The debacle of Argentina’s blocked bond payment reminds me of Edward Moor’s description in his ‘The Hindu Pantheon’ of the Hindu deity, Kuvera. This deity seems to be the patron saint of Chief Justice Roberts, Judge Thomas Grieva, Elliot Management Corporation, and Aurelius Capital Management. Apparently, American courts are possessed by the spirit of Kuvera.
Kuvera
Capitalist Manipulation
Argentina will miss a bond payment today thanks to a U.S. court. Argentina had the funds set aside to make this payment. However, when Argentina transferred them to the bond trustee, a U.S. District Court judge, Thomas Griesa, ordered the payment sent back. He stated that his ruling will allow the parties to ‘negotiate’. What it will most certainly do is keep the scheduled payments from interfering with the vulture capitalists’ windfall—the windfall granted to hedge funds last week courtesy of our very own Chief Justice Roberts. Grieva’s ruling marks the first time in history a judge has prevented a country from paying a restructured bond holder.
Edward Moor
“Kuvera, the regent of wealth, for a moment demands our attention; and although few people seek the favor of this deity with greater avidity than the Hindus, yet I find but little mention of him in my mythological memoranda; nor have I any image or picture of him…On Kama, Lakshmi, or Saraswati, poets and historians dwell with complacency and delight; but the gloomy, selfish, and deformed Kuvera, claims not, nor deserves, so much of our attention….
“His servants and companions are the Yakshas and Guhyakas, into those forms transmigrate the souls of those men who in this life are addicted to sordid and base passions, or absorbed in worldly prosperity. The term Guhyaka is derived from Guh (ordure), a word retained in several dialects: hence Guhya… We happily do not find that the regent of wealth is related in marriage or otherwise with Lakshmi, the goddess of riches, to whom a Hindu…would address himself for that boon, and not to Kuvera: he has, however, a Sacti, or consort, named Kauveri, whence I conjecture, the river of that name, in Myhsore, derives its appellation.”
Rabinranath Tagore had similar things to say about Kuvera:
“Those who are familiar with the Hindu Pantheon know that in our mythology there is a demi-god named Kuvera, similar in character to Mamon. He represents the multiplication of money whose motive force is greed. His figure is ugly and gross with its protuberant belly, comic in its vulgarity of self-exaggeration. His is the genius of property that knows no moral responsibility. But the goddess, Lakshmi, who is the Deity of Prosperity, is beautiful. For prosperity is for all. It dwells in that property which, though belonging to the individual, generously owns its obligation to the community. Lakshmi is seated on a lotus, the lotus which is the symbol of the Universal heart. It signifies that she presides over that wealth which means happiness for all men, which is hospitable.
“By some ill-luck, Lakshmi has been deprived of her lotus throne in the present age, and Kuvera is worshipped in her place. Modern cities represent his protuberant stomach, and ugliness reigns unashamed. About one thing we have to be reminded, that there is no cause for rejoicing in the fact that this ugliness has an enormous power of growth and that it is prolific of its progeny. Its growth is not true progress; it is a disease which keeps the body swelling while it is being killed.” ((Tagore, Rabindranath, The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore: A miscellany. Sahitya Akademi, 1996))
In a previous article it was pointed out that the words ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ in the second chapter of Genesis have been translated from īš and ‘iššă. This led to three assumptions:
The first man and woman of Genesis 2 were deities.
These deities were Siva and Parvati, who is also Osiris and Isis.
Humans had no part in a catastrophe called the Fall of Man. (This statement is probably too simplistic. I’m working on a new artical about the Fall of Man.)
There is evidence that īš and ‘iššă have the general meaning of ‘Lord’. Following are two examples provided by Edward Moor:
“When they consider the divine power exerted in creating, they call the deity Brahma, in the masculine gender also; and when they view him in the light of destroyer or rather changer of forms, they give him a thousand names: of which, Siva, Isa, or Iswara, Rudra, Hara, Sambhu, Mahadeva, or Mahesa, are the most common…
“Mahesa is maha, great, and Isa, Lord; the epithet is prefixed to many names of gods…”
The Hindu Adam, Swayambhuva, is called ‘the first of men’, but he is clearly something more than human.
“Swayambhuva, or the son of the self-existing, was the first Manu, and the father of mankind: his consort’s name was Satarupa. In the second Veda the Supreme Being (Brahm) is introduced in this way: ‘From me Brahma was born: he is above all; he is pitama, or the father of all men: he is Aja and Swayambhu, or self-existing.’ From him proceeded Swayambhuva, who is the first menu: they call him Adima (or the first, or Protogonus): he is the first of men; and Parama-Parusha, or the first male. His help-mate, Pracriti, is called also Satarupa: she is Adima, (the feminine gender) or the first: she is Visva-Jenni, or the mother of the world: she is Iva, or like I, the female energy of nature; or she is a form of, or descended from, I: she is Para, or the greatest: both are like Mahadeva, and his Sacti (the female energy of nature), whose names are also Isa and Isi. ((Moor, Edward, F.R.S.. “The Hindu Pantheon”. T. Bensley, London. 1810))
In “The Hindu Pantheon” īš and ‘iššă are more strongly associated with Siva and Parvati. And Moor associates Siva/Parvati with the Egyptian goddess Isis. Because Hinduism is fundamentally monotheistic, many deities who have their own attributes melt into each other and become one. It is also true that each of the deities has a consort, but the consorts can be reduced to one as well. The goddesses, in turn, are merely the female energy or ‘sacti’ of their lord. For this reason, the Supreme Being of any particular sect, whether it is Vishnu, Siva or Brahma, is said to be a hermaphrodite, with male and female attributes combined. So it is not really clear in what way the mythology should be applied to human men and women.
For Christians, the doctrine of original sin is at least partly responsible for policies concerning women, but that doctrine is not a universal belief. Judaism and Islam have no such doctrine, but they have all proscribed the rights and equality of women to some degree. This is particularly true of Islam. So there seems to be a common tendency that aligns with the conception of woman as portrayed in the story of the Fall of Man, and which is independent of the doctrine of Original Sin. It could be argued that a rationale for subjection is the main function of the story of the Fall of Man. But on the other hand, maybe it is the attempt to say in mythological language what really happened. We just don’t happen to understand the language.
There are similarities in the creation stories of many cultures between Noah and Adam. For example, Noah and Adam both had control over animals, as did the Chinese Shang-te, the Hindu Siva, and the Greek Hermes. Additional shared elements include the ark and the dove.
In Chinese mythology, the Yin, or darkness, or the female principle is the ovum mundi and becomes the Earth, the ark or the Great Mother. Heaven, or Shang-te is the son of Earth, (or the ark), as he is ‘born’ from her womb. But he is also the builder of the ark, and the creator of Mother Earth. So she is his daughter. And since they are both born from the same circle, they are brother and sister. Heaven or Shang-te marries his mother or daughter or sister. In other words, their union is incestuous.
Since Eve was created from Adam’s rib they are brother and sister, or father and daughter. This is true of the Greek Jupiter and Juno and of the Hindu gods, as well. “Brahma, the Supreme Being of Hinduism, is an androgynous conjunction of Adam and Eve, the universal parents of the human race.” ((The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal”. Vol. 4, Rozario, Marçal & Co. Foochow, 1872. p. 217.))
It is interesting that Chinese, Hindu and Greek myths also identify the snake with both Adam and Noah. The woman seems to be connected indirectly. Ancient legends say that in the golden age there was no distinction of sex. According to Plato, “in the first arrangement ordained by Jupiter there were neither human politics, nor the appropriation of wives and children, but all lived in common upon the exuberant productions of the earth.” It was the hero-god, also called the snake-king, who instituted marriage.
In Greek mythology marriage was instituted by Cecrops. Cecrops was a native of Egypt, who led a colony to Athens about 1556 B.C. He was a culture hero who introduced the worship of Zeus Hypatos, and forbade the sacrifice of living things. His marriage decree came about in this way:
“He was arbitrator at the ‘strife’ of Athena and Poseidon. The women, who exceeded the men by one, voted for Athena, and to appease the wrath of Poseidon they were henceforth disenfranchised and their children were no longer to be called by their mother’s name. The women’s decision came as a shock to old Cecrops and he forthwith instituted patriarchal marriage.”
All of the hero-gods of Greece were serpents.
“Cecrops is a snake, Erichthonios (Cecrops’ son) is a snake, the old snake-king is succeeded by a new snake-king…What the myths of Cecrops and Erichthonios tell us is that, for some reason or another, each and every traditional Athenian king was regarded as being also in some sense a snake.”
Harrison thinks this came about because of the ceremonial carrying of snakes or figures of snakes. This was like the carrying of phalloi, a fertility charm. A Hermes of wood was the votive-offering of Cecrops, and it was possibly snake-shaped. ((Harrison, Jane Ellen. Epilegomena & Themis. University Books, New York. 1927″))
In Chinese mythology, the dragon is the symbol of Shang-te. In this way, the Chinese gods resemble the fish-gods Vishnu and Dagon. The serpent was the symbol of the transmigrating diluvian god, who was reborn. It was also the token of regeneration for those initiated into the mysteries.
Shang-te also gave the first couple coats of skins and instituted marriage. In Hinduism, Siva is depicted with a coat of skins.
Demon-god, Hero-god, and snake-king are the terms used by Christian missionaries in the Chinese Recorder. In that publication, these names referred to non-Christian myths. But according to the same publication, Shang-te’s dragon is identical with the serpent in the Garden of Eden. However, in the bibical story, it was God Yahweh who provided coats of skin and instituted pariarchal marriage. Patriarchal marriage is clearly implied in the following verse:
“I will make intense your pangs in childbearing.
In pain shall you bear children;
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
And he shall be your master.” (Genesis 3:16)
In the notes on verse 16 concerning ‘pangs in childbearing’ we are told that this is a parade example of hendiadys in Hebrew. The literal rendering would read “your pangs and your childbearing,” but the idiomatic significance is “your pangs that result from your pregnancy.”((Speiser, E.A. “Genesis: The Anchor Bible”. Doubleday & Co. Inc. New York, 1986″))
And the sentence Yahweh pronounced on the serpent becomes more interesting as well.
God said to the serpent:
I will plant enmity between you and the woman,
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head,
And you shall strike at their heel. (Genesis 3:15)
It seems the serpent who became the mortal enemy of the woman and her offspring (perhaps in their human character) was the serpent-king. Both male and female are affected. The verse says “the woman and her offspring”.In a strict comparison with the Chinese myth, the serpent-king would be God Yahweh and also his son, Adam/Noah. (According to the Anchor Bible, the deity in the Garden of Eden was “God Yahweh” rather than “Yahweh”. This may be the personal name of another deity.) It seems that these myths refer to a political development that has adverse consequences for the woman and her offspring.
In the following verses from the New Testament, Jesus seems to have claimed membership in the ranks of the demon-gods.
“For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, an destroyed them all.
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” (Luke 17:24-30)
Lot’s connection with Noah in this passage is explained by the fact that Lot was saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which he believed had destroyed the whole world. He also had incestuous relations with his daughters. Something similar may have happened between Noah and his son Ham. This is the pattern of a snake king.
In the Chinese Recorder,
“This Demon-god or First Man or Noah is a reappearance of Adam in his deified character…or ‘Imperial Heaven’, and also the Son of Noah as being the eldest of the triplication Fuh-he, Shin-nang, Hwang-te; or Shem, Ham, and Japhet…. ‘Noah, in every mythological system of the pagans was confounded, or rather identified with one of his three sons. Fab. Vol. I. p. 343. Vishnu (one of the triplication of Bram or Monad) appears distinct from Menu (First Man) and personates the Supreme Being: yet, single, he is certainly Noah or Menu himself: as one of a triad of gods springing from a fourth still older deity (the Monad, or elder Noah) he is a son of Noah. Ibid. vol. II. 117. Considered then as Noah, we find Jupiter (the elder Monad or Chaos) both esteemed the father of the three most ancient Cabiri (Cælus, Terra, and First Man), and himself also reckoned the first of the two primitive Cabiri (Cælus and Terra); Bacchus being associated with him as the younger. This however is a mere reduplication, for Jupiter and Bacchus are the same person. &c., i. e. the First Man.”
This, in turn, agrees with the following etymology of īš and ‘iššă.
“Linguistically, the name Issa (‘Isa) is the Aramaic form of the Arabic Al-‘Ays, meaning ‘the water of the male’, in reference to the masculine semen, the suffixed ‘a’ in ‘Isa being the Aramaic definite article. Related to this term is the Arabic ‘Aysh, meaning ‘life’ (as in Al ‘Ayyash). The Jesus of the ‘I am’ statements was none other than the God Jesus who was Al ‘Isa or Al ‘Ays–the ultimate source of the fertilizing ‘power’ of the male.” Al ‘Ays is ‘the God of Semen’, and Al ‘Ayyash is the ‘Life-Giving God’. ((Salibi, Kamal, S. “Who was Jesus?: Conspiracy in Jerusalem. Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2007″))
The central tendency and probably the major cause of error in modern religion is the determination to separate male and female and define them as superior or inferior in relation to each other. This is often called ‘difference’ rather than inferiority, but it usually results in disadvantages for women. Even today the Catholic Encyclopedia states that women are inferior to men. (See Catholic Encyclopedia, Newadvent.org, Article, ‘Women’)
“The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul.”
Christian fathers, such as Tertullion condemned women for the part Eve played in the Garden of Eden. But he must have known that the first chapter of Genesis is actually an independent creation story, while the second and third chapters were written by a different author and speak of traditions that are not Hebrew. The first chapter was written by ‘P’ or the priestly source. The second chapter was written by ‘J’, the J standing for Jehovah. The J source tends to be more politically minded, which can be seen in the segments attributed to him.
In the first chapter, Elohim created humans, male and female. But the second chapter actually tells of the birth of gods, or of the man-god.
In verse 23,
“Said the man, This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman for she was taken from Man.”
According to the Anchor Bible notes, Woman and Man are translated from ‘īš and ‘iššā. This assonance has no etymological basis in Hebrew. ((Speiser, E.A. “The Anchor Bible: Genesis”. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1986))
The Hebrews were persecuted by Isis,so it isn’t likely they would claim descent from her. This only makes sense if they were telling the history of their world, which included various people of that region and time period. It seems they were not speaking of themselves as an isolated entity.
Some of the people in that region worshiped Adam as a god. Apparently the Greeks did because Luke, who wrote his gospel with the Greeks in mind, traced their lineage to Adam. This is in contrast to Matthew, who wrote for Palestinian Jews and traced their lineage to Abraham. As explained in The Community of Ancient Israel, genealogies establish identity as well as religious and political alliance. In our time they should serve to establish the identity of various people in the scriptures, but they are misunderstood and ignored.
The story of Adam and Eve was not an allegory for human males and females. Yet, Christian theologians have claimed for two thousand years that we are all the children of Eve. Today this error is at the heart of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
In “The Stakes of the Warrior” Georges Dumézil uses his theory of the tri-functional structure of Indo-European society as a framework for the analyses of stories belonging to three different areas of the world; India, Scandinavia, and Greece. His comparative study includes the Scandinavian saga of Starkaṓr, the Indian tale of Śiśupāla, and the Greek story of Herakles. ((Dumézil, Georges. The Stakes of the Warrior. Translated by David Weeks. Ed. With introduction by Jaan Puhvel, University of CA Press, Berkeley, LA, London. 1983)) In each story, the warrior sins and his gods demand sacrifice. This study was cited in Hermes in India and it will be used again in subsequent posts, so I would like to summarize it here.
In each story the hero sins against each of the three Indo-European functions–the functions of the sovereign, the warrior, and fertility or sexuality. In the process he fails in the very duties and responsibilities that give his life meaning. An important element in each story is the rivalry of two deities who take an interest in the life of the hero, and are directly or indirectly responsible for his crimes.
Starkaṓr/Starcatherus and Odin
For the Scandinavian tale of Starkaṓr there are two sources. One is the Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus (1150–after 1216). The other is the Gautrekssage, which is a redaction of the poem, the Vikarsbálkr, from the 13th or 14th century. The saga also adds additional material from ancient sources. Saxo calls the hero Starcatherus; the saga calls him Starkaṓr.
Starkaṓr/Starcatherus is either a giant, or he has giant ancestry. In the saga, his grandfather was a giant but he has a human form. In Saxo he is born with extra arms and Thor prunes them off, giving him a human appearance. The child begins life under the patronage of Othinus or Odin, but also under the hostile and watchful eye of Thor, who hates giants in general, and according to the saga, Starkaṓr in particular.
As Starkaṓr’s story begins, the fathers of little Starkaṓr and Vikar are killed in battle. The boys are brought up together among the people of Herthjófr, king of Hördaland. One of Herthjófr’s men, Hrosshársgrani raises Starkaṓr. Hrosshársgrani is Odin in disguise, and the god has dark designs on him. Although he is supposed to be Starkaṓr’s protector, he has decided that Starkaṓr will be the one to bring him Vikar, king of Norway and Starkaṓr’s childhood friend, as a sacrifice.
After living for nine years with Hrosshársgrani, Starkaṓr helps Vikar reconquer his realm, and accompanies him on many victorious expeditions. During a Viking expedition Vikar’s fleet is “becalmed” near a small island. The king and his crew have a “magical consultation” and determine that Odin wants a man of the army to be sacrificed by hanging. They draw lots and the king is chosen. After this shocking development they postpone deliberations until the next day.
In the meantime Hrosshársgrani acts. He wakes Starkaṓr and takes him to the Island and through a forest. In a clearing they come upon a strange assembly.
“A crowd of beings of human appearance are gathered around twelve high seats, eleven of which are already occupied by the chief gods. Revealing himself for who he is, Odin ascends the twelfth seat and announces that the order of business is the determination of the fate of Starkaṓr…The event comes down to a magical-oratorical duel between Odin and Thor.”
Thor hates Starkaṓr because his grandfather was a giant. He hates him even more because his grandfather, long ago, abducted a young girl. When Thor rescued her he found that she actually preferred the giant over the “Thor of the Æsir”! This was Starkaṓr’s grandmother. In consequence of this lasting grudge, Thor imposes Starkaṓr’s first curse before the council of the gods, “Starkaṓr will have no children.”
Odin compensates for this curse. “Starkaṓr will have three human life spans.”
It continues in this way, the gods taking turns.
Thor says “He will commit a villainy in each.”
Odin answers, “He will always have the best arms and the best raiments.”
Thor: “He will have neither land nor real property.”
Odin: “He will have fine furnishings.”
Thor: “He will never feel he has enough.”
Odin: “He will have success and victory in every combat.”
Thor: “He will receive a grave wound in every combat.”
Odin: “He will have the gift of poetry and improvisation.”
Thor: “He will forget all he has composed.”
Odin: “He will appeal to the well-born and the great.”
Thor: “He will be despised by the common folk.”
As they return to the ship, Odin informs Starkaṓr that he must pay for the assistance he has just received by sending him the king, or in other words, by putting Vikar in a position to be sacrificed. Odin will take care of the rest. Starkaṓr is apparently convinced that he must pay and he agrees to help Odin. The pact between the warrior and his gods has already decided Starkaṓr’s fate.
The next day Starkaṓr suggests to the king that they carry out a mock sacrifice and Vikar agrees. Starkaṓr bends down the limb of a tree and fastens a noose to it and also around Vikar’s neck. Then Starkaṓr takes a magic reed-stick given him by Odin and thrusts it at the king saying, “Now I give thee to Odin.” Then he releases the branch. The reed-stick becomes a spear and pierces the king. The branch springs up and drags the king into the leaves, where he dies.
Starkaðr and the murder of King Víkar
“From this deed Starkaṓr became much despised by the people and was exiled from Hördaland.”
Now we depend on Saxo’s version. Starcatherus still has a long career ahead of him and he accomplishes many admirable exploits, but after the death in battle of another master, a Swedish king, he shamefully flees from the battlefield, allowing the army to be defeated. After this debacle, he joins an army of Danish vikings and eventually serves the Danish king, Frotho, where he is a “model of martial virtue”.
For his third sin he allows conspirators to bribe him and he kills another master, the Danish king Olo. He has already sinned against his duty to kings and his duty as a warrior. In taking a bribe for the murder of Olo he sins against the morality of the third function–not through sexuality but through greed.
The hero has been aging during his three life spans but he keeps all of his strength until after the third crime. Finally old age, his many wounds, and his crimes burden him to the point where he wishes for his own death. He doesn’t want to die shamefully of old age so he looks for a warrior who will give him an honorable death. Providentially he meets Hatherus, the son of one of the conspirators in the murder of Olo. He confesses that he is the one who killed Hatherus’ father, (Starcatherus killed all of the conspirators). Hatherus agrees to behead him in exchange for the money that Starcatherus received for killing Olo. Starcatherus also wishes to give Hatherus his invulnerability and tells him to stand between his head and his body after his death. In a moment of suspicion, however, Hatherus stands back and does not accept this gift.
Śiśupāla and Kṛṣṇa
Dumézil acknowledges that there are problems posed by the character of Kṛṣṇa in the Mahabharata. He thinks that what is said about him is a transposition of the myth of an ancient Viṣṇu, like that which produced the Pandavas from an archaic list of the functional gods. But for this study it is enough that the relationship of Kṛṣṇa/Viṣṇu is stated in the episode. It provides structure comparable to the tale of Starkaṓr/Starcatherus.
The story of Śiśupāla is not central to the cosmic conflict in the Mahabharata. And while Starcatherus, aside from his three crimes, was a perfect example of a defender of kingship, as well as a warrior and a teacher, the Indian hero is said to be the reincarnation of a demon that Viṣṇu has already killed twice in past lives. We learn of his previous lives after he challenges the proceedings of Yudhisthira’s sacrificial ceremony. This information, and the story of the hero’s birth, provide the justification for his hostility to Kṛṣṇa.
Śiśupāla was born into the royal family of the Cedis. He had three eyes and four arms and he uttered inarticulate cries like an animal. His parents had decided to expose him, but they heard a disembodied voice saying that this was not the “Time” for the child’s death. His slayer “by the sword” has been born, lord of men.
His mother demands to know “who shall be the death of this son!”
The voice answers,
“He upon whose lap his two extra arms will both fall on the ground like five-headed snakes and that third eye in the middle of the child’s forehead will sink away as he looks at him–he shall be his death.”
These things happen as soon as the child is placed on Kṛṣṇa lap. Śiśupāla’s mother witnesses the fulfillment of the prophecy and is fearful for her son. She asks Kṛṣṇa to forgive the “dereliction of Śiśupāla”.
(Because of Śiśupāla’s physical similarities to Rudra/Śiva, and also because of his name, which is said to be a transposition of paśupati or lord of animals, this story is similar to the story of Starkaṓr/Starcatherus in its conflict between two divinities, in this case Rudra/Śiva and Kṛṣṇa/Viṣṇu.)
Kṛṣṇa promises that he will forgive one hundred offenses, even though they may be capital offenses. But by the time Śiśupāla challenges the proceedings of Yudhisthira’s sacrificial ceremony he has exhausted his one hundred offenses. His tirade against Krṣṇa is the one hundred and first offense. However, only five offenses are listed. Dumézil argues that the list can be further reduced to three. The five sins, which Kṛṣṇa recited to the kings assembled at Yudhisthira’s ceremony are:
1. “Knowing that we had gone to the city of Prāgjyotiṣa, this fiend, who is our cousin, burned down Dvārakā, kings.”
2. “While the barons of the Bhojas were at play on Mount Raivataka, he slew and captured them, then returned to his city.”
3. “Malevolently, he stole the horse that was set free at the Horse Sacrifice and surrounded by guards to disrupt my father’s sacrifice.”
4. “When she was journeying to the country of the Sauvīras to be given in marriage, the misguided fool abducted the unwilling wife-to-be of the glorious Babhru.”
5. “Hiding beneath his wizardry, the fiendish offender of his uncle abducted Bhadrā of Viśāla, the intended bride of the Karūṣa!’
The offenses are distributed as follows: The first and second offenses are committed against the warrior function; the third offense, against sovereignty; and the forth and fifth offenses have to do with sexuality. However, all of the sins are directed against the king. The similarity of the first and last two offenses indicate that the list may have been inflated, and that originally there were only three sins.
Kṛṣṇa continues,
“For the sake of my father’s sister I have endured very great suffering; but fortunately now this is taking place in the presence of all the kings. For you are now witnesses of the all-surpassing offense against me; learn also now the offenses he has perpetrated against me in concealment.”
Śiśupāla does not relent. He continues to scold those who honor Kṛṣṇa, who is “no king”. Finally Kṛṣṇa throws his discus, cutting off Śiśupāla’s head. A sublime radiance rises from the “body of the king of the Cedis, which, great king, was like the sun rising up from the sky; and that radiance greeted lotus-eyed Kṛṣṇa, honored by the world, and entered him, O king…”
Krsna cuts off Sisupala’s head
There is no mention of corresponding consequences after each of Śiśupāla’s sins and he does not offer himself for death as Starcatherus did. Also another king, Jarāsandha, is mentioned, although he has no part in the story itself. Śiśupāla, although a king in his own right, is said to be Jarāsandha’s general, giving him the same position as Starcatherus, who served kings but was not himself a king. Jarāsandha is accused of holding Kṛṣṇa’s clan in jail, with plans to sacrifice them. In other words, he was under contract to Rudra/Śiva, just as Starkaṓr/Starcatherus was under contract to Odin. This provides another correspondence between the Scandinavian and Indian stories. However, in the Indian version human sacrifice is not as believable as it is in the Scandinavian tales. Also Śiva has no particular interest in kings, as Odin does. This only makes the Indo-European framework of both stories more apparent.
Herakles and his gods, Hera, and Athena
In the Greek story of Herakles, genders are reversed–the rival deities, Hera and Athena, are female. Dumézil makes an interesting observation–the rival deities in the first two stories answer to no superior judge or authority. But in the tale of Herakles, the patriarchal Zeus is given the final word.
Herakles’ birth is told by Diodorus Siculus (iv, 9, 2-3). When Herakles was born he was not monstrous or demonic but he had a certain excess. He was the son of Zeus and Alkmene. Zeus had taken the appearance of Alkmene’s husband, Amphitryon, in order to beget an exceptional king who would rule over the descendants of Perseus. But when Hera learned of his plans she was jealous. She caused the labor pains of Alkmene to slow down and the result was that another heir, Eurystheus, was born first. Zeus then decreed that Herakles would serve Eurystheus and perform twelve labors. In this way he would earn immortality.
Alkmene abandoned her baby out of fear of Hera. Athena and Hera found him, and Athena gave him to Hera who began to nurse him. This saved his life. However he bit her and she pushed him away. Dumézil suggests that this is like the story of Śiśupāla, whose deformities disappeared at the touch of the very god who was destined to kill him. Hera is the sovereign whose first concern is to exclude Alkmene’s son from royalty and demote him to a champion. Athena is the warrior and becomes Herakles’ most trusted friend. The patronage of Athena and the enmity of Hera are a constant theme in Herakles’ life. As for his attitude to the two higher functions, the kingship and the labors, (or fights) he does not attempt to replace the king. He serves him and is sometimes rewarded, but his first sin actually involves his hesitation over entering the king’s service. Starkaṓr/Staratherus serves kings ostentatiously. Śiśupāla is a king who voluntarily serves as a general of another king.
For his hesitation in obeying Zeus and entering the service of Eurystheus Hera strikes him with madness, causing him to kill his own children. He is consigned by Eurystheus to perform twelve labors as well as additional sub-labors.
His next sin is the killing of an enemy by a shameful trick, rather than in fair combat. For this sin he contracts a physical disease. At this point he has no choice but to become a slave of Omphale, Queen of Lydia.
The penalties are not cumulative with Herakles and he is cured of them each time, until the last one. After a new series of “free” deeds he forgets that he has just married Deianeira, and he takes another lover. Deianeira sends him a cloak that she thinks contains a love potion. However, it contains the poisoned blood of Nessos and it gives Herakles an incurable burn. Two of his companions consult the oracle at Delphi in his behalf and Apollo tells them,
“Let Herakles be taken up to Mount Oeta in all his warrior gear, and let a pyre be erected next to him; for the rest, Zeus will provide.”
When all is made ready, Herakles voluntarily climbs onto the pyre and asks each one who comes up to him to light it. No one but Philoktetes has the courage to light the pyre, and Herakles gives him his bow and arrows. Immediately after Philoktetes lights the pyre “lightening also fell from the heavens and it was wholly consumed.”
Hercules burning himself on the pyre
But later the arrows caused the death of Philoktetes.
Summary
The strongest similarities are between Greece and Scandinavia.
1. The divinities who oppose each other over Herakles and Starkaṓr are those of the 1st and 2nd functions. The ones in India (Krṣṇa/Viṣṇu and Rudra/Śiva) don’t fit in the tri-functional structure but they compare to Odin and Thor in other aspects.
2. Herakles is reconciled after his death with the sovereign Hera, wife of Zeus. The one who benefits from the death of Starkaṓr is Höṑr, (Hatherus) who is close to Odin, (the sovereign, and dark god comparable to Śiva). Śiśupāla is reconciled with Krṩṇa/Viṣṇu.
3. Herakles and Starkaṓr are similar in their basic nature. Herakles has no demonic component and Starkaṓr is made human. But Śiśupāla remains demonic and Sivaistic. Neither Herakles nor Starkaṓr provoke the deity who persecutes them. Śiśupāla does however, although Krṣṇa does not persecute him.
4. Herakles and Starkaṓr are more interesting than the deities, but Śiśupāla is just an incorrigible Indian Loki in the career of Krṣṇa. The reader is on the side of Starkaṓr and Herakles, and also on the side of Athena, but only as Herakles’ helper. The Indian story is more complementary to Krṣṇa/Viṣṇu, and against Śiśupāla.
5. The deaths of Herakles and Starkaṓr are good and serene. That of Śiśupāla is the result of a “frenzied delirium”.
6. A young man is asked to kill the hero in the stories of Herakles and Starkaṓr–but not in the story of Śiśupāla.
7. In the stories of Herakles and Starkaṓr the gift or payment is ambiguous. The arrows kill Philoktetes and Hatherus chooses not to receive the essence of Starkaṓr.
8. The types of Herakles and Starkaṓr are the same, a wandering hero, redresser of wrongs, given to toil
9. Both are educators.
10. Both are poets.
But other similarities tie India and Scandinavia together, in contrast to Greece.
1. Śiśupāla and Starkaṓr are born with deformities. Heracles is not.
2. The Indian and Scandinavian legends make much of a royal ideology. The Greek legend outlines the opposition of Erystheus and Herakles but does not dwell on it.
3. The faults of Śiśupāla and Starkaṓr are foreordained. Śiśupāla’s fate is decided by his demonic ancestry. Starkaṓr’s is decided by lots.
4. Given that Jarāsandha completes the legend of Śiśupāla, India and Scandinavia both charge the heros with the human sacrifice of kings. The Greek legend does not.
5. Starkaṓr and Śiśupāla are both beheaded. Heracles is burned.
6. The deities in the stories of Starkaṓr and Śiśupāla have no higher judge. Krṣṇa/Viṣṇu and Rudra/Śiva don’t answer to Brahma, for example. The divinities in the Greek story are supervised by Zeus.
There aren’t as many similarities between Greece and India, but the failings of Śiśupāla and Herakles are similar in that:
1. The first sin offended a god in the case of Herakles who resisted the command of Zeus; and a sacrificer in the case of Śiśupāla who stole the king’s sacrificial horse. In Starkaṓr’s case his failing resulted from an excess of submissiveness towards a god.
2. The second sin in the case of Śiśupāla and Herakles involves the unworthy betrayal of a warrior. For Starkaṓr it was a shameful flight on the battlefield.
3. Śiśupāla and Herakles have no particular prejudice against the sensuous aspect of the third function, but Starkaṓr, who is ruled by Odin and Thor, condemns this kind of weakness.
In Hermes in India a discussion began about the Lord of Creatures. It is now obvious that this subject is more difficult than I imagined. There are several related terms that have to do with the nature of God. They have similar meanings, but they can belong to completely different gods.
Dumézil said the name paśupati (Lord of Animals) might be the name of the demon who opposed Kṛṣṇa–the demon’s name was Śiśupāla, but it might be a ‘transposition’ of Paśupati. According to a Wikipedia article, paśupati is Sanskrit for Pashupati. This is one of the names of Siva. Definitions differ, but some say it means the Lord of all Created Beings. Here Śiśupāla is associated with Siva.
The name given in the Hindu Pantheon is Prajapati and it belongs to Brahma. It means the Lord of Creatures, or Lord of all Created Beings. Prajapati can also refer to the three major deities together–Vishnu, Siva and Brahma. It seemed reasonable to associate paśupati with Prajapati–both terms denote lordship over animals. Also Śiśupāla possessed a ‘sublime radiance’ which passed to Kṛṣṇa.
In The Names of God another term entered the discussion by way of a new translation of the Book of Job. It was argued that the god who spoke out of the whirlwind was not the sky-god that we normally associate with the Old Testament but a Master of Animals–he was a deity equally concerned with humans and animals–a Paleolithic, hunter-gatherer Master of Animals. This idea led to more research on the archaeological evidence for this deity. The name of Hermes is prominent in discussions about the Master of Animals.
The next set of clues comes from a legend told in “The Hindu Pantheon” and has to do with the nature of the war described in the Puranas. It is said that the conflict arose between the worshipers of the female principle and the worshipers of the male principle. It was “a battle of cosmic proportions” in which the earth lords resisted the rise of a sky god. The war started in India and spread all over the world. It was discussed by Wilford in “Egypt and the Nile”, and repeated by Moor, and also by Christian missionaries in a publication called the Chinese Recorder. Versions differ, but the theme is the same. This was the basis of Grecian mythology with its battles between the gods led by Jupiter; and the giants or sons of the earth. The gods led by Jupiter were the followers of Iswara, worshipers of the sky-god. The giants were the men produced by Prit’hivi, a power or form of Vishnu, (see more on this below) who acknowledged no other deities than Water and Earth.
This conflict is to blame for the rise of theological and physiological contests, veiled by the use of allegories and symbols. Wilford offers the following example of allegorical mythology: “On the banks of the Nile, Osiris was torn in pieces; and on those of the Ganges, the limbs of his consort, Isi, or Sati, were scattered over the world, giving names to the places where they fell…In the Sanskrit book, entitled Maha Kala Sanhita, we find the Grecian story concerning the wanderings of Bacchus; for Iswara, having been mutilated through the imprecations of some offended Munis, rambled over the whole earth bewailing his misfortune: while Isi wandered also through the world, singing mournful ditties in a state of distraction.”
The Servarasa is more specific and says that the conflict involved Siva and Parvati:
When Sati, after the close of her existence as the daughter of Dacsha, sprang again to life in the character of Parvati, or Mountain-born, she was reunited in marriage to Mahadeva. This divine pair had once a dispute on the comparative influence of sexes in producing animated beings; and each resolved, by mutual agreement, to create apart a new race of men. The race produced by Mahadeva was very numerous, and devoted themselves exclusively to the worship of the male deity; but their intellects were dull, their bodies feeble, their limbs distorted, and their complexions of different hues. Parvati had at the same time created a multitude of human beings, who adored the female power only; and were all well shaped, with sweet aspects and fine complexions. A furious contest ensued between the two races, and the Lingajas (worshipers of Siva) were defeated in battle. But Mahadeva, enraged against the Yonijas (worshipers of Parvati), would have destroyed them with the fire of his eye, if Parvati had not interposed, and appeased him: but he would spare them only on condition that they should instantly quit the country, to return no more. And from the Yoni, which they adored as the sole cause of their existence, they were named Yavanas.
The declared victors of the contest differ depending on the storyteller’s point of view. Wilford thought this version must have been written by the Yonyancitas, or votaries of Devi because the Lingancitas say that Siva’s offspring were the most beautiful. The most numerous sect of Hindus are those who attempt to reconcile them, saying that both principles are necessary, and so the navel of Vishnu is worshipped as identical with the sacred Yoni. But it is important to mention, in light of our interest in the Lord of Creatures, that Brahma is ignored.
Brahma was the creator. In the Hindu solar religion, he represents one aspect of the Sun and corresponds to the early part of the day, from sunrise until noon. His realm is the earth, and fire. However, in Hinduism Brahma is not as familiar a figure as Siva and Vishnu, or even mentioned as much as the incarnations and lesser deities. The reason given in “The Hindu Pantheon” is that the act of creation is past. The creator has no further role in the “continuance or cessation of material existence, or, in other words, with the preservation or destruction of the universe.” Now this is the basic premise of Deism. Deism was the religion of the Enlightenment.
Siva, on the other hand, in his aspect of the destroyer, is said to have a sort of “unity of character” with Brahma, although they are usually found in hostile opposition. It is said that destruction is inevitable. It is actually another form of creation.
As mentioned in American Civil Religion and the Enlightenment one of the criticisms of the Enlightenment is that Reason has replaced God. However, it seems that Reason is not just an abstract principle; Reason is a god. In The Hindu Pantheon Reason is an attribute of Nareda.
If Brahma is Prajapati and Śiśupāla is paśupati, Śiśupāla must have been associated with Brahma, not Siva. If the Grecian giants are part of the same conflict, they should also have been associated with Brahma, not Vishnu. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Śiśupāla is not a solar figure. In the Mahabharata, the would-be king whom Kṛṣṇa supported forced Śiśupāla and his fellow kings to attend a sacrificial ceremony where he claimed for himself universal kingship. The original kings were to be his subjects and accept a subordinate relationship to him. During the ceremony Kṛṣṇa was honored all out of proportion to the kings, and Śiśupāla objected. The highest honor being given to Kṛṣṇa was not appropriate, he said, in the presence of “great spirited earth lords”.
Greek mythology and religion have an interest in the names of God. God is often said to be Lord of Animals. Hermes received the following mandate from Zeus.
And from heaven father Zeus himself gave confirmation to his words, and commanded that glorious Hermes should be lord over all birds of omen and grim-eyed lions, and boars with gleaming tusks, and over dogs and all flocks that the wide earth nourishes, and over all sheep; also that he only should be the appointed messenger to Hades, who, though he takes no gift, shall give him no mean prize.
There is a comparable command in the Book of Genesis, which gave humans dominion over every living thing, including all animals, wild or domesticated.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over all the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them, and God said unto them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(Gen. 1:26-28)
Religion is Concerned With the Relationship Between Humans and Animals
Although the religious traditions are fundamentally different, they both indicate the importance of the relationship between humans and animals.
The purpose of this essay is to examine three similar names describing the deity involved in these relationships: the Lord of Creatures in the Hindu Pantheon; the Lord of Animals or paśupati, a name of Rudra, (and later of Rudra-Śiva); and the Master of Animals.1
Moor mentioned the impossibility of correctly interpreting the complex meanings in the Hindu Pantheon. The stories about the deities and their natures are not simple to properly define or even describe. Even with the help of this book, it is difficult to write briefly about the deities. The entire book is a treatise on God in all his various aspects.
Dumézil must have been expressing the same sentiment when he prefaced an idea by saying, “If this comparison is correct…” Here are some of the similarities and differences in these mythological and religious figures. Sources are provided for further research.
The Place of the Lord ofCreatures
There are three major deities in the Hindu pantheon and their places are the earth, the intermediate region, and heaven. These are associated with fire, air and the sun. Collectively, they are Prajapati.
Only Brahm, the Supreme One exists absolutely. The others are Maya or delusion. The body of the Sun is also considered as Maya. However, the Sun is the “active emblem of God” and therefore receives veneration.
In Mythology, Brahma is the first of the three “personified attributes of Brahm.” He is called the first of the gods, framer of the universe and guardian of the world, and he has also been referred to as Prajapati. In him the universe pre-existed. Here Moor quotes Darwin:
Grain within grain, successive harvests dwell,
And boundless forests slumber in a shell.
Brahm
Brahm is said to be incomprehensible. It is stated in one place that he is neither male nor female (“neuter”). He manifests his power by the operation of his divine spirit. Vishnu (the pervader), and Narayana (or moving on the waters) are in the masculine gender. For this reason, Brahm is often named the first male.
Mahadeva
In a previous post, Mahadeva was pictured as Ardha Nari, or half woman. This is a typical characteristic of a god who creates by himself from nothing. But apparently, the creation can be discussed without this information. According to Moor, “there is no general orthodoxy among Hindus, any more than among Christians.”
The Matrix of Brahma and the Linga of Siva
Brahma is sometimes called Kamalayoni. “Kamal is the lotos, Yoni the pudendum muliebre, the mystical matrix, into which is inserted the equally mysterious Linga of Siva.” According to the Vaishnavas, or worshippers of Vishnu, Brahma appeared on a Lotus, which sprung from the navel of Vishnu.
Vishnu v Brahma
Vishnu on Ananta Naga
The Quarrel Between Vishnu and Brahma
But the Saivas, or worshippers of Siva, tell a different story. Brahm willed the creation of the world and produced two beings, male and femal. Their names were Purusha and Pracriti. These were later called Narayana and Narayani. The lotos grew from Narayana’s navel, bearing Brahma, “and from her sprung Vishnu.” A quarrel ensued between Vishnu and Brahma, and the Linga arrived to reconcile them. In this Purana, Brahma is associated with Siva. Also in this account, another form similar to Siva’s sprang from a wrinkle in Brahma’s forehead and was named Rudra with all of the same characteristics as the three deities–Siva, Brahma and Vishnu.
Paśupati, The Lord of Animals
Previously I assumed that Dumézil’s paśupati was the same as the Lord of Creatures and therefore the deity of humans as well as animals. This seemed to make sense in the story of Kṛṣṇa who received the luminous essence of Śiśupāla, and was thereafter deified as the Lord of the Universe. However, based on the structure of the story, it wasn’t necessary for Śiśupāla himself to be the Lord of Creatures.
Kṛṣṇa was connected to Brahma by his birth and also to Viṣṇu as his avatara. I haven’t found ‘the Lord of Animals’ as a name of Siva, but he has 1000 names. As it turned out my assumption that he is the same as the Lord of Creatures was not correct. Online definitions of paśupati give the meaning as ‘the Lord of tethered or sacrificed animals’. (Paśupati can have a similar meaning to the Lord of Creatures. See (the next post)
The Master of Animals
Please see this footnote for a download. The focus is on archaeological evidence.2Available here:
Is the Master of Animals in the Bible?
I became aware of the Master of Animals concept through a new translation of the Book of Job. (cited below) I include it here because it proposes a theory about the changing relationship between humans and animals.
The Book of Job
At the time the Book of Job was written there were many reasons for disillusionment among the Hebrews. “Israel had lost its land for two generations and its autonomy forever.” Apparently, Job is considered heroic in this story. He is not heroic because of his patience but because of his loyalty to a conception of God as both all-powerful and fair. But as the story indicates, this conception does not match reality. We are left to contemplate the mystery of it. The only explanation offered by this author is that Job was written as a comedy.
The Sky God as The Master of Animals
In any case, the content of the story suggests a different type of deity. Job addresses God as a sky-god. But judging from the answer he receives, God is nothing like Canaanite El, the sky-god, nor Baal, the storm-god. The content of God’s answer to Job identifies him as the Master of the Animals, “an order of deity who is associated with Paleolithic hunter-gatherer society, and who guarantees the well-being and fecundity of life and has no especial concern with humans. This is a god neither of the sky nor of the land, but of the superabundance of life, the cosmic generosity.”
Elihu and His Greek Ideas
A discordant element is added to the story by Elihu, who unlike Job’s other friends develops a new concept of man as The Reasoner. It is argued that the supremacy of reason at the expense of custom has had direct bearing on the relationship between humans and animals.
Elihu was not an original part of the story. His ideas are Greek, not Hebrew. Also his speeches have stylistic differences. Finally, his ideas completely change the story’s conclusion and its assertions about the nature of God. These points have been generally accepted, but current Rabbinic and Christian translations force the rest of the book to conform to Elihu’s ideas. For this reason, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Master of Animals is not in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Reason
Elihu calls reason ruah El, “the spirit of God.” He considers ‘pure knowledge’ superior to customary belief.
But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding.
The majority are not always wise, nor do the aged always understand what’s right.
(Job 32:8-9)
The Re-definition of Man as a Rational Being Distinguishes Him from the Animals
By contrast, Job’s friends appealed to customary belief and the experience of elders. There has been a tremendous cost involved in this redefinition of man, the one most relevant to this article being, “The definition of man as a rational being entails a distinction made between him and the animals.”
But none saith, where is God my maker, who giveth songs in the night,
Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser
than the fouls of heaven.
(Job 35:10-11)
In the Book of Genesis man was given dominion because of God’s will, not because man had superior reason.
Elihu also redefines sin as arrogance. “Once rationality becomes the queen of the faculties, its opponent is the non-rational in Man: desire, passion, willfulness.” The definition of Man as the Reasoner is a partial definition because it omits those things, along with imagination. It gives Man an impossible ideal that can never be achieved–a “robotic self-mastery”.
Two Versions of Man’s Nature
Psalms 8:4-6 is quoted to illustrate the Biblical concept of man’s nature.
What is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou
visitest him?
For thou has made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned
him with glory and honor.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: thou has
put all things under his feet.
The idea of man The Reasoner is better illustrated by another author.
What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite
in faculties, in form and moving, how express and admirable in
action, how like an angel in apprehension, how like a god! the
beauty of the world; the paragon of animals…
The views in the previous post represent an attempt to show the connection of Enlightenment ideas to civil religion. Enlightenment criticism and analyses of the Reformation usually convey a sense of loss. This is understandable because the Reformation ended the universal influence of the Catholic Church and its institutions, which had been completely integrated into society. These were traumatic events and represent a painful, confusing period of history. Subsequent analyses tend to be extreme, alternating between fearful regret and maniacal positivism. Bellah’s theory of American Civil Religion seems to represent a complete acceptance of Enlightenment principles. These posts have been an attempt to put American civil religion in a larger context.
In his theory of American Civil Religion, Robert Bellah attempted to attribute America’s sense of community to a common religious factor independent of the church. He said that a specifically American ideology has worked to form a homogenous and unified culture from unrelated immigrants. Because of the United States’ unique beginning, Civil Religion is uniquely crucial to Americans’ sense of unity ((Bellah, Robert Neelly, The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial. University of Chicago Press. 1992)). However, it was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who first argued that every society needs a purely civil profession of faith to integrate all members. For this reason, the idea of civil religion should be examined in the context of the Enlightenment.
Surveys have shown the concept of Civil Religion is a useful model in analyses of American attitudes ((Baker, Wayne. America’s Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception. Princeton University Press. 2006)). However, after the attack on the Twin Towers some were shocked when they observed that the concept has no brakes. Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, went willingly to war in Iraq based on questionable evidence for the presence of al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. Apparently Civil Religion provides no moral compass. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union, ‘civil religion’ has been a euphemism for a religion of war. The Enlightenment has been criticized in similar ways.
One goal of the Enlightenment was the end of Europe’s Absolutist political organization. Although Absolutism had been a response to the religious wars of the Reformation, it was seen by the ‘Philosophes’ as an unnecessary annoyance. Two additional Enlightenment concerns were the equality of man and the place of morality in politics.
The Enlightenment was an historical period beginning with the eighteenth century and ending with the French Revolution in 1789. The term Enlightenment also refers to a method of thought developed during this period, which remains influential in political theory. The movement has always inspired a certain degree of mistrust. In the eighteenth century, the term ‘philosophe’ was meant to distinguish Enlightenment writers from other philosophers. The Philosophes were considered ‘popularizers’ of a doctrine, working to influence public opinion in their favor. In the most violent years of the French Revolution, the ideas of the Enlightenment were further discredited because of their perceived role that revolution.
The theory of political Absolutism, which the Philosophes worked to discredit, is attributed to Thomas Hobbes, who observed during the turmoil following the Reformation that humans fear each other. Hobbes argued that an external sovereign was necessary to maintain order in society. But Enlightenment thinkers had a very different view of human nature, arguing that reason creates a virtuous public individual.
In the Absolutist pursuit of peace, Hobbes had declared that personal beliefs must remain private. Publicly, people were expected to agree with the religion of the monarch. But the Philosophes had no memory of the religious conflicts that Absolutism had tried to address. This ‘forgetfulness’ has been an enduring characteristic of modern political rhetoric, one result being that Enlightenment assumptions were in conflict with the experience of the past ((Koselleck, Reinhart. Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Oxford, New York. 1988, p. 39)).
The Enlightenment’s religion was deism, which holds that although God created the world, he is no longer directly concerned with the trials and tribulations of humanity. According to critic Reinhart Koselleck, Enlightenment thinkers put reason and the will of society in the place of God (p. 56). In retrospect, it seems clear that one of the unforeseen functions of the Absolutist state was to transition from the Christian focus on the heart of man to the Enlightenment’s obsession with society as a whole. Along the way, the foundation of western thought became a philosophy of materialism. Now all causes are economic or social. In this view, and in my opinion, Capitalist ideology and Marxist ideology can be seen as two sides of the same materialist coin. Critics have argued that if the Enlightenment was not successful it is because the system had no transcendent values. Such a system degenerates to physical, biological, and economic considerations, and causes more problems than it solves.
Strangely, although Enlightenment thought has become inseparable from Christianity their former differences are no longer discussed. In an older critique from the Catholic point of view, Hilaire Belloc argued that both Absolutism and Enlightenment were solutions for society in lieu of former religious solutions and interpretations. More specifically, he argued that unrestricted capitalism was not a Christian concept. True to his religious point of view, he also argued that capitalism was only made possible by changing social circumstances and by Calvin, who divorced good works from the possibility of human salvation. The only motivation left for industry was personal economic gain ((Belloc, Hilaire. The Crisis of Civilization. Fordham University Press. New York. 1937, pp. 116, 126)).
Of course, the guilds and city-states of the middle Ages were another restraining influence on unbridled capitalism. The guilds saw capitalism as different from the economy of the free cities only in its requirement for large amounts of capital. Guild rules guarded against this type of competition making it possible for the common man to become a master of his craft and establish his own shop. The cities of the middle Ages had become free by petitioning the king for a charter. In this way they had cut out the middlemen in the collection of rents and taxes, including Catholic bishops who were an integral part of the feudal system and who collected rents in their own behalf.
The theory of civil religion assumes that other countries differ from America because they share a cultural and religious background Americans never had. However, Europe and America were involved in many of the same philosophical and political debates. And both countries have struggled to find a basis for community in lieu of the church’s influence.
Religious conservatives in America have argued that America was founded as a Christian nation, implying that Christianity ought to be honored in political discourse and policy. Others call this ‘Christian revisionism’ and argue that the founding fathers had no such intention. It is difficult to find the ‘truth’ of the matter in American history. Are there answers in American Cosmoloty and Mythology?
Regarding the place of religion in early American society there doesn’t seem to be a simple answer. The same can be said about many of the other issues important to people of that time. In the early eighteenth century, the belief was prevalent that the world’s first religion was that of the Hebrew patriarchs, and high culture radiated from Solomon’s temple. Within the same century this was challenged by historical scholarship and archaeology. Likewise, the current historical analyses of that time are not in complete agreement. William Blake accused Isaac Newton, John Locke and Francis Bacon of using reason without spiritual understanding. But other accounts argue Newton relied on Biblical revelation, as well as the mystical necromancy still in favor during his time. Newton’s theories were then used to promote mechanistic science. Similarly, the history of Freemasonry in America includes both positive contributions and worrisome tendencies. Many characters of Masonry’s medieval mythology were discredited in the eighteenth century, but were simply replaced without reworking the related political and cultural assumptions. For example, Noah replaced Hermes Trismegistus in freemasonic thought. Plato was called in to represent a system of magical correspondences after medieval practical magic had been discredited.
The pursuit of good principles would require awareness of these old ideas in order to bring them in line with current wisdom, but America’s predominant ideologies haven’t been open to analyses of their doctrines. This can be illustrated by the stance of the church concerning ‘pagan’ influences in America. Discussion would have to begin with the church’s acceptance of pagan philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, as well as the ongoing influences of Hermeticism. This has been a source of confusion in religious discourse and many of its effects are actually visible in American culture, for example, in the poor condition of the National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia. It has been acknowledged that the cemetery is a problem. There is a principle that might shed light on this problem, but it is derived from sun worship. This would be controversial, to say the least.
Because Freemasonry was instrumental in the layout of the Capital and because this institution shared many ideas with the learned world, it might seem inevitable that Arlington Nation Cemetery would end up in its current location, west of the Capital. Freemasons honored the great achievements of ancient cultures–especially the Jewish culture, but also the culture and learning of Egypt. In ancient Egypt, the city of the dead was always built to the west of the city of the living. However, the Cemetery at Arlington was not planned as a cemetery. Before the Civil War the land west of Washington D.C. was the residence of Robert E. Lee. It only became a cemetery during the War as a way to punish Lee who chose to fight for the Confederacy. Bodies were buried as close to the house as possible in order to make it impossible for the Lees to return.
In ancient cultures, the city of the dead always contained the Omphalos or navel, representing the geodetic center. In Egypt this was called the “navel of the world” and was a point of orientation with the cosmos, connecting the earth to the heavens.
Priestesses presided over the cemeteries of the ancient world. However, America’s founders may have intended the Capitol dome to be the geodetic point and center of the world, and they laid its cornerstone accordingly. In a concrete way, this might provide the philosophical basis for the combined role of priest and king.
It has been said that sun worship is the most scientific form of pagan worship. However, a system of worship is only rational if it is complete. Many customs implied by sun worship have never been present in American culture, having been abolished long before the first Pilgrims arrived on American soil. This is a result of ideological attacks on cosmological principles. One early instance of this took place in Persian Mazdaism. The first reform of Mazdaism was in about 1200 BC, and represents the changes common to Aryan politics. Evidence has revealed that invaders who considered themselves ‘noble’ determined to conquer and rule the populations they encountered. However, the customs of the conquered cultures hindered these ambitions. The customs had to do with the real estate laws of the conquered lands.
To be a king, one had to marry an heiress . Further, in the event of divorce or the death of the heiress, the king had no further claim to his kingdom. Property remained with the heiress or her daughter, or reverted to her clan, disappointing dynastic ambitions. In time, the invaders prevailed by using bigamy, trickery and lies—and they reformed the cosmology until it could no longer limit their power. The Aryan rejection of the female principle and its related customs would have led to the loss of clan property and sovereignty.
By contrast, although America lacks the complete cosmological structure, American leaders have argued for equality. Washington thought education would end the monopoly of power. Thomas Jefferson, although not a Freemason, used Masonic metaphor when he said that wealth and birth represent “pseudo-aristocracy”. True aristocracy involves republican social arrangements. Freemason DeWitt Clinton rejected John Locke because his ideas were for the children of gentlemen. There had been a time when Freemasons claimed an esoteric or hidden knowledge denied to lesser people, but in 1793 Clinton celebrated education and the ideas of natural equality. However, the struggle for political supremacy never ends. Too-big-to-fail banks and Big Oil are two of America’s home-grown dynasties.
J. J. Rousseau argued that the phrase, “Christian republic,” is made up of mutually exclusive terms. He referred to the fact that the Christian church is not amenable to democratic institutions. In Christian history, limited roles for women have coincided with the alliance of priesthood and dynasty. Yet the first Christians lived with all things in common. Paul the Apostle wrote to the Galatians,
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Paul’s words could illustrate principle, while the church’s monarchical tendencies represent a misuse of dogma and ideology.
After the Revolutionary War, the ‘ancient’ sect of Freemasons began to call themselves high priests and claim equality with the church in the realm of the sacred. This was the beginning of their dispute with secular Christian leaders, and eventually led to their downfall.
1. Bullock, Steven C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the transformation of the American social order. University of North Carolina Press. 1998
2. Ovason, David. The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital: the Masons and the building of Washington D.C. Century Books, Ltd. London. 1999
Harrison thinks this came about because of the ceremonial carrying of snakes or figures of snakes. This was like the carrying of phalloi, a fertility charm. A Hermes of wood was the votive-offering of Cecrops, and it was possibly snake-shaped. ((Harrison, Jane Ellen. Epilegomena & Themis. University Books, New York. 1927″))
Demon-god, Hero-god, and snake-king are the terms used by Christian missionaries in the Chinese Recorder. In that publication, these names referred to non-Christian myths. But according to the same publication, Shang-te’s dragon is identical with the serpent in the Garden of Eden. However, in the bibical story, it was God Yahweh who provided coats of skin and instituted pariarchal marriage. Patriarchal marriage is clearly implied in the following verse:
