it seems to be that this patient, time-consuming, taking apart of our reality and extracting the Truth/"B" influences is what literally "grows" the soul.

I've also been reading Gurdjieff's "Meetings with Remarkable Men". Gurdjieff describes his father as a poet able to recite long epics such as Gilgamesh, free forming and improvising with them where required but keeping to original words where required. Gurdjieff spent many long hours listening and was astounded many years later that the Gilgamesh tablets were dug up in the early 1900'swere pretty well word for word what his father had recited. The word he uses for his father is an "ashokh" which I can't find anywhere on the internet. Gurdjieff commented as how this craft was dying out, even in his time. The word ash-okh is interesting as the celtic druids who are said to have spoken Og-ham and recited long proses of verse as well.

Gurdjieff also said his father commented on the Bible being taken from various older sources. There was even an instance of "the flood before the flood" said to have occurred 70 generations ago.

Anyway, a bit from me. Not sure if opens anything up or not.

 

[mcb]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

It's important to read all the posts I'm going to be making on this thread even if you have to back up to do so. I'll be giving you the tools to really understand some totally cool things!

I'm backing, I'm backing. :)

I noticed many Biblical parallels while reading the Odyssey, and the parallel elements generally seemed more at home in the latter story than in the former where they fit into the weaving of the epic. Did one of the books you quoted say that this wasn't acknowledged until recently? It seems quite apparent.

 

[cubbex]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

What an interesting finding that relates to my creations. For example I have found that supposedly Homer the aegis is some kind of shield, and some kind of mechanism of protection. Then I created my character Cubbex, lol yeah, and it was not so creative because it had a cat helmet, and it fights some lizards, what I've found is that in the Egyptian mythology Bastet is a goddess (related to my character because my character uses a lot of blue, the color of the feminine essence sometimes in art) and it holds an aegis. The important thing is that Basted was like a guardian always battling the black serpent, and in the Horus mythology I think she is the cat that always use his sword to kill the serpent.

Then in other legends where the aegis was a big monster of fire, like the chimera, it was Pallas a giant monster.

What it relates to my stories, is that first as in other cases I don't know if I was some kind of writer of myths in a past life or something like that, sometimes it appears as I am being inspired by mythology, even when I don't really know nothing about it. And then for example I created this character with my name and it has a chimera aspect and is referred as a chimera in the story, it is a human with other animal's parts like horns, wings, fox tale, spikes of a dragon and whatever, but he is in the good side, then Athena created the aegis killing Pallas identified as something like the chimera, a monster of fire, and as a god of wisdom.

By destroying Pallas and using his skin as armor, would mean that indeed... knowledge protects? Wisdom as your armor.

 

[Z...]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I am reading Keel's Eight Tower, when he describes different incidents where people met terrible end and death as a result of their interaction with hyperdymensional entities
I couldnt help but think of all different stories from Greek mythology with similar flavor. It is general consensus these entities are stupid or irrational at best , mischievous
and almost childish and exactly the same can be said of Greek goods. I wonder if all the positive characteristics of Greeek Pantheon immortals are nothing but the projections of people
who were desperately trying to make some sense of their reality.

 

[mcb]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I am somewhat surprised at how accessible the text of Odyssey proved to be. The commentaries (above, in this thread) bring out many points that I would not have brought out myself, but nevertheless it was not difficult to notice the essence of these points without reading the commentaries first. If we had discussed the story as a group, without reading the other material, many of the same points might have come out over time. If the story was meant to encode and preserve information, it seems to have done that very well.

I am left wondering about the roles of Telemachos/Telemachas and of Penelope. Odysseus as the central character makes his way home to his home and family. Telemachos comes of age and develops as a person, but not in any way that would suggest to me that he was another Odysseus in the making. He has a supporting role in the climax, and then disappears from the story at the end. His efforts nearer the beginning of the story ("The Telemachy") don't seem to produce very much, and he needs divine protection just to return home alive. Penelope persists, remains faithful, and is very hard to trick.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

{The connection of negative theoxeny to torture and violence against strangers is sobering. The Cs said that those that accept torture have taken "the Mark of the Beast". The description of the suitors - the violent, manipulative, ungoverned, rapacious, consumption-oriented, suitors having already taken over is another grim reminder of the conditions of our world as well as the likely outcome: apocalypse.}

I was thinking about what the C's said in that same session that "Silence in the face of 'evil' is equal to participation..."

Which may involve passivity, as seen in Elpenor/Leodes persona. I'm currently reading Louden's The Odyssey: Structure, Narration, and Meaning and its second chapter focused on the "misfit" characters Elpenor and Leodes. They reminded me of and may represent a "Weak Self" and how over-consumption can lead to their own destruction (even though they didn't do anything overtly). They stood "apart" from their own groups (isolated) and avoided taking a part in their groups' irresponsible/reckless activities. But, they were still held accountable for their "non-actions."

Here's what Louden said intro in the second chapter:

A central constituent of the narrative pattern in all three sequences is the band of abusive young men with which Odysseus must content - his crew, the Phaiakian athletes, and the suitors. Each band (or members thereof) not only acts abusively toward the hero but commits acts offensive to the gods, all members dying as a result of both conditions. The parallels extend further, in some cases, to specific members of the band. All three groups have a leader, given a parallel name formation, Eurylokhos, Euryalos, and Eurymakhos (co-leader with Antinoös). This figure aggressively confronts Odysseus, is verbally abusive, and is responsible for provoking the band of young men to commit reckless acts.

A further parallel figure exists, common both to the crew and the suitors (but absent among the Phaiakian athletes), in the persons of Elpenor and Leodes. As Eurylokhos and Eurymakhos function as leaders of the two parallel bands, aggressively opposed to Odysseus, so Elpenor and Leodes embody an opposite pole of behavior, a passive figure characterized by a lack of heroism, a wistful outlook, and excessive consumption of wine. While there are differences between the two characters, demanded by the considerable differences in their contexts, in terms of their central functions they play the same essential role in their respective bands. They serve to summon up a figure opposite in many ways to Eurylokhos/Eurymakhos, a passive character, content to overindulge in alcohol, an idle dreamer not a leader. As such the figure is essentially nonthreatening, a danger only to himself. In this respect he represents another aspect of the bands' negative qualities. Eurylokhos/Eurymakhos actively promotes rebellion and insubordination, leading other members of the band to their doom. Elpenor and Leodes belong to the band but because of their passivity, neither promote nor take part in their groups more rebellious activities. As a result they are both capable of provoking sympathy in some readers. Their shortcomings are more subtle. They are the embodiment of each band's tendency toward excessive consumption, especially with regard to alcohol. Furthermore, they implicitly represent a further violation of hospitality, not the forceful perversion of that institution as figured in the suitors' takeover of Odysseus' palace, but a violation of the decorum on which true hospitality must rest. They violate a norm more than once on Odysseus' lips (8.179 to Euryalos, 9.352 to Polyphemos), not through force but through excessive consumption and their passive acceptance of their band's reckless behavior.

To my thinking, a passive acceptance is equal to an active acceptance, e.g., in this case, by not saying "no" to predation and taking a responsibility for it. And, an excessive consumption of alcohol can lead to a mental deterioration (e.g., not thinking) and letting oneself being controlled by habits or by desires.

Louden also pointed out the characters' delusion of grandeur (Elpenor with a honorable burial and Leodes with wooing Penelope) to which the characters are believing that they are "special" when they are actually not (an example of narcissism?).

Elpenor was a youngest (inexperience) and fell drunkenly to his death from Circe's roof (carelessly), and Leodes was a diviner/soothsayer, abusing a divine authority by leading the suitors in prayer to win Penelope (irresponsible). Both of them died as resulted that is associated with their necks (Elpenor - a broken neck, Leodes - a decapitation) in which the "disconnecting of the neck" may be associated with a "separation" between body and mind/spirit (between physical and spirit). That Elpenor/Leodes may represent a disconnection between the people and the divine and obviously represent an association with downfall/death? The fact that there was no "misfit" character among the Phaiakian people suggest that they did had a connection with the divine.

In the last part of the second chapter, Louden pointed out:

If Elpenor and Leodes are multiforms of the same essential character, why is this same figure absent from the Skherian sequence, given that the Phaiakian athletes serve as the band of abusive young men parallel to the crew and suitors? The absence of such a figure serves to indicate some of the differences in the modality and function of that portion of the Odyssey. As suggested in chapter 1, the Skherian sequence is the most "civilized" of the three sequences. Odysseus encounters no threatening monsters there, no physical violence. The brief flare-up between Euryalos, Laodamas, and Odysseus (8.132-240). remains only a verbal confrontation with no real danger of escalation. Euryalos himself makes amends, offering, at Alkinoös' suggestion, a fine sword to Odysseus, and apologizing for the brief confrontation (8.396-415). In all respects the Phaiakian youths are the most orderly of the three bands of young men. The civilizing tendencies of that sequence thus greatly lessen the likelihood that a character so closely tied to intoxication, so lacking in self-control, could exist, a significant violation of the decorum that otherwise prevails on Skheria. Inasmuch as Arete is married, and Alkinoös is alive and well, there is no possibility that one of the young men would center his being upon desire for the queen, as Leodes does Penelope, though this possibility is present with regard to Nausikaa. The orderliness of Phaiakian society would also seem to rule out the existence of an idler and misfit, as we see in Elpenor and Leodes. The Skherian sequence further demonstrates that the Phaiakian have more open relations with the gods than do other mortals (7.201-5). They are perhaps as a consequence less in need of the kind of mediation with "the other world" with which this figure is concerned.

Their ship, after escorting Odysseus to his home, was turned to stone and plummeted to the bottom of the sea may be seen as a "less" punishment for the Phaiakians than a thunderbolts/fire/brimstone that the crew endured and a death by arrows/spears that the suitors received because they were more "civilized" and "more open relations with the gods" (e.g., connection). That the Phaiakians have not taken "the Mark of the Beast," either actively or passively?

 

[Laura]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I was thinking about what the C's said in that same session that "Silence in the face of 'evil' is equal to participation..."

Which may involve passivity, as seen in Elpenor/Leodes persona. I'm currently reading Louden's The Odyssey: Structure, Narration, and Meaning and its second chapter focused on the "misfit" characters Elpenor and Leodes. They reminded me of and may represent a "Weak Self" and how over-consumption can lead to their own destruction (even though they didn't do anything overtly). They stood "apart" from their own groups (isolated) and avoided taking a part in their groups' irresponsible/reckless activities. But, they were still held accountable for their "non-actions."

I'm SO glad some of you are reading these books. As I said, even if Louden isn't thinking at all about hyperdimensional realities and things we talk about (which actually makes his work that much more valuable to us), what he writes about carries some deep implications for us to think about in terms of our reality and what is or is not responsible behavior and how that can change frequency.

Louden's points about the emphasis and re-emphasis of certain themes as is shown by the structure of the epic also gives some confidence that these WERE the elements that the ancients were trying to preserve and convey. That then leads to the idea of the truly great antiquity of the epic despite the iron age glossing.

 

[mcb]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

So should I ask what people think about the diet of meat, bread, and wine described in the Odyssey? Do those who eat "lotus fruit" represent vegetarians, intoxicated and losing their desire to "go home?"

Then there is the land of the Cyclops, where they let things just grow, without cultivation. It almost sounds like a step in the right direction, but oh what bad manners!

I don't know what significance any of this might have, but any element of the story can potentially mean something.

 

[Nicholas]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Finally reading "The Odyssey" for the first time and was surprised at how enjoyable it was to read. I may have to get Loudon's book for more in depth analysis.

One thing that struck me was the use of purple in making clothes and such. Is there some significance to this color?

 

[Keit]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Still reading slowly through the thread, so sorry if it was already mentioned.

This quote:

This middle degree, the destruction of a whole city (often leaving a lone
survivor, “the one just man,” discussed in Chapter 13), is the most common
degree of apocalypse in ancient myth, manifest not only here in Anu’s
concern for Uruk, but in the myth of Troy, in the myth of Sodom and
Gomorrah, in Ovid’s Baucis and Philemon (Metamorphoses 8), in Poseidon’s
initial wish to punish the entire city of the Phaiakians (Od. 13.152), and
in many others (cf. Works and Days 240–1; discussion at Louden 2006:
227–9).

Anu here mediates Ishtar’s wrath, persuading her to adopt the lowest of
the three levels of apocalyptic destruction. Her subsequent annihilation of
several hundred people instead of the majority of the race, or the whole
city, is a significantly lower degree of destruction, which I call a contained
apocalypse.

Reminded me of the following excerpt from the latest session:

Q: (Galaxia) Why would it interfere with the mission?

A: If you know why you will anticipate and possibly make mistakes fatal to yourself. Let us just say that "they" know that harm to you would result in their own total destruction along a more negative timeline.

Q: (L) Well, if my death would bring about their destruction, then maybe it would be a good idea for me to check out, right? Well, isn't that what we want? (Belibaste) Why would it lead to their destruction?

A: Again, we cannot tell you all. But know that there is no chance for a positive outcome for Earth and the future without the presence.

Q: (L) So, there's no chance for a positive outcome without me, and yet my death would ensure their total destruction.

A: And all else!

Q: (Perceval) Maybe it's got something to do with balance, ya know? The universe wanting balance. There's a higher power in the universe that allows things to play out as long as there's some kind of balance. But if you weren't here, then this world would be a completely dark, negative star, and there'd be some mechanism that would destroy it and everything associated with it.

A: Yes.

So maybe it is about balance (in relation to catastrophes mirroring human experience), and destruction level is being reduced to a lesser one because there is still need for "payment", while leaving out the "one just man"?

 

[rrraven]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

One thing that struck me was the use of purple in making clothes and such. Is there some significance to this color?

sure was ultra luxury most natural dyes give you earthy colors , lovely greens and browns and beige but nothing vibrant
wiki tells us

Etymology and definitions
Bolinus brandaris or spiny dye-murex

The word 'purple' comes from the Old English word purpul which derives from the Latin purpura, in turn from the Greek πορφύρα (porphura),[6] name of the Tyrian purple dye manufactured in classical antiquity from a mucus secreted by the spiny dye-murex snail.[7][8]

The first recorded use of the word 'purple' in English was in the year A.D. 975.[9]
Tyrian purple: Classical antiquity

The actual color of Tyrian purple, the original color purple from which the name purple is derived, is the color of a dye extracted from a mollusc found on the shores of the city of Tyre in ancient Phoenicia (present day Lebanon) that in classical antiquity became a symbol of royalty because only the very wealthy could afford it. Therefore, Tyrian purple was also called imperial purple.

Tyrian purple may have been discovered as early as the time of the Minoan civilization. Alexander the Great (when giving imperial audiences as the Emperor of the Macedonian Empire), the emperor of the Seleucid Empire, and the kings of Ptolemaic Egypt all wore Tyrian purple. The imperial robes of Roman emperors were Tyrian purple trimmed in metallic gold thread. The badge of office of a Roman Senator was a stripe of Tyrian purple on their white toga.[14] Tyrian purple was continued in use by the emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire until its final collapse in 1453.


Hexaplex trunculus (also known as Murex trunculus or the banded dye-murex) is a medium-sized species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Muricidae, the murex shells or rock snails.

This species of sea snail is important historically because its hypobranchial gland secretes a mucus that the ancient Canaanites/Phoenicians used as a distinctive purple-blue indigo dye. One of the dye's main chemical ingredients is indigotin, and if left in the sun for a few minutes before becoming fast, its color turns to a blue indigo

Distribution

This species lives in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic coasts of Europe and Africa, specifically Spain, Portugal, Morocco, the Canary Islands, Azores.[1]

This murex occurs in shallow, sublittoral waters.
Shell description

Hexaplex trunculus has a broadly conical shell about 4 to 10 cm long. It has a rather high spire with seven angulated whorls. The shell is variable in sculpture and coloring with dark banding, in four varieties. The ribs sometimes develop thickenings or spines and give the shell a rough appearance.

Human use

Secretions from this species of snail were used as dye in ancient times. The snail itself is still used as a valuable food source in Portugal.[2]
As ancient dye

The ancient method for mass-producing purple-blue dye from Hexaplex trunculus has not yet been successfully reproduced (because the purplish hue degrades too quickly, resulting in blue only). Nonetheless the use of this species in dyeing "purple-blue" has been confirmed in the archeology of Phoenicia, where large quantities of the shells have been recovered from inside ancient live storage chambers that were used for harvesting. Allegedly, 10-12,000 murex were needed to produce one gram of dye. The dye was highly prized in ancient times. Sometimes known as royal blue, it was prohibitively expensive and was only used by the highest ranking aristocracy.

A similar dye, Tyrian purple, which is purple-red in color, was made from a related species of marine snail, Murex brandaris. This dye (alternatively known as imperial purple, see purple) was also prohibitively expensive.
[edit] As dye in Judaism
Some wool dipped in tekhelet solution, from the Hexaplex trunculus, turning blue in the sunlight outside P'til Tekhelet in Israel.

The Hebrew Bible mentions a specific blue dye, called Tekhelet (Hebrew: תְּכֵלֶת‎, pronounced [təˈχeleθ]) for use in the Priestly garments as well in the layman's tzitzit, the formal tassels or fringes of clothing, which some believe refers to the indigo dye from the Hexaplex trunculus when kept in the sun.[3]

Similarly, the Hebrew Bible also mentions a specific purple dye, called argaman (Hebrew: אַרְגָּמָן‎ [ʔaʁɡaˈman]), which refers to the purple color this same dye produces when kept in the shade.

That is, research by Otto Elsner (Shenker College of Fibers, Ramat Gan, Israel) and Ehud Spaneir (University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel) showed that by performing what is commonly referred to as "vat dyeing" based on the dyestuff from the trunculus, they could achieve colors varying from blue to purple depending on exposure to the sun when the dye solution was in its leuco (reduced) state. This phenomenon was attributed to the dyestuff being composed of indigo, mono-bromo-indigo and di-bromo-indigo.[citation needed] DiBromo-Indigo presents itself as purple whereas Indigo is blue. It was demonstrated that when the reduced solution of trunculus dye is exposed to sunlight, the UV-rays from the sun act to break the bromine bonds such that when oxidation occurs following the removal of the dyed fabric from the solution, pure indigo bonds to the wool, while the bromine atoms are left in the vat.

This feature of final color varying according to exposure to the sun was indeed known by the ancients, as noted in the writings of Vitruvius (1 c. BCE), “Purple exceeds all colors in costliness and superiority of its delightful effect. It is obtained from a marine shellfish. ...It has not the same shade in all the places where it is found, but is naturally qualified by the course of the sun”.[4]

so if our ''Greeks'' are the sea people they would have traded in purple cloth from the Mediterranean and possibly in live sea snails from Portugal even if they did not live in Greece

on a different note I remember reading some thing about earthworks like Silbury Hill having layers of chalk , turf and snails ,I will have to check up on that

wouldn't it be funny if it turned out they build it to get rid of the waste from their
purple and indigo wool industry :P

 

[Ottershrew]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I've recently been reading Barbara O'Brien's book "Operators and Things", and it seemed to me that there are some striking similarities between this book and the Odyssey. For those who haven't come across this book, a bit of terminology: "Operators" are the secret controllers and exploiters of humanity, while "Things" are their victims.

In his introduction to the book, Michael Maccoby draws out this very point:

Barbara's hallucinations are not, however, the gods and devils common to another age; they are horrors of Organization Man; they are reactions to forces blocking attempts at creativity in work and attempts to enjoy relationships of trust with others.

O'Brien's hallucinations last for six months, and they're clearly very distressing for her; she's plainly relieved when the voices stop. But at the same time it's something of an adventure for her, and in that sense somewhat enjoyable, as she herself points out. This isn't to be flippant about the terrible strain she had to undergo, but as Maccoby says:

All we know is that she is a creative and independent woman, with intelligence, a strong sense of morality, and a talent for playfulness. Her playfulness and humor is to me Barbara's most impressive quality. Faced with a matter of life and death which lasted not for a moment but for months, her unconscious produced, along with Kafka-esque judges and Edward G. Robinson-type gangsters, characters like Nicky who are warm and playful. This book itself has an element of a Hollywood script, but a script which illustrates man's most endearing quality, the ability to translate the dangers within him, the fears about good and evil, into an external drama with heroes and villains, with pathos and humor.

Humour and anger were important assets for O'Brien as she dealt with her hallucinations. (Actually, we could probably term the hallucinations "visions" if we wanted to, because they clearly held some truth - however it was dramatised. In that sense, we could say with some justification that O'Brien was going through a shamanic experience - albeit an abnormally prolonged one.) The anger comes out in the way O'Brien dealt with the "operators" who were exercising control over her: her reaction was to move continually across the United States and Canada. (Although, as she guesses in Part 4 of the book, it was her unconscious that actually directed her to do this, partly to make sure that she was out of the toxic environment of her workplace, and away from friends and family, whose recognition of her madness would stamp her with a permanent stigma.) In that process of travel by bus, train and plane, though, O'Brien came across more and more operators. She was undergoing an odyssey of sorts as she criss-crossed North America, and the "gods" she had to deal with were very real to her. Often she was trying to escape from one set of operators, only to fall into the power of another. She changed from being merely an "it" like any other Thing, to becoming "This One": something of a celebrity among Operators, but also a powerful temptation for nearly all Operators, because her mind was wide open for exploitation.

With so many operators vying for control over her, the whole process of exploitation degenerated into gang warfare (with Operators "stoning" each other - this refers to inflicting a painful temporary block on another Operator), and protracted legal proceedings about control of her. In a way, this is reminiscent of the Odyssey, where different deities are vying for influence over how things turn out for Odysseus, and there's a general framework of law, set by Zeus, the higher authority (the equivalent of the "city councils" we find in "Operators and Things"), to make sure things don't get out of hand.

Part One of the book sets out the general environment which inspired O'Brien's hallucinations. It reads a little like "Snakes in Suits": a business environment where certain individuals, who are clearly psychopathic, set out to manoeuvre themselves into positions of higher authority by destroying the reputations of certain of their co-employees. O'Brien's reaction is one of fear, which is the underlying problem. She's trapped in her situation at work, and she's afraid - and from out of that situation she then wakes up one morning to find three Operators standing at the side of her bed.

From there the adventure - or set of trials - begins, as she leaves the battleground that she recognised her workplace had become - or always had been. This again reads a bit like the Odyssey, with the Trojan War as the background for the story. Another thing reminiscent of the Odyssey is Odysseus' own madness - or feigned madness - which he had exhibited when the Achaeans came to recruit him to the War in Ithaca. Is the Odyssey really all about "madness"? And like Odysseus, O'Brien is travelling pretty much incognito - or at least giving little away about her real situation to anyone, apart from three professionals whom she meets out in California.

The Operators are an allegory, she believes: a dramatisation of the way "Hook Operators" had operated in her workplace, seeking out a weakness in their victims, and then exploiting that weakness. Naturally there was nothing physical about this approach; it was all mental work, which is how the Operators do their own thing. The dramatisation in this way reminded me of something I read about in Freke and Gandy's book "Jesus and the Lost Goddess":

To us myths are irrelevant fantasies, but the ancients regarded them as profound allegories encoding mystical teachings. Mythical motifs represented philosophical principles. They were an archetypal vocabulary with which to think. Creating new myths was a way of exploring new ideas.

And indeed, it seems, O'Brien had created a new myth to explore new ideas - ones that she urgently needed to consider, or she was going to be destroyed. After her recovery, O'Brien convalesced under the protection of what she calls "Something". "Something" had extraordinary intuitive powers; it even sent her to Las Vegas for a weekend, where she won a good deal of money at roulette, the numbers having been picked by "Something". In her reading of textbooks by psychiatrists she came across a number of admissions that schizophrenics had a similar general uncanny ability of being able to read their psychiatrist's minds. She brushes this off with:

(Pooh, I thought, it's just a little attachment Something has. When it's screwed onto the machine, Something can extend into the unconscious minds of others. I know what that's all about.) Nevertheless, it was nice to know that other schizophrenics had demonstrated a similar talent. It made the business more normal, at least for us schizophrenics. Anyway, it wasn't witchcraft.

Well, it might not be witchcraft, but it might nevertheless be something approaching shamanism. It looks like O'Brien latched on to something that was scarcely recognised back in the 1950's: the high preponderance of psychopathy, and the general danger that poses for us all. In that sense, she went into the uncanny world of the dead, and came back again armed with knowledge, which again is reminiscent of Odysseus.

Any thoughts, anyone?

It's a tragedy that "Operators and Things" is long out of print, and the tiny number of second-hand copies which turn up for sale on Amazon or wherever are priced way out of the reach of most people, and furthermore are snapped up within just a few days. Nevertheless, it's possible to get the complete text of the book for free in pdf format from this place here. It's a lovely read: good fun, with plenty of dry humour - which again is reminiscent of the style of the Odyssey, imo. It's also one of the creepiest books I've ever read: the "gods and devils common to another age" are evidently still around.

 

[truth seeker]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Well, it might not be witchcraft, but it might nevertheless be something approaching shamanism. It looks like O'Brien latched on to something that was scarcely recognised back in the 1950's: the high preponderance of psychopathy, and the general danger that poses for us all. In that sense, she went into the uncanny world of the dead, and came back again armed with knowledge, which again is reminiscent of Odysseus.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Just recently read this book. What you wrote above is a very interesting way to look at it and I agree.

 

[SethianSeth]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I am only on book 4 (Fitzgerald translation, quite lovely), and still have to parse through Laura's last 2 Louden posts but I wanted to jump in and contribute to the discussion.

Obviously, the layer of the story relating to The Work is exciting and I want to thank all the posters above who began mapping it out so beautifully. I hope to add just a few disorganized and free-form thoughts/questions:

a)

...one knows whats up and the other doesn't, and guest/guest where both don't know or understand the reality of the situation. There's a couple of quotes in this thread which relate Theoxeny as a genre of myth explains why hospitality is sacred: any guest could be a god in disguise. , in this case the guest is actually a host (after all a God will have rule over all things) and the household host will actually be a guest. There's some parallels for Gnosis here as the "host" opens his "house" to the influences of the gods ie the B influences.

It is also interesting that Odysseus take on a "disguise" and acts as a guest but is really a host ....him being king and all disguised as a beggar, only those who can see through things and act as a good host seem to be able to see through the disguise. The term "blessing in disguise" come to mind, various nasty characters we've come across the years have indeed been that...although they have been obnoxious guests!

I had a similar read, when thinking about Louden's "virtual theoxeny." It seems to me that the category of "virtual" theoxony is sort of misleading as being the instance when a mortal plays the role of a god. Perhaps the difference has to do with the level of being of the bringer of knowledge. When a god disguises him/herself as an existing human, this is portraying an instance when the the host must be able to discern truth from his guest (which, I think in the zen categories would actually be 'guest sees host.'). The bringer of knowledge in this instance is unaware or partially unaware of the truth they speak, or have not developed a permanent 'I' so they become "Athena disguised as Mentor" or whatever. This teaches the seeker to not "throw out the baby with the bath water" because each learning opportunity may be found in the smallest details. As johnno said, an opening of the "house" to B influences allows for seemingly limitless possibilities. The subtleties of the hospitality myth teach this beautifully.

So, when a known mortal plays the role of the disguised god in theoxey, what is going on is that the mortal has developed his/her permanent 'I' and knowingly speaks/acts for "the gods" (no longer subject to the law of accident). In both instances, the critical behavior/stance is that of the host (or to avoid confusion, 'the seeker'). This then relates to the 4th way idea that those who develop past a certain point must have no misunderstanding between them and can easily recognize each other in a crowd (host sees host). Makes sense that Odysseus would take on this role that is seemingly reserved for the gods only after having completed his long journey and consciously learning his lessons.


b) The Theoxeny Miracle of the eternally replenishing vessel seems to be a memory of our STO past. Perhaps, those that formed this myth knew of the edenic state relating to technology which made toil by the sweat of our brow (ie our slavery) unnecessary. It must have been understood that observing proper hospitality was a key to recovering the lost technology.


c) Sara and Telemacho's "doubting the gods" scenario leads not to wrath (as might be expected with such volatile gods), but a calm correction. Not sure yet how, but it strikes me that both the doubt of the mortal and the promise of the god should be considered significant with regards to 3D existence grasping 4D existence (and the potential manipulations that can happen due to these differences in awareness). Another thing that is obviously very interesting about these exchanges is the wordplay employed used by the correcting god on the name of the one being bestowed with the promise. Could this be an instance of these mythic constructs trying to teach about The Green Language/Language of the Birds? And why in this specific formula?


d) Speaking of the Language of the Birds, I would like to open up discussion here to the bird symbolism which is seemingly so important (not just in the Odyssesy, but in so many esoteric teachings). In the Odyssesy, we have mention of a divination technique that has to do with the observation of birds (book 1, line 246/book 2, line 168), and the public mockery of such divination (how modern!). This seems to be an area that holds a lot of keys, but I am not versed enough yet in the symbolism to draw them out. Anybody else have some threads toward discoveries in this direction?


e) I also wanted to gain a bit of clarity about the grafting of these mythic structures onto the OT. This, again, is an area which needs a lot of digging yet for me, but I would love some feedback as to whether I am formulating on the right track. It seems like what went down is a controller group ('custodial,' in Bramley's Gods of Eden) needed to construct an alternate history which would subsume and subtly distort valuable information regarding personal evolution/cosmic interactions/the very controlling entities looking to rewrite history. The best way to do this is to preserve the mythic structures of the culture you are looking to dominate and use these structures to give divine attributes to your chosen patriarchal line/monotheism (which is the beginning of the manipulation of our easily collapsable 3D physical understanding). Thus doing, within as short a time as a generation or two all of the valuable practices and knowledge will be reduced to ritual by slavish types looking to be comforted by a hierarchy of power (who may very well have been promising protection from the very cometary disasters the Odyssey and other myths were fighting to warn about, as we are seeing was going on around the time of the Black Death). So, what we would have is the first major documentation of written disinformation and study of the OT can give us important clues to how disinformation is propagated!

I still have to read Clube and others (I have a copy of Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes for after this exercise) before I feel comfortable at all speculating about the cometary connection, but I find some of the ideas earlier in the thread about hospitality on the scale of our solar system to be incredibly provocative! Particularly this from Jakesully:

Even the etymology of the name Zeus, I think, represents the dual nature of the "solar capacitor", positive and negative charges. Zeus is depicted as the King of the Gods, or the ruler of the planets. To me, at first, that would mean Zeus would be the Sun. But astrologically speaking, the Sun is the archetype of Leo, and it's Jupiter that bears the namesake of the Sagittarius archetype of Zeus. But then when we look at the solar capacitor phenomenon, where the Sun has a negative charge, and a large body, usually Jupiter, acts as the positive ground, then it's an interaction between the two that makes Zeus start throwing lightning bolts. So then Zeus in this case would represent the dual archetypes of Leo and Sagittarius, the King of the Gods with the power to throw lightning bolts.

So then the approach of this brown dwarf companion, mythologically speaking, would give Zeus rare and immense power, of a kind hardly ever seen even in human history.

And then if we wanted to complete the triad, astrologically speaking, according to the Law of Three, we would have:
Leo, King of Gods, Fixed Sign, Passive Force;
Sagittarius, God of Thunder, Mutable Sign, Neutralizing Force;
Aries, God of War, Cardinal Sign, Active Force;

So, comet approaches, the Theoxeny happens, (but if we're talking about the solar system being the house of the gods, than another god/comet who is a guest would from that perspective simply be a guest, at the mercy of the rules of hospitality). One could say that a violation of hospitality could also be interpreted as an "act of war" (Aries, active force). Zeus, the Leo/passive force, gets angry in response, and with the help of the neutralizing force of the ground that Jupiter provides, starts throwing lightning bolts at anything in the circuit.

And then, as above, so below, the same violent interaction plays out on the plane of human affairs, with the start of wars and revolutions, violations of hospitality between men, and between man and nature - earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, tsunamis; and in modern times, ecological disasters such as the BP Gulf Oil Disaster, and the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown.

Does anyone have more here?

f) The Jesus figure reemphasizing The Hospitality Myth in the NT seems to be an attempt to restore the myths to their proper place as maps of hyperdimensional reality/human interactions with same. Obviously, Mouravieff makes this argument very compelling, as many others have pointed out here. However, this attempt was doomed to ultimate failure as well. At least every once in a while, we are graced with those extraordinary humans who are able to re-establish the potent tools needed to navigate. The pre-world war modern world had Gurdjieff and his school, and it seems (particularly in light of the C's comments in the most recent session) the current world has Laura and all of us. This is mighty sobering! I know I have miles to go before I sleep. Let us maintain and strive for Objectivity at all costs, so that we can play the roles we need to play in what seems to be our modern Noah Level negative theoxeny!


I know some of this was recap of things that have already been said, but hopefully it can still be useful to the thread. This has been such a rewarding exercise, and I needed to push myself into the discussion as opposed to remaining a passive observer (as I have the tendency to do).

Oh, I wanted to address one thing to Brunauld, because I recognize something of my own experience in what you are talking about here:

What an interesting finding that relates to my creations.

[snip]

What it relates to my stories, is that first as in other cases I don't know if I was some kind of writer of myths in a past life or something like that, sometimes it appears as I am being inspired by mythology, even when I don't really know nothing about it. And then for example I created this character with my name and it has a chimera aspect and is referred as a chimera in the story, it is a human with other animal's parts like horns, wings, fox tale, spikes of a dragon and whatever, but he is in the good side, then Athena created the aegis killing Pallas identified as something like the chimera, a monster of fire, and as a god of wisdom.

I have had the same types of experiences repeatedly, where I discover mythic/archetypical material in my own creations without having been familiar with the "source material." I think that this speaks to the universal or timeless quality of the myths/archetypes themselves as opposed to being indicative of any previous life experiences. The part of you that lives in this timeless world of symbolism/archetype is perhaps being accessed unconsciously as you actively organize things from your 3D perspective. This is, of course, not to say that you cannot be aware of past life experiences, or speculate about such, but to be wary of the trap of illusory thinking with regards to your own creation. I am finding that the best way for me to approach this experience as it happens is to keep a playful attitude about it, and allow myself to "play detective" with my own work as I grow and learn. I want to keep an "I didn't know that!" attitude, so as to remain as teachable as possible on this level. Who knows, maybe it will lead to information about past lives, but that being mostly "unprovable" for me at this point, I rather desire to view it as a barometer or exercise on my path of assimilating B influences. Could this recognition be viewed as a theoxeny on a personal microcosmic scale (Guest sees Host in the zen model)? Gurdjieff explained that on the road to consciousness, those compelled to create are only imitating true art until we finally attain the 'Host Sees Host' status in our personal evolution. Only then can we truly create using all the tools consciously!

'sall I gots for now. Thanks again to everyone here for such exciting discoveries!

 

[Laura]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

It's important to read all the posts I'm going to be making on this thread even if you have to back up to do so. I'll be giving you the tools to really understand some totally cool things!

I'm backing, I'm backing. :)

I noticed many Biblical parallels while reading the Odyssey, and the parallel elements generally seemed more at home in the latter story than in the former where they fit into the weaving of the epic. Did one of the books you quoted say that this wasn't acknowledged until recently? It seems quite apparent.

Yes. As Burton Mack has written, Western culture doesn't study itself the way it studies "outsiders." It believes that it is "right" and that is based on the "right religion" which is NOT a myth (so they assume) which has really prevented an examination of Biblical literature in a truly scholarly way. Biblical studies have inched along so slowly against so many barriers of belief that it is shocking. Most Biblical scholars for a very long time were "true believers" in the myth!!! Many of them still are though it is getting harder and harder to support that. This is due to circular reasoning: "the Bible is the word of god so if it looks like it is similar to other myths, that's because god intended it that way to obscure its truth to infidels." That sort of reasoning. That's something you can't break through with the "true believer" type.