The Odyssey - Manual of Secret Teachings?

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Approaching Infinity said:
Found this in Transcripts of Gurdjieff's Meetings 1941-1946. Puts a new spin on theoxeny for me:

Simone: I feel that I must introduce in my task, in my work, a person close to me, but what adds to the difficulty is that I feel in this person weaknesses similar to my own, and my weaknesses reinforce hers and her weaknesses reinforce mine. I don't know how to defend myself against this and what attitude to take.

Gurdjieff: You must pay no attention to the exterior. This is exterior. You must only know your task and do it interiorly. The other person, consciously or not, plays her role, acts her character. You do not know her, you do not know who she is, whether it is Moses, or some other person. It is not important. What is important for you is your inner task.

It's easy to get caught up and identified when interacting with others. Someone says something we don't like and we take offense; they get angry with us and we get hurt and lash out with covert or passive aggression; we expect people to treat us a certain way, consider us more. All the while we do not consider them. In short, we take ourselves very seriously and our egoism runs the show. But when we follow Gurdjieff's advice, and separate the inner from the outer, we can learn to stop identifying. Every person is simply playing their role. If you're acting in a play, you may be in a scene where the other actor's character is yelling at you, annoying you, acting like an insolent child, etc., but do you take offense? No, you know it's part of the script and you play your part, with some element of detachment. There is a distance between what you really feel and what you do 'exteriorly'. This practice and awareness of 'theoxeny' seems to me to be a great way to promote both self-remembering and external consideration, in short, hospitality.

That's brilliants, thanks for sharing!
Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

After reading William Hansen’s Classical Mythology: A Guide to the Mythical World of the Greeks and Romans, I have some comments and questions about the Olympian pantheon. My biggest question after reading this thread is whether I’m taking the information too literally. I know that Laura has spent a lot of time focusing on the more general hyperdimensional dynamics of the Odyssey – STO/STS interplay through theoxeny, the way it relates to the General Law, and so on. So this might be going in the wrong direction, and if it is I hope I'll be corrected.

One of the things that I remembered when reading this book was this:

8/20/01 said:
Q: I'm getting the feeling that there have been bleed-in, bleed-out situations with 4th density on
this planet a lot more often than we suspect.
A: Yes.

Q: Are these situations sometimes manufactured by those who know how?
A: Close.

Since there are traditional stories of divine pantheons all over the world, of which the Olympic pantheon is just one example, I’m wondering if it’s a mythic holdover from a time when 4th density was really in more active contact with people here on earth, and if these pantheons were essentially ‘teams’ of entities which were tasked with getting ‘Stone Age’ man organized into structured societies to suit their own purposes -- more or less taking hunter-gatherers around the world and setting them on a trajectory that would eventually lead to what we know as modern society (a big collective farm, for all intents and purposes).

First, from Hansen’s book, here are some descriptions of the mythic landscape that seem to have a hyperdimensional undertone:

Precisely how and where in the sky the ancient gods dwell was no clearer to the Greeks and Romans than how and where in the sky Jehovah and his angels dwell are to the Jews, Christians, and Muslims today.

The place of the dead [Erebos] is also a house, the House of Hades. This image implies that the dead dwell in a structure, a kind of terminal inn operated by the Lord and Lady of Death, Hades and Persephone […] Erebos is a repository for the dead in general, the good as well as the bad, so that its function is not to make life’s balance sheet come out right by rewarding the inadequately rewarded or punishing the inadequately punished.

[Tartaros] is primarily a prison for supernatural beings who are not subject to death and so cannot be killed, only stored […] Tartaros is enclosed by a bronze wall, above which is a neck, as though the place were an immense jar, and above the neck are the roots (that is, the bottom) of the earth and the springs of the sea.

The next part seems almost like a checklist of 4D features, particularly when you take into account both the physical as well as the experiential properties of 4th density:

The Nature of Gods and Humans

• Gods are of greater stature than humans and indeed in their natural state are really huge
• The gods are better-looking than humans
• The gods, moreover, know a lot more than humans do […] because they travel great distances easily, because they see much, having in the case of celestial deities also the advantage of being able to look down and survey the whole world, and because they are more perceptive […] the difference in their knowledge of the future is absolute, for humans have no certain knowledge of what lies ahead, but gods are privy to fate (moira), the broad outline of future events.
• Gods are physically radiant
• The gods have their own peculiar language
• Unlike humans, who experience a life cycle that moves inevitably from infancy to maturity to senescence and death, individual gods reach a particular developmental stage and remain there, immortal and unaging
• Since the gods do not, like mortals, consume bread and wine, they are bloodless, producing instead a kind of immortal fluid, a thin substance called ichor. As a consequence they do not die. When they feast, they consume nectar and ambrosia, which preserve the gods in their present state, keeping them from aging […] The Olympian gods nevertheless own herds of cattle […] they are also represented as depending for their nourishment upon sacrificial meals made for their benefit by human beings on earth. Such meals are shared, the god consuming the smaller part and the humans consuming the larger part. The deity may be silently and invisibly present, enjoying the god’s share, or may be in the celestial regions, enjoying the savor of the smoke that issues from the roasting meat and makes its way upward to the heavens […] The mechanism that transforms meat from human food into divine food is fire, which performs the function of transforming the worldly into the divine in other instances as well.
• Compared to humans, the gods are masterful shape-changers […] The gods choose to treat a few mortal groups exceptionally, appearing to them as they are rather than in disguise […] Although the gods often adopt the form of human beings for the purpose of interaction with mortals, they can turn themselves into almost anything.
• A deity can also change someone or something else into a different form {and can apparently teleport them, as Aphrodite does with Paris in book 3 of The Iliad}
• A different strategy for avoiding recognition is invisibility
• Unlike humans, gods can quickly move from one place to another by flying through the air
• A subtle power of the immortals is their ability to implant thoughts and feelings in human beings, frightening them or encouraging them or giving them an idea or an impulse for good or bad
• A curious constraint on the power of the gods is that a god is not permitted to undo what another god has done

Similarly with this section:

The relationship of Gods and Humans

• The Olympian gods are immortal though they can be wounded, unaging once they have reached their final developmental stage, knowledgeable but not omniscient, and powerful but not omnipotent
• On the one side, it is in the interest of humans to win and maintain the goodwill of the gods toward them because the gods have immense influence over human beings and the natural world. For their own reasons the gods are pleased by certain human behaviors and offended by others […] But the relationship of gods and humans is not one-way only, for the gods also depend upon human beings for things that are important to them, such as their share of sacrificial meals, especially the savor of roasted meat. Beyond that, they are pleased by the celebration of their rites and by the establishment of new cult sites.
• Not only do gods and humans need each other generally, sometimes they also desire each other in the particular. Indeed, much sexual activity has transpired between the two groups […] These matings produced the demigods, offspring who were half human and half divine, often excelling in one respect or another but subject to aging and death like their mortal parent, to the grief of their immortal parent.
• In the immortal past when gods and humans dwelled together like neighbors, they spoke to each other directly, but except for a few privileged human groups, these conditions are now gone, and in the mythological present the Olympians dwell unreachably far away […] For their part the gods send omens, dreams, and oracles, and they express their good will by sending success in an enterprise or prosperity in general and their anger by means of thunderbolts, plagues, floods, storms at sea, military losses, and other miseries and disasters […] A god may impart information about the present, or reveal the will of the gods about a contemplated matter, or advise a person what to do, as the disguised Athena does at the beginning of Homer’s Odyssey […] Among human beings a knowledge of the past and the future belongs in particular to the community’s information specialists, the poets and the seers.

This is summarized in the following:

The Nature of the Gods and Humans

• The gods are powerful but not all-powerful
• We were formed by the gods as physical copies of them, and like them we are male and female
• We share one feature with the gods that sets us apart from the animals, our reason, a spark of the divine fire
• Most of the arts and elements of civilization we owe to the gods
• When we die, as eventually we must, our soul survives us

There’s also a section on time and chronology in Hansen’s book:


In Hesiod’s cosmogony the first thing that happened was the appearance of Chaos. Since the two great families of gods, the Titans and the Olympians, came into being later, time preceded the gods and was not something created by them. So the gods are not masters of time, except in small ways […] There are foreboding hints of an end-time. Hesiod sees himself as a member of the Race of Iron, who live in a degenerate era of misery and crime that will get worse and worse until finally Zeus will destroy it. {Speaking of the two families of gods, Laura mentioned an alternative tradition where power seemed to pass back and forth between two families of deities – almost reminiscent of two rival gangs. Maybe this has a parallel in the Ases and the Wanes of Nordic mythology?}

Divine Time and Human Time

[…] for Zeus and his fellow Olympians, the important landmark was the Titanomachy, or battle against the Titans, in which the Olympian family of gods overcame the Titan family of gods and established itself securely as dominant in the universe […] Human beings, having been crafted by the gods, came on the scene later […] But after men gravely offended the gods, the latter avenged themselves by introducing into the human community not only the ambivalent element of women but also the unequivocal evils of hard work, illness, and death […] For mortals, the original linearity of time became entangled with cyclicity, so that the human experience of time emerged as a mix of repetition and irreversible succession.

The divine struggles for supremacy in the early cosmos were quickly sorted out, after which the reign of Zeus has continued forever with no essential change […] A time chart for the gods both collectively and individually would show a compressed beginning with mountains and valleys close together, followed by an infinite line with an occasional wave. {This seems similar to the idea that when 3D STS beings become 4D, there is a quick initial struggle to establish a set power hierarchy }

The experience of time conditions knowledge. The gods are knowledgeable, not because divine beings are omniscient but because they are creatures of leisure who have lived for a long time and therefore have seen and heard much, because they travel easily, because they are able to observe processes that are invisible to human eyes, and because they have some acquaintance with what is fated to happen. In contrast, humans live brief lives devoted largely to toil, can only guess at the hidden workings of the universe, experience little of the earth, and are not privy to destiny. For immortals, with their greater knowledge of the past and the future, time is more permeable and flowing, whereas mortals are relatively more confined to the present moment […] For information of divine origin, the important intermediaries for the human community are the seers and the bards.

First to come into being was Chaos, followed by Gaia, Tartaros, and Eros. Of the four primordial beings, Chaos was space, not infinite space but bounded space, a chasm, a vast opening that was defined in some way […] The first generation of beings who somehow emerged into existence were binatural beings, at once things (space, earth, prison, love) and living beings who were capable of thoughts, feelings, and action […] The members of the second generation, the children of Chaos and the children of Gaia, had one parent, either Chaos or Gaia, who produced them parthenogenically, without sexual intercourse.

{Laura already posted some information about Typhon which seems eerily reminiscent of cometary bombardment – here is some more:}
In the final encounter [of the Titanomachy] each side attacked the other, causing the earth to roar and the sky to groan. Zeus charged down from Olympos, letting loose with his thunderbolts. Forests burned, the sea and the River Ocean boiled, and the Earth cried. Hurling 300 rocks at a time, the Hundred-Handers drove the Titans into the earth. There they fettered them, putting them in Tartaros, which is as far beneath the earth as the sky is above the earth […] Strangely, Gaia now mated with Tartaros and bore the monster Typhon, a dragon with a hundred serpentine heads, each spitting fire and emitting strange sounds […] From Typhon came destructive winds, storms that scatter ships and ruin crops […] Zeus succeeded Kronos as king of the gods, and as the new head of the cosmic bureaucracy he distributed honors, or offices, to the individual members of his team, like a victorious general distributing spoils to his troops after a battle.

The First Humans

Prometheus [a Titan] created human beings from earth and water, molding them in the likeness of the gods

The Great Deluge

The great deluge was the latest installment of divine hostility toward humans. The gods exceeded their earlier hostile acts of withdrawing nature’s vital energy, concealing fire, creating woman {I wonder if the whole thing about 'creating woman' is a purposeful corruption of something like creating gender divisions in an originally androgynous race}, and releasing baneful diseases into the world, for in the present case they attempted to destroy the human race by drowning […] The gods did not again attempt a large-scale extermination of human beings for several generations, when Zeus engineered a great war at Troy in order to reduce the human population.

The Gods Establish their Cults

[...] Although [Demeter’s] quest [to find her abducted daughter Persephone] was unsuccessful, she encountered kindly persons, including the Eleusinians, whom she rewarded with the extraordinary gift of wheat and its cultivation. They in turn shared the seeds of this grain with others until the entire inhabited world abounded in it.

[Apollo] laid out [the foundations of an oracular temple] and human craftsmen completed the work […] He bade them sacrifice to him as Apollo Delphinios (Apollo of the Dolphin), after which he led them singing up the slope of Parnassos to his temple […] The gods once decided to take individual possession of different cities where they would receive worship.

Just as wheat and its cultivation came from Demeter and viticulture and wine-making from Dionysos, so also most of the other important elements of culture and civilization were introduced by individual gods. Thus the art of the smithy came from Hephaistos, war from Ares, hunting from Artemis and Apollon, the institution of kingship from Zeus, and so on […] The deity in each case was the inventor or owner of the art, and humans were their pupils.

In line with what mkrnhr said here, what this seems to suggest is that the Olympian pantheon was an organized team, headed by Zeus, which was in charge of a literal form of what we might consider nation-building – organizing hunter-gatherer humans into agrarian, urban societies which would be detrimental to the physical, emotional and psychological well-being of humans, but beneficial to the gods. Not all that different from how we treat cattle today. And there are strong similarities between some of the members of the pantheons across the globe, implying similar, near-simultaneous projects.

The Graeco-Roman and Germanic pantheons are very similar, for example – take Zeus and Odin:

Zeus: His principal province is the sky, and his weapon is the thunderbolt […] Beyond his job as ruler of the gods, his principal roles in mythology are warrior and lover. He is far and away the most promiscuous of the gods, not to mention the most inventive in his promiscuity.

Odin (from Barbarian Rites by Hans-Peter Hasenfratz): As the highest god in the Germanic pantheon, Odin is a war god, which corresponds completely to the eminent ranking accorded to war and battle on the scale of Germanic values […] As a war god, Odin consequently behaves in an amoral (or better, “transmoral”) fashion. He goads friends and relatives against one another, thus leading to war and feud […] Odin’s dealings with the female sex correspond to his “windy” or variable character. He seduces a giant’s daughter, Gunnlod, robs her of the mead of poetry, the magic drink, the enjoyment of which makes an individual into a poet (Odin is the god of poets), and, to boot, swears a false oath among the giants. On another occasion he rapes a girl named Rinda (an earth goddess). When the girl initially spurns his advances, he causes her to go mad through an act of rune magic. Afterward he comes to her in disguise as a healer woman who states that she can heal the girl only after binding her; otherwise the girl will not be able to ingest the necessary bitter medicinal drink. Having accomplished this, Odin rapes and impregnates the bound and defenseless girl.

And the list of comparisons can be continued:

• Frey (= Demeter): the god of agriculture, fertility, and trade
• Freya (= Aphrodite): a goddess of beauty and love
• Frigga (= Hera): wife of Odin (although there is none amongst the gods who have not been her lover)
• Tyr (= Ares): god of war
• Loki (= Hermes): a trickster
• Hel (= Hades): Odin’s sister, who oversees the Underworld

One question is whether these are two different but parallel traditions which ultimately describe the same group of gods, or whether they describe two different groups of gods with similar roles and directives.

Gods with similar offices can be found all around the world, though, these being some examples (taken from Parallel Myths by J.F. Bierlein):

Indian gods
• Indra: the sky-god
• Rudra: the storm-god
• Pushan: guardian of the flocks
• Skanda (Kumara): god of war
• Kamadeva: god of love

The Hawaiian Pantheon
• Ku: superior masculine deity, god of agriculture
• Po: superior feminine deity, queen of the Underworld
• Kanaloa: the sea god
• Maui: the trickster
• Lono: another agricultural deity

The Aztec Pantheon
• Onteotl: the supreme god
• Tlaloc: the rain god
• Ehecatl: god of the winds
• Tlatzoteotl: goddess of sexual desire
• Huitzipochtli: sun-god and patron of war
• Huehueteotl: the fire god
• Centeotl: the god of maize
• Ometochtli: the god of drunkenness
• Chalchiuhtilicue and Huixtochihuatl: the respective goddesses of fresh and salt water

In keeping with this idea, this is an excerpt from Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia (edited by Marc Oxenham and Nancy Tayles):

[…] Sex differences in caries rates require explanations of differences in diet, activity, behaviour or other gender-based causes. Lukacs (1996) proposed that sex differences in dental caries frequencies in a South Asian skeletal sample were the result of differences in diet and, by extension, a division of labour. The greater caries frequency in females occurred because they were more closely associated with agricultural products and consequently ate more carbohydrates than males. Males, by comparison, were more closely associated with wild and domesticated protein sources and thus ate more protein than females.

The aim of the Origins of Angkor Project is to investigate the social cultural and technological developments in the Mun River valley that led to autonomous communities in this area undergoing the transition to more centralized and hierarchical societies […] The descendants of these communities built large-scale monuments and temples, some of which are still standing in the northeast today […] It is likely that these pre-Angkorian populations underwent extensive changes over time, for example in the intensification of rice agriculture, the development of technology, in particular metalworking, and an increase in social complexity and exchange with other communities […]

Archaeological evidence shows that social structure became increasingly complex during the iron age, beginning around 500 BC […] This period saw the establishment of hierarchical and centralized societies with a widening exchange network, including contact with Indian traders. Iron-working techniques were adopted and assisted with a further intensification of rice agriculture.

In order for complex societies to develop into such large-scale civilizations as that of Angkor, the preceding populations must have been able to feed and support themselves, at least to the extent that allowed the development of an elite class […] The societies must also have had an appropriate social structure and sufficient resources to support specialists who did not contribute directly to the survival of the group. It has been suggested that this state was reached during the iron age from the mid first millennium BC in Thailand, enabling communities to become more centralized politically and to support and organize larger numbers of people, leading to the development of state-level organization […]

Through time, the health of the prehistoric people may be expected to have improved as their ability to exploit their environment developed. However, such cultural changes as the development and intensification of agriculture, the domestication of animals, sedentism, increasing social complexity and the improvement of metal working and tool production, while making subsistence activities more efficient, may also have detrimental effects on population health, through the increased population size and density they permit. The detrimental effects have been postulated for some regions of the world, especially the Americas […] These analyses documenting the effects of intensifying agriculture on population health indicate a decline in health occurred […]

There are also other mythological examples of human interaction with gods, such as in these stories from Globalizing the Prehistory of Japan by Ann Kumar:

The sea goddess

[…] The goddess first appears in the major Javanese chronicle in the account of the career of Raden Susuruh, son of the king of Pajajaran and founder of Majapait, considered the greatest of the Hindu-Javanese kingdoms. The young man was travelling across Java after a military defeat when he came to Mt Kombang and met an ascete called Cemara Tunggal (‘Single Pine’), who told him to look for a maja tree with bitter (pait) fruit, and establish himself as ruler of all Java there. The ascete revealed to him that she was actually a princess of Pajajaran, and thus related to him. All the rulers of Java had sought to marry her for her beauty, but she had refused them, and left the kingdom to escape her father’s wrath. She reverted for a moment to her former shape as a beautiful princess, and told Raden Susuruh that she could take on many forms, male or female, young or old, and would not die until the Day of Judgment. She promised to meet him again when he ruled all of Java.


Japanese emperors are also associated with a sea goddess. In prehistoric Japan a king was magically guaranteed acquisition of the wealth of the sea through sacred marriage with a shamaness who represented the goddess of the submarine world and the daughter of the sea god. The shamaness was believed to be able to journey freely between the world under the sea and the human world. The king was also aided by the mythical wani, believed to be identical with or a messenger of the goddess of the undersea world who married the king, and by the Wani clan […] In recounting the heavenly descent of the imperial line, the Kojiki tells the story of Hikohohodemi, alias Ho-ori-no-mikoto, the son of Ninigi. In search of his brother’s lost fishhook, he met the daughter of the sea king, who took him to her palace, where he sat on the divine bed. The sea deity gave him two jewels, which respectively raised and lowered the tides. He married the sea deity’s daughter, and from their union a child was born. This child was the first emperor, Jimmu. However, while his wife was in labour Hikohohodemi broke her taboo against looking at her at a time when she was bound to return to her original form, which was that of a crocodile. She could have removed the barrier between land and sea, but because of the breaking of this taboo she returned to her domain and henceforth land and sea were separated once and for all, and the sea was closed to mortals.

The above also touches on the idea that there was actual sexual intercourse between the gods and men, resulting in the demigods, a hybrid group which was ultimately mortal but assumed some super-human characteristics. This possibly ties in to the following:

8/8/95 said:
A: There have been, in your third density environment, at various points in space-time, residing on the surface of your planet, and also within its atmosphere, which structure has changed repeatedly, and, in fact, underneath the surface of your physical environment in 3rd density, a great many types of races of humans, some of whom are currently existing in your environment, and some of whom are not. And, also alternate humans. In other words, human-like 3rd density beings who could not be accurately described as humans as you know them. And, also there has been interaction with 4th density beings who pose as 3rd density beings, and 3rd density beings who have, at times in your history, have been able to temporarily and at will interact with 4th density in such a way as to present themselves as 4th density beings. So, we are describing here a virtual potpourri of history involving intelligent life within some realm or condition of your environment. To zero in on any group and give them a name at this point is not really appropriate as names connote approval, but, in fact, may merely be a stamp.

4/8/00 said:
Q: […] But, during the time Neanderthal man was on the Earth, did he live alongside Modern man?
A: Yes. Except modern type man was different then.

Q: In what ways?
A: DNA and psycho/electrical frequencies.

Q: Does this mean that their physical appearance was different from what we consider to be modern man?
A: Radiance.

Q: What do you mean "radiance?"
A: You find out!

Q: Oh, that's interesting. Well, there are legends that the Northern people had "light" in their veins. Very ancient belief. Is this what you are referring to?
A: Maybe.

Q: Was this light related to the hemoglobin level, the iron level in the blood?
A: Maybe.

Q: Did they have a much higher iron level in their blood?
A: Possibly....

From the same book:

The radiant prince

In the later Javanese and Japanese kingdoms, royal legitimacy depended upon the ruler’s assuming a central role – practical and ritual – in rice production, the main basis of the polity […] In this way the court identified itself with the ordinary farmer; but in other ways it greatly distanced itself from anything rustic. The extreme cases of this type of court differentiation are represented by two princes, Panji [Javanese] and Genji [Japanese]. Though […] they are of this world, they nevertheless undoubtedly possess qualities that distinguish them from ordinary mortals. Among these many qualities is a special radiance, which is frequently noted by their chroniclers. For example, at a relatively late stage in Genji’s life it is written: ‘There will never be anyone like Genji. He has aged, of course; but I think that the extraordinary vividness and radiance of his expression – the quality which in his infancy won for him the name of Hikaru – has if anything increased as time goes by.’ Genji’s appellation of Genji Hikaru is usually translated as ‘Shining Genji’. Panji, too, has this quality: he is said for instance to possess ‘searing radiance’.

So maybe what all this suggests is that the plan of the ‘gods’ required a two-step process. We could speculate that what they had to work with in the beginning were groups of hunter-gatherers all over the world who had a religious understanding of the world that included shamanism in a comparatively pure form and a worldview that saw a Creator inherent in creation, an eternal soul with a cyclic physical existence, and various other things (such as an awareness of a dualism that we would express as STO vs STS) that were inherited by groups like the Gnostics and the Cathars, even if in a somewhat distorted form.

In the first stage, they had to reveal themselves around the world in small 'task forces', if you will, in order to ‘civilize’ hunter-gatherers, with each ‘god’ assigned a particular craft to teach such as agriculture, viticulture, metal-working, and so forth, creating established urban societies which would then self-propagate (probably with some ‘divine’ help) across the globe through conquest and diffusion. At this stage, having to literally teach people these skills hands-on and in effect hiding in plain sight, there was no way to avoid giving a polytheistic impression to their human subordinates, who probably also projected human qualities onto the gods they observed which weren’t necessarily accurate. If this is correct, you could predict correlations between cultures with pantheons like those listed above, sites where agriculture originated (rice, maize, wheat, etc), and early megalithic structures, particularly those with some kind of religious cult focus. A generation of demi-gods was also born at this time, the result of the sexual relations between gods and men, and often placed into positions of power in the newly-emerging societies.

However, once this was sufficiently accomplished, they were free to retreat into the (largely invisible) background so that the second stage could commence: the introduction of monotheism, which would overlay a framework of religious and psychological control onto the physical institutions which had already been established. The original pantheons weren’t erased from history, but as time went on, they retreated into the backdrop of myth, and members of the pantheons were also reinterpreted as things like angels and saints on a case-by-case basis (perhaps this was when proxies like the Grays and projections like ‘saints’ and the modern MIB began to be used in full force). This is expressed in a book, The Medieval Empire of the Israelites by Robert Grishin and Vladmir Melamed (members of the Fromenko school of revised chronology – it’s actually a good book to read to get a feel for Fomenko’s work since it’s more compact than any of his own books and focuses on a single subject):

Immediate measures were required everywhere to instill into the minds of the people the idea of the legitimacy of the imperial power […] It was necessary to create a collective religious ideological foundation, uniform throughout the whole sphere of the Ecumene […] The transition to a belief in the One God resolved a mass of problems. It represented not only quantitative changes (one deity instead of many), but also qualitative: one God is common in all manifestations. And to him in particular, the only one, was the emperor faithful. A conclusion followed from this […]: if god is One, then also the emperor and the empire answer to Him alone […] Practically every page of the Torah is evidence that Judaism is aimed most of all and chiefly against paganism.

The right of the people was viewed as a reflection of the right of the gods […] The principle of reign was based on the fundamental idea of empire: “Authority is from a single God” […] The pagan, self-willed peoples with their dozens and hundreds of gods and idols were nipped in the bud. This didn’t at all mean that people in the subjugated provinces instantly stopped honoring the old beloved gods. The extermination of paganism was spread out over many centuries. It has even now not been completely ended and it hardly will ever be concluded with total victory ever since many of its features have been organically assimilated into the world’s religions […] However, the principal objective was accomplished: The ideological paradigm was changed religiously. This change occurred in a short space of time and, initially, without excessive bloodshed. The reason for this was that although veneration of the rulers in rituals was introduced, everything else remained virtually as it had been – habitual and, perhaps, even native for the believers.

Stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey would have occurred during the transition between the first and the second stage. Where we stand right now in history might be seen as a third and final stage, where the strings are pulled together into what some people refer to as the New World Order (a unified farm with a single, centralized hierarchy).

Getting back to the Odyssey, one thing I’m struggling to figure out is the case of someone like Athena, who was clearly part of one of these pantheons but generally portrayed as a protagonist. However, as it’s said, history is written by the victors, and Athena was a god on the side of the victors of the Trojan War (in fact, Imam Wilkens suggests that Homer may have even been the grandson of Odysseus himself, a direct descendant of the victorious party). The biggest problem I have with seeing Athena as a genuine ‘good guy’ is that, like the rest of the pantheon of which she was apart, she took active part in the affairs of humans, playing favorites in a battle which (unlike Odysseus’s slaying of the suitors) doesn’t seem to have had any real moral justification – arguably a free-will violation, at the very least. So I don’t know what to think about that.
Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Throwing this in the pot:

I just read a number of essays in Spring 2011 issue of College Literature (a scholarly journal), which focuses on Odyssey, Book 19, and Penelope's "interview" with beggar-disguised Odysseus. Apparently, there's a debate centering around whether or not Penelope recognize the beggar as her husband before the "recognition scene" between Penelope and her husband in Book 23. There's a question that as a result of the "interview" with the beggar, she plans for a bow contest that led to a downfall of the suitors - that why at this point in time would she made a bow contest being held if she doe not know that her husband's back (one of the examples, anyway).

John Vlahos, who made an argument that Penelope did recognized the beggar as her husband, making Book 19 as the "early" recognition scene. In the above journal issue, there's a number of scholars writing in a response to Vlahos' defense of the early recognition, including Bruce Louden and his 25-page article, "Is There Early Recognition between Penelope and Odysseus?; Book 19 in the Larger Context of the Odyssey" (not inclusive in either of his books). Louden is rejecting the early recognition scene by arguing that the bigger context of the Odyssey repeatedly shows all individuals, including Circe, were not able to recognize Odysseus when he appeared before them.

Reading through Louden's article made me to notice a few things:

page 77-79 said:
Irony is a further defining thematic characteristic of the poem. The Odyssey employs and pursues many different types of irony, but especially features irony involving Odysseus himself, from Melanthios' sneer that a god must be leading the unrecognized Odysseus to the palace (17.217-18) to Leiodes' outburst, after his failure to string the bow, that it will be the death of many suitors (21.152-56). Both members of the suitors' party are completely unaware that they have stumbled on to the truth. Odysseus's backstory establishes him as a master of disguise in his exploits in the Trojan War, most importantly, in the Trojan Horse itself. Thematically, throughout the poem, the Odyssey places Odysseus before characters who know much about him, but fail to recognize that he is in their midst. This is true in all manner of scenes, not just recognition scenes. The Phaiakians, though depicted as something like connoisseurs of epic poetry, who hear multiple songs about him and his exploits (8.73-83, 486-521), are not only unable to recognize him in their midst, but fail to recognize that the prophecy they earlier received (8.564-71, 13.172-78), clearly designates the man before them. Likewise their relative, Polyphemos, earlier hears a detailed prophecy about Odysseus (9.506-17), but cannot recognize him, though in extremely close proximity for sufficient time to do so.

This applies to seemingly all human characters in the poem, including very astute individuals such as Eumaios,who remains in extremely close contact with the disguised Odysseus for days, speaks at length, shares meals with him, but is unable to recognize him until Odysseus discloses his identity to him, proving it with a token (21.188-229).

Only Argos, who is not human, is unquestionably able to recognize the disguised Odysseus (17.291-327), enabled by more highly developed senses of smell and hearing.


As a highly thematic epic, symphonic in its introduction and restatements of themes, the Odyssey has not one climactic recognition scene but a series of such scenes, occurring throughout the second half of the poem, from Odysseus's encounter with a disguised Athena and disguised Ithaka in book 13, to his reunion with his father in book 24. Odysseus has recognition scenes not only with Telemakhos, but with his hound Argos, with Eurykleia, and with the retainers Eumaios and Philoitios, all before the destruction of the suitors. Each scene is unique in some respects, but in other ways each manifests a basic dynamic shared by all the other members of this family of related episodes.

Recognition scenes exist in a few different sub-types, on the basis of a few variables. When the protagonist meets up with a long-lost family member, are both characters ignorant of each other's identity, or only one? This difference in knowledge broadly divides recognition scenes into two large types. In most romances (e.g., Ion, Helen, Iphigenia in Tauris; The Story of Apollonius King of Tyre; The Winter's Tale, Pericles), both characters, protagonist and the other family members, are ignorant of each other's identities. Thus in the Ion, for instance, neither Ion nor Creusa is initially aware of the other's real identity, even as Creusa initially plots to kill her long-lost son (925-1047). In Shakespeare's Pericles neither the titular king nor his long-lost daughter Marina is aware of the other's identity as their recognition scene unfolds (5.1). However, both the Odyssey and Genesis' account of Joseph in Egypt use a different subtype of recognition scene. Here the protagonist is fully cognizant of other family members' identities when he encounters them, but he refrains from disclosing his own identity, while he tests and probes them. He reveals his identity only later, some times after considerable time has elapsed.

Other differences, more specific to the Odyssey's plot, divide recognition scenes into additional subtypes. Which character is doing the testing? Though usually Odysseus, in reversed recognition, another character does the testing (e.g., Athena in 13, Penelope in 23). Is there immediate recognition? The Odyssey suggests three different tempos of recognition: immediate (Argos), delayed (recognition occurs, but later in the same scene: Telemakhos, Eurykleia, Laertes), and postponed (recognition does not occur until a later scene: Eumaios, Penelope). Do the recognition scenes take place before or after the suitors are slain? If so, why for some characters and not for others? These variables allow us to construct a typology of the Odyssey's recognition scenes. The typology then shows us which episodes offer the most specific parallels with each other, suggesting some of them function as complementary counterparts to each other.

The first recognition scene on Ithaka is in book 13 (13.221-360), initially between Odysseus and Athena, then between Odysseus and Ithaka. In several respects this episode establishes some of the principal features that recur in the following instances, though it offers variations on others. The variations found here result from Athena's unique status as not only a goddess, but as the deity who sets in motion and directs so many of the plot's chief scenes. More specifically, she herself directs many of the recognition scenes, as first here. This initial instance of recognition is reversed: it is she who tests Odysseus (as will be true of Penelope in 23). It is she, and Ithaka, who are in disguise, she as a young herdsman, the island, shrouded in mist.

Because of its relevance to book 19, the question needs to be asked, can a mortal see through a disguise created by Athena? The answer here, even when the mortal is Odysseus himself, whom both Zeus (1.66-67) and Athena (13.297-98) declare most intelligent of all mortals, is clearly no. I suggest the same implication holds for other mortals in the poem, that they are unable to penetrate a disguise Athena makes, unless they see an explicit token, such as the scar. This is perhaps the poem's favorite irony: that which a given character most desires is now before him/her, but he/she cannot recognize it.


We turn now to Penelope's scene in book 19. It is worth noting that in all of the other recognition scenes (Eumaios, Telemakhos, Argos, Eurykleia, Philoitios, Laertes) no character has suspected that Odysseus is near, though this is the very thing they hope for. Those most eager for his return are at the same time least likely to believe he is before them. This is the pattern the Odyssey carefully establishes, its favored form of irony, and also employs in Penelope's interview with the mysterious stranger, which I argue, forms a counterpart, offering a number of parallels, with Eumaios's scene in book 14, the poem's two instances of postponed recognition (Fenik 1974, 155ff). Like Eumaios in books 14-15, Penelope has a lengthy interview with the disguised Odysseus in which he sees firm evidence of her loyalty. As with Eumaios, the interview results in a relationship established, trust between them, but as with Eumaios, recognition is postponed until a later episode.


Penelope's recognition in book 23, like Laertes's in book 24, is distinct from all the others in coming after the destruction of the suitors. Consequently they best typify the consummation of a romance, whereas all the other recognitions are partly hybrids, romance type-scenes with elements of the Odyssey's larger theoxeny (divine punishment of those who have violated hospitality) mixed in.


The Odyssey's larger plot employs several specific types of stories extant in other traditions as well. One of the largest, and most influential, in shaping and determining much of the narrative is Romance, extant in many other Greek myths, and in Genesis's depiction of Joseph in Egypt. Romances climax in recognition scenes, highly emotional encounters, twenty years having passed, which in many ways serve as a reward for the protagonist, recompense for his earlier sufferings, after he has completed his toils. Odysseus's last great labor, in the present time of the Odyssey, is the destruction of the suitors. The poem would clearly seem to arrange the recognition scenes around this act, presenting recognition scenes, for those who will aid him in slaying the suitors, before their destruction, but for the two family members who will not, Penelope and Laertes, after.

This brought me to a thinking that if Odysseus is considered to be a "Higher Self," we would not recognize it unless Athena directs it so. That he is near, but we won't recognize him until we're ready, so to speak.

It was Athena who directs Penelope away from or dissociates her from seeing the reaction of her maid, Eurykleia, after recognizing the beggar as Odysseus, preventing a recognition scene because it seems that Penelope would not be taking a part in aiding Odysseus in slaying the suitors, but she did plan for it. As mkrnhr pointed out, Penelope may be seen as an inner emotional aspect which would suggest that emotions can play a role preceding the destruction of the suitors but doesn't take a part in it.

During the "interview" between Penelope and beggar-disguised Odysseus in Book 19, she relate a dream to him (of an eagle killing geese) and then mentioned the "gates of horn and ivory," which interests me:

Lattimore trans.; Book 19 said:
My friend, dreams are things hard to interpret, hopeless to puzzle
out, and people find that not all of them end in anything.
There are two gates through which the insubstantial dreams issue.
One pair of gates is made of horn, and one of ivory.
Those of the dreams which issue through the gates of sawn ivory,
these are deceptive dreams, their message is never accomplished.
But those that come into the open through the gates of the polished
horn accomplish the truth for any mortal who sees them.
I do not think that this strange dream that I had came to me
through this gate. My son and I would be glad if it did so.

From above, a Gate of Horn associates with truth while a Gate of Ivory associates with lies/deceit. I just finished reading Benjamin Haller's 2009 article in Classical Philology entitled "The Gates of Horn and Ivory in Odyssey 19: Penelope's Call for Deeds, Not Words," which gives another interpretation on the "dream speech" (Haller agrees with Vlahos on a possibility of an early recognition scene between Penelope and Odysseus):

page 398 said:
In addressing Penelope's dream speech of Odyssey 19.560–69, ancient commentators frequently have recourse to allegorical interpretations: ivory suggests words, while horn suggests sight and—in antithesis to words—clear, decisive action ("seeing is believing, but talk is cheap"). Consonant with this symbolic interpretation, modern scrutiny of Penelope's behavior during Book 19 has revealed hints that she correctly suspects the disguised stranger with whom she converses at length to be her husband, and tests this hypothesis by encoding directives comprehensible only to Odysseus in her account of a portentous dream and in the figure of the gates of horn and ivory.

My treatment of the topic proposes a variant on an interpretation of the gates of horn and ivory that appears in the scholia. I read ivory as a metonymic reference to the teeth of the mouth, and hence to (often deceptive) speech, as borne out by the prominence in Homer of proverbial expressions for speech involving the teeth. Pace the ancient commentators, the gates of horn are more likely to be an allegorical reference to the bow of Odysseus, through which Penelope's deliverance from the suitors will come. Penelope's account of the gates of horn and ivory will be seen to boil down to a strikingly simple and clear message to the stranger: if you are truly my long-lost husband, it is time to cast off disguises and deceptive speech (the gates of ivory, i.e., teeth) and to use the bow contest which I am about to suggest to you (the gates of horn, the material that gives the bow of Odysseus its tensile strength) to prove your identity to me by slaying the suitors as the eagle slew the geese in my dream.


It is through the metaphor of the gates of horn and ivory that Penelope communicates to the beggar her hope that he truly is Odysseus and a promise that she will tailor the bow contest in such a fashion as to maximize the real Odysseus’ chances of success. I will argue below that Penelope’s choice of materials through which her two diametrically opposed varieties of dreams emerge is calculated to convey a crucial message. Ivory represents the teeth of the mouth, and hints that mere words—predictions of Odysseus' victorious return—accomplish little. Horn represents the bow of Odysseus, of which horn is an essential component, and stands as a hint to Odysseus that he alone of the suitors is likely to know how to string a composite bow, and as such will (if he turns out to be who Penelope thinks he is) have an advantage in the bow contest that Penelope will soon go on to set.

This explanation of the significance of the gates of horn and ivory has the obvious advantage of integrating the gates into the narrative context of events at this point in the epic. In essence, Penelope is simply availing herself of the covert means at her disposal to tell the man she suspects of being her husband to drop the disguises, while offering a hint as to how best to get to work killing the suitors.

This makes me wonder that since the Gate of Horn, associated with truth/seeing, represents the bow of Odysseus, and that bow in turn as being used to destroy the suitors, would that simplify/symbolize that the Truth (seeing the reality, etc.) will destroy the suitors, not exactly violence itself?

Just thinking out loud here. fwiw.
Homer's "The Odyssey" is one of my all time favorite stories because my mother's middle name was Minerva.

I came to this discussion thinking, wow, I've read this epic twice and got a A on this in highschool, maybe I'll be able to contribute to this discussion.

Wrong. :headbash:

Along with Laura and everyone else's scholarly insights I have been pouring through, I am finding that even though I read "The Odyssey" twice, the political, historical and subtle occult significances completely escaped me.

I did find and expressed 40 years back that I found many similarities between Homer's Odyssey and The OT and was proud that I saw how Moses and Odysseus shared the seemingly same characteristics of the hero's struggles along with their own human limitations.

Heroes and their stories have been at the center of almost every culture throughout history. There are vast differences among these legends since they have to serve each particular culture's needs. The events, settings and other characters may change dramatically, but the hero is basically the same for all. And the understanding that the use of violence is always justified in the name of the `Gods'. Source of quote:

It's like every so often, say in politics, religion and history, we get another rehashing of the same old, same old, just the names and faces change but the basic story plot remains the same.

Sort of like repainting a old house to make it look fresh and new every once in a while.

One god replaces another one in order to serve the people's needs of that time period.

The thought of Homer's Odyssey being a manuel for secret teaching is a fascinating concept and one that completely eluded me until now.

While I won't be able to contribute much (if anything), as you all are about ten levels ahead of me in historical perspective, I'm gaining an immense understanding I never thought possible. For that I thank everyone and particularly Laura.

I've been on many sites, because, like Neo, I figured out long ago that things are "amiss" and something's not quite "right". I've had a life long struggle to find my way out of the matrix.

Of all the other sites I have visited, ranks at the top for mental stimulation.

So while you won't be aware that I'm here, I'm here quietly and humbly, gratefully eating up the tidbits everyone is throwing out there, like a hungry dog waiting for a bone.

I'm still plowing through The Secret History of The World and between the discussions on this site and reading Laura's books - there just aren't enough hours in the day. I spent hours just reading through Laura's posts alone yesterday.

And the days seem to be going by faster and faster every year that passes.

I always thought I was fairly well read and insightful, but we all have our various levels so along the way, I've also learned humility. :-[

Am amazed at the vast knowledge everyone in this discussion has and somewhat taken aback and excited at the same time to be learning new concepts. :)

Can't wait to see where Laura is going to end up on this one.

If I had but just one wish, it wouldn't be for money, fame, power or beauty - it would be for a higher IQ, and being able to be more perceptive.
It makes me wonder if reading certain books at an age when we're not ready to 'digest' them keeps us from looking deeper into the whole mess we're in on the BBM. It's that thinking: "Well, I've already read that, nothing to see here!"

Good point.

I picked up a copy at 4shared by Samuel Butler here is the link:
The Water Bearer said:
If I had but just one wish, it wouldn't be for money, fame, power or beauty - it would be for a higher IQ, and being able to be more perceptive.

Practical suggestion going some way: In case you haven't already, looking into the latest developments in the Diet and Health section can help - the removal of garbage (veggies, etc.) and addition of fine things (meats, saturated fats) to the diet, as explored in detail (should be studied before practiced) - these changes can switch the brain to a more efficient fuel (ketones), in addition to lowering inflammation and the brain-fuzziness thereby caused; and proper fats can in general increase brain health.

Keep in mind that the above is very incomplete (Diet and Health threads such as "Life Without Bread" and "The Vegetarian Myth" go into details proper). The dietary changes explored help healing and improving the brain when combined with its ongoing use - to the extent possible given the toxic and cognitively limiting environments we have grown up and lived in (meaning that we're all damaged and probably kept far beneath our genetic potential).

I find finding this network has been the best thing to ever happen to my brain - though that's mainly just a "bonus" in considering the wider significance of things. Anyhow - good luck!
The following excerpts lay out Gmirkin's hypothesis and I've also included his synopses of the work of some of my favorite authors on the topic ... he also includes the arch-enemy, Dever - the true believer. Garbini is my all-time favorite from this list, LKJ

For anyone interested there is a free ebook here:

The book is called, "Garbini, Giovanni - Myth and History in the Bible.pdf".

Note: If you don't have a membership you will have to wait 216 minutes.

The book is 161 pages and 10,857 KB.

Thanks for the book, it did not require the 216 minute wait. I believe it did for you because you might have tried before or uploaded something and had to wait.
Artemis began as an nymph, and I found a little more about nymphs in general and was surprised at how closely some of this Greek mythology matches Algonquin legend.

As their influence was thus exercised in all departments of nature, they frequently appear in connection with higher divinities, as, for example, with Apollo, the prophetic god and the protector of herds and flocks (Apollon. Rhod. iv. 1218); with Artemis, the huntress and the protectress of game, for she herself was originally an Arcadian nymph (Apollon. Rhod. i. 1225, iii. 881; Paus. iii. 10. § 8); with Hermes, the fructifying god of flocks (Hom. Hymn. in Aphrod. 262); with Dionysus (Orph. Hymn. 52; Horat. Carm. i. 1. 31, ii. 19. 3); with Pan, the Seileni and Satyrs, whom they join in their Bacchic revels and dances.

In some traditions it was believed that only women could enter the afterlife (known to some as 'Tir-na-nog', or the 'Land of the Forever Young') and that man must first be reabsorbed into the womb before passing on.

Hesiod, Theogony 176 f (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C8th or 7th B.C.) :
"Then the son [Kronos, Cronus] from his ambush stretched forth his left hand and in his right took the great long sickle with jagged teeth, and swiftly lopped off his own father's [Ouranos'] members and cast them away to fall behind him. And not vainly did they fall from his hand; for all the bloody drops that gushed forth Gaia (Earth) received, and as the seasons moved round she bare the strong Erinyes (Furies) and the great Gigantes (Giants) with gleaming armour and the Nymphai whom they call Meliai all over the boundless earth."
[N.B. The Gigantes and Meliai of Hesiod may be the Kouretes (Curetes) and Nymphs of Mount Ida in Krete who nursed the infant Zeus. In meliai suggests both ash-tree, melia, and honey, meli. Cf. Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus below.]

A nymph in Greek mythology is a female minor nature deity typically associated with a particular location or landform. Different from gods, nymphs are generally regarded as divine spirits who animate nature, and are usually depicted as beautiful, young nubile maidens who love to dance and sing; their amorous freedom sets them apart from the restricted and chaste wives and daughters of the Greek polis. They dwell in mountains and groves, by springs and rivers, and also in trees and in valleys and cool grottoes. Although they would never die of old age nor illness, and could give birth to fully immortal children if mated to a god, they themselves were not necessarily immortal, and could be beholden to death in various forms.

Other nymphs, always in the shape of young maidens, were part of the retinue of a god, such as Dionysus, Hermes, or Pan, or a goddess, generally the huntress Artemis.[1] Nymphs were the frequent target of satyrs. They are frequently associated with the superior divinities: the huntress Artemis; the prophetic Apollo; the reveller and god of wine, Dionysus; and rustic gods such as Pan and Hermes.

The symbolic marriage of a nymph and a patriarch, often the eponym of a people, is repeated endlessly in Greek origin myths; their union lent authority to the archaic king and his line.

Due to the depiction of the mythological nymphs as females who mate with men or women at their own volition, and are completely outside male control, the term is often used for women who are perceived as behaving similarly.

The second class of nymphs are personifications of tribes, races, and states, such as Cyrene, and many others.

According to the Edda,( Norse mythology) the order of births on earth was as follows:--

First, two giants were born from the mother's armpit.
Secondly, the dwarfs were created.
Thirdly, man was made from the ash-tree.

According to the Wabanaki, this was the order:--
First, two giants were born, _one_ from his mother's armpit.
Secondly, the dwarfs (Mikumwessuk) were created from the bark of the
Thirdly, man was made from the _trunk_ of the ash.

This story tells how Gluskonba made the first people out of stone. Because they were made of stone they were very strong. They did not need to eat and then never grew tired or slept.
Their hearts, too, were made of stone. They began to do cruel things. They killed animals for amusement and pulled trees up by their roots. When Gluskonba saw this he knew he had made a mistake. So he changed them back into stone. To this day there are certain mountains and hills which look like a sleeping person. Some old people say those are the first ones Gluskonba made, whom he turned back into stone.

Then, instead of making more stone people, Gluskonba (Klouskap) looked around for something else to make human beings. He saw the ash trees. They were tall and slender and they danced gracefully in the wind. Then Gluskonba made the shapes of men and women in the trunks of the ash trees. He took out his long bow and arrows and shot the arrows into the ashes. Where each arrow went in, a person stepped forth, straight and tall. Those people had hearts which were growing and green. They were the first Abenakis. To this day those who remember this story call the ash trees their relatives...As you can see, Klouskap was very strong and extremely sacred to the Penobscot. When he prepared the land and was ready to bring the Penobscot, he took his Bow and Arrow and shot straight into the Brown Ash tree. The tree split and the Penobscot came dancing and singing out of this tree. To this day, our baskets are made of Brown Ash and sweet grass. This still symbolizes the
Penobscot connection and respect of this sacred tree.
In pre-European contact, these stories were conveyed primarily through music and the singing of the stories was a way to preserve them and keep them intact for each succeeding generation. According to J. Walter Fewkes, 1890 in Contribution to Passamaquoddy Folk-lore, “The Passamaquoddies agree in the statement that their stories were formerly sung, and resembled poems.”
The Bad Mind (made two images of clay in the form of mankind, but while he was giving them existence they became apes. The Good Mind discovered his brother's contrivances, and aided in giving them living souls.

THE MELIAI (or Meliae) were Oread nymphs of the mountain ash, born to Gaia (the Earth) when she was impregnated by the blood of the castrated god Ouranos (Sky). They were "the mothers" of the third, Bronze Race, of mankind. Their sons were nursed on the sweet manna (Greek meli) of the ash (Greek melia), and crafted spears from the branches of their mothers' trees. They were an overly warlike race who incurred the wrath of Zeus and were destroyed in the floods of the Great Deluge.
The Meliai were probably the same as the honey-nymph (meliai) nurses of the god Zeus, Ida and Adrasteia. The manna (meli) of the ash and the honey (meli) of bees were believed to be related, both being regarded as an ambrosial food fallen from heaven. In Hesiod's Theogony they were born alongside the Erinyes--avengers of the castration of Ouranos--and the Gigantes, who in Hesiod appear to be the Kourete-protectors of the infant Zeus. As children born of the castration, it would be appropriate that they and their brothers should play a role in the downfall of Kronos, perpetrator of the crime.
They were probably also identified with the Hekaterides and Kabeirides, the sister-wives of the Kouretes, Daktyloi and Kabeiroi.

Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 4. 1642 ff (trans. Rieu) (Greek epic C3rd B.C.) :
"[The bronze-giant Talos] a descendant of the brazen race [of men] that sprang from Meliai (Ash-Trees)."

The European sailors and merchants gave the name Levant (Levánte) to the west and south coasts of Asia Minor, including Syria. Levánte is derived from the French verb lever meaning "to rise" indicating that part of the world where the sun rises.
The name Anatolia comes from the Greek Aνατολή (anatolē) meaning the "East" or more literally "sunrise." The precise reference of this term has varied over time, perhaps originally referring only to the Ionian colonies on the Asia Minor coast.

Wabanaki means "people of the dawn" or "dawnland people," referring to these peoples as the easterners. The name "Wabanaki" itself, however, may be a corruption of the Passamquoddy term Wub-bub-nee-hig, from Wub-bub-phun meaning the "first light of dawn before the early sunrise."
And when they reached the shore they found Glooskap, the mighty Magician, waiting for them. And, smiling, he said to the Mikumwess, "Go your way in the forest and join the band of Fairies, and be always happy with your magic flute." Then to the Badger he said: "Welcome once more to the Land of the Children of Light".
Take your wife, Brown Fawn, and return to your lodge. Plenty of game shall always be yours, and peace and contentment."

"She [Tethys] brought forth also [in addition to the River-Gods] a race apart of daughters [the Okeanides] . . . there are three thousand light-stepping daughters of Okeanos scattered far and wide, bright children among the goddesses, and all alike look after the earth [trees, plants and flowers?] and the depths of the standing water [i.e. springs, streams, lakes and wells]."
Homeric Hymn 2 to Demeter 415 ff (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C7th or 6th B.C.) :
"The deep-bosomed daughters of Okeanos . . . were playing in a lovely meadow [with the goddesses Persephone, Artemis, Aphrodite and Athene]."

They knew it as the tree of the world and the tree of rebirth and healing, and believed it was connected to fire, lightning and clouds. In some ancient pagan beliefs, the ash was thought to be the ancestor of all mankind, with men being created from ash trees. Oddly enough, in faroff Greece there was a similar belief, this being that certain important families were descended from ash trees.

GAIA & the blood of OURANOS (Hesiod Theogony 178)


[1.1] BRAZEN RACE OF MEN (Hesiod Works & Days 150)
[1.2] ARKADIAN MEN (Statius Thebaid 4.280)

From around 1200 BC, the palace centres and outlying settlements of the Mycenaeans' highly organized culture began to be abandoned or destroyed, and by 1050 BC, the recognisable features of Mycenaean culture had disappeared. Many explanations attribute the fall of the Mycenaean civilization and the Bronze Age collapse to climatic or environmental catastrophe combined with an invasion by Dorians or by the Sea Peoples or the widespread availability of edged weapons of iron, but no single explanation fits the available archaeological evidence.
The Water Bearer said:
If I had but just one wish, it wouldn't be for money, fame, power or beauty - it would be for a higher IQ, and being able to be more perceptive.

Me too, me too!!! :clap:

And I want to live longer so I can read more books! :dance:

I wonder if this has some connection to the tree from which Odysseus and Penelope's bed is made, perhaps in the symbolism of their reunion:

Meager1 said:
They knew it as the tree of the world and the tree of rebirth and healing, and believed it was connected to fire, lightning and clouds. In some ancient pagan beliefs, the ash was thought to be the ancestor of all mankind, with men being created from ash trees. Oddly enough, in faroff Greece there was a similar belief, this being that certain important families were descended from ash trees.

Perhaps that symbolism includes the reunion of the male and female energies in an alchemical context, and "rebirth and healing" of the world and its peoples after cataclysm? Interesting how there's also a connection here to Greece...

It also reminds me of this article which I just started reading and which explores lightning, among other things:
Since our perspective is usually looking up at the sky during a thunderstorm, we may be missing what goes on above the clouds. As it turns out, a lot goes on above clouds during a thunderstorm in terms of lightning. None of this we would necessarily see on the ground, however.

There happens to be a reflection in this quote of how, from our perspective, the "gods" are above the clouds and we cannot usually see them. And didn't the Cs say that our weather could be a manifestation of battles or something in 4D? Maybe there are some "electrical connections" here...

Charged ;D
After happily stumbling across this forum and Sott I need a 96 hour day - just to keep up with the reading! Busy with ISOTM, want to contribute here as well, keep on looking back at aspects of the Wave series, can't wait to look at the histories - you know what I mean. I will need two lives.

I love it!
Remembered reading in THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF ALL AGES by Manly P. Hall (1928) references to Homer and Odyssey but could not remember exactly the context. Doing a search revealed only a few references noted and here is what he states.

The Pythagoreans

The favorite method of healing among the Pythagoreans was by the aid of poultices. These people also knew the magic properties of vast numbers of plants. Pythagoras highly esteemed the medicinal properties of the sea onion, and he is said to have written an entire volume on the subject. Such a work, however, is not known at the present time. Pythagoras discovered that music had great therapeutic power and he prepared special harmonies for various diseases. He apparently experimented also with color, attaining considerable success. One of his unique curative processes resulted from his discovery of the healing value of certain verses from the Odyssey and the Iliad of Homer. These he caused to be read to persons suffering from certain ailments…

Of Ciphers

#3 said:
The acroamatic cipher. The religious and philosophical writings of all nations abound with acroamatic cryptograms, that is, parables and allegories. The acroamatic is unique in that the document containing it may be translated or reprinted without affecting the cryptogram. Parables and allegories have been used since remote antiquity to present moral truths in an attractive and understandable manner. The acroamatic cryptogram is a pictorial cipher drawn in words and its symbolism must be so interpreted. The Old and New Testaments of the Jews, the writings of Plato and Aristotle, Homer's Odyssey and Iliad, Virgil's Æneid, The Metamorphosis of Apuleius, and Æsop's Fables are outstanding examples of acroamatic cryptography in which are concealed the deepest and most sublime truths of ancient mystical philosophy.

The acroamatic cipher is the most subtle of all, for the parable or allegory is susceptible of several interpretations. Bible students for centuries have been confronted by this difficultly. They are satisfied with the moral interpretation of the parable and forget that each parable and allegory is capable of seven interpretations, of which the seventh--the highest--is complete and all-inclusive, whereas the other six (and lesser) interpretations are fragmentary, revealing but part of the mystery. The creation myths of the world are acroamatic cryptograms, and the deities of the various pantheons are only cryptic characters which, if properly understood, become the constituents of a divine alphabet. The initiated few comprehend the true nature of this alphabet, but the uninitiated many worship the letters of it as gods.
Top Bottom